City placement: place on resource?

SirIsaacNewton · Jun 11, 2012, 01:30 PM

I am fairly new to Civ 5, so the following question may be somewhat stupid: Let's say you can found a city on a hill. Does your'e city automatically have faster production? Or is it wiser to found your city NEXT to the hill, and build a mine on it? The reason I ask this is because in Civilization Colonization (2008 remake) if you place your city on a tobacco tile for instance, you automatically get the tabacco that the tile would normally yield. Is this the case in Civ 5? Because if not, it would be wiser to place cities on tiles that do not yield many resources. Thanx in advance!

Randall_Flagg · Jun 11, 2012, 01:42 PM

Well you get a bonus from the hill, + 1 Hammer. My favorite place to build a city is on a hill between 2 rivers. I also will build on resourses, if it makes my Empire look good. I use the the max distance, Now I only play marathon speed, so I have time to grow my cities.

AfterShafter · Jun 11, 2012, 01:55 PM

City on top of a hill has a few advantages. Slightly higher base production, defensive bonus for terrain (can be huge) and... Actually, those two immediately come to mind. Randall's ideal city location is kinda nice because anyone who wants to attack it has to go through both the across a river and on a hilltop combat penalties - and that makes for a very tough city to take. With those rivers though, one has to beware of your own units being stuck attacking a siege force across a river - those penalties can work against you as well.

Generally, I don't go out of my way to build a city on a hill though. I build based on happiness resources... A tile your city isn't on is a tile your city can work, so you don't lose the benefit of the tile in most cases - but a gem resource that's out of your city borders is useless to you. For my first few cities, I build largely based on resource location - you need those early happiness resources to keep your empire growing. Iron is another big one if you plan to go to war early on.

For some of my later cities - once I've nabbed all the nearby happiness resources, I'll build them in spots based almost entirely on terrain. Tons of river, flood plains, hills, and coastal will usually convince me to build just for an eventual huge city with spectacular production.

Some may disagree with me, but, I find happiness resources to be the defining factor of where I place my cities early game. Sometimes I'll place one near an enemy Civ as a launching point for conquest, but my primary focus is happiness early on.

Randall_Flagg · Jun 11, 2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfterShafter

City on top of a hill has a few advantages. Slightly higher base production, defensive bonus for terrain (can be huge) and... Actually, those two immediately come to mind. Randall's ideal city location is kinda nice because anyone who wants to attack it has to go through both the across a river and on a hilltop combat penalties - and that makes for a very tough city to take. With those rivers though, one has to beware of your own units being stuck attacking a siege force across a river - those penalties can work against you as well.

Generally, I don't go out of my way to build a city on a hill though. I build based on happiness resources... A tile your city isn't on is a tile your city can work, so you don't lose the benefit of the tile in most cases - but a gem resource that's out of your city borders is useless to you. For my first few cities, I build largely based on resource location - you need those early happiness resources to keep your empire growing. Iron is another big one if you plan to go to war early on.

For some of my later cities - once I've nabbed all the nearby happiness resources, I'll build them in spots based almost entirely on terrain. Tons of river, flood plains, hills, and coastal will usually convince me to build just for an eventual huge city with spectacular production.

Some may disagree with me, but, I find happiness resources to be the defining factor of where I place my cities early game. Sometimes I'll place one near an enemy Civ as a launching point for conquest, but my primary focus is happiness early on.

I do not know anyone who could or would disagree, Happy is king!! The game seems to go out of it's way to stick all like resources in one area, IE If my starting city has fur, there is a good chance that will be the only happy resource close to me.

* but 1 dye and 1 gem at least in 90% of my games* Of course, this gives us a reason to trade the extras I guess.
I have never built more then 10 cities though, and since I found my sweet spot was 6, it has to be an awesome site for me to go for that 7th.

SirIsaacNewton · Jun 11, 2012, 03:11 PM

Thanx for answering so quick guys! A hilltop WILL yield more initial production then a normal tile, now I know! Thanx for al the extra hints on city location. I for one see the advantage of building next to a river so an attacking unit will get a penalty. But I think it's annoying that you get an attacking penalty FROM the city as well. In a new game I started I placed my city a few tiles FROM the river, and positioned my army next to the river. This way I could just 'defend' from behind the river. The game hasn't ended yet though, so I'll let you know if it worked out!

A Rabid Dopsis · Jun 11, 2012, 03:16 PM

The tile you place a city on is automatically worked for free. If you place it on a hill, you'll get the production of that hill, if it's on grassland you get two food, etc. You also get automatic access to a luxury or strategic resource when you place a city on it.

There's a trade off, though. You can't improve that tile. So while that hill is providing production, if it was adjacent to your city you could add a mine and get even more production. Generally, that's not a big deal, though.

The big(ger) issue is that settling on a hill gives your city a defensive bonus with the trade off that you can't build the windmill building there. Settling on plains gives you small food and production but you can't build a stoneworks. Settling on grassland let's you build both those buildings but, then again, there's no defensive bonus. And round and round it goes.

I tend not to settle on resources because they can be valuable tiles. Hill cities are good for vulnerable cities at the edge of your empire and they do get that little boost to production. In the end, it won't matter hugely.

Edit: Should check to see if other people have answered already when I go away in the middle of a response!

Randall_Flagg · Jun 11, 2012, 03:17 PM

Playing as America right now, and Washington was founded at the head of 3 long rivers!!

Really love it when I can build all my cities on rivers.!! The only bad thing is i am cut off from the coast, Japan and Germany to the north, and Old France, Now Japan and Persia to south. Might be the only time I ever started dead center of a Pangea map!!

Really weird not being worried about needing some ships.

Halcyan2 · Jun 11, 2012, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirIsaacNewton

I am fairly new to Civ 5, so the following question may be somewhat stupid: Let's say you can found a city on a hill. Does your'e city automatically have faster production? Or is it wiser to found your city NEXT to the hill, and build a mine on it? The reason I ask this is because in Civilization Colonization (2008 remake) if you place your city on a tobacco tile for instance, you automatically get the tabacco that the tile would normally yield. Is this the case in Civ 5? Because if not, it would be wiser to place cities on tiles that do not yield many resources. Thanx in advance!

If you build your city on your hill, you get an extra base hammer for production. You do get a bonus to the strength of the city (I'm not exactly sure how that is calculated). Also, you have a height advantage for ranged units stationed in the city.

Disadvantages include not being able to build a Windmill and if you don't start on the hill, you will likely need an extra turn to found it (since it costs 2 movement points to move on it, unless you are Incan).

Generally, a city will yield a base of 2 food + 1 hammer:

- If founded on a hill, you get an extra hammer (2 food + 2 hammer)
- If founded on a river, you get one gold
- If founded on a bonus food resource (i.e. wheat/cow), you get *no* extra bonus - your base food is still 2
- If founded on a bonus hammer resource (i.e. stone or strategic), you *do* get an extra bonus hammer
- If founded on a luxury resource, you get 2 extra gold
- If founded on Marble, you immediately get the +15% on wonders, even if you don't have Masonry yet
- For all luxuries (including Marble) you don't get the happiness bonus until you research the necessary tech to unlock it

So, if you settle on a river hill with Stone, you will have 2 food + 3 hammer + 1 gold
If you settle on a river hill with Marble, you will have 2 food + 2 hammer + 3 gold

I don't have much experience with settling on Ice, Oasis, or fallout. I also normally don't settle on resources, so I don't know if it "counts" for certain buildings (settling on a Cow/Horse counts for Stable/Circus, etc.).

firstconsul · Jun 13, 2012, 09:28 PM

City placement priority can vary depending on the specific civ you have chosen. For example, Russia should SLIGHTLY favor strategic resources, especially horses and iron early on.
in totality though, you should base your cities in close proximity to the greatest number of resources you possibly can. Gold, Sugar, Cows, Fish, Stone... Any combination of maybe 3-4 of these will foster a city that grows into an effective addition to your empire.

joncnunn · Jun 13, 2012, 09:54 PM

Halcyan2 has a very good summary.

I'd like too add think more globally; how does exact position here affect my future city sites, particularly in light of where the city states are.
Granted in 4000 BC, your not going to see enough of the map to always make the best call, (without going to lengths of using several turns exploring or use of a time machine), but you still do as good as possible that the city you choose won't increase the minimum number of cities needed to take in all luxuries nor worse yet, permantly lock yourself out of working key tiles.

elijahfire · Apr 17, 2013, 12:55 AM

Everyone here forgot one very important thing. If you want a WINDMILL you HAVE to build on a hill or did they finally change that?

Arachnofiend · Apr 17, 2013, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyan2

I don't have much experience with settling on Ice, Oasis, or fallout. I also normally don't settle on resources, so I don't know if it "counts" for certain buildings (settling on a Cow/Horse counts for Stable/Circus, etc.).

Settling on snow gives you no bonuses... You'll end up with cities that produce no gold and cannot grow without a granary. I learned this the hard way earlier today, was playing Tilted Axis as the Maya and thought I was being really clever by expanding into the wasteland and using the iron scatted about to help me get up a bunch of ICS-y pyramid cities. I had Messenger of the Gods and Machu Picchu so I thought all those typically worthless cities would make me a science king. Unfortunately I just ended up broke.

Browd · Apr 17, 2013, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elijahfire

Everyone here forgot one very important thing. If you want a WINDMILL you HAVE to build on a hill or did they finally change that?

It's the other way around - if you want a windmill you have to settle on flat land.

I find the full-game benefits of an extra hammer from settling on a hill (with no construction or maintenance costs associated with that hammer) far outweighs the late-game benefits of a windmill (2 hammers and 10% bonus when constructing buildings (Note: not units, wonders or projects), but you have to sink hammers (or gold) into building the darned thing and it costs 2 gold maintenance).

kirbdog · Apr 17, 2013, 08:57 AM

I was intrigued to find in my last game that by settling on a hill with bananas and building a granary, my city tile was producing 4 food and 2 hammers. (The building itself gave another 2 food on top of that.)

Jun 11, 2012, 01:30 PM	#1
SirIsaacNewton Chieftain Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands Posts: 7	City placement: place on resource? I am fairly new to Civ 5, so the following question may be somewhat stupid: Let's say you can found a city on a hill. Does your'e city automatically have faster production? Or is it wiser to found your city NEXT to the hill, and build a mine on it? The reason I ask this is because in Civilization Colonization (2008 remake) if you place your city on a tobacco tile for instance, you automatically get the tabacco that the tile would normally yield. Is this the case in Civ 5? Because if not, it would be wiser to place cities on tiles that do not yield many resources. Thanx in advance!

Jun 11, 2012, 01:55 PM	#3
AfterShafter Deity Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: World's largest lentil producer Posts: 2,057	City on top of a hill has a few advantages. Slightly higher base production, defensive bonus for terrain (can be huge) and... Actually, those two immediately come to mind. Randall's ideal city location is kinda nice because anyone who wants to attack it has to go through both the across a river and on a hilltop combat penalties - and that makes for a very tough city to take. With those rivers though, one has to beware of your own units being stuck attacking a siege force across a river - those penalties can work against you as well. Generally, I don't go out of my way to build a city on a hill though. I build based on happiness resources... A tile your city isn't on is a tile your city can work, so you don't lose the benefit of the tile in most cases - but a gem resource that's out of your city borders is useless to you. For my first few cities, I build largely based on resource location - you need those early happiness resources to keep your empire growing. Iron is another big one if you plan to go to war early on. For some of my later cities - once I've nabbed all the nearby happiness resources, I'll build them in spots based almost entirely on terrain. Tons of river, flood plains, hills, and coastal will usually convince me to build just for an eventual huge city with spectacular production. Some may disagree with me, but, I find happiness resources to be the defining factor of where I place my cities early game. Sometimes I'll place one near an enemy Civ as a launching point for conquest, but my primary focus is happiness early on. __________________ Give me Pro/Org, or give me death!

Jun 11, 2012, 03:11 PM	#5
SirIsaacNewton Chieftain Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands Posts: 7	Thanx! Thanx for answering so quick guys! A hilltop WILL yield more initial production then a normal tile, now I know! Thanx for al the extra hints on city location. I for one see the advantage of building next to a river so an attacking unit will get a penalty. But I think it's annoying that you get an attacking penalty FROM the city as well. In a new game I started I placed my city a few tiles FROM the river, and positioned my army next to the river. This way I could just 'defend' from behind the river. The game hasn't ended yet though, so I'll let you know if it worked out!

Jun 11, 2012, 03:16 PM	#6
A Rabid Dopsis Chieftain Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The land of Ire Posts: 73	The tile you place a city on is automatically worked for free. If you place it on a hill, you'll get the production of that hill, if it's on grassland you get two food, etc. You also get automatic access to a luxury or strategic resource when you place a city on it. There's a trade off, though. You can't improve that tile. So while that hill is providing production, if it was adjacent to your city you could add a mine and get even more production. Generally, that's not a big deal, though. The big(ger) issue is that settling on a hill gives your city a defensive bonus with the trade off that you can't build the windmill building there. Settling on plains gives you small food and production but you can't build a stoneworks. Settling on grassland let's you build both those buildings but, then again, there's no defensive bonus. And round and round it goes. I tend not to settle on resources because they can be valuable tiles. Hill cities are good for vulnerable cities at the edge of your empire and they do get that little boost to production. In the end, it won't matter hugely. Edit: Should check to see if other people have answered already when I go away in the middle of a response! Last edited by A Rabid Dopsis; Jun 11, 2012 at 03:17 PM. Reason: Slowwwwwwwwwwww

Jun 13, 2012, 09:54 PM	#10
joncnunn Deity Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,413	Halcyan2 has a very good summary. I'd like too add think more globally; how does exact position here affect my future city sites, particularly in light of where the city states are. Granted in 4000 BC, your not going to see enough of the map to always make the best call, (without going to lengths of using several turns exploring or use of a time machine), but you still do as good as possible that the city you choose won't increase the minimum number of cities needed to take in all luxuries nor worse yet, permantly lock yourself out of working key tiles. __________________ Civ III/ IV AI: I sure wish Jon would hurry up and complete his turn, he's been at it for over 1,200,000 milliseconds now.

Jun 11, 2012, 01:42 PM	#2
Randall_Flagg The Evil One Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 258	Well you get a bonus from the hill, + 1 Hammer. My favorite place to build a city is on a hill between 2 rivers. I also will build on resourses, if it makes my Empire look good. I use the the max distance, Now I only play marathon speed, so I have time to grow my cities.

Jun 11, 2012, 03:17 PM	#7
Randall_Flagg The Evil One Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 258	Playing as America right now, and Washington was founded at the head of 3 long rivers!! Really love it when I can build all my cities on rivers.!! The only bad thing is i am cut off from the coast, Japan and Germany to the north, and Old France, Now Japan and Persia to south. Might be the only time I ever started dead center of a Pangea map!! Really weird not being worried about needing some ships.

Jun 13, 2012, 09:28 PM	#9
firstconsul Chieftain Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 56	City placement priority can vary depending on the specific civ you have chosen. For example, Russia should SLIGHTLY favor strategic resources, especially horses and iron early on. in totality though, you should base your cities in close proximity to the greatest number of resources you possibly can. Gold, Sugar, Cows, Fish, Stone... Any combination of maybe 3-4 of these will foster a city that grows into an effective addition to your empire.

Apr 17, 2013, 12:55 AM	#11
elijahfire Chieftain Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 23	Everyone here forgot one very important thing. If you want a WINDMILL you HAVE to build on a hill or did they finally change that?

Apr 17, 2013, 08:57 AM	#14
kirbdog King Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 729	I was intrigued to find in my last game that by settling on a hill with bananas and building a granary, my city tile was producing 4 food and 2 hammers. (The building itself gave another 2 food on top of that.)

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. This site is copyright © Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com \| Amazon UK \| Amazon DE \| Amazon CA \| Amazon FR