Settling 1 tile away from coast

Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Nevada
I'm debating on if I should settle in place or not in my current game as Celts, settings are standard size Pangaea, rocky 7 opponents. Notice from the screen shot below that by settling in place, I get 2f 2h 2c because its a hill/plains with gold. I'm wondering if most of you guys would or would not settle in place in a situation like this, thanks.
 
I would personally move the settler 1S to that plains hill square. I believe, if you mine the gold rather than settle on it, you'll get more commerce that way. And you'll still have the corn and rice in your BFC. You won't keep the silk in your capital's BFC, but you might have a spot to found another city to claim the silk.
 
If I were you, I'd move 1N. You'd lose a turn and the rice, but you'd gain the gold and it looks like you'd get grassland forests over useless coast tiles. Sounds like a bargain to me.

EDIT: Moving south one would work as well; I just prefer not to have a capital on the sea unless there's seafood.
 
Settle on the Gold? Nonsense. There's plenty of food, I want to work it as a mine for the early commerce. If the scout hasn't moved yet, I'd move him N-NE onto the plains hill. Then move the settler either N (if you see something awesome that would come into the BFC) or S (if you don't).

peace,
lilnev
 
Well, if you settle in place, you would lose the benefits of a seaport, and if you move one south, you'd still have pretty much all the resources you can currently work. In addition, you'd probably be costing yourself come commerce on that gold. I'd move one south.
 
I would move the settler 1 N with an eye to putting a city on that peninsula to the SW...The rice can support another city there and the capital doesn't really need the rice with all those floodplains...Keep in mind that moving the settler south picks up a bunch of crap coast tiles (assuming no seafood) and also loses the fresh water bonus (health!!!)...
 
I think the loss of a fresh water bonus can be eventually fixed with building a harbor, if you do settle on the coast. OTOH you are on a pangaea map, which means a navy/seaport capital will be of less importance.
 
^^^it's true that harbors will offset the health issue (albeit it can still be a detriment prior to compass), but if no seafood that's a lot of crap tiles in your capital. better to settle 1N imho.
 
Thanks guys, I tried the 1 North spot and got a cow in the fat cross to make up for the loss of rice. The main reason I was considering on settling on the gold was to get an immediate extra 1c in the city tile, but in the long term I guess its not worth it.
 
Thanks guys, I tried the 1 North spot and got a cow in the fat cross to make up for the loss of rice. The main reason I was considering on settling on the gold was to get an immediate extra 1c in the city tile, but in the long term I guess its not worth it.

The 1C isn't worth all that much. With both the Corn and Rice there, you'll be able to get the 7C from the tile for most of the game. Even if it takes you 30 turns to get both a Farm and a Mine up, that would be worth 210 turns with just settling on the spot.

Also, if you move south you get the +1P from settling on a plains hill and there may be some seafood there and you don't waste the grassland by the coast that's missed by moving north.
 
Why not move 1W? You don't lose a turn, stay on the river, and keep all the visible resources. Obviously you'd move the scout north first to make sure you're not missing something by going west.
 
Good points, but moving 1 west will waste a flood plain, and still be 1 tile off coast. I thought about moving south but decided it was better to avoid the coast entirely since its pangaea and I can just expand further inland.
 
1W has the advantage that settling removes the floodplain, so that city gets no health penalty for 2 floodplains, instead of 1 health penalty for 3 floodplains.

But I wouldn't like losing the +1 hammer for the plains hill. To me, that's the main benefit, especially if moving 1N gains a cow.
 
Is it really worth losing a 3 food tile that can be cottaged just for 1 health? In most cases settling on floodplains seems like a waste to me unless you're completley surrounded by them.
 
I would have moved the settler 1SW. 2 food sources, coastal, gold mine and 3 flood plains is a grand opening. But never ever settle on gold if you have so much food present. That is such a waste. You get a full grown cottage straight away which will boost your economy/research by a lot.
 
1S will cost you a mountain. The capital will be very short of hammers imho. 1SW also gives you another flood plain. So it is a matter of taste and objective for your capitol. I see an incredible GP farm with good production possibilities to get the necessary wonders.
 
1S is better than 1SW. You get 1 more health, and 1 more hammer every turn. At minimal cost.

1 hammer/ turn is OK, but I don't see the health benefit.
DO you mean because there is one less FP in the fat cross ?(2 FP = 0 unhealthiness, 3 FP = 1 unhealthiness) If it's the FP thing, it's not a big issue.
More food from the FP is cool.
1S will cost you a mountain. The capital will be very short of hammers imho. 1SW also gives you another flood plain. So it is a matter of taste and objective for your capitol. I see an incredible GP farm with good production possibilities to get the necessary wonders.
Same for me
For a bureaucratic capital, I wouldn't lose a possible mine (=4 hammers) for 1 free hammer, when there is food all over the place.
 
Always avoid settling on resources (especially high-yield ones like gold). And always avoid settling where you'll have unworkable water in your bfc (you can't build a lighthouse).

Just 2:commerce:, a little late.
 
Top Bottom