Founding a city on desert or ice

Juardis

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
65
Anybody try that? I did, just to see what happens. I founded a city on the coast on a ice tile. To my great surprise, the city tile had 2 food, 1 hammer, and 1 gp to start. I assume the same holds true for desert cities? If this is always the case, it's time I rethink my expansion plans.

btw, this is on noble difficulty.

Anybody else have similar experiences?
 
I read somewhere that a city tile always gets the same resources no matter what terrain its founded on.
 
All cities no matter where they are built are guaranteed at least 2 food, 1 hammer, and 1 commerce.
 
Oh my. So if you start on a resource tile (e.g., gems), you don't get the benefits of that resource? Or you get it, just not the food/hammer/commerce associated with it?
 
I've had some arctic coastal cities grow surprisingly well if they had at least one food-bonus tile within city radius. Just build that all-important lighthouse and be sure the city management keep focusing on growth and these little cities can take off pretty well. Of course they'll not equal the splendor of cities surrounded by lush farmed grasslands and mineral-rich hills, but you work with the cards you're dealt.
 
Founding a city on desert gives you the two food, one hammer, one commerce, same as it does for any other tile.

Ice- I think you're not allowed to form cities there, like you werent allowed to found cities on mountians in civ3. It's just not an option.

When you found a city on a bonus resource, you do not get the additional food/production/trade from that resource (gems for example). But you DO get Gems in your trade network, counting as a luxury, even if you do not have the tech necessary to otherwise access gems (mining or roads for example). For resources where there is a bit of time between when they're revealed and when they're accessible, Oil for example, this is an important distinction. It would be more important if you could disband cities, which now you cant.
 
Actually, you do (or at least can) get a small boost to your center city tile by settling directly on a resource. Never as much as you would by improving and working the tile, of course, but usually at least one hammer or commerce. I'd never do this once my civ was really up and running, but for my capitol, I would certainly settle on top of rock or marble. An extra hammer from day one from your city tile + instant access to the resource? No brainer in my book.
 
Founding on a hill also gets you a +1 hammer if the base terrain already produced a hammer (so a plains hill gets 2/2/1 but a grass hill 2/1/1) plus an extra defence bonus - well worth it.
 
Settling on a resource gives you whatever bonus that resource would give you if had that tile in your city radius and it was unworked. Plus, you get access to whatever that resource is ei, gold, iron, coal etc. Makes sense? :mischief:
 
I built 3 northerly cities on ice in my last game (I wanted a couple of good resources nearby) and they did better than I expected; one grew slowly to size 7 which I found surprising. The ideal location is on the edge of the ocean, preferably next to a river and with one or two hills within the 'fat cross' city area. The ocean gives a little food and later in the game you can improve the freshwater ice tiles with watermills. :)
 
Founding a city on a desert or tundra or ice, while it gives you the normal 2 foods + 1 hammer, is not a good idea. the manual states that cities founded on those tiles have -25% building production.

I haven't looked at the numbers myself, but I do know that a city I founded on a desert in a game would build things so slowly that I eventually just set it to wealth and forgot it for the rest of the game. It was still useful since I was able to get to some oil in the cultural radius of that city...
 
Back
Top Bottom