Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Artifex1, May 11, 2014.
Is this a mistake generally speaking? or a good thing?
I love hills for some reason
Yup; generally a mistake to move away from a river: Water Mill is a second granary which allows another citizen relocated to a mined hill.
Might have seen it around GnK time when the rules were different (notably early AI was much more aggressive, and ICS was still possible), but now the extra hammer isn't necessarily better than the windmill alone, and that's not even considering all the river bonuses. Stick to the river if at all possible.
Sometimes through moving onto a hill you can end up with more workable river tiles!
Offset by losing water mill; and if city isn't coastal losing trade income.
And lose gardens.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
There was no mention of coastal in the original post, could be that moving on to a hill gives you a coastal start. I have seen situations where workable river tiles could increase from six to as many as fourteen with a meandering river, you would hardly miss having to build a watermill or even a garden in such a case. I personally think there is to much emphasis put on river starts!
I prefer a capital with freshwater for the garden, so I'd prefer the river, all things being equal. If there are bonus resources or luxeries to be had, I could be swayed, but it would take 3 salt to convince me to give up the river. River cities get a second nice boost at electricity, too; provided you have 5 or 6 river tiles.
I'm with tractorboy, but out of sheer laziness. There always seems to be ten things I need to build or buy before water mills and gardens. Course I'm so lazy, I never move the settler. "Looks good to me... Let's do this."
That's a 50/50 chance for me. I have moved to a hill but the settler doesn't always have to stay on the river.
We are all pretty much aware of the three luxes within the three tile radius. If after you have moved your warrior all three have become visible and you are not to keen on what you see, this is the time to take a chance and move your settler on to a hill towards the fog, who knows you might just come across marble within your three tile radius!
I caught myself putting cities on hills until it finally clicked with me that it was Civ IV behaviour. That hill might make the difference between surviving a barb invasion or not. Now that cities are more robust, it isn't as important to have a hill city for defence.
Assuming all else is equal, then I generally value river access over being on a hill.
River access gives you Watermill, Garden, and Hydro Plant. Also gives you a trade bonus with trade routes. Has a minor defensive bonus against melee attacks (from one side). You probably have more river tiles (for irrigated farms). And though not popular, you have Sacred Waters as a viable religious belief.
Hillside gives you an extra hammer every turn. You also have a higher combat strength, and better vantage point for ranged units that are garrisoned. Disadvantage is that you cannot have Windmills.
Rivers win over hills in most circumstances.
Maybe if you are next to aggressive AI's, then you will want the stronger defensive capabilities of a hill. Or if Austria, your Coffee House can be built even on a hill.
It depends, I've moved to a hill from a river when I started in the jungle lol.
I will let down a river for a hill if i go for a domination game or when i'm sure to get Hanging Gardens. Of course i also need to have a better spot overall.
Separate names with a comma.