Optimal City Site

[Toastedzergling]

The optimal city should have 20 people working and extra 2-5 people for entertainment, setler/worker production, tax, science or pop rush etc. I am not sure the other benefits of having a large population but each taxman only bring in 1 gpt. The city needs 50 food to support a population like this.

Please note that corruption, factory, power plant, demoncracy government bous and base prodction at the founding site are all excluded in this analysis

Here is the production table: all squares are railroaded

Basic terrain types/prodction when irrigated/mined/total production

Bonus Grassland/4 food 1 shield/2 food 3 shields/5 total
Hill/NA/1 food 4 shields/5 total
Flooded plain/5 food/NA/5 total
Grassland/4 food 0 shield/3 food 1 shield/4 total
Plain/3 food 1 shield/1 food 3 shields/4 total
Mountain/NA/4 shields/4 total
Desert/1 food 2 shields/0 food 3 shields/3 total
Forest/1 food 2 shields/3 total

Here are a few examples for city sites:

City on 10 squares of grasslands and 10 squares of mined hills, all grasslands should be irrigated. The city produces a total of 50 food and 40 shields. Any bonus grasslands will bring in 1 extra shields.

City on pure grasslands, all grasslands should be mined. The city produces 60 food and 20 shields. Any bonus grass lands will increase the shields by 2 but decrease the food by 1. So if you have 10 bonus grasslands then it produces 50 food and 40 shields, on par with the first city (without any bonus grasslands)

City on pure plains, 12 squares should be irrigated and 8 squares should be mined. This brings in a total of 44 food and 36 shields, both low on the food and shield sides.

City on 10 squares of flooded plains and 10 squares of mined deserts, it produces 50 food and 30 shields, not very good.

Conclusion: in addition to bonus terrains, luxuries, resources and rivers, the optimal city radius should have as much as bonus grasslands, flooded plains and hills as possible. If you think about it, certain bonus sites are actually not worth it, for example: an incense desert only bring in one extra commerce but very low on the food/shield side. It is very important to balance food and shields production. Grasslands and plains are very versatile in this case, since you can choose to mine or irrigate them. A fledgling city should have as much food as possilbe to grow quickly, but when it hits to a point that certain infrastrure is needed, then the city should focus on the shields.

 

[hr_oskar]

If you're talking about city placement strategy in general (i.e. not just for builder's perfectionism), remember: your success in the game is determined much more by how you do in the early game, than in the late game when everything is as conveniently set up as you describe. So placing your cities for early benefits (strong defense, immediate use of bonus resources, low corruption, next to a river etc) in favor of late benefits (as you're describing) is a better idea. The player who's serious about winning doesn't mind overlap or a few desert squares.

If you're just talking about aesthetics though, then yeah, what you're describing would be a nice place for a city

 

[Giorgio]

Generally, I just place my cities according to a pattern, i.e. every city is 4 squares away from the other, regardless if the place is good or not , just looks nice in the map , and once you're industrialized, you'll find perhaps that hills and mountains are almost the best terrain within your city squares; but overlap isn't really bad - you can have very productive cities close to each other, if they're close to grassland or other productive terrain.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Giorgio
Generally, I just place my cities according to a pattern, i.e. every city is 4 squares away from the other, regardless if the place is good or not

I'm just the opposite. I always place my cities according to the terrain. For instance, along a river, or near a crucial resource.

 

[Giorgio]

Well, I admit that this is much more logical, but in the industrial it doesn't matter that much, if you have railroads, every terrain is quite productive (exept tundra). Althoug, the place for my first city has to be perfect, it needs to have a river, no deserts or plains, and perhaps one or two moutains or hills. If I don't find such a place, I restart the game.

 

[kilarb]

Ideal City Location (for starting city, or any):

City itself is located on hill. 5 of the 8 tiles immediately surrounding are grassland or bonus grass. AT LEAST 1 of the grassland tiles contain cattle. 1 or more luxury resources within the closest 20 tiles (working radius).

Cattle Rock.

Regards,
bmk

 

[cracker]

I don't think you have the right conceptual mind set as indicated by this question/thread.

Optimum city sites lead you to search for the wrong things.

Cities provide a mask to control territory and if you are lucky they will provide you with production of food, shields, and gold.

20 people and all that other lunatic raving towards what makes an optimal city will not buy you victory or a more commanding control of the game.

The terrain you are given to work with should determine how you play the game and not some preset notion of the exact spacing of towns or some distorted fixation with the concept that "Yea verily, thou shalt not overlap any squares with other cities."

For most players in most of the game, cities will be limited to 12 citizens or less. A number of very effective strategies will not build hospitals in any more than five cities until after mass transit is available.

Placing most cities at margins between good and extreme terrain will allow those cities to maximize growth rates and alternate periods of intense growth with periods of zero growth but intensive production.

Learn assess strategic position for cities based on the terrain as well as the boundary projecting that the site may provide. DOn't worry about the how big the city can be for most gameplay considerations.

 

[Giorgio]

Quite right. My most valuable cities are sited almost completely in the mountains, surrounded by two or three tiles of grassland. Growth isn't very important, you should only have as much citizens as to be able to use the productive tiles. In my first games, my capital was placed almost only on grassland on a river, perhaps with some wheat or cattle also. But such cities only grow very large and are not productive, and the cause tons of pollution. My most important cities are coastal cities within mountains or hills because I love to have a great fleet with tons of carriers and nuclear subs

 

[Perfection]

I go for quantity not qualtiy than culture rush my civ