I just found out I can transform terrain under a city.

[HughMungus]

And all this time I've been deconstructing and rebuilding captured cities.

Edit: Because I only build cities on hills and mountains.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Yep.

You can also clear a forest to a plains after building a city on it.

Are you mining the hills and mountains for your cities?

 

[scloopy]

Originally posted by HughMungus
Because I only build cities on hills and mountains. [/QUOTE

Is that for defensive reasons?

 

[anarchywrksbest]

Yes and if you build a mine there then your city gets extra production.

 

[funxus]

Hill cities can be okay sometimes, but it's be too much settler work to do it with all cities I think...

 

[Terrapin]

...Not to mention the lack of trade and low food production.

 

[Old n Slow]

I'm sure that someone has looked at the "citification" benefits and posted them, but I haven't looked.

Mining a city site and then building a city there "gains" a food sheaf (two food & three shields as opposed to one food sheaf & three shields with Monarchy/Republic); building a city on an unshielded grass gains a shield; building on a plains or shielded grass gains "nothing". (Of course, there is an opportunity cost of time in using these spaces, so I haven't looked at tundra, desert or other "low value" spaces too much.)

Most important in my mind are the associated spaces where the citizens will be (like a four special sweet spot) -- so if a hill or mountain is in the middle, I'll plop two settlers there (first to mine second to settle). Later in the game I'll send an engineer back to transform the mined mountain to a mined hill.

 

[ElephantU]

DaveV's "ICS Strategy Guide" has a nice chart on that:

http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/wittgenstein/davev's_ics_strategy.htm

 

[HughMungus]

Is that for defensive reasons? [/B]

Yes. I'm big on defense. For example, I won't even build a city on the coast unless it's on a hill or mountain.

What I used to do if I captured an enemy city was to check to see if it had enough improvements or wonders to keep and if not, start selling improvements, producing settlers/engineers, and starve it out, then rebuild it somewhere nearby to take advantage of all the terrain improvements. Now I don't have to do that anymore.

Is this in the manual?

 

[HughMungus]

Originally posted by funxus
Hill cities can be okay sometimes, but it's be too much settler work to do it with all cities I think...

I've just found that in the long run it pays off. For example, bombers and howitzers ignore city walls but they can't ignore a 100% defense bonus.

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by HughMungus
I've just found that in the long run it pays off. For example, bombers and howitzers ignore city walls but they can't ignore a 100% defense bonus.

Yes, but if you reason that the extra amount of trade you get from non hill/mountain squares, can give you such a strong position that you won't need to defend against howitzers or bombers at all.

The few cities the AI attacks even if they keep up techwise, I'm sure isn't justified by the loss of trade?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

That's what forts are for. Building one of them on a Mountain is stronger than any city you'll be able to build on a Mountain, plus, that way you won't have to deal with the crappy resourses that type of terrain provides.

 

[ElephantU]

I thought a city with Walls was equivalent to a Fort?

I can testify that cities built on grass (better yet, Rivered grass) with attention to terrain specials produce so much more than the AI choices that I am usually way ahead of the AI by 1AD (unless Duke gives us crappy starting terrain in a GOTM...). I often leave cities undefended, or defended by a caravan, while I build up my tech lead and explore/patrol to keep the AI worried in their own homelands. Even building on Plains seems like a waste to me these days...

 

[HughMungus]

Originally posted by funxus

Yes, but if you reason that the extra amount of trade you get from non hill/mountain squares, can give you such a strong position that you won't need to defend against howitzers or bombers at all.

The few cities the AI attacks even if they keep up techwise, I'm sure isn't justified by the loss of trade?

That's a good point and a strategy that I've never looked into. I guess it depends on your style of play. Mine is to establish a strong perimeter with strong, defensible cities at the expense of trade (the AI players always outpace me in tech). I think I'm compensating for them having better military units earlier than me by my having stronger cities than they do. I guess the beauty of all this is that the rules are balanced enough that the tradeoff works (instead of there being one "best way" to do it, your way or my way). While I tend to lag behind the other players in tech, I make up for it during wartime because while his cities are less defensible, mine are more defensible and it's easier and faster to steal techs than it is to develop them yourself.

 

[HughMungus]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
That's what forts are for. Building one of them on a Mountain is stronger than any city you'll be able to build on a Mountain, plus, that way you won't have to deal with the crappy resourses that type of terrain provides.

True. But bombers and other air units can go around forts. I use forts extensively at terrain choke points, though.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by ElephantU
I thought a city with Walls was equivalent to a Fort?

When a unit is inside a city it does not get the 'fortify' defense bonus. A unit in a fort does.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough


When a unit is inside a city it does not get the 'fortify' defense bonus. A unit in a fort does.

Really?? I didn't think it got the fortify bonus in a fort. (What good does it do to dig a trench inside your fort?!)

 

[ElephantU]

I'm pretty sure a unit in a fort does not get the Fortify bonus; the fort bonus supercedes it. Same thing for a unit in a city with walls. Check this link:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22856

What I'm not clear on is whether a unit in a city WITHOUT walls gets the Fortify bonus.

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by ElephantU
What I'm not clear on is whether a unit in a city WITHOUT walls gets the Fortify bonus.

It would be stupid if it didn't. An unwalled city doesn't give any bonus at all as far as I know, which would mean that a unit is better off defending in open terrain than in a city.

 

[ElephantU]

Except that stacked units are not lost as one in cities, they fight and die one at a time.