MadHatter
Warlord
Is it more important to build a city along a river to get the "no aqueduct" bonus, or in the proper place to complete your grid that maximizes tile use? (in a productive area, of course)
River city or Grid City?
- Thread starter MadHatter
- Start date
Raskolnikov
Chieftain
Even though i worry too much about sticking to building cities on a grid, i hate building aquaducts even more than i hate messing up my grid!
MadHatter
Warlord
Rasky,
I feel your pain.
I feel your pain.
cavemanf16
Grand Poobah
I try to build cities on rivers early on, but once the empire gets over a dozen cities it's less important to me to have cities that can make it to size 12 without an aquaduct. I find that by the time I'm up to a dozen cities in a Large map, it's time to concentrate on closing up the borders so Civ's aren't plopping down cities within my borders and screwing up my grid! So in a way, by building cities on rivers early, I'm still concentrating on a future grid that will be easier to expand (through having large high production cities).
Xiasar
Chieftain
I prefer rivers, who cares about a few grid squares missing when the cities grows up to 12 without your magic watery touch! And also I'm strating to suspect something....can anyone tell me if it's possible that Science goes UP if you build cities mainly along rivers?? Does it make sense? (It did in Civ 2 o 1 I think, does it still apply?)
MadHatter
Warlord
Xiasar,
Hey, if you make the decision to go for the river city every time, it may add up to more than just a few wasted tiles, and at your core, waste is the highest per wasted tile!
Unless you err on the side of city packing, which introduces the waste in the late game, where you may need it the most.
Also, the extra commerce you get for a river tile is lost to the city center...more waste!
That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, just presenting the other side of the argument. (If I had a definite opinion, I wouldn't have posted this poll...)
Hey, if you make the decision to go for the river city every time, it may add up to more than just a few wasted tiles, and at your core, waste is the highest per wasted tile!
Unless you err on the side of city packing, which introduces the waste in the late game, where you may need it the most.
Also, the extra commerce you get for a river tile is lost to the city center...more waste!
That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, just presenting the other side of the argument. (If I had a definite opinion, I wouldn't have posted this poll...)
andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
I never have a Grid I always build to the landscape i.e Build cities next to Rivers and Resources or Luxuries
Xiasar
Chieftain
True, MadHatter but...
Just what entity is the overlapping you propone? How many tiles per city? You see I think that the best combination comes out when you compare what you get now:
1. not moving too far away => less turns to move out settlers and quick expansion with many cities
2. being close to a river => more commerce (hence science I guess) and high city population without an aquaduct
To what you lose later:
1. production only in the city
2. population only in the city
Now if you consider the effective value, the incidence of building those cities quicker and in a commercially favorable position in a period in which if everything goes really well you have 2 cities and you compare this value to the incidence of a not so great population (let's say 18-20 instead of 28-30?) in a few cities close to the capitol in an empire with 20-30-40 cities, with a good population and production in the hole you might realize that being quick, fast and effective I think, is better that having four-five GREAT cities with population at 30 and 40-60 shields of production each
Just what entity is the overlapping you propone? How many tiles per city? You see I think that the best combination comes out when you compare what you get now:
1. not moving too far away => less turns to move out settlers and quick expansion with many cities
2. being close to a river => more commerce (hence science I guess) and high city population without an aquaduct
To what you lose later:
1. production only in the city
2. population only in the city
Now if you consider the effective value, the incidence of building those cities quicker and in a commercially favorable position in a period in which if everything goes really well you have 2 cities and you compare this value to the incidence of a not so great population (let's say 18-20 instead of 28-30?) in a few cities close to the capitol in an empire with 20-30-40 cities, with a good population and production in the hole you might realize that being quick, fast and effective I think, is better that having four-five GREAT cities with population at 30 and 40-60 shields of production each
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Unless I am going for a high scoring game, I never worry about a few overlapping squares.
I think the early bonus of choosing the best tiles, and not the most optimally placed ones (in relation to the grid) is much more preferable to the late game benifits of the grid system.
I think the early bonus of choosing the best tiles, and not the most optimally placed ones (in relation to the grid) is much more preferable to the late game benifits of the grid system.
Only repeat only after grid - I just hate to waste tiles, and I also hate if the AI catches a place between two good cities and some of their annoying city in between. Also, in the industrial era when you've got railroads and all that ol' stuff, even deserts turn out to be productive - the only terrain type I don't like is tunrda, since you can't make anything out of it. The place of the fist city is important, then I only build after grid structure, it'll pay of in the later game. And, you have an empire as densely populated as its size allows.
Gregski
Mostly Harmless
Unless I have to share a lot of squares I pick the river. Exception: If the city is one square away from the coast, I build it on the coast instead (most of the time).
Michael York
On Sabatical from Civ
I just can't turn away from the river benefits. Don't forget that you are saving the maintance fee for the aquaduct. You are also gaining extra production by not having to build that aquaduct.
Yet, it depends more on the map than an arbitrary formula. post a screen schot next time. (print screen key, paste in windows paintbrush, save, attach in civ forum)
Yet, it depends more on the map than an arbitrary formula. post a screen schot next time. (print screen key, paste in windows paintbrush, save, attach in civ forum)
MadHatter
Warlord
It wasn't a question about a particular instance, I was curious about playing styles in general.
It just irks me to count 5 tiles and land right on a mountain or one tile away from a river!
Although your point about not having to pay maintenance for the whole game is well taken. About 500 gold per city per game can add up...
DaDoo
Prince
You get 3 commerce for the tile the city sits on, no matter where you settle on (I think). So potentially you can gain 1 extra trade arrows by not settling on river(3 from city tile, 3 from road river tile w/ republic versus just 3 from the city tile that's on river) Not too significant gain. So I just stay with grid in the end.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
There is a minimum commerce that the city center will produce, but not a maximum, so you will gain 1 extra gold by settling on the river (plus 1 more in savings because your not paying the upkeep for the aqueduct). True, eventually you will reclaim 1 gold by having a citizen working that tile by the river, but that may not be for a long time. Plus all the shields you spent building the aqueduct. And any loss commerce/shields from your city being stuck at size 6 and not growing to size 7+ until you complete the aqueduct. Sometimes you have to start building the aqueduct when the city is at size 3-4 so the aqueduct will be complete before your city reaches the population barrier which would cost you more shields/commerce. I'm sure many people have lost wonder races just because the city wasn't on a river so they were stuck at size 6 and couldn't build the wonder any faster.
And you get increased city defense when you reach size 7.
It all depends on what/how many tiles you'll be giving up and/or how much your cities will overlap.
And you get increased city defense when you reach size 7.
It all depends on what/how many tiles you'll be giving up and/or how much your cities will overlap.
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
I build a dense grid (cities spaced 2 or 3 apart) using every space I can. I build coastal cities whenever possible. I don't worry about building along a river, but all factors being equal, the river makes more sense.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
I usually do A grid, with no more than 2 squares overlapping. When i find rivers, I place the cities on them for the free aquaduct, but mostly for the defence bonus. Place it so your enemy has to cross the river. I find it is worth modifying my grid for.
Similar threads
