First City bonuses

[BillChin]

Placement of the first city can have a big effect on the game. I started a bunch of games and moved the settler to the first icon square that I could find to see how that icon helped. I found some stuff that I did not know, so I thought that others might find it interesting. This is version 1.17f.

Shield grass does not give shield bonus to city, so better to put city on regular grass.

A basic city on any terrain gives two food, one shield, one gold. The bonuses are on top of these base numbers.

Food icons:
Wheat - no starting bonus, do not waste
Game - no starting bonus, do not waste
Flood Plain - river bonus of +1 gold, but danger of disease. I tried irrigating then settling, but this did not help. I vote no, because if disease hits the capital during the first 75 turns the game is toast.
Cow - Shield bonus on plains, shield and food bonus on grass, I vote yes, especially if there is another decent tile to work. The icon tile could be more valuable after railroads, but one extra shield at the start of the game is a tremendous boost for the ~300 turns before railroads, as is one extra food.

Luxury icons:
Fur, Spice, Grapes, Ivory, Incense all give +1 gold, worthwhile and saves building a road to get the happiness boost. Grapes do not give the food bonus to the city, so if on a hill I would not, because a two food hill tile is worth a lot later.

Silks +2 gold, pretty good and worth taking
Gold +3 gold, good take it
Gems +4 gold, yippee take it, even if there is jungle risk, five gold per turn is just too much to turn down.

One interesting case is a fur icon plus river gave me +1 gold, +1 shield, while a fur icon alone gave me +1 gold. The manual says fur is +1 shield +1 gold, but I only got +1 gold from a fur without a river.

On every random map, there is a luxury or a food icon near the starting position. If a player does not see any icons on the first turn, it may be worth two or three turns to look for it and settle there. Silks, gold and gems are definitely worth moving several turns to settle on. For example, a player moves the worker or scout to a hill and can see a great tile three spaces away from the settler. I vote go for it to get a big bonus.

Other luxuries are worth one or two turns, but several turns may not be worth it. Wheat, flood plains are best left to irrigate instead of settle on. Grapes are a tough choice, but I think if on a hill, no.

Another curiousity is that I never got hostile warriors from goody huts when I have zero cities. I do not know if this is luck or part of the coding. The sample size is very small. On Emperor level, about 60% of huts seem to generate hostiles (non expansionist civ), but this did not happen when I have not settled yet.

In summary, the best icon is a cow on grass for +1 shield, +1 food. Next best is gems, gold, silks. Other luxuries give +1 gold, as do rivers.

 

[Anglophile]

Interesting analysis and I agree with most of it. However, I never settle on a cattle bonus square but beside one is my most preferred starting position. Assume non-bonus grassland beside grassland cattle. Settle the grassland and mine the cattle and you have +3 food and 3 shields - really fast growth and good production. Do it the other way round and you still have +3 food but only 2 shields. Eventually you will be able to irrigate the grassland tile for an extra food, but if your city is in grasslands, food will never be the issue but shields always help. Two grassland cattle tiles and you have the perfect settler/worker factory city.

 

[smallstepforman]

The barbarian activity on Emperor is driving me NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(non expansionist Civ)

 

[BillChin]

You may be right about the cattle. I tried to test it again today after reading your post. I got +1 shield for a cow on plains, but did not get any bonus for a cow on grass next to a river! I swear I got +1 food, +1 shield the other day from building a city over cow on grass. Seems too flaky to risk in something like the GOTM where reloading is not allowed. In other situations, I suggest players experiment with building cities on top of various icons and see how it goes. If anyone gets results that seem out of line (like my cow on grass next to a river giving me only the river bonus), please post.

One other minor correction, I believe gold and gems give the same bonus +4 gold. These are great tiles to build a city on. If a player is lucky enough to get two gems or two gold in the starting radius, they have the option of 9 gold per turn at the start!

The randomizer seems to give better icons (silks, furs, gold, cows, or gems) if there are none visible on turn one. In these cases one or two turns of exploration may yield a great tile to build the capital on.

Originally posted by Anglophile
Interesting analysis and I agree with most of it. However, I never settle on a cattle bonus square but beside one is my most preferred starting position. Assume non-bonus grassland beside grassland cattle. Settle the grassland and mine the cattle and you have +3 food and 3 shields - really fast growth and good production. Do it the other way round and you still have +3 food but only 2 shields. Eventually you will be able to irrigate the grassland tile for an extra food, but if your city is in grasslands, food will never be the issue but shields always help. Two grassland cattle tiles and you have the perfect settler/worker factory city.

 

[hoyatables]

I've found the best starting tiles are ultimately on a river. You get a gold bonus plus gold bonuses for each tile on the river. That extra gold allows you one more unit right from the start. You also have an immediate fresh water source. You also have a defensive advantage on one side. And you have a natural path to follow for your first settlers.

As your city grows, the advantages become more apparent. You don't need an aqueduct to grow to size 12 - this is somewhat problematic since it's hard to keep size 12 cities in line without Cathedrals, but ultimately the extra overall production, even after a "Give them some entertainment" click or two, is definitely worth it.

I've found some of my best games start with a capital city nestled at the base of a mountain. When you start with an Expansionist Civ, there is no excuse for not taking the two or three turns to find the closest river, or alternatively, the best spot on the river.

Cattle are also crucial for an early production boost. Wheat is great for growing your city, but really, shields are the challenge in the early game, and large cities are hard to manage without troops/temples/luxuries. I'd go for cattle every time over the wheat.

Don't build on the cattle or wheat; build directly next to them. take into account that you'll culturally grow relatively soon to the next level, and yet another ring if you quickly build a temple.

If you play with the Japanese, do yourself a favor and try to build on horses. You can see them from the beginning, and start cranking out chariots with your warriors. Gives you a unit to compete with those pesky Chinese scouts.

 

[BillChin]

Good tip about horses and Japanese. Thanks.

Rivers are good, but about 40% of the random maps I get do not have a river or lake near the starting point. Players need to keep this in mind when playing without reloads (Game of the Month). Again, while rivers are good, I would not build the capital on a flood plain because of the high risk of early disease wiping that game out. Players can experiment with this and see how it works for them.

Overall, I think moving one turn to a better tile is a slam dunk (worth it every time). Moving two or three turns is reasonable, four turns is pushing it, and five turns or more is rolling the dice on a competitive difficulty level (Regent and above, standard size map). There is no guarantee of a great tile or fresh water so a long search is risky. There are about 90% odds for a good tile near the start position, and that is what I suggest players go with.

 

[Ironikinit]

I agree that moving is often worthwhile. Sometimes I move to a bad tile, say, a desert next to a lake, or a tundra. I don't get anything out of it except one less junk tile in my starting radius.

Bill, about how many starts are next to fresh water overall? Lakes and rivers both.

 

[Beamup]

This seems like an appropriate thread to ask this in. Under what circumstances do you usually restart? I've been trying to get a Monarch game going (moving up from Regent) for a couple days, and have not gotten even one starting location I considered to be usable in ~60 tries. Recently I've taken to looking at the map before I restart, to see if maybe I'm being too picky. But it really doesn't look like it. No matter what settings I play on (not Pangaea, I dislike warmongering - and always huge, but I've tried everything else repeatedly), I'm always getting stuck with positions like:
Small island, almost all tundra with about 6 grasslands. Of course, none have shields.
Huge continent with 4 other civs, entirely jungle and mountains.
3-square island, all hills.
Nothing but desert for a distance of 10 squares, then plains for the rest of the ~5-city island. No water.
Small island, big enough for 2 cities, all plains with no water.
Is this sort of thing typical? If so, how can you possibly compete with this sort of crippling starting disadvantage? Or am I just getting one of the longest runs of horrendous luck in history?

BTW, I think the different map types should be more different... having 95% of the land mass in one or two islands is not my idea of an archipelago, but that's what it always comes out as.

 

[Anglophile]

Beamup, you are in luck; my play style is much the same as yours and I like good starting positions because:
1. It is esthetically more pleasing.
2. I derive more pleasure from the game.
3. Otherwise, I get my butt kicked.

I have just moved up from Monarch to Emperor and decided I needed a really good starting position so as not to get too embarrassed by the AI everyone else always seems to be trashing. Conditions: fully expanded map (256x256), continents, 60% land, wet, warm, 5 billion years, 10 other civs, playing a modded LWC erp5, rampaging barbarians. My criteria for an acceptable starting position:

- mostly grasslands or heavily bonus resourced plains.
- lots of rivers
- at least three spots for settler/worker farms (2+ bonus food resources).
- At least 1 bonus food resource for my capital.
- At least two city sites with both food bonus reources and hills/mountains.
- Horses, iron and at least one luxury resource within 20-30 tiles of my capital.
I mean, is that too much to ask?

The results:
-96 games quit immediately because surrounded by jungle/desert/ tundra/mountains. No decent starting spot within three turns movement.
-67 games quit before second city is founded (+/- 3000 BC).
-12 games met the criteria of which
- 10 were dropped for various reasons (some for no resources, others for no opponents, some just because).
- 2 were played.

I have noticed that as the level goes up, the probability of getting a good starting position goes down. This is largely anecdotal but would agree with your observations. I have just gone to the 1.17 patch and there seems to be a much higher probability of getting good starting positions but since this is my first run at it and got a very good starting position (except for the proximity of the Russians and their darn scouts stealing those goody huts from my brave and bold scouts) within 5 tries, this may just be luck.

I know that I can simply go down a level or three and not have to restart all the time; however, I prefer cheating to get a good start and having a competitive game all through rather than fighting to overcome a sucky start but then having a less competitive mid/end game. For all the purists out there, shaking their heads sadly at me, it is a game and I get to play it the way I want to.

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by Beamup
This seems like an appropriate thread to ask this in. Under what circumstances do you usually restart? I've been trying to get a Monarch game going (moving up from Regent) for a couple days, and have not gotten even one starting location I considered to be usable in ~60 tries. ...

My philosophy is to play out every start. After the first age, I often quit the game if it looks real bad or real frustrating, but I rarely quit at the start. Poor terrain early, often means a lot of resources later. I have survived the worst imaginable starting positions on Emperor difficulty, standard size map, random map type, eight opponents. Jungle, mountains, tundra, desert, peninsula, hostile neighbors can all be overcome.

Players who start many games looking for good terrain, may just be delaying their frustration and post about the lack of coal or rubber or aluminum later in the game. (I've seen a ton of those threads.)

I posted my basic starting strategies in the articles section under "Three Basic Starting Strategies." Again, the strategies are strong enough to survive the worst starting positions on Emperor difficulty.

For certain situations, such as Deity level aiming for the Hall of Fame, restarts and a lucky map are a necessity. For players looking to have a fun game, I suggest playing out every start and see how the game goes. This is a good way to train for the Game of the Month where restarts and reloading are against the rules.

 

[Anglophile]

I admire your fortitude, BillChin, and will certainly read your guide in the strategy forum. My experience with poor starting positions on higher levels and really big maps is that I just can't keep up - resources are scarce and really far apart and a big empire is an absolute requirement. Expansion through conquest is also very difficult due to the large inter-civ distances. Get off to a slow start and you have trouble competing by expansion or by conquest (which is not my style anyway). I'll read your guide and maybe have a rethink about my views.

 

[Ironikinit]

Anglo, Beam,

Use the editor. Get yourself a map you can live with. You'll have to restart until you get the site you want, but it would be highly improbable that you'd have to start more than 20 times depending on map size.

 

[Beamup]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Anglo, Beam,

Use the editor. Get yourself a map you can live with. You'll have to restart until you get the site you want, but it would be highly improbable that you'd have to start more than 20 times depending on map size.

No editor for me. Us Mac folks don't have it yet. I could (and may) try a premade map, though none of the ones available are quite what I like to play.

BillChin, I took a look at your thread. Those strategies fail abysmally on the starting positions I get. For example, generally there will be no nearby neighbor to fight for territory (if there is, he has nothing anyway), and rarely will there be either Horses or Iron anywhere nearby (like I said, I've taken to looking at the map before I restart). Having no enemy nearby does NOT mean a lot of open land, it means there is no land at all.

To amplify a couple things - on several of the maps I've run into, it would take a MINIMUM of 2000 years to produce a Settler. On some maps, it would be impossible to EVER produce a settler, because the starting position could never grow past size 2 - nor could any other position in a 5-square radius. Generally the ONLY resource on the dinky island I start on will be a single luxury.

I append a save of the first turn of the BEST (by a substantial margin) starting position I have encountered in the past 30-some attempts (the starting position could concievably grow to size 4 - with a couple size 3s nearby, there is actually some plain with access to water on the island, but in order to get it, I would have to eliminate the Germans without either Iron or Horses, from a HUGE size disadvantage). Now, is there anyone who honestly believes this starting position is workable? Again, I stress that this is the BEST start I have gotten in the past two days.

 

[Beamup]

Well, I TRIED to append the save... here goes another attempt...

 

[BillChin]

Beamup, I have to hand it to you, that is one bad start. If this is best you have seen, I can only think you are having amazingly bad luck.

I played it for about an hour and am attaching my save game at 610 BC.

The first goody hut near the capital came up with hostile warriors. The barbs came and killed a citizen to set me back about ten turns. At 610 BC, the lack of iron and horses really seals this as a bad start. Otherwise, I could build an army to go take German cities. Archers are not strong enough, when the enemy is twice as strong in power rating.

A determined player probably could make a go of it and maybe even win from here. However, I get the feeling the Germans are going to declare war soon. With the lack or resources the war is going to be a bad one, so I would probably retire at this point.

What map settings are you using? I go with Random, random, standard size map, random civ. Maybe try a different civ to re-seed the random number generator.

 

[Beamup]

I customarily use huge, raging, random, random. I doubt using a different civ would change anything - usually PRNG's get seeded off the system clock - and I really like Persians anyway. So I'll just keep trying. Thanks for confirming I'm not crazy!

 

[Anglophile]

One of the problems playing on bigger maps is that the strategic resources occurence rate is not a function of map size, just the appearance rate set in the editor and the number of civs. As a fully expanded map has more than 18 times as many tiles as a tiny map, even if you dial up all the resource appearance rates, they will still be pretty rare. So dial them up; I have horses, iron and coal all at 300 (the max) down to Uranium at 120, which if I understand the appearance generating system correctly (not exactly a sure bet), means that there will be 12 uranium tiles out of the 24,000+ land tiles in the game.

If one likes to play on huge maps, a good starting position is more important than on smaller maps for a few reasons that have already been discussed. In my current game (Emperor, 256x256, panagea, 10 other civs), my first with the 1.17 patch, I got a tactically good, strategically awful starting position. I am on a peninsula in the far southwest of the landmass, the Russians directly north of me and a huge band of jungle (20-25 tiles deep, across the entire peninsula). However, I had a number of very nice city sites close to my starting position (and of course had no idea how bad my strategic position was) so I expanded very quickly but the Russians still beat me to the east and west coasts of 'our' peninsula, but then made the mistake of going to war with me and losing their strategically critical east coast blocker city. It is now 430 BC, I have 31 cities (30 founded, 1 captured) and am heading up the east coast to the vast landmass that covers essentially the entire northern hemisphere. I have by far the highest score but am not the tech leader, maybe 1 or 2 behind a couple of others. I have 1 iron and two horses and about to find out whether I have any salt petre. I do not know whether these are functions of the 1.17 patch or playing on panagea, but this is by far the most war filled game I have ever played; everyone is always at war with everyone else. During my war with Russia, 8 other civs declared war on me - although since the nearest was over 50 tiles away and most of that jungle, it wasn't really a big concern. The other post patch difference I note is that corruption/waste is worse - at least close to the capital - than it was. My third city, 4 whole tiles from my capital, at size 3 was losing shields and gold. I hope this is balanced by reduced corruption further from the capital. I guess I will know shortly.

What all this says is that I don't mind having to scratch and claw to victory; nor fight for key resources as the game progresses; I just like to do it from a nice, solid base.

 

[hoyatables]

I do agree that it's worth playing through an age in most cases. Particularly when you jump a level - you need some time and experience with the more difficult AI.

Starting locations: It all depends on your strategy. Personally, I try to control resources and trade techs early in the game, so I need to be around other Civs. If I find myself alone on an island it hurts my gameplan, and that's a cause fo restart. Otherwise, I find it's best to send out a decent exploration party early - especially on a huge map - even if you exceed your 4 unit limit and lose some gold. Generally it will take the full 32 turns to research the first tech anyway. Go out in all four directions, find your coasts and continent shape, so that when resources pop up, you know where to go.

I've found the game balances itself out quite nicely re: resources and location. If you get a great starting location - you know, on a river with a cattle, wheat and shields as far as the eye can see, chances are you're going to have to go pretty far for that iron. Or not have a luxury. If you have a horrible desert or hill location, odds are there's six incense a step or two away. It's a toss up for me what to do - lately I've found that taking four or five steps to locate a good starting location works out in the end, even if you're a few steps behind the computer. Of course, I tend to place Regent, so I'm not at the higher levels.

 

[BillChin]

Beamup, one other thought is to check with the other Macintosh players and see if your problem is common. I have never gotten an unplayable start on the PC version (e.g. four tile island, all hills). If the problem is a common one, it needs to be patched.

Another place to get maps is in the Game of the Month area here, and the tournament games area on www.apolyton.net. These competitions also give you a way to compare notes with other players as so many strategies are dependent on the map size, difficulty level, and starting location. If you avoid reading the threads before downloading, the map is a new one to you, and every one of them is playable.