1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

First city on hill mandatory?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by Electric Ferret, Aug 24, 2013.

  1. Electric Ferret

    Electric Ferret Chieftain

    Aug 24, 2013
    Do people find the best strategy to found their first city on a hill always?

    I seem to find that when I do not settle on a hill at the start, no matter how sweet that grassland or plains looks, then I end up production gimped and much further behind the curve with the AI players in the early going.

    Even if there are hills around that I eventually intend to work, it feels really slow going.

    Just curious if others find it pretty much required to get on a hill at start, and if not, what strat do you use when you aren't doing a hill start?
  2. glory7

    glory7 King

    Nov 6, 2012
    no. It is better but not required.
  3. renton555

    renton555 Warlord

    Aug 9, 2011
    IMO it is far more mandatory for satellite cities, especially if you aren't going liberty. A city with one hammer sucks.
  4. HNBiscuit

    HNBiscuit Chieftain

    Aug 13, 2013
    I find it helps, easpically if next to a river. Otherwise I will chose to settle on a river if at all possible.
  5. Crafty Bison

    Crafty Bison King

    Jun 26, 2012
    For the cap it's not so high on the priority list; I'll usually look for other things first (depending on the civ). For the other cities it's more important, but absolutely mandatory if it's forward settling or in the direction of another civ.
  6. Catan_Settler

    Catan_Settler Prince

    Jan 23, 2008
    It's definitely not mandatory, but it helps give a new city an early boost in production. The defense bonus is pretty good too, but it's not a "free hammer" as everyone seems convinced it is. What you're actually getting is...2 free food, on top of the hill's base 2 hammers. You see, if you settled on flat grassland instead your city would be 2 food and 1 hammer, meaning the flat start is what gives you the "free" hammer. Conversely, if you settled on that flat tile and instead put a mine on that hill, you are now getting 3 hammers from the hill, combined with our flat grassland capital thats 4 hammers 2 food from 2 tiles. Meanwhile, later on in the game there are techs and policies that would add addtional hammers to the mine, but not the base hill under your city.

    So anyways, my point is it is nice to start a city with some good production and that is useful.. especially with liberty because you'll have fresh cities with 3 base hammers from their city centre, and then perhaps even more from that first tile they work. But ultimately, the argument is not "omg free hammerz" its more like, "omg free food and an early hammer.. that costs me hammers later from not being able to mine that hill" Ok, that's all I got. :king:
  7. kb27787

    kb27787 Deity

    Aug 16, 2013
    Also, it prevents the construction of windmills, which basically deprives you of 4 hammers (2 from GE slot) and 10% building construction :)
    I'll settle on a hill normally, but not if it costs me a salt tile or a fish/wheat/deer tile
  8. neilkaz

    neilkaz King

    Oct 1, 2010
    Chicago Suburbs
    Windmills are an expensive building. I still am surprised that they aren't allowed in cities on hills and don't think it would be at all OP if they were.

    Historically one wants windmills on hills since there's more wind!!

Share This Page