One incredible city or 2 really good cities?

szieker

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
24
Location
Cincinnati
Before I get into it, I don't have a picture to show my starting location, so I'll try to describe it.

Playing Diety, Fractal, as Russia. Standard settings.

Turn 0 I started in a pretty decent location, next to a river, inside a mountain range. Double Gems, Marble, sheep, cows, double stone.

I decidd to spend 1 turn and move 2 spots south, so I could pick up a 3rd gem in my city borders, and get an observatory in my capital.

After I did a little exploration and teccing, I notcied that I also had a wheat, horses, furs, and a salt within 3 tiles of my capital.

To summarize: 6 strategic resources, 4 unique luxuries, river city, next to a mountain.

Here's the problem. There's nothing else around. If I would have settled in place, I would have had a very good city location 5-6 tiles south, that would have pickd up those other resources. As it stands now, I have to either

a) settle a city > 10 tiles away if i want some resources or luxuries in my city radius
b) settle a city with no luxuries, and milk the happiness from the capital.


So here's my question. If I would have settled in place on Turn 0, I would have had a very good city location, then I could have expanded south, and had a very good second city location.

Which does everyone else prefer?

I might save turn 0, and play it out both ways, to see which way ends up being more productive.
 

Attachments

  • 2015-07-21_00001.jpg
    2015-07-21_00001.jpg
    300.6 KB · Views: 299
Post the save or a screenshot (F12) so we can have some more information. I'd lean towards having the better capital, since you get that observatory by moving. Your second city might have some iron and horses for trading anyway.
 
I would go with the epic capital and make a 2nd city some where nearby in the best spot you can find ignoring whether it has a luxury or not. It sounds like you will have plenty of happiness from your capital location. You can not overvalue the importance of an observatory with a massive city.
 
For my play style, two cities and just send internal trade routes between to boost the food lost. More cities, more units that can be built at once, higher unit cap, and more population faster.
 
In general, for Civ V, I'd go for one city rather than two unless the one city approach means some key tile wouldn't be worked by any city within the empire.

(Global Happiness means you are better off with the fewest number of cities that take in the same number of high value hexes.)
 
I think your capital is fine where it is. Just make sure you expand your borders to get that salt and furs to the south.

I'd be looking at two more cities, both to the north. One on the mouth of the river north of Samarkand so the truffles are only two tiles away. And another in the mountains west of Mombasa to secure all those gems, iron and the dyes tile. You can run a food cargo ship from the second city to the third to make up for the lack of food tiles.
 
Well, if you don't settle, Hiawatha will.

All those tiles around cap are nice, but only if you have people. I'd go for super Moscow plus 1 extra city north (river, fish, truffles). Yours gem/dye spot looks to be a bit low on food. But Hia has some dye ...
 
Your cap is ok.
I would settle ~3 cities: top-left from cap (2 iron, 2 stone, truffles), top from cap (another lux), right from cap - on gems. Then kill Egypt.
 
I think your capital is fine where it is. Just make sure you expand your borders to get that salt and furs to the south.

I'd be looking at two more cities, both to the north. One on the mouth of the river north of Samarkand so the truffles are only two tiles away. And another in the mountains west of Mombasa to secure all those gems, iron and the dyes tile. You can run a food cargo ship from the second city to the third to make up for the lack of food tiles.
This is exactly what I would suggest also. :goodjob:
 
Well, if you don't settle, Hiawatha will..

If the AI were better about where it placed its cities, that would actually be a reason to delay in that direction ... (let the AI build a city just for you to get easily)

As is, at some point you will be at war with both of those civs (hopefully not at the same time), and at that point can raze whichever of their cities don't bring in anything useful while keeping the ones that are useful.
 
I'd settle the northmost point of the western river north of Samarkand, directly north of cap, and somewhere north of Memphis. Try to keep Iroq and Egypt at war at all times to divert their attention from you.

The cap is in an excellent location but you need expos ASAP
 
You definitely have a few good spots for other cities that don't need to take up the capital's resources. The safest spot to settle would be the hill next to the gems up north. Not too much food, but a whole lot of production. It gives you two gems, multiple things of stone, and theoretically dyes in the future. The spot right below the truffles on the left can be great too, it gives you truffles, two iron spots (great for russia's UA), a couple of stone spots, and a possible wheat later. Those two spots can also compliment each other well with eventual food cargo ships, and... somehow, the krepost actually could make a difference in helping your city borders expand faster. That's actually not a bad UB in this situation for any of your potential cities, even your capital. It might be worth getting for the UB benefits if you can find the time for it.

If you want to get really bold, you could take the hill next to the two cattle on the right. If you do that, you would need to prepare for war, but it's a defensible city with two immediate cattle, with gems, deer, and iron already explored, with the potential for more awesome on the right. If you do that, you would need to build an archer right now though, and probably go for composite bow tech.
 
Top Bottom