founding the first city?

[t. Master rogue]

I'm curious what is the longest, in turns, one should wait to establish their first city. Basically how much scouting around for the best terrain configuration should a player do. I play on emperor and almost always establish on my first turn where ever the civ gods have placed me. On rare ocassions I've waited one turn to move my settler adjacent to a river to avoid the aqueduct stall out. Look forward to hearing your experiences and theories, thanks...

 

[Gengis Khan]

You've got it down. You shouldn't move more then 1 time ever, and even that takes a big step to make up for the loss. The only exception is a OCC, where the city location is so important that it's worth scouting out a bit.

 

[sourboy]

Use your worker to scout, and walk your settler in a likely positive region. There is an article on this in the War Academy, but it all depends on the tiles around you. The goal is to make a settler factory, so you don't need the best starting spot - just a good enough one.

 

[Tomoyo]

You could attempt a NCC (No City Challenge), where you would have to conquer your opponents with Goody hut troops.

I move my settler if I can get an extra food bonus or if I start on a bonus.

 

[dmanakho]

This is like a game of chess.... You must not waist any single turn at the beggining, except when you play chieftain of course...
One move only is allowed, generally if there are no cattle or wheat you can use by moving one tile, just place city where you are..
That's the best bet.

 

[civkiller]

I just plop my settler where I start, and I never get to worry about the aqueduct delay, since my capital never gets larger than a 4.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Generally, I build on the site I start on. However, I will move if it will give me a better start or a river.

 

[DS_Legionary]

I almost always plop down my city where I start, unless a river or the coast is one tile away, then I will move. I won't even move for bonus resources.

 

[Denarr]

If there's a better spot one step away, I'll move there.
If there's a truly great spot two steps away, I'll move there.
Beyond that, I'll wait for my next Settler to get a better spot.
The game usually places your Settler in a pretty good spot for founding a city.

 

[me_and_kg]

I'll move my worker to a good vantage point to try and see if there is a better square. Try and guess where the good land might be and move your worker to a hill next to it. If you can then move your settler so the city will get cattle or wheat or something, do it. I wouldn't bother moving it for a river, like civkiller said a settler factory will never get above 6 anyway.

 

[Gainy]

You shouldn't move more then 1 time ever, and even that takes a big step to make up for the loss.

I disagree with that. Even though I hardly ever move from my starting position, if there is a goldhill on a river, I am quite likely to move there. Although I wouldn't go if it was any more that 2 moves away.

The research boost you get is amazing, ontop of the extra defence you get.

 

[Tomoyo]

Even if a settler factory wont grow above size 6, being on fresh water could be the difference between a 4-turn and a 5-turn setttler factory.

Example: Your city has one grassan wheat, one grassland wine, a forest, two BGs, and two regular grasslands. The wine and the wheat are irrigated, and the grasslands are mined,

If your city is on fresh water, then:

Turn one: Size 5, working the wheat, wine, a grassland, and the two BGs. Makes 6 shields
Food stored: 5, Shields stored: 6

Turn two: Size 5, working the same tiles. City grows and grabs the forest on growth. Makes 8 shields
Food stored: 0, Shields stored: 14

Turn three: Size 6, working all tiles mentioned except the forest. Makes 7 shields.
Food stored: 5, Shields stored: 21

Turn four: Size 6, working the same tiles. City grows and grabs the forest on growth. Makes 9 Shields, settler completes, city at size 5.
Food stored: 0, Shields stored: 0

If it is not on fresh water, then:

Turn one: Size 5, working the wheat, wine, a grassland, and the two BGs. Makes 6 shields
Food stored: 5, Shields stored: 6

Turn two: Size 5, working the same tiles. City grows and grabs the forest on growth. Makes 8 shields
Food stored: 0, Shields stored: 14

Turn three: Size 6, working all tiles mentioned except the forest. Makes 7 shields.
Food stored: 5, Shields stored: 21

Turn four: Size 6, working the same tiles. City does not grow because of lack of fresh water. Makes 7 shields.

Food stored: 10, Shields stored: 28

 

[me_and_kg]

Surely it would be worth moving 2 or even 3 squares to get a luxury within your borders? Luxuries can be absolutely crucial throughout the game, especially when you're playing from behind, so if you don't get it with your capital then your next city will have to get it, when it could have been off getting another one. Plus if you're playing a map densely populated with civs then there's still a risk that another civ will claim it before you get your settler there. I know it slows you down at the start of the game but will 2 turns really make a huge difference? (it would if you were going for the GL I suppose) Let me know what you think.

 

[Gainy]

Surely it would be worth moving 2 or even 3 squares to get a luxury within your borders? ... Let me know what you think

It's a waste of time It is not going to benefit you, and as you said, you could get it with your 2nd city. Unless you are playing on Sid, it is incredibly unlikely that the AI is going to settle there that quickly. So much so, that would wouldn't need to build your 2nd city there, you could make it your 3rd or 4th