Dilema, where should I settle?

[Mantic0re]

I still have that rookie hesitation at settling on resource tiles.

Quarry on stone gives 4hammers iirc. Settling on the stone gives +1 hammer in the city tile for the rest of the game and is guaranteed (no citizen required to work the tile).

Does the lost hammers not having a quarry and...say 5 or 6 pop bother anyone else?

 

[lasombra1984]

I'm not fond of settling on resources.
Especially on Hammer resources in Food Cities or on Food resources in Commerce/Hammer cities.
IMO this city needs Stone as worked tile, not settled.

 

[CivilizedTiger]

@NihilZero
Unfortunately, this isn't a time I wanted to be right, but one I rather wanted to learn a trick.

@NihilZero
@TMIT
Thank you for the assessments! I still can't quite get past the whole "losing one clam tile", at least not without knowing about the pigs, but it's good to know that there are good principles by which to determine that 1N is a good choice. I guess I'll have to just play more games before I can decide that it's better with the limited knowledge of turn 0.

 

[The Mike]

+1 for settling on stone, even without knowing about the northern pigs.

You get the benefits immediately (+1 hammer) and the stone is hooked up on the turn Masonry is researched, plus you are still coastal.

 

[UWHabs]

I would settle on the stone.
-You still have 3 food resources, which is more than enough. You have a great shared city site with the warrior hill city.
-You can still see 2 hills which can be mined after BW.
-Settling on stone means you get a 2H tile, which gets out a faster wb or faster worker at the start
-Settling on stone for charismatic leader means you just need mysticism and masonry, and you have stone hooked up. Unless if you have a really fanatical wonder-builder, you should be able to pump out stonehenge super cheaply.

 

[morchuflex]

I'd settle where the warrior is on the first screenshot.

Of course, you'll lose the fresh water. But the bonus hammer on the center tile will amply compensate for two turns wasted moving. And most importantly, gold in your capital is a blessing. It almost guaranties an early tech lead (unless other civs also start with precious metals or gems), even on high difficulty levels.
That way, you can pick your wonders with limited risks of being beaten to them. And you can also grab a religion if need be by being the first to CoL. Of course, you'll also hurry to MC for the additional happy face and to Bureaucracy for obvious reasons.

Of course, you'll get a capital with a lot of water tiles. But you have stone, so you'll just have to build the Moai there to turn it into a powerhouse.
This plan will work best if you're industrious, obviously.

 

[NihilZero]

@ Mantic0re and lasombra1984:

Settling on resources in general is not ideal, but that extra hammer in the capital shaves a couple of turns off getting your first worker out (not to mention everything else you subsequently build). This is huge and gives you a headstart on building your empire. Sometimes it means sacrificing a hammer or two when your city is pop 20, but that is not nearly as important as having another hammer at pop 1, when it matters the most.

It's much the same as settling on a plains hill, except on flatland you don't even miss a turn to move there. Of course, the best place to settle is on a plains hill with stone or marble for a massive 3-hammer capital.

 

[vicawoo]

Settling on flat stone is very different from settling on plains/hill. If you don't settle on stone, you may receive 4 hammers at the cost of 1 food. If you don't settle on a plains/hill, you get 4 hammers at the cost of 2 food. People whip off plains/mines at < size 10 due to inefficiency, but they do not whip off grassland mines, let alone 4 hammers versions.

Without knowledge of the northern pigs, I would consider the plains/hill, though it will increase maintenance on your empire until you move the capital.

 

[UWHabs]

Settling on flat stone is very different from settling on plains/hill. If you don't settle on stone, you may receive 4 hammers at the cost of 1 food. If you don't settle on a plains/hill, you get 4 hammers at the cost of 2 food. People whip off plains/mines at < size 10 due to inefficiency, but they do not whip off grassland mines, let alone 4 hammers versions.

Without knowledge of the northern pigs, I would consider the plains/hill, though it will increase maintenance on your empire until you move the capital.

Maybe I'm off, but I thought the quarry only gave 1 hammer. So the plains quarry tile would be something like 1/3/1 or 1/3/2 (I forget). I know that mining a plains hill stone gives more hammers than quarrying it.

Sure, settling on the stone costs you hammers later, but I think it's still the optimal choice. Especially at Noble where it means you can quite easily get all of stonehenge, the great wall, and the pyramids without having to worry about wasting worker turns building a road there.

 

[dirtyparrot]

I would have settled on the stone as well. Not only for the hammer bonus and for hooking up stone easily, but also allows you settle a very nice 2nd or 3rd city. For those adverse to settling on a resource, those usually go away as you reach the higher difficulties where the wonders go much sooner and the barbs start roaming earlier and in greater numbers. Spawn busting barbs makes settling much easier.

 

[CarlH]

If i get this start I know I would settle where the warrior is. You get all resources but the stone, which would need masonry anyway, and plains hill.

I agree