Which do you build first? A strategic city as in, perhaps blocking off a part of the world from other civs, although it may not be the greatest position? Or do you start with a "good" city with lots of resources first, which will probably be better for the near and intermediate future of your empire?

Of course, sometimes "strategic" can also mean it contains important resources like copper, in which case there would be no question of settling there asap. But I'm more thinking of "located strategically" here.

good cities. u dont get throw away cities early.

If you really can block a lot with your second city, and a copper won't do it, you might want to go for the block. The only problem is that you'll have to defend against the barbs with warriors at first. Nasty stuff. Maybe build the third city early to get copper?

Anyway, remember that the other civs won't build that near to you at first anyway. And if you can block a portion of land from them it means they aren't near it from the start, so it's very likely they won't settle there even if you let them for a while.

So yeah, most of the time I'd go for the copper city first, and the blocking one(s) later.

Hmm, if there are equally good sites E, W & N (lets say coast to S), and you know a particular civ is quite close to N, then I'd almost always expand N first to try to curb their expansion..

I suppose you could call that strategic

I would contend that expanding to close things off makes sense even if it is not the best site available.


133615

I would contend that expanding to close things off makes sense even if it is not the best site available.
Except that this concept of "closing off" doesn't exist on the higher levels. A city which nets you lots of commerce and hammers is going to be the most strategic one you can have, because commerce and hammers are how you win the game.

Except that this concept of "closing off" doesn't exist on the higher levels. A city which nets you lots of commerce and hammers is going to be the most strategic one you can have, because commerce and hammers are how you win the game.


Granted, I assumed the question wasn't postulated by an advanced player.

Which do you build first? A strategic city as in, perhaps blocking off a part of the world from other civs, although it may not be the greatest position? Or do you start with a "good" city with lots of resources first, which will probably be better for the near and intermediate future of your empire?

Of course, sometimes "strategic" can also mean it contains important resources like copper, in which case there would be no question of settling there asap. But I'm more thinking of "located strategically" here.

A City with Copper/Iron/Horse IS A GOOD CITY. Remember, without even copper in your hand, you are in deep ****. You can even go to war to win a good city in a good placement or with other resources with a number of Axemen attacking. I never try the blocking technique in Civ 4 which I used to do a lot in Civ 3. Instead I try to be nice with my closer Civs in the beginning with signing open borders, trading, etc. This balances with our Close border Spark and they never at least be Annoyed with me. I can always declare a war against them whenever I am in good position, so why let them be mad and declare a war against me while I am emphasizing on something else than millitary.

Well, interesting. From my reading here I understand that many players like warring, but I certainly don't. Placing cities to gain as much land as possible (by blocking out the other civs) seems like the best way to get big WITHOUT ever going to war.

You're probably right tho, on higher levels a city with good commerce or production at the beginning could be more valuable than several "lesser" cities. Then again, I only play noble so far :)

up to noble, the blocking thing maybe something that can prevent warring for most of the game.

up from prince, you need to be able to fight = you need a strategic ressource

I will build a copper city as far as needed from my capitol. (20 tiles? OK, no sweat)

If I am located where a penninsula joins the main body of land, I will try to shut off the land behind me and expand towards the main land. I know I can go back and populate the penninsula later, whilst grabbing lots of land from the AI in the initial rush.

However, if there are a whole bunch of very useful resources to get by settling the next city on the penninsula, I will do so - the two options just need to be weighed up.