Building on a mountain

[Nick Garai]

Okay, this probably has been done but I build a city on top of a mountain. If I can I try to fortify on the moountain top, then build the city there. The defense bonus is wild.

Before I build the city, I try to irrigate a couple of squares around the mountain to get some additional food.

Mountain Building Empires are great for defense and hard to conquer. Units move slow to approach them and aircraft can quickly dispatch most ground units before they get anywhere near the city.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

If you set one settler to mine the mountain and then have a seond one build the city before the first is done you can get more production out of it as well.

A fort on a mountain also gives great defensive bonuses as well.

 

[Nick Garai]

Can you mine on a mountain at the same time that a city is being built?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

A city is built instantly, so, as long as you start the mining first and then build the city before the mining is done, yes. Works on hills too.

 

[sethos]

You can mine and build a city in the same turn, but you must begin to mine first.
You can do the same with oil. This city will have a great production.

 

[Peaster]

I wonder if/when building on mountains is good strategy...? IMO you should rarely have to defend in SP games. So I never build on mts, and almost never on hills. Defense is much more important in MP/PBEM games.

 

[sethos]

I'll settle on mountains, tundra, glacier
1) if the spot of a strategic interest
(e.g. on an isthmus, connection between two oceans)
2) to keep AI units out of my territory
3) if the spot has 3 or 4 special fields

 

[Kessey]

If you can find a mountain surrounded by a river, build a fortress or 2, and no one will take over your city, EVER!

Take care,

Jay

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I wonder if/when building on mountains is good strategy...? IMO you should rarely have to defend in SP games. So I never build on mts, and almost never on hills. Defense is much more important in MP/PBEM games.

I rarely build on mountains, but I love building on hills that are being mined.
Let see how your theory of interest applies here.

You get 2 food and 3 shields at city center. (3 food after supermarket and 4 shields after railroad.) Compare this to building on Plains where you get 2 food, one shield, and one arrow. (3 food after supermarket, 2 arrows in republic/democracy, and 3 arrows after superhighways.)
The food out put is the same. The trade off is 2-3 shields versus 1-3 arrows for an initial investment of 11 settler turns (1 to go on the hill and 10 to mine it). Using a 5% rate of return, the initial investment of settler time is equivalent to 22 shields. Again using 5% the trade off should pay 1.1 shields per turn. Equating 2 arrows to one shield the hill only loses after republic/democracy and before railraod by 0.2 arrows; otherwise it wins (by 0.8 or 1.8 arrows).

After Engineers, it takes only 6 turns (1 to go on the hill and 5 to mine) for a mined hill city making the initial investment only 12 shields, thus the trade off becomes even more worthwhile.

I should also point out that for cities with infrastructure the plains has an advantage in that improvements that increase arrow yield (library, marketplace, university, bank, ...) come about far sooner than improvements that increase shield yield (factory, power plant, and manufacturing center).

Last, but not the least, you get the extra defense bonus for the city on the hill. I do not know how to apply your theory of interest to this one.

 

[Stegyre]

The trade off is 2-3 shields versus 1-3 arrows for an initial investment of 11 settler turns (1 to go on the hill and 10 to mine it). Using a 5% rate of return, the initial investment of settler time is equivalent to 22 shields. Again using 5% the trade off should pay 1.1 shields per turn. Equating 2 arrows to one shield the hill only loses after republic/democracy and before railraod by 0.2 arrows; otherwise it wins (by 0.8 or 1.8 arrows).

And if we mine/build on a wine hill . . . . (Or my favorite, a gold mountain).

I need to practice applying this interest theory to civ2 decision making. My own favorite "build" spot is on a river, and I transform all river tiles (including those beneath my city) to mined hills once engineers are available. I suspect the interest theory says that's a big waste of time, but to me, each "rivered hill" is the equivalent of an additional special within the city limits.

 

[ElephantU]

I've played several games with Size1 cities on Gold Mountains. It is the ultimate in OCC play, but rare to find a good location either by the sea or on a continent with several other players. Worth a try!

 

[Nick Garai]

Building a city on a mountain is NOT the easiest thing to do. If you irrigate some of the squares around it then it can pay off, particularly if it on a gold mine.

The advantage is the additional defensive bonus you get as well as units having a harder time to reach you. building cities along a mountain range as outpost cities to conduct raids from has some strategic advantages although this takes time to set up.

 

[Peaster]

I rarely build on mountains, but I love building on hills that are being mined. Let see how your theory of interest applies here.

....for an initial investment of 11 settler turns (1 to go on the hill and 10 to mine it). Using a 5% rate of return, the initial investment of settler time is equivalent to 22 shields.

I didn't quite follow this last part. I figure that a Settler's time is worth almost 5 shields per turn (almost the same as the total production of a new city - so the typical settler is worth much more than the 40 shields you paid for it). If this is correct, the 11 turn annuity seems worth about 40 shields.

IIRC the benefit of pre-mining is +2 shields per turn under monarchy (right?). This infinite annuity is worth about 40 shields. But you have to wait 11 turns before it starts, so it is really worth only about 20-25 shields, less than the value of the settler's time.

Not sure this tells the whole story accurately. But I never pre-mine in SP games (I build mostly on grass or plains-specials). I sometimes pre-mine in PBEMS, because settlers work twice as fast in MP mode, and because hills are good for defense.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I didn't quite follow this last part. I figure that a Settler's time is worth almost 5 shields per turn (almost the same as the total production of a new city - so the typical settler is worth much more than the 40 shields you paid for it). If this is correct, the 11 turn annuity seems worth about 40 shields.

Settler costs 40 shields and thus a decent return on it is 5% which is 2 shields per turn. 5 shields per turn for settler is too much as you argued yourself back when we first had discussions about this.
However, I did ignore the fact that a settler also costs 1 food per turn. Figuring food into this is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, one can argue that 1 food equates 1 shield because you can switch from shielded grass to forest. On the other hand, with 3 settler turns I can make the shielded grass yield 1 arrow as well and I cannot do that with the forest. Furthermore, at higher difficulty levels you want to keep city sizes small to prevent unrest so at some point the loss of food is actually desirable. Also, under Republic/Democracy settlers eat 2 foods per turn.
If we do equate 1 food to 1 shield then the hill top city loses to city on plains (ignoring the defense bonus that we do not know how to model).

IIRC the benefit of pre-mining is +2 shields per turn under monarchy (right?).

It is +2 in despotism, +3 in Monarchy and above. I deliberately ignored despotism as any good player's goal is to get out of despotism as quickly as possible.

 

[Ace]

I sometimes pre-mine in PBEMS, because settlers work twice as fast in MP mode, and because hills are good for defense.

Huh? Please explain how settlers work "twice as fast in MP mode". A settler is a settler and the "mode" does not increase its production speed unless your playing the double production, double speed mode in MP.

 

[Peaster]

Settler costs 40 shields and thus a decent return on it is 5% which is 2 shields per turn. 5 shields per turn for settler is too much as you argued yourself back when we first had discussions about this.

I'd like to help sort this out, but I've forgotten the earlier comment. Can you provide a link, or more info ? I use different methods for SP/MP and may have gotten confused in at least one of these discussions.

BTW - The settler also costs a food box, and reduces the mother city's size and production. These usually have less value than the 40 shields, but I'm just saying the cost is a bit mysterious. It's probably simpler to look at what it can do [eg make a city].

However, I did ignore the fact that a settler also costs 1 food per turn. Figuring food into this is somewhat complicated.... If we do equate 1 food to 1 shield then the hill top city loses to city on plains (ignoring the defense bonus that we do not know how to model).

I guess food is cheaper under some governments, or more valuable with poor terrain. But IMO 1 food to 1 shield is close enough for general thinking like this.

It is +2 in despotism, +3 in Monarchy and above. I deliberately ignored despotism as any good player's goal is to get out of despotism as quickly as possible.

I just checked this in a PBEM/MP game, under monarchy, and found that a normal hill city gets +1s from its city site, while a mined hill city gets +3s [I assume it is the same in SP]. So, the difference is only +2, which is what I meant by "the benefit of mining".

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Huh? Please explain how settlers work "twice as fast in MP mode". A settler is a settler and the "mode" does not increase its production speed unless your playing the double production, double speed mode in MP.

In MP games units can do things a bit faster, almost like double efforts. For instance a settler can normally finsih a road in one turn rather than two. A unit can move and fortify (actually fortify, not just select it from the menu) in the same turn rather then having to do it separate turns.

My guess is that it was designed to try and speed up the game for MP games.

 

[Peaster]

Right. And in MP mode, when a settler starts a job, it gains TWO charges instead of just one. By starting - waking - starting - waking etc you can make it mine (or whatever) twice as fast. With waking, you get 2+2+2+...
but without waking you get 2+1+1+... Engineers are similar. For details, see the settler thread in the Apolyton GL. IIRC this is true in "network" games, but not "hotseat" games.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I'd like to help sort this out, but I've forgotten the earlier comment. Can you provide a link, or more info ?

Here is the quote from the item you started in this forum on the subject:

If you cannot do better than 5%, invest in growth (eg settlers), which usually returns about 5%.

Also see my response #10 in that item.

I just checked this in a PBEM/MP game, under monarchy, and found that a normal hill city gets +1s from its city site, while a mined hill city gets +3s [I assume it is the same in SP]. So, the difference is only +2, which is what I meant by "the benefit of mining".

It is the same in single player game. You are correct that a mined hill city is only +2s (+3s after railroad) ahead of a regular hill city.
I did my earlier analysis comparing plain city to a mined hill city. I should have just compared a mined hill city to a regular hill city which is a lot easier to compare. So here it is:

For a cost of 11 settler turns we get +2s before railroad and +3s afterwards.
The 11 settler turns is an investment of 22 shields (5% of 40s) plus 11 food in Monarchy. Assuming 1 food equals 1 shield then the investment is 33 shields and its 5% return is 1.65. Thus the mining is well worth it.

In higher forms of government the food cost is 2 per turn. Equating one food to one shield at this point is not proper as by this point any shielded grass you may want to work on already has a road if not irrigation. Ignoring that and still going with 1 food = 1 shield the invesment should return 2.2 shields per turn which it will not before railroad but does afterwards. Given that the difference after is +0.8 and before -0.2 I say this is still worth it.

Once Engineers are available the mining takes only 6 turns and thus is even more worthwhile.

Conclusion: It is almost always beneficial to pre mine a hill city.

 

[Peaster]

Ali - IMO your reasoning has errors.

1) You have confused cost with value. For example, an obsolete wonder might cost 200s, but would have no real value (except for score). Likewise, the cost of a settler may not match its value. The difference may be minor, but the value of a settler is easier to compute (I am not sure, for example, whether the "cost of settlers" should include general growth costs such as roads, HG, etc, for our purposes). So, I still think the value of a settler's turn is closer to 5s than 2s or even 3s.

2) You ignored "present value". A payment of 5+5+...+5 (11 times) is not worth 55, but more like 5x20x(.4) = 40s. This is from the formula for a geometric sum. Likewise, the future value of the mining is 2+2+2+... (forever) which is worth about 40s, but this should be discounted 11 turns, to about 40x(0.6) = 24s. [I rounded (1.05)^(-11) to 0.6, and previously used 0.4 = 1.0 - 0.6]

If this is too complicated, imagine that the miner makes a city instead. And that in 11 turns it makes a new settler, which makes another city. This way, your benefit [after 11 turns] is 2 cities. The other way it is just the mining, plus 1 city; much less. This is not too accurate because you can't make cities this fast, but it makes the same point -

It is usually not beneficial to pre-mine in SP games