Plains and Hill with City = +1 Production

[onedreamer]

This is my point: its not one big conspiracy to get you to settle only on plain hills.



onedreamer: Not sure where you are getting your info but its wrong. First improvements obviously are taken into account since if you settle on a resource it will become available once you have the required tech. And had you read my post you would have heard me say pigs and sheep only give you a food bonus on grass. Thus, not sure how much clearer I can state this, the base terrain *is* taken into account for *all* cases, its just they turn out to irrelevant for most. Only with the 2 base food of grass will you see 3 food in the center with pigs and sheep.

sure Smirk, your theory makes perfect sense, especially from a mathematical point of view.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

settling on a tile does 2 things
1. makes any resources in the tile available once the proper techs are researched
2. changes the FPC output to a minimum of 2,1,1
so grassland-food bonuses get +1 food (3 food v. 2 minimum)
Plains-hills and Plains-Prod bonus and Hills-Prod bonus get +1 hammer (2 hammers v. 1)
Plains-Hills-Prod bonus get +2 (3 hammers v. 2)
Riverside-Commerce bonuses get +1 Commerce (2 commerce v. 1)

Forests and Floodplains don't contribute because they are eliminated upon settling.

Now perhaps it might have been better to 'set' the output of the tile to 2,1,1, and then add in resources (so that all Food bonuses would give +1 food, all Prod bonuses would give +1 hammer, and all Commerce bonuses would give +1 commerce)

However they decided not to do that because it didn't give the balance that they wanted or was easier to program, but it is not a bug.

 

[Ribannah]

It is imbalancing though. If you settle your first city on a plains hill you gain a huge advantage. Not a good idea.

 

[Pragmatic]

It is imbalancing though. If you settle your first city on a plains hill you gain a huge advantage. Not a good idea.

You get a huge initial advantage. You lose something, though: With a mine and railroad, that hill/plains square could have given you 5H. So, for an intial gain, you're giving up long-term use.

Same as settling on a hill/grass/production square: sure, it gives 2H to your initial city, as well as activating the resource. However, how much more would you have gained by putting an actual mine there? You're losing at least the +2H from the mine (increased to +3 with a railroad), but you're also losing the improved yield of the resource.

If you're going to talk about initial gains, talk about chop-rushing. By heading straight for bronze working, you can chop the forests around your city, gaining quicker production and opening up potential farms and cottages, at the expense of long-term production.

It's all a trade-off. I, personally, like hill/plains that border rivers, and hopefully near coasts. Sure, I'll lose some long-term production, but it's an "improvement" that doesn't need to be defended. And I like producing the barracks a little bit faster...

 

[Ribannah]

You lose something, though: With a mine and railroad, that hill/plains square could have given you 5H. So, for an intial gain, you're giving up long-term use.

Missing the mine on the hill is easily compensated by chosing hammers over food on other squares.