Optimal City Placement

[mykeedee]

This is too big of a topic for the strategy thread so I decided to put it here. Here I hope to compile a list of optimal city spots for each civ to settle. Originally I was going to write the whole list with my opinions but I realized that that would defeat the whole purpose of such a list which is to obtain an overall consensus from the community as to what placements to use, I also rarely play non great power civs which leaves quite a gap in my knowledge. Please include directions to less common city spots, ex. Amiens doesn't need directions but Voronezh probably does. Due to the nature and spirit of this thread I will be leaving each blank initially but will fill it with the consensus of the thread and if they meet no opposition, my own opinions. Civs are sorted in order of spawn.


Egypt:
Yebu 1W 4S from Cairo

China

Babylonia

Greece

India

Phoenicia

Persia

Rome

Tamils

Ethiopia

Korea

Maya

Byzantium

Japan

Viking

Arabia

Tibet

Khmer

Indonesia

Moors

Spain:
Madrid
Barcelona
Bilbao(if razing Bordeaux)
Santiago
Cordoba

France

England:
London
Edinburgh(on iron)
Dublin
Durban(on gold in South Africa)

HRE

Russia
Voronezh
Tallin
Tver
Luela

Mali

Poland

Portugal

Inca

Italy:
If playing for UHV: Genova (on stone)

Mongolia

Aztecs

Mughals

Turkey

Thailand

Congo

Safavids

Dutch

Prussia

America:
Philadelphia/New York
New Orleans
Los Angeles+Seattle or San Francisco+Vancouver
Chicago
Denver(on oil)
1S of Canadian iron/Saskatoon
Guantanamo

 

[Wondering Kid]

On Spain I always go for Madrid, La Coruña, Barcelona (the spot where it appears as Indy); and eventually, I go for Cordoba as well (after a nice change of management).

However, sometimes I think that razing Barcelona would be a better alternative than keeping it. After all, keeping it makes me have to play diplomat with France (which is better than having several useless wars, God bless us, that they don't go Protestant)

France is pretty much alright with Paris, Marseille, Bordeaux and Brest. Brest isn't a really useful city at first, but eventually if grown right; it can be a good source of income/tech expenditure.

 

[Lennon789]

This is something I've been meaning to talk about for a while, and I think this thread is the right place for my suggestion.

The AI should be heavily encouraged to found the city known as Yebu to the Egyptians and Ethiopians and Elephantine to the Romans, on the tile that is 1W and 4S from Cairo. This city gives some much needed breathing room for Egypt's other cities, as the area is cramped enough. Additionally, this city has three resources in its BFC (Ivory, Incense, and Gold) and produces the least amount of overlap with Cairo and Aksum.

I would also recommend that any human player who is tasked with settling Egypt, such as Arabia in the 600 AD scenario, settle this city as well. Far too often have I seen a city built way too close to Cairo that misses out on the Ivory to the south.

 

[Locutus_Morti]

America probably doesn't need saying, but I might as well go ahead.

Denver

Settle on the oil in the heartland of the US proper. One of, if not the most, productive city in the game.


Saskatoon

In between the Deer and Oil north of Denver. Tanks take 3 turns on Epic speed.


Detroit

Bottom left of the three tiles representing Michigan. Classic production city. Best if there's not Washington.


Alternatively,
Chicago

SW of the Detroit spot. Has less overlap with Washington.


Los Angeles

1 North of the Southernmost spot on the US West Coast. Amazing amounts of food, especially after 1850. Put farms north before this date to avoid researching Biology.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

England is really easy:

London on spot (because it's LONDON, dammit). Edinburg on Iron. Dublin on River (not Hill - you want the Hill for a Mine because Ireland lacks Production).

Greece is easy too:

Corinth on Marble. Byzantium 1NW of its usual spot, for River/Hills/Horse. Another city in the Balkans 1E of Clam, to get the Sheep in Apulia. And Sinope on the River/Hills/Black Sea coast. That's all you need to settle.

Spain/Iberia can be covered with coastal cities only:

Lisbon/Cordoba/Barcelona are already settled for you. You only need to settle Santiago (on River just north of Portugal flip zone) and Bilbao (you will raze Bordeaux later).

 

[Locutus_Morti]

Rome:

Argentoratus

Alternative to Lugdunum. Located at the iron to the north. Better production, as it has access to some of Frankfurt's resources, but has quite a bit of overlap with Mediolanum.

Saguntum

West of the silver in Spain. Better than Tarraco, less overlap with Argentoratus/Lugdunum

Salonae

Plain hills north of the Copper in the Balkans. Great production city, coastal too.

Sirmium

Underutilized but excellent spot. Two north of Copper in the Balkans. Actually more productive than Salonae, but not coastal. Both of the spots provide late-game access to oil as well.

 

[borhap88]

England is really easy:

London on spot (because it's LONDON, dammit). Edinburg on Iron. Dublin on River (not Hill - you want the Hill for a Mine because Ireland lacks Production).

I always settle London, Dublin, Manchester (1S from Edinburg) and Inverness on the fur...is it too useless?

 

[strijder20]

England is really easy:

London on spot (because it's LONDON, dammit). Edinburg on Iron. Dublin on River (not Hill - you want the Hill for a Mine because Ireland lacks Production).

In my last game I settled London one south because it reduces overlap with Edinburgh.

Spoiler :

 

[Jusos2108]

America's ideal city placement is Denver on Oil, New Orleans, Chicago, Philadelphia and the city 1S from the Iron in Canadian border. On the west coast a city on the wine and next to rice are my usual options, but there are several other options like city on the cow and further north.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

I always settle London, Dublin, Manchester (1S from Edinburg) and Inverness on the fur...is it too useless?

It's a good setup if you want 4 cities in Britain for historical authenticity (instead of sending a starting Settler to Africa). But the 3 city setup is better in the long run.

You can also send the 4th settler to Iceland, and go the Viking Route. I find that more historically realistic than settling South Africa in the Middle Ages. Iceland actually gives you very little Stability hit because it's only a small number of land tiles - you get much bigger hit for settling Recife, for example.

In my last game I settled London one south because it reduces overlap with Edinburgh.

But then it overlaps much more with Paris - which is the idea, I suppose. But I cannot help but choke France to death with vanilla London anyway. I sometimes avoid building Cathedrals in London because the Culture press on France & Netherlands is insane.

London and Edinburg only have 2 tiles overlap anyway.

 

[borhap88]

It's a good setup if you want 4 cities in Britain for historical authenticity (instead of sending a starting Settler to Africa). But the 3 city setup is better in the long run.

You can also send the 4th settler to Iceland, and go the Viking Route. I find that more historically realistic than settling South Africa in the Middle Ages. Iceland actually gives you very little Stability hit because it's only a small number of land tiles - you get much bigger hit for settling Recife, for example.

Good suggestions. I always try to win in a historical way

 

[Atlantic Pacf.]

Here's my city placement. It may not be the most optimal, but I try.

America:

- Settle Washington on the spot

- New York will flip to you. Boston too, but said Boston would be too close if it's only one tile away from NYC. One tile north (northeast?) is better.

- Settle Chicago between to corn. It is likely to be the biggest city in your civ. Of course, if you choose Philadelphia as your capital, then I suppose it frees up the Chicago east of the southern corn.

- Denver. Duh.

- New Orleans. The three cotton are really nice.

- On the west coast, settle L.A. north of the river (so many food resources!) and Vancouver, to minimize overlap.

- I happen to settle Valleyview and some other city S.E. of it. Canada is quite fertile.

- Guantanamo Bay, in the easternmost tile of Cuba, will net you the most resources.

England:

- London. It being surrounded by resources is just great. Of course, it's a pain to get your ships around Kent, but oh well.

- I settle Aberdeen. It's not on a hill, so it saves you the most production.

- Dublin. Meh.

For English (or basically any civ's) South Africa:

- Port Nolloth. Unlike the two Cape Towns, this city actually has production.

- Durban. Because gold. And other resources.

 

[jammerculture]

I've been playing as France the last few days trying for UHV. It's tough. All the guides say settle Bordeaux but I think that is before Leoreth changed settling on resource yields. Now I am finding Nantes, on the horse far superior- two seafood, minimal coast tiles. My third settler goes to Chartres in England on the Iron.

The settling on resource changes is really game changing imo. It's hard to break old habits though.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

^jammerculture.

Invade England. Barbuesque and I used this strategy to very good effect.
Go check the old 1.9 UHV Challenge thread and look at both those games.
I'll pull up some links in a second.

My game:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11723947&postcount=89

Barbuesque's game:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11843358&postcount=216

 

[jammerculture]

^jammerculture.

Invade England. Barbuesque and I used this strategy to very good effect.
Go check the old 1.9 UHV Challenge thread and look at both those games.
I'll pull up some links in a second.

My game:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11723947&postcount=89

Barbuesque's game:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11843358&postcount=216

Yeah I'm following those, thats why one of my initial cities goes in England. Honestly, my whole strategy in this game since Dawn of the Middle Kingdom can be summed up as WWTDD ( What would tomorrows dawn do).

My problem with France is production. You don't have alot of happy to go with all the food so whipping is only so effective. The lack of hills can be gotten around with guilds+urbanization+workshops, but guilds is 40 turns away. Plus, Paris is stuck in permanent wonder spam, and any other city in France is very very hammer poor.

My current strategy is based on building my army in scotland, take london, ferry troops to mainland, take Iberia (still in first phase). I was lucky enough to get Rome so I have just started building a second army there. I'm doing much better this time then my first attempt. Fingers crossed

 

[ace99]

I haven't had production problems in France. Marseilles is a pretty productive place especially with forges. On the 600 AD start after settling Paris and I build a galley in Bordeux settle Scotland, conquer all of Italy, and either conquer of otherwise ruin England.

Then it's easy enough, I take Frankfurt to wreck Germany and conquer Spain, go and settle the Americas. Your advantages are that Germany is gimped by Poland and Spain by the Moors so settling Scotland does the same for England. And you end up as the dominant European power after that.

 

[jammerculture]

I never play 600 ad. on 3000 south of france is usually spanish culture from Tarragona/Barcelona or is under Roman control. If Rome collapses, no problem. If not (see my eternal Rome thread), then you have no "prodution" city in France, other then Paris with guilded workshops, but those hammers go towards wonders.

The key to a productive mainland France is a collapsed Rome.

 

[Barbuesque]

I never play 600 ad. on 3000 south of france is usually spanish culture from Tarragona/Barcelona or is under Roman control. If Rome collapses, no problem. If not (see my eternal Rome thread), then you have no "prodution" city in France, other then Paris with guilded workshops, but those hammers go towards wonders.

The key to a productive mainland France is a collapsed Rome.

It's hard to suggest a strat for an european nation on a 3000 BC start as the initial situation will vary widely from one game to another. For a reliable french start with an assorted strategy, you obviously need to use the 600 AD start.

Quite often France won't flip any city on a 3000 BC start, as everything will have been razed by barbs.

Anyway it might not be useful to you since you stated you don't play the 600AD start, but the start revolves around whipping a galley in flipped bordeaux, and sending it to scotland on the iron, then build up troops in marseilles and Bordeaux, letting paris focus on infrastructure, and conquer rome. Also, send a weak unit to invade Ireland when the indep city reaches size 2, invariably without a garrison. With 6 good cities you'll have the strong start you need to pursue the UHV.

The above start can be reliably reproduced, unlike anything that can be said about 3000 BC starts.

Good luck!

 

[Askiya]

Ethiopia: Settle Aksum on spot, move second settler to Gondokoro which is on the hill chokepoint next to the Upper (southern) Nile. Later found Muqdisho next to the river in southern Ethiopia.

Greece: First city Korinthos on marble 1S, 1W of Athens. Second city Byzantion 1W of usual to get river and give room for Sinope in Anatolia.

India I like to found Dhaka as the capital which is 2W of Pataliputra, right on the border with the jungle and 1N of the banana. It gives more room to Varanasi, and more hammers to your capital.

 

[jammerculture]

It's hard to suggest a strat for an european nation on a 3000 BC start as the initial situation will vary widely from one game to another. For a reliable french start with an assorted strategy, you obviously need to use the 600 AD start.

Quite often France won't flip any city on a 3000 BC start, as everything will have been razed by barbs.

Anyway it might not be useful to you since you stated you don't play the 600AD start, but the start revolves around whipping a galley in flipped bordeaux, and sending it to scotland on the iron, then build up troops in marseilles and Bordeaux, letting paris focus on infrastructure, and conquer rome. Also, send a weak unit to invade Ireland when the indep city reaches size 2, invariably without a garrison. With 6 good cities you'll have the strong start you need to pursue the UHV.

The above start can be reliably reproduced, unlike anything that can be said about 3000 BC starts.

Good luck!

This is what I've done, except I settle Nantes on the horse instead of bordeaux. Also no marseilles until much later but its working.