sfasfaadfgasdgsgsvcCONewvvvFORMavvavavwarvwvORawnrtbertbELSEerbterbt

So far everyone I have met has discouraged me from building anywhere else.

 

In terms of city placement if you're sticking to a training / non-war alliance then there's really no reason why you should restrict your cities to be surrounded by plains. If you are in a military alliance, or want to experience the PvP side of things then you do kinda need to take heed of the mechanics and that does effectively mean settling so that you are adjacent to plains only, or a small hill or two at worst. If you want some variety you could try settling surrounded by forests. Infantry bonuses in forests, coupled with some easily obtained equipment, make it the second most viable terrain type. It's still more difficult and awkward than being surrounded by plains though, so you'd need to have some other compelling reason to do so (like joining DLords for instance).

 

The reality though is that there are some clearly superior choices when it comes to settlement in Illyriad, and it's just a question as to whether there are other factors at play and/or if you care enough about making the optimum choice.

There are lots of answers to your question. 

This game takes quite a long time to learn the mechanics. 

There is a lot of amateurs in the game that immediately say 7 foods and not understanding why. 
Depending on the type of game you want to play will determine the type of food plot you put your town on. For specialised play for military, diplomatic and high production crafting (bows, beer etc) 5 foods are ideal. This enables you to have exceptionally high soverignty (read somewhere else about as I am not explaining it), as compared to the 7 food counterparts. 

To me 6 fooders are a more balanced gameplay. A little more limited as the plot breakup is a bit more restrictive is what has a 4. I know you can make spears so that means a 4 stone, which is a small hill from memory. You can still do the crafting and the military, diplo, and also get a little more pop without being stuck with a 3 plot of something as you get with a 7 fooder. Its ok, it worked for me for a bit on the alt to help ease the gold burn, but thats about it. 

One of the main reasons i dislike 7 fooders as there are way to many sheep in the game that automatically say 7 food without the comprehension of what a 7 food is about. They all say high pop, as if high pop is the be all and end all of illyriad, but let me give you the drum, its not. 

7 foods provide you with the ability to be able to churn out a significant amount of gold per hour, with proper placement and tweaking you can get from 70k per hour to 100k plus. This is perfect for traders if they want to do that, or for gold feeding alts to your specialised account. 

The other benefit of 7 fooders is the high pop that towns can get enabling you to get to in excess of 40 towns. Some people have done it, though what do you do when you get to 40 towns? If you convert those into gold towns, thats a pretty nest egg you will be sitting on. If you convert them to military towns, quite powerful till you start losing them, and maintaining that many military towns would be an absolute nightmare. I think traders go for the 7 fooders so they can get the pop to make gold so they can buy and sell. Miners, skinners, herbalists go for these as well as the guilds are all high pop so to be able to cram 350 plus of them, kinda need the pop. 

In a nutshell, depending on your gamestyle will determine what food plots you will go for. Explore the pros and cons before listening to the half wits. This game is all about trade offs. 

The terrain that your town actually sits on is to me, very important, it is your last line of defense. From my experience there are two perfect types of towns, Large mountain surrounded by plains and Forest surrounded by plains, look into it and discover why these are great. To get the correct setup that you want, you will either have to tenaril in, or get a terraformer to terraform it for you, this can be for the 5,6,7 food setup. 

If you are going to be quiet with this account and work in the background, you can have whatever you want as your surrounds. This could be for certain sov bonuses in your area. just know that if its not plains (or secondary small hill) around you, there is a possibility if you are in the wrong alliance you could get sieged. When you look at the terrain around you , you need to look at the terrain bonuses that are offered to various troop types if you are thinking about that. 

Send me an IGM if you have any questions , i have probably forgotten to add more detail, but this is a long post for me and i am losing interest in writing it,so best to contact me directly if you want more specific answers or post them here. 

He-Man

Me: I wish I had variety in decisions available to me
Others: You obviously just don't understand the mechanics since you want to play differently, here are the reasons you should play like this

If I am just following an instruction manual I am not really playing, My brain means nothing if it has no space for decision making. I think it wouldnt take much to change this.
I dont expect changes since the game is entrenched in its ways by now, but ideally a town or an army should have to worry to a closer to equal degree about each surrounding tile. Everything ideally should have a counter, as it is there are no counters to units on a mountain or any other type of terrain.

At the moment I am still hopeful for a few ideas to go against the grain.

Yeah, I don't agree with you at all He-Man - recommending a 5 food town to a new player seems unnecessarily restrictive and implies a decision has already been made about how they want to specialize. Speaking of prestiging basics to run sovereignty and so on... just much too much. There's also nothing that says settling on 7 food obliges you to go to 40 or more. There is a very real concern that your average player isn't going to reach beyond 9 cities if he settles predominantly on 5 food whereas he's almost certainly to reach 12 if he predominately settles on 7 food. There's a reason why 7 food is largely recommended, and it has nothing to do with folk being half-wits and everything to do with keeping options open for new players and not specializing too early before they fully understand the choices they're making. 

 

Every town does have to worry about each surrounding tile. That's why plains are preferred, because it's easier for cavalry to clear an enemy army on that terrain type.

 

There are alternatives but the mechanics are what they are: if you want to be placed to most easily defend yourself then you want to be surrounded by plains. The only viable alternative I've seen is forest settlements with an infantry focus, ideally at an alliance level and focused on Dwarfs plus equipment (like DLords). You can go for early 5 and 6 food tiles too, like He-Man suggested, but like the forest/Dwarf placement it's not a mainstream suggestion and requires a particular focus to be used effectively.

Maybe you should read a little closer to what I was saying, I did not say he should do 5 fooders or anything like that I pointed out pros and cons of each type of sq and plot and what they can be used for, now if you can point out where i said he should go for the 5 food early on, please do so, otherwise I guess I can add you to the half wit pile. 

I have explored the mechanics of this game for years and I know them inside and out and I have seen many half wits in this game say the only option is 7 food without explaining what else you can do, which it looks like you have done, how i find out about their options and what they want to do early on, i normally just ask them seems to work most of the time. Telling them to move straight away onto 7 fooders is not keeping their options opened, because if they say i want to play a lot of military or diplo, and are on 7 foods, they then have to exo and rebuild them. Ask and help build their account around their play style instead of stating go for the 7 food as its what all the sheep do. 

Tell me what is concerning if a player does not reach more than 9 cities? Where does this concern stem from and is this concern systemic in illy? What is the handicap of having 8 cities instead of 9 or 12? Does that make them average in your view? 

 

The crux of the matter is whether you prioritize troop build times or total growth. If you settle primarily on 5 food you are going to have a more difficult time reaching 9 cities or more. If you settle primarily on 7 food you are going to have a more difficult time recruiting troops. Given how relatively rare warfare is in Illy building cities will be of more use for the vast majority of players. Furthermore, 7 food cities allow you a higher sustainable standing army than a 5 food city. While not optimal it's not anywhere near as damaging as having settled 5 food tiles everywhere and subsequently deciding to prioritize growth, especially if they desire more than 12 cities.

You could ask new people what the wanted to do, sure. But do you reckon they have sufficient knowledge of the mechanics to make an informed choice having been exposed to the game for, what, a few months? What if they change their mind as they learn more about the game? Settling 5, or even 6, food cities compared to 7 is not something to recommend lightly. It's also why Peroxis is receiving the advice to settle on 7 food tiles. It's the safe choice that keeps a new player's options open. If you want to add a caveat you could say that it keeps them open to a greater extent than settling on 5 food tiles does.

 

Do we really need to do the math on the pros and cons of 8/9 cities compared to 12 or more?

When I ask people they tend to know what they want to do they have played enough games to know they want to make craft, trade, fight or steal(diplo). It looks like it may take you longer so you can get them to do it your way. You have also demonstrated that you also do not have sufficient knowledge of the mechanics to help people make any form of informed decisions after being here for 18 months or so. 

Im done with this forum thread, looks like the halfwits have a new champion. Keep building on 7 fooders, I like nice easy targets. 

 

Nonsense. 5 and 6 food cities are strong alternatives for people who know exactly why they're forgoing high sustainable population. They don't make any sense to recommend to most new players. 

 

I don't know if you're confusing the fact that they're a preferred recommendation to new folk with the idea that 5 and 6 food tiles are inferior to 7 food tiles (which simply isn't the case) or what, but you are being unnecessarily combative over what's a pretty simple issue.

Its only preferred because the halfwit 7 food brigade all shout it out. What is pretty simple is to find out early on what they want to do and help tailor there account to their gameplay style. There is no right answer to 5,6,7 foods but point blank saying settle 7 foods because it is recommended is just plain idiotic. That recommendation still happens all the time, I have tested it in GC a few times over the years to see if the responses have changed and they have not and when asked why, there is not much real answer. 

The fact that you argued my pros and cons to 5,6,7 foods illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the game and its mechanics, and you should take your own advice and learn more about it before spouting off about things you clearly do not comprehend. 

 

The hostility in your responses is baffling.

 

I never disputed the pros and cons you outlined for 5, 6 or 7 food tiles. I pointed out how 7 food tile gives more flexibility for players because it's not nearly as damaging to settle 7 food tiles and then desire a pure military account, compared to settling 5 food tiles and then desire high pop. Then I agreed with you that learning the game takes time. I built on that to point out that new players will not be in a position to make an informed choice that early into the game. Equally clearly they don't know what they want to do in the long-term, otherwise they wouldn't even be asking the question. Which all boils down to why the 7 food spot is the preferred option for them.

So you have your answer as to why 7 food is preferred. Its benefits are more applicable to the vast majority of players, and if they desire a different route later it isn't as damaging as settling 5/6 food and deciding to prioritize growth.

Said dispute. ^

That is where you point blank got it all wrong.  You took what I said and went clear off on a tangent explaining your rhetoric and enforcing your "recommended" play style, where peroxis was clearly  not looking for the recommended playstyle see below for his quote. 

It appears your approach to reading seems to reflect your recommended play style and understanding of mechanics, limited. When you learn more, come talk to me then. 

The 5 and 6 food settlement spots you spoke about are grand. As I said, I have no disagreement with them or their advantages. 

 

There is an issue discussing those alternative spots without also highlighting the difficulties settlement on those squares could pose further down the line. That's where my 'tangent' started - with the problems someone might encounter if they followed advice to settle on 5 or 6 food.

hmmm. a thoughtful (if hostile) discussion on the forum. feels like old times.

i have no doubt that the pvp community is, on the whole, better conversant with the reasons for various strategies than are the builders or the social players...by necessity. that depth of knowledge isn't always on display in their interactions.