• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Optimal City Placement

Because I don't build Manchester of Newcastle. Just London and Edinburigh and Dublin.
 
England:
Southampton and Edinburgh. The third settler goes to Tunis or Morocco. I prefer not to settle Dublin since it lacks production which means a crippled city in the long run.

I guess u can get more out of Dublin by whipping it to death, but I´ve never liked this way of playing.
 
Have you played much since Moors were introduced? Northern Africa is no longer available for settling as England.
 
Have you played much since Moors were introduced? Northern Africa is no longer available for settling as England.

Last time i played DoC as England was two weeks ago or so, but I didn't update the mod for a long time, so I guess I have an obsolete version of it. There is Indonesia and Mughals but no Poland and apparently no Moors.

I've however got some interesting thoughts about Dublin and I think it is indeed a good city, if you play right. A nationalist England can easily make Dublin into a redcoat powerhouse, three fishes is indeed more than enough for it. And uncle Shakespeare will ensure that noone in the city is unhappy :worship:
 
JAPAN: Kyōto, the northernmost Edo, and Manira (whip a galley quickly). I think some players prefer Matsuyama to Kyōto, and probably for good reason (as it has access to the gold on southern Kyūshū and the whales south-east of Japan). I simply choose the traditional capital out of historical preference.

ITALY (600 AD): I opt not to found a city at all; I'm not sure why anyone would. I use my starting stack to take Roma on the first turn. I guess it could be different if you're pursuing their UHV (building Genoa in addition to flipping Venezia and taking Roma), but I find that even Venezia cripples Roma somewhat. This is coming from someone without much experience in using City States.

Afterthought: Hiroshima is a pretty good decision for Japan, too. I might prefer it to the traditional capital.
 
I recently played an interesting American game, where I waited to see what I'd flip as my capital. It turned out to be Savannah, which was a bit meh, but I also flipped New York and Pointe-Saint-Anne. I gave back PSA to the English for peace, then redeclared and razed it later.

Founded Chicago in its normal spot, Denver in its normal spot, Los Angeles in its normal spot, and Mexicali at the mouth of the Colorado.

Later, I declared against France and razed New Orleans, because it would overlap a bit too much with Savannah to be optimal, and razed St. Louis au Texas as well. I founded Houston, which isn't a bad city. And then, finally, I got Vancouver from the English in a Congress.

So so far in the game, I have Savannah as my capital, LA and NYC as really huge cities, Denver and Chicago as production powerhouses, Vancouver, which isn't a bad city overall, and Houston, which is my economic and science 'capital'. Was pretty much running a cottage economy the whole game.

Oh yeah, and I forgot about Mexicali, which was just for teh lulz.
 
In Indonesia, I usually settle Darmacraya on the iron instead of Palembang as the capital ever since the city-acts-as-improvement feature
 
why amiens is good ?

It's coastal, meaning it can build a harbor and especially a lighthouse. For a large capital, the 50% lighthouse bonus is significant.

Which is why i suggested any city with coast/ocean tiles in it's BFC should be able to build them.
 
This is what I'm experimenting with for France right now:

First found Amiens and Rennes. Then whip a settler to Marseilles. Kicked the Germans out of Frankfurt and razed it and Hamburg to kill overlap. Kicked the Spanish out of Iberia and razed all their cities [They moved to Constantinople and promptly collapsed]. Got rid of the Moors and razed all of their cities except Cordoue/Cordoba [the former should be the French name for Cordoba]. Founded Bilbao, and those are my cities:

Amiens, Rennes, Marseilles, Cordoue, and Bilbao.
 
Top Bottom