For a newb, what are some important keys to city placement?

[CitizenCain]

OK, here's a Civ3 -> Civ4 question: in Civ3 it was crucial to build your city ON a space adjacent to a river or lake in order to obviate the need for an aqueduct. Is this still true in Civ4?

No. There's no hard cap anymore, the aqueduct just combats unhealthiness. In Civ IV, excess unheathiness uses up excess food, eventually grinding growth to a halt if you don't do something about it.

 

[EricJames]

Forests are even better when combined with the [admittedly late game] civic Environmentalism! I never get rid of all my forests.

I disagree, I like placing my cities by forests, but I usually just cut them down, especially if I'm near a river. Lumbermills come in to play too late in the game (towards the middle) and saving forests takes patience. Personally, just cut them down and speed production. Hell, usually I have 1-2 workers just outside my territory cutting down forests power-producing my great wonders.

Also, I hate environmentalism, it doesn't do anything for me. Personally, I've never had problems with health. When I finally do have problems with health it'll be just before discovering future techs, which increase health and happiness. I'd rather go with government controlled civic, which provides me with a LOT more income.

 

[Reignking]

And if you put a settler down on a forest, you cut it down automatically for some coin.

Anyway, I ALWAYS put my city down on the first turn. Always have, always will.

 

[Yoshua]

Well if your going to cut down forests, don't cut down the ones adjacent to your city. Forests provide +health (jungles on the other hand should probably always be cleared, they cause unhealthiness if they are near your cities, honestly don't think they are worth preserving for the enviromentalism bonus if your already sparing forests for lumber mills).

 

[Padmewan]

No. There's no hard cap anymore, the aqueduct just combats unhealthiness. In Civ IV, excess unheathiness uses up excess food, eventually grinding growth to a halt if you don't do something about it.

Fair enough. But lemme ask this: is the tile the city occupies considered automatically worked, and if so, does any bonuses from the tile count (whether health from fresh water or a resource?)

 

[CitizenCain]

Fair enough. But lemme ask this: is the tile the city occupies considered automatically worked, and if so, does any bonuses from the tile count (whether health from fresh water or a resource?)

Yes. It is automatically worked, and will generate two food, one production and one commerce. It will not get any "bonuses" to these values - if, for example, you built on corn (which adds +3 food to a nomral tile), the city tile will still only generate two food, one production and one commerce. However, you do have access to that resource. So it would give you +1 health, or whatever corn does (I'm pretty sure it's +1 health). Same applies to strategic and luxury resources, as far as I can tell. You get access to the extra smiley faces or the iron, or whatever, but it doesn't give the tile the bonues it would normally have.

Similarly, if you built on a flood plain, you will get -0.4 healthiness, but not the extra food on that tile.

 

[Padmewan]

Similarly, if you built on a flood plain, you will get -0.4 healthiness, but not the extra food on that tile.

So there is still some incentive to build your city ON fresh water rather than just near it. Sometimes I have to question the AI's suggestions for city placement... from my Civ3 reflexes I look for river/ocean tiles, but the AI will often recommend tiles one-removed from either. Admittedly, it's often because there's a resource that the fat-cross can capture, but I'm not always sure that outweighs the other benefits (especially being able to access the ocean!).

 

[CitizenCain]

Yeah, after my first two or three cities in any given game, the computer honestly never has any good advice on city placement. Generally, the advice it gives on city placement isn't bad... but it's usually not that good either.

 

[skalapunk]

Yeah, after my first two or three cities in any given game, the computer honestly never has any good advice on city placement. Generally, the advice it gives on city placement isn't bad... but it's usually not that good either.

Does anyone know if there's a way to turn OFF that blue-circle-of-advice when placing cities? I havnet messed with the game options much. If we do that, we will get better at making that decision ourselves and spotting good locations..or I will at least

 

[Puppeteer]

OK, here's a Civ3 -> Civ4 question: in Civ3 it was crucial to build your city ON a space adjacent to a river or lake in order to obviate the need for an aqueduct. Is this still true in Civ4?

As earlier post mentioned, the hard limit is gone, but being on fresh water gives you +2 health I think. I'm not sure if you have to be touching the water or if it just has to be in the city radius, but I've been playing as if it has to touch.

Does anyone know if there's a way to turn OFF that blue-circle-of-advice when placing cities? I havnet messed with the game options much. If we do that, we will get better at making that decision ourselves and spotting good locations..or I will at least

Yes, I saw an SG where they turned it off. Some setting in preferences about "suggestions" I think; I intend to find out for sure when I get home as I almost never want to go to the blue circles. (The suggestions are reasonably okay, but it doesn't think ahead; it only takes account of what worker actions you currently have available.) You can also turn off those Sid tips in the flyout descriptions.

 

[Xeos]

Generally I look for resources. If you encompass 3 or 4 resources, you have a good city. The exception being if there's lots of plain desert, ice or tundra, or just not enough food to sustain a population of at least 6-8. Areas with lots of floodplains are nice for gp and towns.

Rivers are +2 health(like aqueduct) and if I am not mistaken, you can still build an aqueduct on top of that.

Forest squares get less useful later imo. I like my towns with emancipation and that commerce tech. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but:

Grassland:
Lumbermill, forest: 2 food, 2 prod, 1 commerce (if along river)
Lumbermill, hill, forest: 1 food, 3 prod, 1 commerce (if along river)
Hill, mine: 1 food, 3 prod
Hill, wind mill, techs: 2 food, 2 prod, 1 commerce
Hill, Workshop, techs: 4 prod
Hill, workshop, techs, state property civic: 1 food, 4 prod
Watermill(along river, 1 side only I think): 2 food(3 with state property), 2 prod, 3 commerce
Town: 2 food, 1 prod, 7 commerce (8 on river)

Plains
Lumbermill, forest: 1 food, 3 prod, 1 commerce (if along river)
Lumbermill, hill, forest: 4 prod, 1 commerce (if along river)
Hill, mine: 4 prod
Hill, wind mill, techs: 1 food, 3 prod, 1 commerce
Hill, Workshop, techs: 5 prod
Hill, workshop, techs, state property civic: 5 prod
Watermill(along river, 1 side only I think): 2 food(3 with state property), 3 prod, 3 commerce
Town + tech + civics: 1 food, 2 prod, 7 commerce (8 on river)

Imo, forests with lumbermills really don't cut it compared to other options, or against hill versions.

 

[Grunthex]

Hmm, lot of things to think about, both for first city and later. Some of things I think about:

First city:

- I want to place it on my first turn. I'd better *know* I have a better spot if I'm gonna move.
- I don't want to be one square off the coast. 2 off is fine, on the coast is better. But the fewer water squares in my fat-cross the better.
- On a river is excellent. Fresh water health bonus, plus trade-access. Sometimes I can get 3 towns hooked up that can share resources without roads. That rocks.
- I want a balance of squares in my usable area -- if there are a lot of hills around, I'll found on one for the defense bonus. If there aren't, I'd rather save them for production. If a lot of forest, found on one to get more food squares. Few forests, save them.
- Not too picky about having resources in my inner ring instead of my outer, since I'll expand in 5 turns. But animals in the inner ring are usually good food/production squares, so I might try to get them in there.

For later cities:

- I'm NOT worried about optimal city placing anymore - it's all about the benefits and the resources. If I leave unused squares between my cities, so be it. If I have to overlap a few usable-squares to maximize my resources, so be it!
- I won't place a city before Currency, and probably before Banking, that just grabs territory and not good resources. Cities cost money. After Currency, cities support themselves, after Banking they're usually a net profit.
- If I'm not a creative civ, I try to get a good food/production square in the first ring -- it might be a while before I can use second ring squares.
- If a couple of cities are of equal urgency to me, I'll use an outside-in strategy, where I build the farthest city first to claim land, and back-fill later.
- I will place a city intending to culture-war an opponent for borders, but NOT against his capital. Yes, this causes some tension. But either we can overcome that with trading/religion, or we were gonna get it on eventually anyway.
- Fresh water, and especially rivers for trading early are always a definite bonus. Building on a hill in a border-city is always good, 25% more defense.

 

[pvc]

something i havent seem mentioned so far is:

sincec you city tile will alway produce 2food 1 hammer one gold, build you city on either the most useless (ie desert) tile, since that way you dont waste a good tile for later use, or imho better still if possible always found you cities on a hill if one is available, the defensive bonus is great, and you get the same income anyway

 

[dh_epic]

There are three general rules for city placement:

1. You should always try to get at least two resources for each city.
2. One of your first three cities needs to have copper or iron, or you're in trouble.
3. Your economy and defence all need to be doing pretty well before you build your next city.

After that, the bets are all off. On larger maps, you can build more cities faster. But on anything Standard or smaller, you can really honestly and truly get away with three cities at the starting. 3 well placed cities is better than 8 cities. Less cities = less maintainance costs.

 

[Eoj]

While also searching for a good strategic and resource rich location, I'm often attracted to tiles 1 away from rivers and not on fresh water but in lesser or useless tiles (such as a desert) for my city building. given a city's set resource production, i can eliminate a weak tile without taking away a potentially resource rich tile, such as a river tile.

although, i do try to place my city on fresh water (and possible always should, like civ 3)... i can't help but be attracted to fixing up those barren desert tiles.

 

[Rellin]

I try my best to settle any river. Up and down it everywhere around it.