Would you settle a city site with no luxuries in this example?

Artifex1

Artifex1

Warlord
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
284
I have a question. I am in a game as Spain my capital and 2nd city were on a coast.

Then I got Cerro de Potosi that was about 12-13 hexes away but I ran to settle it leaving a gap of OK land in between. There is a river, grasslands, and a couple of stones but not much else, including no luxuries.

Would you settle that land or let enemies take it?
 
You will have your city cut off and that's not strategically good, I would assume.
 
Yup, it's not strategically good--for that guy who settles it. It sounds like it will make an excellent puppet city.
 
Screenshot is needed to determine how difficult it would be to defend.

But "don't found a city without a luxury" isn't the real rule, it's instead "don't found a city without a key tile", a key tile is a luxury you can use or sell, strategic resource you can use or sell, and a natural wonder even if you aren't Spain.

As Spain, a natural wonder city you capture would normally be annexed as soon as you come of resistance.
 
It's good to have a connector city so you can get roads to all your cities. If it gives you happiness issues then keep it small. Try to settle a location that has horses and stone for the circus and stone works to at least get 3 happiness out of it.
 
A small city should be ok.
You say it has stone, so a stoneworks will provide one happiness.
 
20gpt + 8fpt, with grassland river and stones? Ofc settle :) but yeah - send a screenshot :)
 
You get additional happiness from discovering natural wonders ad Spain so that should compensate, just find more wonders. If you have stone then a stoneworks will help also.
 
dragonxxx said:
20gpt + 8fpt, with grassland river and stones? Ofc settle :) but yeah - send a screenshot :)
Click to expand...
The city in speak will not have Potosi - he already settled Potosi. The city in speak will be between capital and Potosi-city.
 
Artifex1 said:
Would you settle that land or let enemies take it?
Click to expand...
Really depends on how many cities you have and what kind of happiness issues you're going to face, but most likely you should.
 
tetley said:
Yup, it's not strategically good--for that guy who settles it. It sounds like it will make an excellent puppet city.
Click to expand...

A hundred times this. It will eventually be settled. As soon as it is, take it. Puppet it. Gold farm!!
 
YEP! 20 gpt is huge....ohhhh YES :)

Also the faith! as I got the panthy one with nature...mwahahaha!
 
Build a couple archers instead of a settler. Let the other guy build the settler for you. In the end, you get both the city and the experienced archers. If you've got a 4-city build, I don't see why burn one of them on that spot when it doesn't have that much stuff. The AI settled city is a sitting duck: no composite garrison, 2 population, you can attack it from both sides. You can even xp farm the snot out of it with virtual impunity. At least, until your workers complete the roads connecting it. And guess who pays the maintenance on those incomplete roads...
 
tetley said:
Build a couple archers instead of a settler. Let the other guy build the settler for you. In the end, you get both the city and the experienced archers. If you've got a 4-city build, I don't see why burn one of them on that spot when it doesn't have that much stuff. The AI settled city is a sitting duck: no composite garrison, 2 population, you can attack it from both sides. You can even xp farm the snot out of it with virtual impunity. At least, until your workers complete the roads connecting it. And guess who pays the maintenance on those incomplete roads...
Click to expand...

Not a good idea. I would raze an enemy city because taken cities give you extra unhappiness and puppets are not very useful. If an enemy city were there I would raze it and make my own city in its place so this idea is not good.
 
Then I guess you should settle it, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on puppets not being useful. And this city makes an ideal puppet.
 
tetley said:
Then I guess you should settle it, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on puppets not being useful. And this city makes an ideal puppet.
Click to expand...

why would u want a puppet with probably heavy diplo hit, instead of just settling it?
1) You will get a better city
2) You can actually work all the tiles you want
3) You will get the gold many turns earlier (and the AI wount have it)
4) You will not take a heavy diplo hit (as early game the AI has just a few cities.
and last but not least

5) What happens if the AI actually decides to not settle it after turn 200?

Good city > good puppet. Every day!
 
I would rather settle in a city next to a luxury or next to the wonder instead of settling in a place without any of both.. I would restart the game and scout that area where you think the wonder is, get paid, buy the settler and then settle there..
 
reddishrecue said:
I would rather settle in a city next to a luxury or next to the wonder instead of settling in a place without any of both.. I would restart the game and scout that area where you think the wonder is, get paid, buy the settler and then settle there..
Click to expand...
The OP already said he planted a city by the natural wonder.

His question is about settling a city in the, as he describes it, 12-13 tiles between his capital and the natural wonder site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King Phaedron
The Best Map I've ever made - a dramatic Soulblazer!
Replies
3
Views
892
SaboteurINT
SaboteurINT
W
[Civ2] Help with Civ 2 finances
Replies
4
Views
1K
kdsteff
K
King Phaedron
3 Civilizations are China locked on this map - Secret of Evermore
Replies
3
Views
1K
fomrat
F
King Phaedron
Secret of Evermore - World Map Scenario for you
Replies
2
Views
747
Planktonic
P
M
Super Mario themed Leader Pack
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mico27
M
Top Bottom