City Squares Defensive Bonus

[erronius]

Does a city enjoy the defensive bonus of its tile? I.e., I build a city on a hill, it will receive the defensive bonus in addition to whatever other bonuses (wall, civil defense, etc).

Edit: Oh, and does a city built on jungle/floodplain suffer unavoidable disease or are they ok?

Thanks

 

[Buttercup]

Yes, your city will have the additional defence bonus of the terrain of the square it settled on, meaning Hills make for good border forts, however you do lose the production value of a hill which is often useful later in the game.

A city build on a jungle or floodplain wont have inherent disease, but it has the possibility of becoming diseased if any of those tiles are in it's radius. Jungle can be removed but floodplains can't be.

 

[justanick]

however you do lose the production value of a hill which is often useful later in the game.

That is not quite true. The production value is not lost, it is just so that a tile without production value gains 1 shield while it it would have zero. This means that a city(!) on hills will produce 2 shields and 2 food, a city on grassland only 1 shields and 2 food. A mined hill produces 3 shields and 1 food, a mined grassland 1 shields and 2 food. This means that building a city on hills instead of grassland has not economic disbenefit once city size is reached, in both cases both tiles add up to 7 productivity, which however may not be distributed equally on food and shields. Below city size the minimum shield level distorts the issue.

A city build on a jungle or floodplain wont have inherent disease, but it has the possibility of becoming diseased if any of those tiles are in it's radius. Jungle can be removed but floodplains can't be.

Still the disease chance from floodplains can be reducd to zero by tech.

When a city is founded on jungle the tile becomes grassland. Founding a city on floodplains does not change the tile, but as the output of a city tile does not depend on the tile founding on floodplains may be very unwise. Still the river associated with floodplains may make it reasonable at times.

 

[erronius]

Thanks for the responses, very helpful!

 

[Buttercup]

Ah ahaha.

That is not quite true. The production value is not lost, it is just so that a tile without production value gains 1 shield while it it would have zero. This means that a city(!) on hills will produce 2 shields and 2 food, a city on grassland only 1 shields and 2 food. A mined hill produces 3 shields and 1 food, a mined grassland 1 shields and 2 food. This means that building a city on hills instead of grassland has not economic disbenefit once city size is reached, in both cases both tiles add up to 7 productivity, which however may not be distributed equally on food and shields. Below city size the minimum shield level distorts the issue.

My point is not altered by this further detailing of the situation. The most important time for 3 Shields from a Hill is during the early stages of the game (but later than the initial Settling phase). This is the time when you've, hopefully, improved your government and are now working towards Libraries, Harbours, Aqueducts, Courthouses and maybe even Temples and Marketplaces. You might not even be able to get to size 12 before the sun sets if you choose to build on the Hill instead of the other piece of land, and even getting to size 12 the 2 instead of 3 could well still leave your production lost to Corruption, that one extra shield being the difference between 2 Production and 3 Production. And who's to assume that the alternative flatland is even Grassland, it could be Desert or Tundra, and Hill/Tundra combos are one of the most prevalent situations where this kind of choice can get bungled by a newer player. Your assumption that Grassland yields 2 Shields is based on post-Railroad industrialisation, a point in the game where most really important things have been built already and the combination of Railroads and Factories (and their improvements) makes fidling about with micro-numbers of Shields pretty freakin' irrelevant anyway unless you're trying to max a Wonder city/metro, and even then you could well be prioritising food again at that point anyway to get your 12s up to 20+. As per usual, your response sounds wonderful and accurate from a manual reading perspective, but a bit lacking on the practical application aspect. The nub of the question is: Is it worth sacrificing a Hill for the potential defence bonus? To which the answer is usually no, except for in very specific circumstances.

Still the disease chance from floodplains can be reducd to zero by tech.

I was going to mention the Tech advancements which reduced Disease, but I felt my post was getting too long already and, besides, that aspect is detailed well enough in the Civilopedia, the questions asked are not. I gave the guy the respect that he wasn't going to be asking about stuff that's in the Civilopedia

 

[justanick]

You might not even be able to get to size 12 before the sun sets if you choose to build on the Hill instead of the other piece of land

By settling on hills the net food output might be higher by irrigating the grassland, thus size 12 is reached faster.

And who's to assume that the alternative flatland is even Grassland,

It is the one nontrivial case. Settling on plains or even better desert will always be preferable. As for the question whether to settle on hills or tundra the possibilty of forests changes this in favour of not settling on tundra, but once railraids are available the combined productivity of tundra and hills does not depend on which of those 2 tiles a city is founded. It then is the same as with grassland. Economic reasons donnot favour to not found on hills.

Your assumption that Grassland yields 2 Shields

I assumed it to yield 1 shield.

 

[Buttercup]

By settling on hills the net food output might be higher by irrigating the grassland, thus size 12 is reached faster.

You wont ever reach size 12 no matter how much food you have if you don't have an aqueduct. I believe I said that quite clearly.

It is the one nontrivial case. Settling on plains or even better desert will always be preferable. As for the question whether to settle on hills or tundra the possibilty of forests changes this in favour of not settling on tundra, but once railraids are available the combined productivity of tundra and hills does not depend on which of those 2 tiles a city is founded. It then is the same as with grassland. Economic reasons donnot favour to not found on hills.

I have no idea why you suddenly claim Forests are somehow preferable to Hills on Tundra nor what your point is here. Firstly, you can't even grow Forests until the Middle Ages and, secondly, if you settle on the Hill and rely on the Forest for production then you can't chop the Forest in the early stages when production matters.

I assumed it to yield 1 shield.

You did, I must have misread, having been entirely bewildered by your "it all equals 7 eventually" nonsense. I apologise. I guess it helps if you actually read what the other guy wrote properly before responding, something maybe both of us should practice more?

 

[justanick]

You wont ever reach size 12 no matter how much food you have if you don't have an aqueduct. I believe I said that quite clearly.

Even after reading your posting once more cannot detect a claim that an aqueduct would not be finished in time because a city is founded on hills. Given that aqueducts should have a high priority either way it seems highly unlikely that an aqueduct will not be ready in time. That is unless construction is not reached in time. That would be game changing.

I have no idea why you suddenly claim Forests are somehow preferable to Hills on Tundra nor what your point is here.

city on hills + forest = 2 shields + 2 food + 2 shields + 1 food = 7 productivity
city on tundra + mined hills = 1 shields + 2 food + 3 shield + 1 food = 7 productivity

city on hills + mined railroaded tundra = 2 shields + 2 food + 2 shields + 1 food = 7 productivity
city on tundra + mined railroaded hills = 1 shields + 2 food + 4 shield + 1 food = 8 productivity

That constradicts my initial statement. It is railraids that change it in favour of founding on hills, before railroads it is the same as hills vs. grassland.

 

[Buttercup]

Even after reading your posting once more cannot detect a claim that an aqueduct would not be finished in time because a city is founded on hills. Given that aqueducts should have a high priority either way it seems highly unlikely that an aqueduct will not be ready in time. That is unless construction is not reached in time. That would be game changing.

You need shields to build an aqueduct (unless you buy it or pop-rush etc), it's painfully obvious that this will be quicker with 3 shields than 2.

city on hills + forest = 2 shields + 2 food + 2 shields + 1 food = 7 productivity
city on tundra + mined hills = 1 shields + 2 food + 3 shield + 1 food = 7 productivity

city on hills + mined railroaded tundra = 2 shields + 2 food + 2 shields + 1 food = 7 productivity
city on tundra + mined railroaded hills = 1 shields + 2 food + 4 shield + 1 food = 8 productivity

That constradicts my initial statement. It is railraids that change it in favour of founding on hills, before railroads it is the same as hills vs. grassland.

And before your Town is a City... -1 shield when Settling on a Hill. So the only time frame when they are at parity is when your location is size 7+ and before Railroads, and within this specific time-frame it produces the exact same result. So there's zero argument for 'better' to Settle on the Hill, none whatsoever, quite the opposite, there will be better results from not Settling on the Hill both in the Ancient Age and in the Industrial age+ . There are certainly scenarios where the food might be preferable, just as there might be scenarios where the defence is preferable, but they are scenarios, the general rule for 'better' is to try not to Settle on Hills. If we listed every single scenario where the opposite might be the case then we could all chip-in a specific scenario where this isn't the case, but, in general, that Hill is more useful unSettled than Settled, most of the time.

 

[justanick]

You need shields to build an aqueduct (unless you buy it or pop-rush etc), it's painfully obvious that this will be quicker with 3 shields than 2.

It is not. Aqueducts may be limited by research and not shields. If it is not limited by research, than goldrushing may be convenient.

Before postdespotism hills cannot be utilized properly, and in early postdespotism hills are still likely too expensive to put a mine on them. The possibly higher growth from settling on hills may help with research and production.

 

[agonistes]

This means that building a city on hills instead of grassland has not economic disbenefit once city size is reached, in both cases both tiles add up to 7 productivity, which however may not be distributed equally on food and shields.

Its also not taking into account that the same tile cannot be both grassland and hill. By choosing one or the other, you have to move the settler. Which means the fat x has shifted. Which means the maximum potential of the city is probably not the same any more.

So rather than look at the +/- of the single tile, I'd look more at what tiles are gained/lost from choosing that particular tile. Unless, of course, as Buttercup pointed out, your priority is to build a defensive post.