City Placement

Again, in a premature way, but important nonetheless, I'd like to discuss early city placement strategy. As soon as we have scouted a bit, we should know better what our options are. This thread will be open for many turns, I hope. I encourage participation, discussion, and proposals for city sites, locations, and strategies.

Here are my thoughts on city location priorities:
First settler:
I'd like to get the settler settled as soon as possible (within a move or 2). Use the worker to look one space and from that, go for the best city site. Settling next to a river is important, so no aqueduct is necessary. A high growth potential is needed. If our first city or 2 cannot grow quickly, I think we may get way behind.

Second settler priorities (in order):
1. Growth potential. If the first city is used for military units, we need a second site to grow quickly to supply another worker, another settler, and complementary units. Always choose a site on a river if possible.

2. First luxury. Getting a luxury early may mean we do not have to use the entertainment slider at all and as many military police to get the maximum production from cities.

3. Capital proximity. I'd like to keep our cities with a bit of overlap so they can one day peak just over the metropolis line. A dense build should help us more than a very scattered build.

Ideas? Thoughts? Opinions? Suggestions?

Edit: First Map from the Cartographic Office (for argumentative and illustrative purposes):

I'd like to see our first few cities placed with no more than 2 clear tiles between them and our capital. This will keep early corruption and waste to a minimum, while allowing the cities a moderate level of growth without compromising early game turn advantage.

And we should scout and assess the immeditate area for maximum shield output.

I'm in favor of sticking our first city where the settler is. Experience has shown me that that later you found that city, the worse off you'll be.

My experience has been that your starting position will be next to fresh water (inland lake/river), on grassland, plain, or floodplain, with a luxury and a few hills/mountains near. Then again, with complete randomness, we're asking for trouble. The starting site, then, is usually the best.

I agree with octavion. I think we should build our 1st city right were the settler lands. As a commerce leader, I suggest we build near the coast to maximize commerce, however as a civ player i say we scout the area 1st, then assess city placement. Our initial cities should be close to the capital, to minimize corruption

The spot the settler is looking pretty good to me so far. Next to a lake (so no aqueduct) and a nice mix of grass and hills.

go aqueductless city!

We have started in the north apparently near the sea. Perhaps it would be to our advantage to settle a ways to the south. I do not think it is that important to settle with in a tile or two of the start location. I'd rather find a more central location for the capital than build now and move the capital later.

plant the settler where she stands...

I say at least move the worker onto the nearby mountain on turn one to get some more info.

BTW, nice avatar, Cyc.

I am infavor of setteling where the settler is at now .

Originally posted by eyrei
I say at least move the worker onto the nearby mountain on turn one to get some more info.

Click to expand...

It seems we have 3 options:
1. Settle on one of the spaces shown (perhaps the original spot even).
2. Move the worker a space to reveal additional terrain.
3. Move the worker and settler to find another area.

Implemenation of #1 is easy. #2 would require a half-turn to allow us to again look at our possibiliites. #3 would require a longer time, perhaps a "seeking" chat. Sounds like a good poll?

Looks like I've been beaten to the punch by my Domestic Deputy Check out the poll here:
Should we settle here?

Head one tile north. Given our map position there is a high probability that the water there is coastline. A capital city on the coast with a fresh water source is a huge bonus.

The probabilty is that there are more mountains to the south, so worker exploration in that area would be useless. To the east, the forest most likely continues. Therefore, the best places for exploration, short of long term, would be to our north and west, where the grasslands continue.

Because of the mountains and hills (little food production), it's a prime canidate for a tight build. *me remembers being against tight builds in Term 1 of the 1st Demogame! * It would give us quite a few size 3-5 cities, with maybe around 7-9 production. The drawback, of course, is lack of city growth for the endgame.

Lower food production could be fixed if we place the city next to the lake and coast. Once we get a harbor, we'll get 2 food from each. As an added bonus, there's the possibility of whales/fish.

Originally posted by eyrei
I say at least move the worker onto the nearby mountain on turn one to get some more info.

BTW, nice avatar, Cyc.

Click to expand...

I think moving the worker up on the mountain on the first turn is a good idea. That will give us a good view into the unknown. But I don't think any additional info will sway my opinion of planting the sttler on the first turn.

BTW, thanks.

I still think the settler should moove north for placement. We will only loose one turn for it. We could use the worker to go there first to have a clearer picture of the surrounding, then post the pic, then decide in detail ?

Originally posted by disorganizer
I still think the settler should moove north for placement. We will only loose one turn for it. We could use the worker to go there first to have a clearer picture of the surrounding, then post the pic, then decide in detail ?

Click to expand...

If we did this, I think we should have to return to the forums to decide then. No problem, but just thats probably what we should do, IMHO.

The reason I like this spot over 1 tile N is immediate access to the bonus (2/2/0) square. Plus this leaves us 3 grasslands to work on, rather than settling on one. Furthermore, if there are more grasslands to the North, we leave more squares for the next city possibly.