What is your policy on tundra, desert, mountain and ice tiles?

[Rusty Edge]

In BTS forts can be used to acquire resources, and to serve as ports to connect them to your empire. Don't be afraid to use the tool.

 

[acuoio]

Try playing a Fantasy map with resources set to Crazy.

I remember my last map - my capital city had 2 tundra, 1 ice, and 1 mountain. But it also had 9 resources in the 3x3 radius.

Play this type of map and you'll get over your fear of "bad tiles."

 

[acuoio]

if you do this, that tile HAS to be worked - but if you put it into your city radius, you can choose not to work it, and get the benefits from working some other tile.

one of the few times I'd suggest settling on a low-yield tile in this manner is if it's necessary to max out the number of resources in your radius.

I believe what the poster meant was that these negative squares can't be worked unless you put a city on top of them. Then you get the default 2/1/1 for the city square.

So if you have a 21 square plot with 20 flood plains and 1 desert, you plop your city on the desert square.

 

[MarkM]

I believe what the poster meant was that these negative squares can't be worked unless you put a city on top of them. Then you get the default 2/1/1 for the city square.

So if you have a 21 square plot with 20 flood plains and 1 desert, you plop your city on the desert square.

Yes, that's how I read it too (and what I do).

First of all, as someone pointed out in disagreeing with someone else's criteria, you are not always founding cities for the benefit of the city itself, but it's contribution to your greater empire. So if it doesn't pay for itself directly (it's a drag on maintenance costs rather than a generator of cashflow/research), that's still ok as long as it does something for the empire as a whole. What it does could be many things: hooking up a resource you don't have yet & have no better source for (beaver, deer, silver, and sometimes iron or copper typically), or maybe just "filling in" your borders to keep barbarians from spawning there in the short run, and AI civs from establishing a new front on your borders in the longer run.

Second, as someone else pointed out, the most important key is having a few GOOD tiles --at least one of which has to produce > 2 food -- not whether you have a bunch of BAD tiles. In other words, a location with just a few nice resources & must of the rest junky I might actually settle first over a location that is something close to uninterrupted plains.

If I do settle in this kind of location, after realizing that objective of capturing as many of the few good tiles in the city radius as I can, the tie breaker for final candidates is how many marginal/"break even" tiles I can also have. Since one of the ways you can often get an extra "break even" tile is by NOT settling on it & settling on an otherwise completely worthless tile (desert, ice) instead -- thus making it a productive tile -- I find I very often pick those, as prev poster suggested. Another big tiebreaker is whether it is on a coast (so I can build lighthouse & get +1 food from water tiles -- food is always a big deal for these cities).

Finally, I'd like to point out that tundra & desert are not as useless as some make them out to be, *if* they also have hills, or rivers. If you're more than halfway into the game, you can plan on eventually building windmills or watermills there, which with late game techs/civics can become "break even" tiles (though you really do need those key 1-2 good food source tiles (usually deer and/or fish/crab/clam & a coastal city) to make them worthwhile. Mines of course are also productive, but unless there is a resource like silver or iron to be had I usually won't bother (or just mine temporarily), as like I said the food is usually the big issue and a windmill will give you +1 eventually while a mine will not.

 

[tiznoast]

I believe what the poster meant was that these negative squares can't be worked unless you put a city on top of them. Then you get the default 2/1/1 for the city square.

So if you have a 21 square plot with 20 flood plains and 1 desert, you plop your city on the desert square.

right, i mean... i understand that - but if thread's about discussing what to do with areas that are full of ice/tundra/desert - your city's going to be smaller anyway, wouldn't you rather put your city down on a tile that lets you get more than just the 2/1/1 - and then have that useless tile unworked elsewhere?

 

[Landstander]

With Cereal Mills/Sushi and Mining Inc/Creative - any city can be a decent city - for a price!!

 

[acuoio]

right, i mean... i understand that - but if thread's about discussing what to do with areas that are full of ice/tundra/desert - your city's going to be smaller anyway, wouldn't you rather put your city down on a tile that lets you get more than just the 2/1/1 - and then have that useless tile unworked elsewhere?

A city tile is always 2/1/1 no matter what it's on. Even if there are horses founded in your city walls, it's still 2/1/1.

Your first choice for founding an edge city is a hill for the defense. For other cities, it's the crappiest tile in the area - tundra/desert/ice.

 

[tiznoast]

A city tile is always 2/1/1 no matter what it's on. Even if there are horses founded in your city walls, it's still 2/1/1.

Your first choice for founding an edge city is a hill for the defense. For other cities, it's the crappiest tile in the area - tundra/desert/ice.

well then my argument is stupid.

lol

my bad.

 

[hoopsnerd]

tiznoast: any plot under a city gets the same terrain bonuses, unless it's a plains with a hill, and then you get +1 hammer. Otherwise it makes no difference if you settle on a Desert or on a Grassland with Cows.

edit: nevermind

 

[tiznoast]

been playing this game since 2005 in all its forms and still didn't know that

man i phail. lol

 

[lilnev]

A city tile is always 2/1/1 no matter what it's on. Even if there are horses founded in your city walls, it's still 2/1/1.

Incorrect. A city tile is at least 2/1/1, but will be better if the unimproved tile has a better yield in one of those catagories. A city on a plains hill will be 2/2/1, a city on grassland Corn will be 3/1/1, and a city on riverside Dye will be 2/1/2, for example. The latter two you're unlikely to want, as you get less of a benefit than you would settling next to them and improving them. But I have settled on plains hills with Marble (2/3/1), for example, in a food-poor area. Or on grassland Sugar (3/1/1) when it seemed the best spot.

peace,
lilnev

 

[greggbert]

Well my most hated tile type is plains because I never know what the heck to do with those things, and I'm always flipping their improvements around. Usually I just leave them forested or use them to spread irrigation. I hate those things.

 

[Sephlock]

Desert is my most hated terrain... I just hate to see it.... so many map scripts have so much of it in....

*Perks up*

"So many"? GIMMIE A LIST OF WHICH ONES DON'T!

I'll need to wait 4000 years before tourists start paying to camel trek across before they'll do anything for my empire.

*grasping at straws here*

Is there really an event like that? Please tell me that there is.

I kinda know that there isn't, but hey .

 

[Hawe Hawe]

I like managing cities in suboptimal locations, it is a special task, and in the late game im sometimes more proud of my size 13 tundra cities than some wonder metropolis. It is more a personal flavor thing, because in a rational cost-benefit i would rather avoid those locations.
Best thing you have in the Tundra is lots of forest. But be careful where you chop forests in the tundra.
1. Generally chop less and let the forests spread
2. Chop on hills: you should place windmills there later
3. Chopping on riversides is ok, farms on riversides are the only terrain, that lets your city grow with tundra only squares.
I have good experiences with settling Great Merchants in a tundra city, if it is not total crap. That sounds stupid, but the plus 1 food makes it possible to work the tundra-riverside furs for example. Another extra food is provided by the supermarket (i didn't notice that in Warlords, is it a new feature?) So a supermarket is a very good building in food scarse regions. I also expect the Khmer baray UB to work wonders in these locations, but i haven't played them yet.

 

[Colee]

In BTS forts can be used to acquire resources, and to serve as ports to connect them to your empire. Don't be afraid to use the tool.

And what happens if a rival civ settles a city right next to my fort? Don't I lose the resource then, as it will become their cultural territory?

 

[GoodGame]

pretty much as has been said:

Deserts are the price paid for flood plains, though 2 deserts for 1 flood plain isn't a good exchange rate. Flood plains are more useful in the early game for quick growth, or later with lots of towns, but because of the sickness, less than 2 flood plains for 1 desert isn't great, unless the alternative is lots of un-irrigatible plains.

Mountains create choke points, so they're not completely worthless. Usually gaining one green hill / grassland for accepting a mountain is a good exchange.

Tundra is avoided unless it's riverfront, or forested. More than 33% tundra is a waste, and there better be lots of river grassland in the bargain (or lots of riverfront tundra with a last a couple tiles of grassland). Still better than desert.

Ice is treated like desert, though only a rare luxury or strategic resource is worth settling at the poles, in most cases.

 

[UncleJJ]

Domination victories are won by reaching the % of world pop and % of land tiles. Tundra cities won't help much with pop but they can control a lot of land tiles including ice and tundra outside their fat cross. In that sense they can contribute more to your victory than a much more productive city in the middle of the map.

Another economic consideration for founding an ice-city in BtS is whether you have any religious advantages such as the Apostolic Palace, UoS or Spiral Minaret. These small cities can eventually become economic by virtue of their religious buildings. No need to build markets and banks in them but a library can be useful when you run Mercantilism. Later in the game each of your cities can build all the basic spy buildings, courthouse, jail, intelligence agency and pump out loads of EPs.

Ice and tundra cities aren't great by any means but they can usually pay for themselves with careful management and if they grab a resource that the whole empire can use or even one you can trade to another civ for other resources or gold or even to get a diplomatic bonus "We are grateful for the resources you've supllied us with", then they are certainly worthwhile.

 

[Antilogic]

BtS is changing some of my opinions of "marginal" tiles, but not enough. I'm not saying they aren't useful, but they are not my first pick. I'll get those furs eventually, but not before I go for the grassland paradise city.

 

[Rusty Edge]

And what happens if a rival civ settles a city right next to my fort? Don't I lose the resource then, as it will become their cultural territory?

I believe so. Of course I'd consider it a provocation to war.

EDIT -

I had a revelation in another thread - forts don't connect resources beyond your borders. Therefore my opinions are wrong.

See post #5 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5826929&posted=1#post5826929

Either way I'm sorry for confusing anyone, and I'm sorry for disagreeing with everyone who knew what they were talking about.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

i treat tundra like any other food deficient terrain. I settle on coasts to prevent food problems in tundra or ice, and build lighthouse (no starvation now). then use late game terrain improvements to get the best out of river zones in tundra, and NEVER chop forests up in the cold lands