Settling Cities? (extra bonuses from resources et al)

[Micky Onimusha]

Righto, I remember a long time ago reading it's a good idea to settle a City on a Plains/Hill/Marble when presented the opportunity because the City gets an innate 2 hammers bonus. Toying about in World Builder, I found this to be true, and then I started wondering what other benefits I could find from settling my city on "ideal" locations.

The default City "production" is 2/1/1 - I've found on basic Grassland, Grass/Hills, Plains and Desert you end up with this.

On Plains/Hills the City produces 2/2/1

Being next to a River or settling on a Forest seems to have no influence.

So I toyed in WB and I had found you can get a +1 by settling on Gold (although I wouldn't want to anyway in a real game), the aforementioned +1 from Marble and +1 from Corn, Cows, Banannas & Deer. There seemed to be no bonuses for Incense/Silk/Dye/Calender resources and seemed to be none for Wheat, Fur, Gems, Wine etc...

BUT then I noticed something odd when I started toying with it further. Wheat did give a bonus when I settled on a Wheat/Grassland tile and likewise, Corn didnt give a bonus when I was settled on Corn/Plains. Then I tested Marble/Grasslands and again, no bonus. So of course, it occured to me that all of this testing around with different resources was for naught ('cept for the Calender resources, it doesn't seem like they give any bonus by being settled on), because it seems to depend on a combination of things; I'm guessing the initial tile yield when accounting for bonuses+tile yield minus rivers & forests.

So I ask you kind FFH2 veterans who've played this game longer than I have.... what is the method to this madness?

I'm currently running on the theory that:

If the tile you settle on yields 3 the city gets a +1 bonus; if you settle on a tile that yields 2 then you get a +1 bonus and if you settle on a tile that yields 3 you get a +2 bonus.... I have no idea how the commerce bonus works yet.

Anyway, that's my current working theory but it's only just occured to me that city placement can become an even more precise art with this information that comes new to me (for a start, I think I'll be making more of an effort to settle on plains/hills, as if the +25% defensive bonus wasn't enough incentive).

I have no doubt I'm not the first person to have noticed this, after all, it was someone else from the long long ago that raised my eye to the marble/hills bonus; but now I've started crunching about on it, I really wanna know the ins and outs of it so I can truly fully exploit it for the mild advantage it gives; so I'm hoping you FFH2 & Civ Vets can enlighten me to the mechanics of this.

Regards, an insomniatic Micky who needs to sleep soon and can't start up a proper game of FFH2 and has nothing better to do than Uber nerd over it

Edit:

Oh god, I've confused myself even more. I reread my 3 theory and thought "hmm, does this apply to Floodplains?" So, I fired up my Test save, WBed and then settled on a Floodplain and found that instead of getting a bonus I got a bonus +1 - which has left me even more confused as to the mechanics of this.

 

[JonathanStrange]

The hill settlement site idea, not originated by moi although I've posted often enough praising its extra and defense bonus, is a favorite of mine. If it's the capitol I'm founding, I also like a hill adjacent a river hex or coastal for easier connectivity to future cities, but that's another topic I suppose.

I've done the site placement tests in the past and iirc, they seem to correspond to yours. I wasn't able use this info much as FFH2 (and Civ IV in general) maps and enemies often had me placing cities as much for mutual support, blocking enemy advancement, etc. than maximizing

It seems to me that in my large land area, Deity games, that city defensive location trumps optimal city production sites. That is, if I had a choice between the extra production and an awesome defensive site (a current game of mine has my capitol on a hill, adjacent to a river, with deserts on the opposite side where the Clan of Embers periodically gathers for cross-river suicide assaults on the city), I'd choose defense.

Actually, although I haven't checked FFH2 forums on this, this is/was the subject of many a Civ IV BTS post. Hmmm...now I have to test an idea about a city near...

I too would be interested in other's ideas.

 

[odalrick]

I think the tile yields from the city tiles is just max(tileyield, cityyield). That is, a city tile can produce a minimum of 2 or 1 ,, if the tile yields more than that you get more. It just that cities are unimproved, so they very rarely yield more than 2/1/1, plains hills being the most common.

Also, because cities are never improved; settling on, for instance, a gold hill will cost you about 2 and 6 in a few tens of turns. Thus it is only worthwhile for resources that have pitiful yield to begin with, like marble.

If you're really interested you could mod some terrain to produce lots unimproved and then place cities to see if the theory holds out.

Oh god, I've confused myself even more. I reread my 3 theory and thought "hmm, does this apply to Floodplains?" So, I fired up my Test save, WBed and then settled on a Floodplain and found that instead of getting a bonus I got a bonus +1 - which has left me even more confused as to the mechanics of this.

Settling destroys features, Floodplain is a feature, so you settled in unimproved desert. Dunno where the commerce came from, maybe you were Malakim?

 

[Andvare]

This isn't a FfH issue, but something native to CivIV.

The tile which you settle on, has a base yield, which depends on the terrain and resources (features are destroyed). The city will then produce 2 , 1 , 1 or the base yield of the tile, whichever is highest. Base yield is (food/hammers/commerce):
Next to river +0/0/1
Copper/Iron/Gunpowder/Mithril/Marble +0/1/0
Gold/Most happy resuorces +0/0/1
Most health resources +1/0/0
Grassland 2/0/0
Plains 1/1/0
Grassland hill 1/1/0
Plains hill 0/2/0
Desert 0/0/0
Desert hill 0/1/0
Tundra 1/0/0
Tundra hill 0/1/0
Ice 0/0/0
Ice hill 0/1/0

So any combination of the above that gives a yield higher than the minimum of 2/1/1 will provide a higher city tile yield.
So a plains hill or hammer resource+grassland hill is 2/2/1. Gold on plains hill next to a river is 2/2/2. Plains hill + hammer resource is 2/3/1. Grassland + wheat is 3/1/1. And so on and so forth.

What is confusing here in FfH is that some civilizations gives a higher yield on some terrains, Malakim, as mentioned before, provides a commerce boost in deserts for example.

 

[Micky Onimusha]

Settling destroys features, Floodplain is a feature, so you settled in unimproved desert. Dunno where the commerce came from, maybe you were Malakim?

Coincidentally I was actually; so you're right, maybe that is where the extra commerce came from.

This isn't a FfH issue, but something native to CivIV.

The tile which you settle on, has a base yield, which depends on the terrain and resources (features are destroyed). The city will then produce 2 , 1 , 1 or the base yield of the tile, whichever is highest. Base yield is (food/hammers/commerce):

Thanks for the detailed info

 

[Emptiness]

Taking advantage of a tiny boost to the city tile can make a difference early on, but for most cities it won't matter much. There are other more important considerations to be made when selecting a city site, such as resource access/control, defensibility and growth potential. Compromising those considerations for an extra +1 // is a bad idea, even for your capitol (which stands to gain the most from the minor boost).

If you settle on a resource in order to gain the boost then you're actually hurting yourself in the long run. You may get +1 for settling on a grassland hill with iron, but you'd have gotten more if you hadn't settled on the iron and had put a mine there instead. The only times I (knowingly) settle on a resource is when other considerations force me to do so, or the need to protect my access to that resource is so great that nothing less than a city will provide the level of protection (from pillage) that I believe is necessary.

 

[Micky Onimusha]

Taking advantage of a tiny boost to the city tile can make a difference early on, but for most cities it won't matter much.

Oh I know. Don't worry, I'm not being blinded by these mild advantages; but when I noticed it, I started to think "Hmm, how can I benefit from it?" I certainly would never settle on Gold, Copper and the like, but things like making that choice between a Plains/Hill and a Grass/Hill has a bit of a benefit to it now; and it's interesting to be aware of them. As someone who obsessively starts and stops and restarts, just becoming aware of this has just added a little extra to how I'll start games.

 

[Senethro]

This is only really worth considering with your capital city or early 2nd city. Putting your capital on a plains/hill/marble or a grassland/jungle banana looks like a good tradeoff. You need Masonry and Bronzeworking to make good use of the tile but those won't be coming until turn 100ish, so meanwhile you've had +1food/+2hammers for the most important 100 turns of the game, maybe much longer if you're Clan.

 

[Andvare]

You only need mining to get the production bonus from copper.

The only thing I look for in settling the first city, other than nearby resources and such, is plains/hill and plains/hill/marble. Plains/hill/marble is an increase of 100% to base production (palace+base city tile =2, palace+city tile marble/hill/plains = 4). With a forested plains hill, you produce a warrior in 4 turns (normal speed, 3 overflow meaning if you build 3 the last will take 3 turns) or a worker in 11 turns (normal speed, 2 overflow, or 10 turns with a 4 yield tile). Compare this to a warrior build without the plains/hill/marble, and it's 5 turns (normal speed, no overflow) or 15 turns for a worker (normal speed, no overflow). Or you can build 4 warriors in the time it takes to build three normally.
The trade off is 1 2 for marble, as a marble/plains/hill is a 0/4/2 tile.

Decent trade off, but I wouldn't do it if it meant that my capital would be awkwardly placed.

Plains/hill is another matter, as there is no trade off (you always have to settle somewhere), only if the area is completely drained of any production would I reconsider (all coast, no forest, no other hill), but then, I would likely restart the map . Still, I would only settle if it would fit the resource placings.

Thanks for the detailed info

You're welcome.