pholtz
King
You start next to a river - +3 housing: you add an aqueduct - +2 housing: total +5
You start away from river or coast, no plus: you add aqueduct - +6 housing: total +6
Edit: Ok, if I understand this correctly now, an aqueduct in this case would bring the +2 housing any city gets up to +6. NOT increase it by 6. Compare this with a city on a river, add the +2 starting housing and it gets +7. So you can ignore the rest of the post
So it seems that in the long run you do better starting away from river? Although especially in early game the loss of housing, until you can build an aqueduct may be more important.
You start next to coast +1: you build an aqueduct +6: total +7? Is this the best?
Not considered, the aqueduct uses up a district slot. Except for Rome, it doesn't with the Bath. With the Bath being also cheaper to build, should the Romans stay away from rivers?
You start away from river or coast, no plus: you add aqueduct - +6 housing: total +6
Edit: Ok, if I understand this correctly now, an aqueduct in this case would bring the +2 housing any city gets up to +6. NOT increase it by 6. Compare this with a city on a river, add the +2 starting housing and it gets +7. So you can ignore the rest of the post
So it seems that in the long run you do better starting away from river? Although especially in early game the loss of housing, until you can build an aqueduct may be more important.
You start next to coast +1: you build an aqueduct +6: total +7? Is this the best?
Not considered, the aqueduct uses up a district slot. Except for Rome, it doesn't with the Bath. With the Bath being also cheaper to build, should the Romans stay away from rivers?
Last edited: