Would you settle on this deer?

[bhavv]

The next dilemma, as Inca would you settle on this deer?

Spoiler :

Cons - you lose the deer.
Pros - You gain 4 workable salts and 2 great terrace sites with 3 adjacent mountains.

 

[ArnoldI]

I think I would. The salt is much worth losing the deer, specially with Terrace Farms.

 

[Chabshaile]

Yes. Settle the deer, its not that great anyway.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

I'd go for it. I think trying to settle on a hill or next to a mountain would either put you out of range of some of the salt or uncomfortably close to Mombasa.

 

[Xiao Xiong]

I *think* you don't entirely lose the deer in that if you build a granary I think you still get the food bonus for the deer under your city. Could be wrong...

 

[Crafty Bison]

Yes, settle on the deer. Being the Inca doesn't change much:
- Many of the TF spots are filled with sheep, in order to get a better outcome for TFs in your 3 ring (ok on the deer you may need to buy a tile or two), you'd need to settle on one of the sheep anyway, which kind of defeats the point.
- Losing the +1 gold at economics is not a big deal as you may end up getting a gold yield in your capital anyway, so golden ages are unaffected (edit: oops, didn't see your other cities. Still, its not a big deal with the amount of plains salt you have)
- Do you lose the granary bonus? Either way, It's not a super early granary start position.

Then, viewed from the eyes of a standard civ, it seems like it's obviously the way to go. Plus as the Inca, you're giving yourself more space to found mountain cities east that will make good use of the terrain, whereas founding a mountain city here might mess your city planning up.

 

[NASAROG]

Yup. That's a lot of salt.

 

[bhavv]

You don't lose the granary bonus, the city tile gives 3 food.

You lose the camp bonuses though, not a big deal.

 

[Xiao Xiong]

Yes and also eventually send a great general to steal a few more tiles from Mombasa. You can get a silver and two more sheep in exchange for 1 GG and Mombasa hating you --after any long war you will probably have a GG to spare and that's a good deal.

 

[johnny5000]

You lose deer when you settle on them?
I had a game where I settled on horses and I definitely got the horses after I settled.

Does it depend on if they are luxury or strategic resources?

 

[bhavv]

Deer are just a food bonus. You lose the improved yields that the camp would give, thats all.

 

[Vitruvius]

You lose deer when you settle on them?
I had a game where I settled on horses and I definitely got the horses after I settled.

Does it depend on if they are luxury or strategic resources?

= Assuming its a grassland horse =

You don't lose the horse or stable bonus. But you change the 2F1H (horse) tile into a 2F1H (city) tile. If you settled on a grassland tile instead, you change 2F to 2F1H, so you get a bonus H by not settling on the horse. Same for any luxuries.

So lets say you have to choose between settling on a grassland horse or an adjacent grassland, do this mental calculation:

Settle on grassland:
City: 2F1H
Horse: 2F1H, 2F2H with pasture, 2F3H with stables, 3F3H after fertilizer
Total: 5F4H for the two tiles in question

Settle on horse:
City: 2F1H, 2F2H with stables
Grassland: 2F, 3F with farms, 4F after civil service/fertilizer
Total: 6F2H

The total yield from settling on the grassland will be higher, but will have 1 less food. It depends on what you want more, food or hammers.

Now lets look at the OP post:

=assuming you don't steal the Mombasa land=

Settle on Deer:
City: 2F1H, 3F1H with Granary
Salt: 3F2H1G with mines
Cotton: 3F3G with plantation and fertilizer
Total: 9F3H4G

Settle on Cotton:
City: 2F1H2G
No Salt but we will have to use this citizen to work lets say a farmed grassland hill: 2F2H
Deer: 3F2H1G with Granary
Total: 7F5H3G

The difference is not big.

But I would settle on Deer just because you can steal Mombasa's land

 

[reddishrecue]

Yes and then sell the extra silver.

 

[m15a]

- Would you settle on this deer?
- Sure thing honey!



(Also, yes, I would.)