Second City Placement

Because it is crucial for us to determine the placement of our second city, I have created this thread to help us consider the options presented thus far, and if we should include further options. In going through the first "City Placement" thread, I have taken the city site locations specifically proposed by our citizens. Some suggested vaguely to go to the East or the North, but did not give a specific tile location. Those suggestions are not on this map.

Already, we have 6 locations posted. This is more than enough to run a poll on. I'm hoping that I can post the map below as the poll options, but I wanted to run it by you to get your thoughts on it.

I personally suggested site B and feel that with the tiles availble to it, site B can grow to a robust city quickly. Because it is located close to the Capital, it will not lose ANY shields to corruption until we are well into the game. It has Grasslands for growth and hills for production. If we build a Warrior first for defense, followed by a Temple, our Cultural border will take in the first Diamond immediately. After the Temple, the city will be primed for Settler production or military/Worker production.

It will definately have to be on a river or maybe coastal. Gems would be nice, but not extremely important yet. Growth is more important. If I have to choose between the 6 sites I'd go for D. If I can suggest a site: I'd go for 1 tile south of D. Immediate access to FloodPlains and on a river.

I just found out that the next chat is very early Tusday morning for me (PDT). This means that this poll will be posted in about 17 hours. This will give us approximately a two day poll. Please discuss!

D or E, doesn't matter whatever spot we get the most gems in one city placement...

I dont think acquiring gems is as important as getting a nice self-sufficient second city running. Once we have a second high growth city with production potential we can get a city on the gems. I would go for B or F. And for all we know, there could be a Bonus on A?

As proposed in this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96129

I would like to add the spot 1 S of 'E'

Cyc said:

I personally suggested site B and feel that with the tiles availble to it, site B can grow to a robust city quickly. Because it is located close to the Capital, it will not lose ANY shields to corruption until we are well into the game. It has Grasslands for growth and hills for production. If we build a Warrior first for defense, followed by a Temple, our Cultural border will take in the first Diamond immediately. After the Temple, the city will be primed for Settler production or military/Worker production.

Click to expand...

Very good place and good production. This is my choice.

Rik Meleet said:

If I can suggest a site: I'd go for 1 tile south of D. Immediate access to FloodPlains and on a river.

Click to expand...

Nice place, as I suggested it earlier. But for a third city.

I truly believe that if we lead the game by founding two 1-tile-inland cities, then we are selling out our future.

We will need coastal cities one day, and need to be able to provide a solid naval defense for our core once we figure out how to sustain ourselves on apparati that can float.

That said, I believe that B is out of the question, and will emphatically support C. C is coastal, and enjoys closer proximity to our capital than E or D. It will also be able to utilize 1 grassland from Fanaikku right away(as well as one of its own), making initial growth a non-issue. Site C would also contain Gems in its 9-tile radius, which could come in handy once our citizens cry out for luxuries. And finally, Site C would allow Sites D or E to happen, while Site B would crowd those a bit. So, even while B may slightly outperform C on many of these factors, I believe that the coastal issue is far more important here.

Ultimately, I would believe that the grasslands attributed to B would be better served under Site F. And as for the entire Hill/Mountain region currently under exploration, we may want to reserve the bulk of it for Size 2-3 production-only cities . But we should claim as much land as possible first.

I believe that C and E are good choices

E or D.

What's Japanese for "Five Diamonds" and "Many Diamonds?"

I view it as a choose between C and B.

Both Cyc and DZ make good points... however I feel that while Coastal is important, our second city needs to be high growth, high production, NOT having coast as it's priority. C is crippled too much, from 6 grasslands and plenty of hills we go to 2 grasslands and plenty of hills. A city built at site B may very will turn out to be the PDX production center of this game, a city built at C will not likely come close (at least). A city with a concentration on a coastal location should be reserved for our third or fourth city... there is in all likely hood a better coastal spot up north.

Well, it looks like I'll have to take a page out of your book, Cyc. Well, we seem to have most of the discussion done (mostly from the last thread), so I'm going to post a poll tomorrow with a proper 2-day length, all proposals listed, and "abstain" and "other" options. Simple is best, I guess...

The decision between B and C also affects the next city over. Let's look at the resulting city pairs (from the choices given during this thread) and see which choice is better overall, instead of focusing on the 1st city of each pair which is built.







Looking at the 1st map, the yelow site forces us to choose blue, which has a significant risk of having a lot of desert tiles. The cyan site lets us choose magenta for the other site, which is a highly productive location which only lacks a river.

Let's think a bit about the effects beyond placing the 1st city.

Blue may have alot of desert tiles but it's also gonna have alot of Grasslands, which can be irrigated so that it can become a productive city...

Cyan isn't ever gonna grow big enough to fully take advantage of the hills, at least blue will be able to once we get out of Despotism.

Noldodan said:

Well, it looks like I'll have to take a page out of your book, Cyc. Well, we seem to have most of the discussion done (mostly from the last thread), so I'm going to post a poll tomorrow with a proper 2-day length, all proposals listed, and "abstain" and "other" options. Simple is best, I guess...

Click to expand...

Please don't make a poll that resembles anything like the polls you've created thus far, Noldodan. I have put this thread together to organize the options plainly so everyone knows what the options are and what they represent. If you use the map I've posted above and add some sites, that may be the best way to handle it. We don't have time for major changes or bizzare maps.

Falcon02 said:

Cyan isn't ever gonna grow big enough to fully take advantage of the hills, at least blue will be able to once we get out of Despotism.

Click to expand...

Once maxed out with irrigation, railroads, a harbor and deforestation, Cyan can reach a max of 18, while providing better positions for the surrounding cities. So, one day, Cyan will indeed get to utilize all of the Hills.

Another benefit of Site C is that we can build a road to it via three grassland tiles. A road to Site B would entail going through the Hills and wasting our worker's time. To be fair though, Site B is closer.

I still can't get past our aversion to coastal cities, especially when the alternative is a 1-tile-inland city. As Trade Leader, I insist that we have a Harbor in close proximity to our capital, rather than landlocking our future exports from those who could pay us.

I would choose magenta as our second city, cyan as the third, and the fourth would be one tile south of D. Of course, by the time we get to number 3, we'll know more about our surroundings, so that could change.

Frankly i don't like any position because cities can't grow large enough.

We should take a risk and go for F or A and investigate 1-2 black tiles with settler and settle there. Forest can be removed and we have BG and more grassland tiles so city WILL grow larger. Compared to hills in the south i like this best.

From given position i like yellow dot more than others because it has many grasslands and hills but then we can say goodbay to coastal city.

Or that or go directly for gems because other locations are terrible.

Donovan Zoi said:

Once maxed out with irrigation, railroads, a harbor and deforestation, Cyan can reach a max of 18, while providing better positions for the surrounding cities. So, one day, Cyan will indeed get to utilize all of the Hills.

Another benefit of Site C is that we can build a road to it via three grassland tiles. A road to Site B would entail going through the Hills and wasting our worker's time. To be fair though, Site B is closer.

I still can't get past our aversion to coastal cities, especially when the alternative is a 1-tile-inland city. As Trade Leader, I insist that we have a Harbor in close proximity to our capital, rather than landlocking our future exports from those who could pay us.

Click to expand...

DZ, do realize how far off your productive city is? Railroads? Please. It will take your location so long to build the infrastructure necessary to grow, that placement there will be a big mistake. The only way the location will grow is with a harbor, and Map Making is a long way off. Even when you do manage to build a Harbor, the switch to coastal tiles will delete you shield count, what little you will have. So in the Ancient age, what is the "C" location (what you call teal) going to build? How long will that take? Will it help expansion? Military? What? Getting a harbor is good. But we need expansion and production now, not when we get railroads. Think about it.

"B" (or Yellow) is the location Japanatica needs NOW, for growth and production.