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.
Well, perhaps the ability to produce more quickly produces better results, I will have to see. Do you send a starting settler to Africa, though? I find that the extra happiness from the Durban resources significantly helps with the larger cities. Dublin though, is much better 1n of the spawn location (or maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture, as I don't quite remember where Manchester is).
True, but you then have to cross your fingers and hope you don't hit a load of impis all at once and that the Arabs don't just decide to DOW on you just cos they can. A Farari would ruin your whole day. And it's a looong way round if you can't go through jungles - you may find the Arabs have settled Uqsur and blocked the way through Egypt!
Well, perhaps the ability to produce more quickly produces better results, I will have to see. Do you send a starting settler to Africa, though? I find that the extra happiness from the Durban resources significantly helps with the larger cities. Dublin though, is much better 1n of the spawn location (or maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture, as I don't quite remember where Manchester is).
To be fair my strat was based on the old 600AD start with Indie Inverness. Haven't played England since the map changes, as I want to wait for the full civic and stability experience! It may well be that just London and Edinburgh, and waiting for Dublin to spawn, will be the best bet.
So I usually sent two settlers to Africa, with one for London and one for Manchester, and usually find that just as I'm hitting my happiness cap (after judicious use of the whip for settlers and buildings) I'm hooking up the Durban and Cape Town resources. That strat may be blown a bit by the new cape on the way down, tho' I may just whip up a couple of crossbows, send them the long way round and hope the Fararis are nice to me
Either way, I would guess you won't be able to hook up the African resources to your trade network until you get Astronomy anyway, as you can't trade through the cape? Unless you manage to get OB with the Arabs or Moors.
Manchester is 1S of Edinburgh. It gets the two fish and deer, London gets the sheep and wheat, Inverness gets cows, sheep and whale, and Dublin gets fish and sheep. So you get four cities growing very fast, and reduced happy cap issues.
Tho' if you really want to be efficient as England on the new map you want to found Southampton and Edinburgh. Southamption is on the cow on the south coast - basically you swap the unirrigated wheat for the crab, and settle on a cow so the city gets 3 food 3 hammers. You also get the land tile in the SW corner, which is better than another coast tile. But that's provided you are willing to ditch London
Edinburgh on the Iron and Southampton on the Cow plus a city in Ireland that doesn't overlap on too many sea tiles with either of the first two cities.
Third city should found Durban on current setup, but Leoreth has mentioned that he intends to nerf Durban somewhat so this might change in the not-too-distant future.
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?
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.
I get the importance of early colonization, but Edingburgh on Iron and Bath on Stone does't mean that you can't have 2 settlers for colonization. You could use the remaining two to settle two cities in Africa. Canterburry and Dublin could be done later.
Gotcha. I was assuming you were just using two cities for the whole game, which is the benefit of settling just on the silver and stone south of Mexico.
I get the importance of early colonization, but Edingburgh on Iron and Bath on Stone does't mean that you can't have 2 settlers for colonization. You could use the remaining two to settle two cities in Africa. Canterburry and Dublin could be done later.
But then you are essentially gambling that Paris doesn't get a second border pop and cover Cantebury in culture before you can build it, or that AI France doesn't settle Cherboug. It will also be much harder to get any sea tiles if you delay settling Cantebury.
I agree about Dublin tho' - it's not such a great city that you need to settle it straight away, and you can easily whip a settler out for it later on, or take the barb city which tends to spawn. Much more important to get a jump start on colonising.
I agree about Dublin tho' - it's not such a great city that you need to settle it straight away, and you can easily whip a settler out for it later on, or take the barb city which tends to spawn. Much more important to get a jump start on colonising.
Dublin BFC overlaps with Edinburgh for use of the fish near Manchester. Better overall city yields if you build an Irish city on the west coast due to less overlapping tiles, rather than the Dublin tile (which have an independent/barb city from time to time).
Dublin BFC overlaps with Edinburgh for use of the fish near Manchester. Better overall city yields if you build an Irish city on the west coast due to less overlapping tiles, rather than the Dublin tile (which have an independent/barb city from time to time).
But to build on the west coast of Ireland and still include all of Ireland in the BFC, you need to settle either on the sheep or the hill. So you either lose all Ireland's production potential, or lose the food yield from the sheep anyway (and lose the river which will harm production in the future).
Seems a bit self defeating if you want good yields - the one thing Britain is not lacking is food!
Gotcha. I was assuming you were just using two cities for the whole game, which is the benefit of settling just on the silver and stone south of Mexico.
Of course it's in flip zone, but to accomplish UHV3, it's necessary to have a war with Aztec, and it's easy to win it with catapults and axemen(4th city on the copper)
I have a setup that has only 3 tiles of overlap in it's entirety.
Philadelphia
Chicago
Denver
Los Angeles (Same line)
Regina
Vancouver
Savannah/Jacksonville/St. Augustine
Each city gets it's whole BFC to work with, minus 3 river-forest-grasslands shared between Savannah and Chicago.
If you want a city in the Maritimes, go for Halifax, on the SW tile of Nova Scotia.
Houston is your best bet in Texas, but put it 1W of the Jungle instead. This reduces overlap with other cities, and allows accesss to more resources.
I use this whenever I can, and it's pretty much ideal. As a bonus, it allows for 2 more cities.
I'll post a pic in a bit.
Aaaand here's the pic. This is the setup I usually run in my games.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
