Has this ever happened to you?

Playing as a financial leader, you roll this map and think 'Wow amazing start, much commerce, such win, settle plains hill wine ftw!!!' ....



....

But

Do you hint at the missing pigs ?
I had this so many times, missing one or two resources because of hasty settling.
Most starts are average or worse; lack of production, lack of a +5 or better a +6 food resource, etc.

I usually just SIP without thinking if I can't see the food after moving warrior / scout.

Yep the missing pigs. I just moved them using WB.

Am I the only one who still settles on the plains hill wine even knowing the pigs are there?

but are you playing victoria or elizabeth? If it's victoria, you've got a 15 turn insta-settler with that spot, plus another plains hills up north that you can use for a designated pig city. If you settle in place, you can't build cities on both plains hills.

a settler gives you something to build while you tech up to animal husbandry and pottery. Although i think worker first is still best if you're not imperialistic.

edit: ignore this advice if you're playing marathon, settlers take forever to build relative to workers on that mode.

Yup. More times than I can count. I usually file those types of starts under the "AYFKM" category and then "grrr" face until I can spank the first AI I encounter into digital oblivion. For some reason that always seems to make me feel better .

nate45 said:

Am I the only one who still settles on the plains hill wine even knowing the pigs are there?

Click to expand...

No, you aren't

Sure, the pigs would be nice. But it's a good cap anyway; the floodplains offer +5 food and there are almost no tiles in the BFC which give only 1 food, so you'll have enough growth. By settling on the hill you get an extra production and an extra commerce which is huge in the early game. Also, by SIP, you would lose the bonus of one floodplain (the one settled on), which is always unfortunate. Let the second city get the pigs and you have it all.

As tempting as it may be to use worldbuilder, I find no joy in giving oneself all the advantages. I mean, one could perhaps justify worldbuildering a bad start into an average one. But making an already good start into an awesome one is, in my opinion, rather lame.

I was playing Victoria and opened with a settler first on this map. I rexed so aggressively due to flood plains being all over the map, and being able to comfortably afford 12 cities in the BCs with a 70% science slider on Immortal.

I had both the capital and early second city pumping out settlers and workers constantly, and cottaged cities all over, as in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=533270

Fin + Imp works great when you have lots of flood plains, or even just grassland river tiles. So many cities so quickly without ever going broke, unlike with most Cre leaders who have to run at 0% science a lot of times.

bhavv said:

Fin + Imp works great when you have lots of flood plains, or even just grassland river tiles.

Click to expand...

Or just plain coast--for that you don't even need workers to build the cottages. Just build cities everywhere on the coast, whip lighthouses and soon enough you'll have a bunch of size 3 cities making 10 commerce per turn plus trade routes