xcrissxcrossx
Prince
You can rename the new city and it will still work.
Optimal City Placement
- Thread starter mykeedee
- Start date
You can rename the new city and it will still work.
Atlantic Pacf.
Back from the dead
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 400
What about Zaragoza instead of Barcelona? The latter can't work the iron.
I played Maya and here are the cities placement I prefer:
1. Huaxyacac (1E of Stone)
*This is a good city to build temple of Kukulkan, for production you can get 1 Quarry of stone and two mine (Chop the forest and build one mine on Dye). As for food you get corn, you can defend this city from north barbarian dog soldiers easier too.
2. Ximche (1S of Silver)
*Pre build 2 working boats, build a pagan temple in the city. Once your cultural border expand you will get 2 fish, build an harbor then you will get plenty of food. You can hurry a lot of building with enough population.
3. Chichen Itza (1N of Dye)
*Your last city in you core area. Finally you could build a plantation on the Dye so the jungle is clear and you finally connect three cities by road.
1. Huaxyacac (1E of Stone)
*This is a good city to build temple of Kukulkan, for production you can get 1 Quarry of stone and two mine (Chop the forest and build one mine on Dye). As for food you get corn, you can defend this city from north barbarian dog soldiers easier too.
2. Ximche (1S of Silver)
*Pre build 2 working boats, build a pagan temple in the city. Once your cultural border expand you will get 2 fish, build an harbor then you will get plenty of food. You can hurry a lot of building with enough population.
3. Chichen Itza (1N of Dye)
*Your last city in you core area. Finally you could build a plantation on the Dye so the jungle is clear and you finally connect three cities by road.
blizzrd
Micromanager
Only two Mayan core area cities are required, Huaxyacac on the Stone and your capital on the Silver. When playing Maya for long-term game I found capital like you suggest 1S of the Silver to work both seafood resources.
Later, founding a Columbian city on the Gold is worthwhile and this uses some of the remaining historical tiles around Panama plus can work all the good resources in this area.
Founding the capital on the silver is vital if you want to play Emperor level difficulty. Getting the silver hooked up straight away, with the extra two food from the hill, is the only way to get Calendar by 600AD.
And Chichen Itza is a rubbish location - all it will do is drain science through maintenance imo.
soul-breathing
Emperor
The best city placement of Maya is two cities both on silver: one in Guatemala, another in Mexico
Well any european civ that can expand to South Africa should really consider founding cape town and Durban. Cape town is especially valuable before the invention of optics/astronomy as it connects the old world coasts. (There is a cape tile south of cape town making it impassible for trade and galleys/trimes) Cape town will function as a gateway to the east, just like it historically did.
For England I'd definitely go for Bath (one the Stone), Edingburg(on the iron), and Cantenburry(On Cow). These three cities will cover all of Englands land tiles and sea recources. Cantenburry is much better to Rome as it initially gives you extra production (granted on the cost of 1 food, but that's a small price to pay) a crab tile and eventually a fish tile (until the Dutch settle Amsterdam, but that's centuries away from the British spawn) and if France were to collapse then you get Paris's grain and dye. Also it gives you three good core coastal cities immediately which will greatly help you against hostile Vikings.
For Rome. Ancona ((I think) on the Iron North East from Rome) uncoventional, but a good choice. The Rome civ benefits greatly from a strong capital (due to it's UP) and Ancona is a bit better production wise then Rome and extremly better food wise (5 food recources available in stead of 3 (of which one would be on a plain hill)) With Rome you'de struggle to get a pop of 10 with Ancona you'll easily get a pop of 15. As for Roman cities in France I'd go for Portus Namnetum (on the horse (free production and commerce bonus, and it has three food recourses)), Moguntiacum ( east of Frankfurt on the Iron tile (I think), amazing production (for a European city) and really great food/commerce (it can easily become your second/third important city (first if you found Rome and Greece is screwed up)) ) and Central something (1 south of Paris) it gets two grain recources (and a pig if you don't need/want to have Monguntiacum to grow any further), decent commerce and small production decent even if you'll let it use an Iron mine from Monguntiacum.
As For Egypth, I always go for either 1 or 2 south of the starting plot you get a grain recource which allows you to whip quicker) and a city of which I can't remember the name (it's on a desert hill plot on the red sea and it gives you a fish and a clam resource). That second city will really help you with your production, with luck you can get the Great Corthon as well as the Great Lighthouse, the third city would be on the gold or 1 South West of it depending on where you placed your capital.
For the Incas, just try to get most of your cities connected to the sea. It won't give you extra trading commerce because of the civics you'll be running, but with a harbor you can swich from mountain to ocean plots to get extra commerce instead of production. You'll definitely have periods where you'll want that extra commerce and that production is just not helping you.
For Greece first city Korinthos (Duh) and second city South of the sheep East of Byzantium. You'll get two / three sea resources (depending whether or not you want Korinthos to grow further ) and pretty darn god production. Commerce is great with the collosus. It's also more easily defended by barbs then Byzantium. You can choose it to be you're capital so that it's even more easily defended (but Korinthos can really use the culture the palace gives). The second city is perhaps unorthodox, but it's a really strong alternative to Byzantium as it makes your Greek empire much more compact, which allows one or two other decent/good cities in/near Anatolia.
For England I'd definitely go for Bath (one the Stone), Edingburg(on the iron), and Cantenburry(On Cow). These three cities will cover all of Englands land tiles and sea recources. Cantenburry is much better to Rome as it initially gives you extra production (granted on the cost of 1 food, but that's a small price to pay) a crab tile and eventually a fish tile (until the Dutch settle Amsterdam, but that's centuries away from the British spawn) and if France were to collapse then you get Paris's grain and dye. Also it gives you three good core coastal cities immediately which will greatly help you against hostile Vikings.
For Rome. Ancona ((I think) on the Iron North East from Rome) uncoventional, but a good choice. The Rome civ benefits greatly from a strong capital (due to it's UP) and Ancona is a bit better production wise then Rome and extremly better food wise (5 food recources available in stead of 3 (of which one would be on a plain hill)) With Rome you'de struggle to get a pop of 10 with Ancona you'll easily get a pop of 15. As for Roman cities in France I'd go for Portus Namnetum (on the horse (free production and commerce bonus, and it has three food recourses)), Moguntiacum ( east of Frankfurt on the Iron tile (I think), amazing production (for a European city) and really great food/commerce (it can easily become your second/third important city (first if you found Rome and Greece is screwed up)) ) and Central something (1 south of Paris) it gets two grain recources (and a pig if you don't need/want to have Monguntiacum to grow any further), decent commerce and small production decent even if you'll let it use an Iron mine from Monguntiacum.
As For Egypth, I always go for either 1 or 2 south of the starting plot you get a grain recource which allows you to whip quicker) and a city of which I can't remember the name (it's on a desert hill plot on the red sea and it gives you a fish and a clam resource). That second city will really help you with your production, with luck you can get the Great Corthon as well as the Great Lighthouse, the third city would be on the gold or 1 South West of it depending on where you placed your capital.
For the Incas, just try to get most of your cities connected to the sea. It won't give you extra trading commerce because of the civics you'll be running, but with a harbor you can swich from mountain to ocean plots to get extra commerce instead of production. You'll definitely have periods where you'll want that extra commerce and that production is just not helping you.
For Greece first city Korinthos (Duh) and second city South of the sheep East of Byzantium. You'll get two / three sea resources (depending whether or not you want Korinthos to grow further ) and pretty darn god production. Commerce is great with the collosus. It's also more easily defended by barbs then Byzantium. You can choose it to be you're capital so that it's even more easily defended (but Korinthos can really use the culture the palace gives). The second city is perhaps unorthodox, but it's a really strong alternative to Byzantium as it makes your Greek empire much more compact, which allows one or two other decent/good cities in/near Anatolia.
No offense but you're employing poor strategy with Ximche. It's a good choice for a second city, but you first need to build a pagan temple and only then build your working boats. It's common sense really. If you build the pagan temple first, then you get culture while you're building your fishing boats. If you build your boats first then you'll have to wait longer after you've build the pagan temple for you borders to expand.
Depends what you do with your other English cities. I never settle London (really no need to) Just picture setteling Bath on the Stone and Cantenburry 1 South East of London. Then you'll see that Edingburg on the Iron is an ideal city with great production (possible the best in the whole of Europe) and good food (sheep, cows, 2 fish and deer).
Settleling London seems like a really bad idea to me as it means on of your core cities isn't coastal. Since England needs a strong naval force to battle/compete the vikings I really don't see how you could afford that.
Also last and least. Setteling on a production / commerce recourse gives you free production and commerce. That really helps out in the beginning.
I don't know at what difficulty you play, but when I play at emperor I really don't see how one could afford to settle London. Sure it gives decent commerce, but you need coastal cities against the aggressive vikings.
******************************EDIT********************************
Well look at that. London is actually coastal. Still Canterbury is better as it gets you a clam recourse and eventually a fish resource as well, then the Dutch spawn and Cantenburry is exchangeable with London, but for over half a millennium you made had an advantage with the extra sea resources.
Not to mention if France would happen to collapse, then Canterbury culture will extend to the European main land, giving you access to the grain recourse, and dye (If I'm not mistaken).
Does that get you any stone resource? Seems like you would need three border pops for stone using that strategy? Have never tried Maya without the stone for Chichen Itza, although I assume you aren't going for UHV with that strat?
That strat doesn't work as well with the new map, as you need to settle the Canary Islands and Gold Coast to get past the new cape tiles that are there too.
I think London is inferior to Canterbury especially if you want three instead of two cities in you core area (the third would be Bath on the stone) . Canterbury gives you a clam resource, and eventually a fish recources as well (until the Dutch spawn). Also if French were to collapse (which you could make to happen), Canterbury will be able to work Paris grain and dye recourse. That's pretty sweet. Also less overlap with Edinburgh on Iron
blizzrd
Micromanager
Not if it is your capital you don't. It can still be your capital and you won't miss any of the free workers.
It was mentioned as a second city, therefore I didn't figure it would have the palace. As capital you'd indeed go for two working boats and then pagan.
I don't know the new map, but if the resources are still distributed the same in south africa, then I'd still recommend Cape Town as a city. It isn't great, but if you have to fill up africa you could do a lot worse.
SheaferDaDawg
Intelligent Canine
I see your point, but if you settle two cities in the Southern Isles, and then one in Scotland and Ireland, then you:
- Have no settlers for early colonizing
- Have somewhat increased overlap
- Ultimately have an additional city contributing to the ten city limit.
With London, Edinburgh and Dublin, you can cover all but one tile in the Isles. I have always preferred the concept of a few cities with no overlap and some missed tiles as opposed to more cities with a greater start but worse finish.
therox
Hydralisk
Second
Cape Town is still a good city, but it's harder to get to. You have to either found next to useless cities in the Canaries and Gold Coast, or wait until you have Astronomy.
I generally agree with that approach, but in the case of England I'm not sure it's the best approach. I usually found London, Manchester and Inverness, then wait till Dublin spawns as barb. The additional city hurts a bit in the late game, but is invaluable in the early period when you need to build lots of settlers and units, and don't have the happiness resources to make London and Edinburgh large enough to use all their tiles. That approach has always gotten me comfortable UHVs and Domination victories, even on Emperor.
Similar threads
