City placement questions

[Holywhippet]

1) What logic is the game using when it places those blue circles down to suggest good locations for a city? Most of the time I don't agree with it's logic as it suggests placing cities on desert squares or within range of other cities. Sometimes it suggests squares right next to where I think it should go.

2) If I build a city on top of a resource (eg. iron) does the city take full advantage of that resource or should I try to avoid that kind of thing?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Good questions.

1) What logic is the game using when it places those blue circles down to suggest good locations for a city? Most of the time I don't agree with it's logic as it suggests placing cities on desert squares or within range of other cities. Sometimes it suggests squares right next to where I think it should go.

I'm not sure of any formula for this, but the AI appears to take tile layout, resources and distance maintenance all into account when recommending a spot.

The AI does appear to take into account resources you may not be able to see due to fog of war or lack of tech, but I can't really prove this.

Finally, the closer cities are built to your capital, the less distance maintenance they will incur. Distance maintenance also increases with population.

The exact formula on a Normal map at Noble difficulty is:

d = distance maintenance in
t = # of tiles the city is from the Palace (diagonal tiles = 1.5 tiles)
p = population of the city

d = t / 6 + ( 0.0625 * ( p - 1 ) )​

That basically means every three tiles you move away from your capital is 0.5 . Every 4 population over 1 is another 0.25 .

Since in the early stages of the game, your cities' & are capped relatively low, it's unlikely you'll be able to work the full fat cross anyway, so overlapping really only affects the 15+ ish size and highly specialized cities (like Ironworks, GP, Science and Gold Cities, for example) later in the game.

...it suggests placing cities on desert squares...

A city will always get at least 2 / 1 / 1 from the tile you're built on. So building your city on a Desert tile allows you to gain yields otherwise unattainable.

2) If I build a city on top of a resource (eg. iron) does the city take full advantage of that resource or should I try to avoid that kind of thing?

Generally, you want to avoid building right on top of a resource.

Building on top of a resource will only yield its basic tile bonus (i.e., +1 for metals or +1 for edible resources or +1 for luxuries). OR, that same tile in your fat cross can be improved (farms, mines, plantations, etc.) to give additional & bonuses.

The only benefit from building right on top of a resource is that you gain immediate access to it in the city's trade network (assuming you have the appropriate tech to build its 'normal' associated improvement).

The only times I've ever settled on top of resources is when: A) I absolutely need the resource RIGHT NOW -- such as with Copper or Iron; or B) There are other, more important resources I will be putting in my fat cross by doing so.

----

hope that helps ...

 

[r_rolo1]

The AI does appear to take into account resources you may not be able to see due to fog of war or lack of tech, but I can't really prove this.

There was a thread somewhere ( i can't find him right now) where worldbuider tests were made around this question, and the conclusion was that the blue dots take in acount fogged resourses that you can use in the moment, but not the ones that you don't have the tech to see.

 

[Holywhippet]

Thanks for the tips.

 

[Defiant47]

A city will always get at least 2 / 1 / 1 from the tile you're built on. So building your city on a Desert tile allows you to gain yields otherwise unattainable.

Just a note, a city built on a plains hill receives an extra . So it would have 2 / 2 / 1.

Generally, you want to avoid building right on top of a resource.

Agreed. Only certain strategic resources such as stone and marble would be good to build on, but that's if you don't have enough food abundance in your city location to take full advantage.

Building on top of a resource will only yield its basic tile bonus (i.e., +1 for metals or +1 for edible resources or +1 for luxuries). OR, that same tile in your fat cross can be improved (farms, mines, plantations, etc.) to give additional food & hammers bonuses.

This means that if you see iron on a grassland, for example, and you build your city right on top of it, your city will now produce 2 / 2 / 1. However, if you put your city next to it, then you could improve that tile such that you would get 2 / 4 from working that tile.

 

[Thedrin]

Generally, you want to avoid building right on top of a resource.

Disagree with this. If building on top of a resource will give access to tiles that, combined, grant a greater tile output than the improved resource tile, then it can be a good idea. Sugar, wine, spices, fur, dyes - among the number of resources that I'd frequently have no trouble placing a city on top of. Last week I had a city that had greater production output when built on top of an iron resource than it would have had had it been built on any of the surrounding tiles.

Placing a city on plains hills marble or stone can be a powerful tactic in the very early game (3 hammers on the city tile). I'll frequently move my initial settler on to such a tile.

 

[lilnev]

This means that if you see iron on a grassland, for example, and you build your city right on top of it, your city will now produce 2 / 2 / 1

Not quite. The city's central tile will always be 2F1H1C unless the base tile is better in one of those stats, in which you'll get the better base stat (including resources, but not including overlays like forest or flood plains). So settling on top of a plains Iron (1F2H) gives a 2F2H1C central tile, but settling on top of a grass Iron (2F1H) just gives the normal 2F1H1C central tile.

And while there certainly are cases where settling on a resource is correct, we should recognize that they are the exceptions to the rule.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Defiant47]

Not quite. The city's central tile will always be 2F1H1C unless the base tile is better in one of those stats, in which you'll get the better base stat (including resources, but not including overlays like forest or flood plains). So settling on top of a plains Iron (1F2H) gives a 2F2H1C central tile, but settling on top of a grass Iron (2F1H) just gives the normal 2F1H1C central tile.

And while there certainly are cases where settling on a resource is correct, we should recognize that they are the exceptions to the rule.

peace,
lilnev

I didn't know that... I'll have to check it for myself with worldbuilder.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I just ran it through the World Builder, and this is what it boils down to:

• only Grasslands (flat) with a food resource gain +1 over base
• only Hills with a production resource gain +1 over base
• only Rivers with a commerce resource gain +1 over base

 

[Holywhippet]

What about happiness and health modifiers?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

What about happiness and health modifiers?

From the settled-on resource? As long as you have the appropriate technology for 'harvesting' the resource, then you'll immediately gain access to that resource and its benefits in your city's resource box (your city basically counts as the improvement).

 

[bonafide11]

I just ran it through the World Builder, and this is what it boils down to:

• only Grasslands (flat) with a food resource gain +1 over base
• only Hills with a production resource gain +1 over base
• only Rivers with a commerce resource gain +1 over base

What are the ways they can get more than one additional hammer? I know settling on Stone on Hills/Plains gives 3 hammers, and I think marble does too...

 

[Defiant47]

What are the ways they can get more than one additional hammer? I know settling on Stone on Hills/Plains gives 3 hammers, and I think marble does too...

Settling on hills/plains with a resource that provides a +1 bonus (without the improvement).

Therefore, settling on hills/plains with stone, marble, copper, iron, aluminum, coal, oil, uranium, etc.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Disagree with this. If building on top of a resource will give access to tiles that, combined, grant a greater tile output than the improved resource tile, then it can be a good idea. Sugar, wine, spices, fur, dyes - among the number of resources that I'd frequently have no trouble placing a city on top of. Last week I had a city that had greater production output when built on top of an iron resource than it would have had had it been built on any of the surrounding tiles.

Placing a city on plains hills marble or stone can be a powerful tactic in the very early game (3 hammers on the city tile). I'll frequently move my initial settler on to such a tile.

Obviously in your case, your right. But its best to say "never build on a resource, unless doing say will give you a better overall city in the long run", which is a bit hard to judge for new players

I still take note of the blue circles, cos very occasionally, I've missed something, and that site dos actually turn out to be better. But at least it makes you stop and think, which is a good thing. Often, it just uses pure greed when analysing food sources, say trying to put 4 food sources in one city, when it becomes easy with practice, for the player to see that this will leave a next city with no growth potential. The player can see that using 3 food in this city, and leaving one for the next city, will result in 2 excellent longterm cities, instead of one excellent, and one you wished you didnt have to build

 

[OTAKUjbski]

But its best to say "never build on a resource, unless

... you need the resource right meow!"

It's not a frequent occasion, but there've been times when I needed a jumpstart to my military campaign and used settling on Copper/Iron/Horses as a means to the end.

Especially if the resource is next to a river in your trade network or on the coast, settling on top of the resource gives you instant access and can save countless Worker turns you would have otherwise been waiting to bring the resource online.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

... you need the resource right meow!"

It's not a frequent occasion, but there've been times when I needed a jumpstart to my military campaign and used settling on Copper/Iron/Horses as a means to the end.

Especially if the resource is next to a river in your trade network or on the coast, settling on top of the resource gives you instant access and can save countless Worker turns you would have otherwise been waiting to bring the resource online.

Ok I agree, in certain circumstances, there is that too

 

[largedarryl]

I didn't see it mentioned, but building a city on a desert tile has some very good advantages. Since a desert tile is useless, the only improvement that makes it better is a city. Since a city built on a desert will produce 2F1H1C from a tile that normally produces nothing.

 

[Wlauzon]

Not quite. The city's central tile will always be 2F1H1C unless the base tile is better in one of those stats, in which you'll get the better base stat (including resources, but not including overlays like forest or flood plains). So settling on top of a plains Iron (1F2H) gives a 2F2H1C central tile, but settling on top of a grass Iron (2F1H) just gives the normal 2F1H1C central tile.

And while there certainly are cases where settling on a resource is correct, we should recognize that they are the exceptions to the rule.

peace,
lilnev

I almost always avoid building on a resource, but there are a couple of exceptions - like for marble and stone quarries, and horses. The main reason for that is to make sure I don't get them pillaged by barbs or other civs. I hate it when I am halfway into building a wonder and I lose my bonus for having stone..