Build city in desert?

[über_Rabbit]

Should I build cities in the desert? I really don't like doing it, as it results in food shortages very quickly. However, the desert gets in the way of my city-building strategy. So, should I build there, then focus on getting irrigation to it asap?

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

Build it simply to use the tiles once superior sites are no longer available. Then don't worry about letting it grow until railroads when you can get 2 food from irrigate. That is, unless you're playing Conquests and have the agricultural trait.

 

[BasketCase]

Building a city near a desert isn't a problem if there's other good territory around.

Building a city IN a desert will confine the city to size 2 for much of the game, but will still add some production, as well as adding territory points to your score.

Once you get railroads, the picture changes. Every desert square can then be turned into a 2 food 1 shield producer, adding to your cities on the edge of deserts. And cities totally surrounded by deserts can grow to size 21.

 

[Turner]

Don't forget grabbing territory that potentially has oil and saltpeter on it.

If you see the AI plopping down in the middle of the desert, the land probably has a resource there....

 

[scoutsout]

If you see the AI plopping down in the middle of the desert, the land probably has a resource there....

...yeah.."probably"

As for deserts: If you can settle a desert tile that is next to better land you can often get the cities to size 4-6, which will make them useful enough until rails come along. For example: If you settle a desert tile with 2 plains tiles next to the city center, you ought to be able to grow that to size 4... If you find a desert site with some floodplains nearby you can actually make that into a decent city.

Similar concepts apply to tundra... and sometimes you can make a decent 'fishing village' from a coastal tundra site.

 

[Dragonlord]

Another reason to build in low-value terrain like desert, tundra and jungle is to deny it to the AI. If you don't claim it, some rival civ WILL! This will probably mean a rival enclave in your territory which you will have to watch out for - in the worst case a bridgehead for invasion by the AI!

I always try to keep my borders as short as possible so I have to earmark the least possible amount of defenders to hold my cities - so I DON'T want some pesky AI city intruding into them!

 

[dgfred]

Don't forget grabbing territory that potentially has oil and saltpeter on it.

If you see the AI plopping down in the middle of the desert, the land probably has a resource there....

City in desert= more for you sooner or later always a good idea.

Or you could play as agricultural civ like I do (Celts) Love em !

 

[Randy]

A least you can pump out a worker every 5-10 turns

 

[Prince David]

Like Turner I view settling deserts as a strategic move. The same goes for jungles and tundra. A lot of really crucial resources show up in really margial terrain in the middle to late stages of the game.

Another option is to encircle the desert - move over to the far side and settle there. Eventually you will claim it through culture or settle when you see a good resource. In may ways I like this strat better as I always seem to either get the resource just outside my city radius (where I can "use" it but not work it), wind up with a less than optimal city placement vis a vis the resource, or just be too darned cramped.

If going for the edge technique be sure to place your center tile ON A DESERT SQUARE. Nothing worse than wasting a plains (or worse - floodplain!) by placing your city there!

 

[über_Rabbit]

Yeah, I took all that into consideration when i planted two cities in the desert. Most of all, though, I didn't want the Roman Empire to steal land from my "peaceful" Greek people. The same peace Greek people that are allied with Egypt to rid the world of the filthy Romans.

 

[general_kill]

i agree with building cities in plain [plain as in no resources] deserts as a last resort to pump your scores and to deny it of your enemy if for nothing else. however i guess it can be argued that instead of spending shields and population (and gold produced by those pops) on a settler and having to spend even more resources defending a useless piece of land, it would be wiser to spend it on building a stronger military that can be used to take those cities later on.

 

[Von Diplomacy]

well if the desert has a coast, or a sea next to it then it's worth while, you have a lot of food and commeraca from the sea, and you enjoy the shields from the desert. as to the accusations that it costs a lot to build a settler and you better spend those shields and population more wisely, I think building a "useless" city in a desert still serves you good as it takes the immediate need of a tample or city improvements, not speaking about the need for an aquadect that may require high tech and many shields...

 

[eldar]

If there's a lot of floodplains, unless there's a spare plain or hill or lake around to settle on, it's usually better to lose one floodplain to gain the fresh water source for the city. Oh, and make sure there are shield-giving tiles in the radius, otherwise your floodplain city will end up uber-unproductive unless you can quickly rush a temple/library quickly.

Neil.

 

[Tomoyo]

I always settle everything, and it looks somewhat wierd for me to have a big hole in the middle of my empire (or of a different color) including deserts which I seems to never be able to get unless I start in it in which the case would be I got screwed by the RNG.

Desert cities are useful for just denying it to the AI. Jungle is quality land, and Tundra usually = lots of coast = $$

 

[über_Rabbit]

Well, I guess it's not the desert cities I have to worry about. Though I hate to do it, I've built irrigation from a river six tiles away, supplying all my desert cities with enough food to have a full or nearly full granary.

But the problem is the city I built in the hills. This hills city is completely surrounded by hills, except for the coast that it rests on. It's at size 2 and I have once again managed to stop its growth by producing one-too-many settlers. So, how shall I solve this problem?

 

[scoutsout]

It's at size 2 and I have once again managed to stop its growth by producing one-too-many settlers. So, how shall I solve this problem?

Is there a food bonus in any coastal tile? If not, the biggest be able to get that city is all available coastal/sea tiles, plus 2 hills. You will need a harbor, and you could grow it by joining workers.

 

[Prince David]

This works pretty well for any slow growing or static city. I will use captured workers once I get ahead of updating my infrastructure. Settlers and workers can be used and I will sometimes use this to bring down the pop. of a large city that is bigger than I can currently keep happy (war weariness, sudden loss of traded lux, etc.). I will often do this if I capture a large city far away and it is too corrupt to produce much but has good food production.