Johan de Witt
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2005
- Messages
- 415
André Alfenaar;10664065 said:
Ah, I missed that.
Moving from starting Settler position
- Thread starter Furycrab
- Start date
Ah, I missed that.
WeaselSlapper
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 505
André Alfenaar;10664065 said:
Per-Patch I agreed with you 100%, I almost never settled on hills just because of the windmill. Post patch windmills have taken a big hit and I almost never build them anymore, so I don't care. However I like to settle on rivers, the waterwheel (I can't seem to think of the correct name right now for some reason) comes really early and it's really good, and farmed river hills are awesome to work with a farm (2f, 2h, 1,g).
So about the only time I will settle on a hill now are:
A - No river nearby
B - Settling a river hill will get me resources/ocean access that I wouldn't get settling somewhere else
C - I anticipate I will need a stronger defensive position
I think the way it works is:
City tile produces the highest between:
2/1/1
vs.
The tile's base output for each type of yield.
This means it will change through the course of the game when techs are discovered that change the base tile output but it will never be less than 2/1/1.
City tile produces the highest between:
2/1/1
vs.
The tile's base output for each type of yield.
This means it will change through the course of the game when techs are discovered that change the base tile output but it will never be less than 2/1/1.
I love settling my capital on a hill. You shave of SO many turns on your early build order vs not being on a hill. Scouts go from 7 to 5. Warriors from 10 to 8.
Farmed river hills are a 2,2,1 but so is a settled hill. You get the exact same yield out of the hill if you settle it. The 2 food that you'd gain from the farm is automatically added by founding the city there.
If you take every regular tile and look at what the settling a city adds:
Grassland: 1 production, 1 gold.
Plains: 1 food, 1 gold
Hill: 2 food, 1 gold
Desert: 2 food, 1 production, 1 gold
Tundra: 1 food, 1 production, 1 gold
Forest: 1 food, 1 gold
Jungle: 1 production, 1 gold
Flood plains: 1 production (no gold since it's always on a river)
You can remove the gold if the spot is next to a river.
Anyways, as you can see, you have the least to immediately gain by settling a grassland/plain/forest/jungle/flood plains. The most from settling a dessert, but hills are one of the better ones. Further, hills are the only standard tile which improves your base city. No other resource-less spot will initially yield a greater value then 2 food, 1 production, 1 gold.
WeaselSlapper
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 505
Your analysis is a little off and you're forgetting about your first citizen.
Every City gets at least 2-1-1 (food, hammer, gold) regardless of where it's settled (even if you settle desert). If you settle on a tile that has more you gain the extra.
A river hill has 2 base production so if you settle on a river hill you get 2-2-1, gaining 1 production.
Looking at an example of two spots to settle one a river grassland and the other is a river hill. For simplicity lets assume everything else is equal.
Settle grass land - 2-1-1 city, nearby hill (unimproved) - 0-2-1 - Total - 2-3-2
Settle hill - 2-2-1 city, nearby grassland (unimproved) - 2-0-1 - Total 4-2-2
Settling the grassland and work the hill you get more production, but less food. If this is going to be a production city you're better off settling the grassland (more production less population), science city you'll be better off with the hill (more population on less production).
I was talking about the immediate gain of the tile turn 1, which is why I was intentionally not factoring in improvements. You're analysis is of a different nature then mine. What i was showing is what the tile will give with a city on it vs what it will give with nothing on it. The first citizen is immaterial as it is up to the player how they want to use it. You can't say "settle on the hill and use the grassland or settle on the grassland and use the hill" since they player has 5 other hexes to chose from right away.
Besides, you certainly can't take the leap of discussing "if this is going to be an X city" and then only talk about 1 hex. Whether it is going to be a production city or science city, you're going to be using a lot more then 1 hex. The 2 food you gained by converting the hill into a city can be turned into countless things. Get freedom and that's 2 (1 food each) engineers=4 production. You can't talk about the long term effects with such simplistic means. There are too many variables. You'd need an in depth article to make those arguments.
RD-BH
Human
Uh, I don't always get 2
1
1
.
I frequently don't get.
1 1.I frequently don't get
.WeaselSlapper
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 505
My analysis was also of completely unimproved tiles. I left those off because it wouldn't change anything in my analysis. If you put a farm on both the settling the grass land and working the hill will still give you 1 more production and two less food.
The first citizen or any other citizen is not immaterial since your first citizen contributes to your total output of the city turn 1. And yes the player can choose one of 6 tiles they want their citizen to work, but we were specifically discussing the advantages of settling on a river hill vs river grass and that was the only way to make the comparison fair. My point was if you settle the hill you miss out on the extra production you would get by working the hill instead of settling on it.
And it absolutely matters what type of city it's going to be. Long term if the city is going to be a production city settling the hill vs settling the grass will cost you 1 GPT and 1 HPT and if it's a science city it will cost you 1 citizen. Here's the math assuming all other tiles around these two potential cities are equal:
Scenario1
Settle Grass - City 2-1-1 - citizen works the improved (farm) hill - 2-2-1 (4-3-2 total). Assuming this city is placed ideally you will still have enough extra food to fill all your production specialist slots (easily doable) and you can start working this tile for full benefit very early in the game (i.e. you don't have to wait for specialist buildings or policies to make specialists easier to run which don't come until much later). Really no matter what type of city this is getting 2 free production and 1 free gold (remember this citizen pays for himself) is a good thing.
Scenario 2
Settle Grass - City 2-1-1 citizen works the improved (mine) hill - 0-4-1 (2-5-2). Assuming you can create enough citizens to run all production specialists and work all high productive tiles still this will get you the most production, this is going to be an extremely rare situation. This will get you two more base production than Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Settle Hill - City 2-2-1 citizen works the improved (farm) grasslands - 4-0-1 (6-2-2). Still assuming you have enough extra food to work all production specialists this situation will net you more food and less production than scenarios 1 and 2. So Scenario 3 is suited more for a science city but is worse as a production city despite having higher production by the city itself.
Will there be situations where scenario 3 can have more production than 1 or 2, sure if settling the hill will bring an extra resource or two into the three hex range or more hills or forests, but everything else being equal Scenarios 1 and two have more potential for production and scenario 3 has more potential for Science.
Once again, you've said you weren't talking about improved tiles only to turn around and base you're whole argument on improved tiles. You analysis is only looking at things from a late game perspective. The value of those improved tiles won't even by that high until you get the proper techs which is why you can't isolate that. You completely ignore what is gained in the mean time. Having more production early in the game has compounding effects. Getting stuff out earlier might lead to an extra city or wonder. You simply can't say "well in 300 turns I'm going to have an extra hammer if I settle the grassland instead of the hill so therefore the grassland is better". That isn't how the gameplay mechanics of Civ work. A small boost in the early game is always better then an only slightly bigger boost in the late game.
FlowKey
Dark Lord
I will move to get to the coast, if its clearly visible or to a river for the
I don't think you can put a definite number on it, but I think this is the essential question: how many turns can we actually spend on looking for a nice spot and come out on the up side (in
vs 'lost' turns)?I feel the same uneasy as soon as I start walking ... I haven't figured it out for myself.
WeaselSlapper
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 505
My first post was completely about unimproved tiles, only my second post had any mention of improvements and those were river farms which become fully effective very early in the game. Your strategy of using the extra food to run specialists is what doesn't kick in until much later in the game.
Tile yields, settling hill vs. grass (again - all other tiles around the city being equal)
Unimproved
Settle Grass, work hill: city - 2-1-1, citizen 0-2-1 total 2-3-2
Settle hill, work grass: city 2-2-1, citizen 2-0-1 total 4-2-2
Result: If you want more production settle the grassland, if you want more food settle the hill
Improved (river farm only, fully effective very early in the game, can be done immediately after finishing the GL on low difficulty)
Settle Grass work hill: city 2-1-1 citizen 2-2-1 total 4-3-2
Settle Hill work grass: city 2-2-1 citizen 4-0-1 total 6-2-2
Result: Exactly the same as if the tiles weren't improved, only now the city has 2 extra food in either case
Bottom line, if your goal is production now settle the grass and work the hill, if you goal is food now settle the hill and work the grass.
WeaselSlapper
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 505
There is one time when it would make sense for a production city to be settled on a hill. If you have a more than about 6 highly productive tiles available to work around the city (I've found this to be extremely rare around rivers). Growing a city to 6 citizens happens very quickly so anything past that the wait to get the extra production usually doesn't pay off for the free 1 production you can get from the city itself.
Settle river hill (unimproved tiles)
City - 2-2-1 citizen (works another river hill) - 0-2-1 - total - 2-4-2
Settle river grass (unimproved tiles)
City - 2-2-1 citizen (works river hill) - 0-2-1 total 2-3-2
If you settle the hill you gain one production only until you have enough citizens to work highly productive tiles around the city, after which you will lose 1 production. The payoff is only determined by how many productive tiles are around your city site. In my experience I've found it difficult to find clustered productive tiles around a river, unless you count forests which don't really become productive until much later in the game.
Settle river hill (unimproved tiles)
City - 2-2-1 citizen (works another river hill) - 0-2-1 - total - 2-4-2
Settle river grass (unimproved tiles)
City - 2-2-1 citizen (works river hill) - 0-2-1 total 2-3-2
If you settle the hill you gain one production only until you have enough citizens to work highly productive tiles around the city, after which you will lose 1 production. The payoff is only determined by how many productive tiles are around your city site. In my experience I've found it difficult to find clustered productive tiles around a river, unless you count forests which don't really become productive until much later in the game.
BrutalusMaximus
Warlord
We are talking about the capital here. Not a future specialist city.
We are talking about the first few turns and squeezing max benefit from the FIRST few turns.
Civ 5 snowballs. 1 extra production in the first 5 turns turns itself into a lead of hundreds later.
I think it is safe to say if you start on a river-hill. Settle it. If you start on a river coast. Settle it.
I would never move more then ONE turn with a settler in a standard speed game.
I think it really comes down to is it worth it to move from a river-non-hill to a river-hill on turn one?
And is it worth it to move from a river-non-coast to a river coast. I think this is the choice most commonly seen.
At least it is for me as I have been playing repeated starts as Askia and I have started on a river plains with a river coast and a river hill one move away over and over.
We are talking about the first few turns and squeezing max benefit from the FIRST few turns.
Civ 5 snowballs. 1 extra production in the first 5 turns turns itself into a lead of hundreds later.
I think it is safe to say if you start on a river-hill. Settle it. If you start on a river coast. Settle it.
I would never move more then ONE turn with a settler in a standard speed game.
I think it really comes down to is it worth it to move from a river-non-hill to a river-hill on turn one?
And is it worth it to move from a river-non-coast to a river coast. I think this is the choice most commonly seen.
At least it is for me as I have been playing repeated starts as Askia and I have started on a river plains with a river coast and a river hill one move away over and over.
On my first post game, I relocated my capital 2 hexes. It was already on a river, but the coast was 3 hexes away and I didn't want to waste water tiles. (Exploration confirmed it was the right call, the inital starting spot would have killed a river city in addition to stranding resources permeantly unworked). This was eventually abandoned when Washington while at war with Gaundi DOWs me, rescuing Gaundi who he's currently at war with.
On my second post patch game first attempt, I took one look at the map in 4000 BC and hit reload after moving the warrior. No rivers visible.
On the second attempt I looked carefully at the resource pattern (river start) and decided I like this spot enough to settle in place without even moving the warrior. Scouting confirmed it was a good choice; that location fits best with future city builds.
On my second post patch game first attempt, I took one look at the map in 4000 BC and hit reload after moving the warrior. No rivers visible.
On the second attempt I looked carefully at the resource pattern (river start) and decided I like this spot enough to settle in place without even moving the warrior. Scouting confirmed it was a good choice; that location fits best with future city builds.
I am reloading a lot too lately, not sure if thats a good thing or not :/
blightmoon
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 75
I find one mod very useful in making this decision much easier. "Initial settler runner shoes" mod (I think that's the name) gives your 1st settler 4 move. The next settlers get the regular 2 move.
I play epic speed and I think 2 missed turns (w/o the mod) is ok.
I play epic speed and I think 2 missed turns (w/o the mod) is ok.
AznWarlord
Monarch
I love settling in dye or incense river clusters, get 3 gold on the city tile initially, plus 4 gold each after calendar. +7 gpt on the first turn is a big deal, especially if you want to rush a water mill or granary.
That is totally ridiculous. I still wonder why some people play with mods that makes things easier. Look at all the discussions in this thread about decision making on where and when to build your first city. 4 moves seem like cheating and not what this thread is about, I believe.
blightmoon
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 75
Well, one can play as if he had only 2 move on that settler. The thing is that there are just some map rolls that are too bad/too good. Some don't want to miss a map that would have been good if only for that 1 extra move needed. Some want to have that option to move to the optimal start. For a challenge, one could also roll for a difficult start. Whatever works for the player, right?
I think where to settle is still a question answered even with the extra move. When to settle is what the mod mainly affects and I think "when" is more a function of the randomness of resource locations rather than decision making. Too much luck in a game ain't too attractive for some people.
