First city on hill mandatory?

Electric Ferret

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
11
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?
 
IMO it is far more mandatory for satellite cities, especially if you aren't going liberty. A city with one hammer sucks.
 
I find it helps, easpically if next to a river. Otherwise I will chose to settle on a river if at all possible.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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:

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
 
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!!
 
Top Bottom