Future City Placement

Here's a graphic that shows 3 concentric (attempted) rings. This is where I think our core cities should be placed - we should fill out the 1st (or inner) ring, as that gives us the lowest corruption. The 2nd ring (and we can start near the landbridge) should be completed 2nd. Then the 3rd.



Hopefully, this will help as a guide to place our next cities, keeping in mind that we should use our available resources to maximize city growth and production. As a personal opinion, I would feel safer having another city or two around the capital. Not only for being the front lines, but also for production (and less corruption).

Our next city should be built 3 tiles due west of the capital.

I like two tiles SW of the spices for the next city location if you want one in this 1st ring.

I like the 3 city placements I recommended in the other city placement thread. My first choice agrees with Donsig. My second is one tile west of Plexus' choice.

While I too would love to grab the land bridge, our next city MUST be in the productive ring, we have too few cities as it is.

I also agree with donsig's positioning.

The following is a map of possible future city sites.

red = current cities
pink = 2nd ring
light pink = 3rd ring
The blue city = Well, I always put coastal fillers in as blue and call them "Fishing Villages". It's for late in the game (but, would be a good port town)
Gray w/black dots = That's the ICS (Infinite City Sprawl). There's a few mistakes, but we should have 1 city on one of the hills by the furs. ICS would be later in the game.
Dotted city = Tlaxcala. If we take it, and keep it, we might waste a tile near the city. But, we may be able to place a city nearby, meaning we will have to abandon it later. Same goes for the one SE of City Site #4. There's an Aztec city. We can halt the growth, and build a worker or settler. The 2 dotted X's would be city sites if we kept Tlaxcala. (we can rename it if we "move" Tlaxcala.. )

I've also outlined 2 production centers (and placed the cities accordingly to attempt to maximize optimal shield and growth output). Getting these cities should be a priority.

There's also a cluster of mountains by Azteca. Thus the "Production Center for the Forbidden Palace?" text. It doesn't mean we'll build one there. Personally, I think it's too close to our 3rd ring from the capital. (if we put it in Tenochtitlan)

If we do "move" any cities (i.e., via halting growth and building workers/settlers), I propose a "Population Relocation Plan" (PRP). They will build a city in the desirable location, and have their city renamed to "New ____". (i.e., New Tlaxcala, New Teotihaucan"

And the large image... (just so the text doesn't strech across the table cell)

i would stick more to a 2-tile placement for now.
we will need the low corruption of the dense build, and i believe we even had a poll already about city spacing ;-)

i just modified ct's map as i dont have civ handy at the moment. the yellow dots would be my (rough) proposals, of course +/- one tile should be discussed in detail for every city (finetuning).
it is a 2-tile spacing between all cities, sometimes bend a bit due to landscape.

The Map:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/Fanatika_City_Sites2.jpg