Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentConfusion
Are you saying that the risk of moving is worth it?
|
The risk was small. That is what I mean.
The main problem is that your leader is not very good for sea-based maps. He has a lot of benefits but they are better for a land-based map. Any financial leader will be in a much better situation. Another drawback of the move is that you cannot irrigate the tiles around the capital rapidly and so you population growth will be slow. Even if you go cottage spam, the cottages will bring less gold early on.
Again second BCLG, sooner or later you would have to move the capital to another city. For now up until size 6 or 7 it will be OK but later in the game the need to tech rapidly will require larger cities and more productive ones. On a bright side, you have some hammers which is the main problem on archipelago type of maps. But with you next move you moved actually away from these hammers for some reason.
So, I'd say that first move is OK. But your second move is a mistake. I'd go back to where you were after the first move. There, you could irrigate almost everything and you would have had 4 hills to work. On archipelago map, it might be better not to settle on plains hills. You lose 2 hammers per turn eventually later on. Although it is hard to tell. Some maps have a bit more hammers.
Also, with regards to ivory, the easiest way will be to settle there at some point. No need to improve and immediate connection to the capital. You can still settle there even if you decide to build your capital where your settler stands now. Unless these two landmasses connect somehow.