[Poll] Generally, what do you prioritize when settling a new city?

[Bliss]

You can choose up to 3 options.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Earlygame I settle as much as possible for the sake of getting my victory district of choice up in a couple of cities. Later I'll usually do it so I can have some support cities pumping out defensive units or builders while my main ones make t3 buildings

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Number of trees and harvestable resources shall be the 0th factor. Everything else seems only an add-on.

If you have sth. like 5 trees nearby, you can just chop them up with the free builder to make a new settler, and also have a lot of additional hammers that help you build up military, monument or campus.

That is said, if you settler among trees, basically you spend a settler, you get a city, a new settler, and a lot of other productions.

This means you get those productions plus the city for free.

 

[kaspergm]

Number of trees and harvestable resources shall be the 0th factor. Everything else seems only an add-on.

Must be a really sad and barren map when you play.

Anyway, as to OP question, really it seems to be a combination of all of the above for me.

 

[7daysofwar]

I think for me it also all of the above but I think the access to a strategic resource is the most important for me. I literally settle bat snow cities just for oil XD

 

[The Highwayman]

Number of Chops should be another option. I'd settle a low housing, resource starved location if it meant free wonders and districts via chopping.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm not a big chopper, I look for base production and food. Sadly, I feel like the most important thing is number of cities. The quality isn't that important. As a personal preference I like cities big that can produce things quickly. Though I will settle cities for strategic resources.

 

[tedhebert]

That is said, if you settler among trees, basically you spend a settler, you get a city, a new settler, and a lot of other productions.

This means you get those productions plus the city for free.

Perosnnaly, I don't play the chopping game... personal choice, and understanding very well what I'm missing out on... Will only use it later in game quite rarely.

but I do have a question: Aren't you sweeping the Builder cost under the rug in this example ? I know and understand it's still a win math wise, but... it's still a cost, the builder is not free !

 

[tedhebert]

the choice missing a little is city placement VS map and space available VS enemy civs... once I've explored enough and forward settled enough to mark my territory, I then usually will try and fit as many cities in the space as possible... so maybe at least add 'forward settle' as a choice ?

 

[Bliss]

@people asking for a chop option, don't you think it falls under the "good tiles" option?

the choice missing a little is city placement VS map and space available VS enemy civs... once I've explored enough and forward settled enough to mark my territory, I then usually will try and fit as many cities in the space as possible... so maybe at least add 'forward settle' as a choice ?

I tried to address it with the borders option.

 

[tedhebert]

I tried to address it with the borders option.

Fair... and I chose that option in my vote too ;-)

but my intervention was more for the latter part on my comment, which was fill out the available space to fit in as many cities as possible... but yes, the first option DOES fit the 'forward settle' bill !

 

[Hactar]

but I do have a question: Aren't you sweeping the Builder cost under the rug in this example ? I know and understand it's still a win math wise, but... it's still a cost, the builder is not free !

I think they’re assuming you have Ancestral Hall, which does make the builder more or less free.

 

[Abaxial]

Often it is a case of forward settling to prevent another civ forward settling.

 

[The googles do nothing]

For the 2nd city getting it settle quickly is important, especially if I think settlers need to be stolen an I have to protected. I'm also a sucker for a high adjacency harbor.

 

[japanesesamurai]

I focus on production tiles more often than not. Also strategic resources. And Petra location

 

[enKage]

I prioritize luxuries / tiles giving unusual yields (culture plantations/mines, faith plantations) especially early on, usually settling on them. Since I mostly play Cree, I don't care at all water / housing and food+production restrictions, all I need is few luxuries for mekewap and trees to insta chop CH/harbor.
Unfortunately I start having problems with other civs if I forgot I don't get free tiles and easy growth, so I need some time to readapt to usual settling locations prioritising housings+hammers+food

 

[ezzlar]

First city, first ring of unimproved yields.

 

[AntSou]

I look for luxuries + forest tiles with base +2 Food/ +2 production.

I rarely find myself without stratregic resources, even with sparse settings, but if I'm lacking them then sure, I'll prioritise settling a city near it.

 

[Junky89]

The important thing for me is, to get the engineers dream.
1 dam in the middle, with 3 adjacent aqueducts and 3 adjacent industrial zones.
Production is everything for me.
Unfortunately that choice I'm not able to select in your survey.

 

[Pure24]

Just one question: is it the FIRST city or not?

I took it as it isn't the first city. So I picked the strategic & luxury resources and optimal housing and tile yields.

Thanks to Lumber Mills, production isn't a problem for late-game cities