City Placement question

[McGoo]

I'm playing the Vikings and need to place a city to grab the copper. The question I have is whether to place the city where the warrier is or to move it one East. I hate to give up coastal with a financial leader, but to work the copper I need all the grasslands I can get.

The other option would be to skip the city and fort the copper, if I understand how forts work?

And how do you post the image directly into the message? could not figure that one out

 

[Refar]

I would place the copper city on the other coast. Where your warrior is now, the copper is not even in the City radius. Neither is the stone. You would need the borders to grow twice to hook up the ressources.

I would put the city on the desert hill right next to the copper. This way the copper stone and the food-stuff (Corn ?) is in the Workable and you are coastal. You loose one Grassland, yes. But with the Corn and two Workable graslands you will have enought food to work the Stone, Copper and perhaps one more mine.

There is a "Insert image button" above the text input area - looks yellowish.

 

[McGoo]

Now that I look at it again, I don't know why I didn't think of that option to begin with. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Maybe I was thinking about the fresh water, but this city will never be that big anyway.

Thanks

 

[xanadux]

What Refar said, and you don't even lose a grassland because the one the warrior is on will now be worked. 1NW of the copper gives you the most potential food.

Plus, if the purpose of the city is to get the copper hooked up, being right next to it is the best. At normal speed, with a monument, would take 100 turns for second border pop, 50 with a religion.

 

[Refar]

I was looking at 1NW of copper as well. It has more food but looses the grassland hill. I figured the city does not actually need that much food, since there is not much to work - other than the ressources and the grassland hill Not sure however, if this is right.

Looking at the screenshot i noticed something else - you are settling a island far away from your capital. I assume there is no other copper closer. But you should concider the Off-Shore maintenance - you are already in the red. Perhaps skiping copper and going for a source of iron would be better, if one is within reach. You will need iron anyway later

 

[slaze]

Settle on the stone. Unless there's food for the gold up north.

 

[McGoo]

I was looking at 1NW of copper as well. It has more food but looses the grassland hill. I figured the city does not actually need that much food, since there is not much to work - other than the ressources and the grassland hill Not sure however, if this is right.

Looking at the screenshot i noticed something else - you are settling a island far away from your capital. I assume there is no other copper closer. But you should concider the Off-Shore maintenance - you are already in the red. Perhaps skiping copper and going for a source of iron would be better, if one is within reach. You will need iron anyway later

I hear what you are saying, but this is an archipelago map and this was the only source of copper. There just is not that many great city sites, and I had already settled a city to the south because it was a really good site and had a number of resources. I'm running at 60% and making money, and as soon as I get a couple more courthouses on line I'll be able to just back to 70%. I'm financial and I have built the colossus - so I'm doing ok. I also plan on building the forbidden palace on this island since it is the only one I have found so far that has room for more than a couple of cities.

I ended up building on the hill before reading all the posts. I am hurting for production cities and this will have to be one, so I want to work the stone and the copper. The corn will give me enough to do this and to watermill the grassland river tile and to mine the grassland hill.

 

[Defiant47]

Settle on the stone. Unless there's food for the gold up north.

Seconded...

 

[LlamaCat]

I agree, I would not have hesitated to settle directly on the stone if I were playing. this seems like an easy decision for me, but of course I'm in the peanut gallery and not playing this game the stone site gets you all 4 resources and coastal. there's enough food to work the gold and copper and 1 hill or forest, and the extra production in the city square helps that.

you're not in bad shape economically at -4 gold at 100% science and this looks like your 4th city. the gold will pay for the city soon enough and the access to copper makes any cost worth it now.

the other reason is thinking long-term: cities on another land are going to cost you colony maintenance, so space out the cities better to grab as many resources as possible and so have less cities.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I think settling on the desert hill was a good choice.

At pop 6, you can work every tile but the two Plains for 15 or assign two specialists for 8 & 6 (or or w/e).

EDIT: Actually, since you have the Colossus and are Financial, I'd recommend running 8 and using your +4 to grow the city and work all the coastal tiles.

Also, even though you don't need a city for a canal anymore, having the city on the hill saves one fort-building for making a canal. I think this spot makes a decent little port city.

The landmass looks just large enough to fit one more city up north, and I imagine there's seafood around that little peninsula, so the Gold should go nicely up there to boost production in that city.




-- my 2

 

[xanadux]

The more I look on this, the more I think settling on the stone is the best call. Production and food are similar to other choices, but the big difference is long term potential ... you are financial (and have colossus), and this site gives the most available coast squares. A very good Moai statues city, especially since it has the production to build the statues.