Settling on riverside gold

[dr_s]

The discussion in this thread made me start to wonder when you should settle on riverside gold. At first I thought it would only make sense when you have multiple gold tiles available (as in that example), but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes even if you just have a single gold tile, at least if it's riverside and you're financial.

Assumptions: You're financial, normal speed, you're settling your first city, and you're choosing between a riverside gold plains hill and a riverside grassland for your city. I'll only consider tile yields (and not other things like defense bonus or potential irrigation through the city), and I'll assume that the BFC is substantially the same in both cases, with the exception of the two tiles themselves, one which will become the city and one which can be improved an worked.

If you settle the riverside grassland tile, you get a standard city that produces 2, 1 and 1 and access to a plains hill gold that after improvement will yield 3 and 9. The total long-run yield of these two tiles is therefore 2, 4, and 10.

If you instead settle the plains hill gold, you get a city tile that produces 2, 2 and 3 and access to a riverside grassland that can be cottaged for an initial yield of 2 and 3 (that will improve over time). Once you can improve and work the cottage, the two tiles will produce a total of 4, 2, and 6, and will improve further. After 30 turns of working the cottage, the total yield will be 4, 2, and 8.

So what do you gain/lose by settling the gold tile? Initially you gain 1 and 2 for at least 25 or so turns (maybe more) while you build a worker, improve tiles, and grow your city. That's obviously a big advantage at a key point in the game. But even after you could improve and work a gold mine, it's not clear that scenario wins. Settling on the gold gives you 2 at the cost of 2 (which I think is a good trade, assuming adequate hills elsewhere in the BFC). The cost is initially 3 per turn, but this will fall to only 1 per turn in 30 turns, and will reverse itself later in the game. So it seems to me that settling on the gold is an overall win in this situation.

The calculation is similar if you're deciding between a flat plains tile or a green hill and a plains hill gold mine, you just lose 1 and gain 1 when you cottage those tiles.

If you're not financial, the situation is not so clear cut, since you lose the bonus in your city. So it probably doesn't make sense in that case.

Conclusion: It seems to me that if you're financial you should at least consider settling on riverside gold plains hills when you have the chance, even if it's the only gold tile in your BFC, and it might often be the best choice. Am I missing something? Or did everyone else already know this?

Edit: Oops! Reading jwez11007's post below made me realize I made a stupid math error. I was thinking that a riverside gold mine produces 3 hammers and 8 commerce if you're financial, but it's actually 3 hammers and 9 commerce (1 for gold, 1 for riverside, 6 for the mine, 1 for financial). I've corrected this above and in my other posts.

I had thought that a cottage would catch up with the mine when it became a village (counting the bonus commerce for the city tile), which would occur after 60 turns and a total commerce deficit of 100 (3 commerce x 10 turns + 2 commerce x 20 turns + 1 commerce x 30 turns). In fact, it won't catch up until it it becomes a town, and after a total commerce deficit of 200 (4 commerce x 10 turns + 3 commerce x 20 turns + 2 commerce x 30 turns + 1 commerce x 40 turns).

So while you certainly get a large initial boost from settling on the gold for the first 25-30 turns, you do pay a pretty large commerce penalty over the next 100 turns (basically 2 commerce per turn on average, assuming you work a cottage instead of the mine). After that, of course, you catch up.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

Why would being financial matter? I didn't think that affected the bonus commerce when settling on a resource?

 

[dr_s]

Why would being financial matter? I didn't think that affected the bonus commerce when settling on a resource?

When you're financial, you get a bonus from every tile producing 2 or more, including any city tiles.

If you're not financial and you settle on the gold, you only get 2, 2, and 2 in your city when you settle on the gold, and you get 2 and 2 for your initial cottage, for a total initial yield of 4, 2, and 4. If you don't settle on the gold, your city gives 2, 2, and 1, while your gold mine gives 3 and 7, so your total yield will be 2, 4 and 8.

That means when you're not financial your initial advantage from settling the gold is only 1 and 1, and your initial deficit when you can work the extra tile is 5, not 4. So you don't gain as much initially, and you lose more from not being able to improve the gold.

 

[landy]

Another way to look at it: you can use the 2 to support specialist.
If you hire a scientist, that's roughly a 2 to 3 exchange.
If a engineer, that could be a 3 to 3 exchange.

At least Queen Elizabeth could be glad for that.

 

[CreeDakota]

this is not instinctive and I had not considered it. thanks for the analysis.

 

[Core Imposter]

Seems to me that the value of the commerce from mining the gold is overwhelmingly greater. Each unit of commerce goes down in value as the game goes along because they become more plentyfull as you are able to work more land and techs allow more to be extracted. In addition infrastructure modifers and trade increase the yield.

Therefore in the early game I would always be looking to work the gold. Perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[Htadus]

I wish the comparison is just that simple but it is not. You can not discount getting HBR faster and doing a HA rush earlier by not settling on gold. Now if there are several gold that city can work after settling on the riverside Ph gold, then by all means that would be great. The statement about the specialists is nice but will there be no other city that can hire a specialist?

I for one will not settle on a isolated riverside PH gold if there is enough food to work it and grow and hire specialists and so on. I know I can do better by working a 7+ yield tile. Also It seem that I always need hammers to build things and gold is a good tile to work.

 

[ShengWuLien]

I guess another consideration would be whether one needs the extra commerce ASAP--for example, if one is using a strategy that requires founding an early religion, on higher levels where that's not easy to do without an immediate commerce advantage over the AI.

Inca is the obvious choice for this strategy, and it also synergizes with the infamous Inca UU rush if the riverside gold happens to be a plains hill, thus giving extra hammers to assist in quick unit builds.

Yes, yes, I know this strategy is controversial on the forums and it's not one I favor myself. But in the context of this discussion it should be in the mix.

 

[HCB]

Seems to me that the value of the commerce from mining the gold is overwhelmingly greater. Each unit of commerce goes down in value as the game goes along because they become more plentyfull as you are able to work more land and techs allow more to be extracted.

I tend to agree... you can mine very early in the game and that extra boost might get you turns ahead of A.I.. Later in the game, that extra gold won´t amount to anything.

It would be different if there were dozens of gold to decide between mine or settle but, being just a few or a very few, dig it.

 

[Revent]

Settle on a gold? Almost never. Only and ONLY if I have lots of golds already in the BFC and settling on it will give me something extra.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Yeah if you have three or four plains hill gold and a capital with a mediocre food supply, I'd consider it more. But then it'd probably still be more useful to settle a second city such that it takes a gold or two from the capital, at least initially (before biology farms, etc.). Very conditional.

 

[Downsy]

In the OPs scenario never settle the gold. This is your first city and it is very important early game. Working a gold mine will greatly enhance your early commerce plus that extra production is handy. It will let you expand more/quicker, research more, etc.

 

[Chase_2_Rabbits]

I think that the OP is a legitimate questioning of conventional wisdom, but I disagree that settling on the Gold is correct.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that a grassland cottage is not a tile that will be optimally worked as a priority in the early stages of the game. A 3 8 riverside PH gold will be worked immediately and in perpetuity (as soon as a high resource has been improved first and the capital has grown). A 2 3 grassland cottage will be rightly ignored by most capitals, especially when the early focus is usually on pumping out settlers and workers from the capital. Quite apart from the fact that the Malinese are the only civ that are financial and can research Pottery for cottages right off the bat. All leaders can research Mining immedaitely (or start with it).

Essentially, the benefits of a grassland cottage will take so long to fully reap (because it's such a low priority tile to work in the early game) that they need to be significantly down-weighted in this scenario. If you're working a grassland cottage in your capital before you hit pop 5, you've got far bigger problems than debating the potential merits of settling on a PH Gold vs a river grassland.

 

[cseanny]

@ dr_s

In the link you provided........in that Deity game with 4 gold then settling 1E (on gold) is imo, easily the best move. However, in general I avoid it unless circumstances dictate differently.

 

[GKey]

You can try and imply same logic to "settling on riverside corn"...

 

[Mylene]

Getting 1h and 2c more from turn 1 = better than gold.
It's that easy
With Fin you can easily get cottages that will beat 0 food tiles later.

Of course all depends on your location, if you have so much food that it won't matter..keeping gold can be better.
Or if your bfc just would not be that great if you move onto gold.

 

[Gr8scott]

Perhaps the biggest issue is that a grassland cottage is not a tile that will be optimally worked as a priority in the early stages of the game. A 3 8 riverside PH gold will be worked immediately and in perpetuity (as soon as a high resource has been improved first and the capital has grown). A 2 3 grassland cottage will be rightly ignored by most capitals, especially when the early focus is usually on pumping out settlers and workers from the capital..

OP is comparing a normal capital + PH river gold tile to a PH gold capital + river cottage. He is finding that the cottage can be advantageous. If you believe another tile is even better, all fine and good, but that doesn't argue against the OP logic.

OP: interesting take and looks right to me.

Advantages of city gold in OP scenario:
1st worker 3 turns faster...nice
Early commerce burst of at least 50 commerce prior to hooking up gold...nice
Settler and worker pump capital is a wash...
Capital grows faster...nice for early/mid and late game.
(sleeper benefit -- cap more likely to be cottage focus rather than farm focused when civil service is researched

In the right situation, I think it can be a pretty strong decision. Thanks for the analysis!

 

[Mylene]

I forgot, on Deity early advantages are worth so much more.
With 2h you also get your worker out quicker, which results in more food. And more fog busters
With another gold available, you will have techs faster as well, so that game had very favorable settings for settling on a gold, which should rarely be that good.

 

[dr_s]

+1 to everything Gr8scott and Mylene said. I'll also add that settling on the gold is better for whipping, because you get more and don't have to worry about whipping away the citizen working the mine.

I think what some people might be overlooking is the opportunity cost of working the gold mine. If you settle on the gold, you get some benefit immediately (that carries through for the whole game) from an improved city tile, plus the citizen who would have worked the gold mine can now work another tile.

So, as Gr8scott points out, you get a boost of 1 and 2 for the 25-30 turns before you can improve the gold and work the mine. After that, one way to compare the two situations is to compare the output of the gold mine to the output of any other tile plus the 1 and 2 boost from the city.

So for the turns after the gold mine is built, what you should compare is 3 + 9 for a working a riverside gold mine to any of the following:

2 + 1 + 5 (riverside cottage + city boost, and will improve over time)
1 + 4 + 3 (riverside green hill mine + city boost)
5 + 3 (riverside plains hill mine + city boost)
1 + 2 + 5 (riverside plains cottage or riverside green hill cottage + city boost, will improve)
3 + 1 + 3 (riverside farm + city boost)

etc. The point is that you get your choice. If you want to recoup as much of the commerce from the lost gold mine as you can, you'll work a cottage. If you want to boost production, you'll work a mine. (But note, for producing workers or settlers, working a cottage in this situation is just as good as working the gold mine, unless you're expansive or imperialistic.)

It seems to me that when you combine the 25-30 extra and 50-60 extra you get from the first 25-30 turns of the game when you settle the gold with the above returns (especially, I think, the cottages), that settling on a riverside gold if you're financial can be a strong move. This surprises me. Like I said in the OP, I thought this would only make sense if there were multiple gold available. Before doing this analysis I would have never, ever considered settling on a riverside plains gold.

Of course, if your strategy involves a particular beeline (for Oracle or HBR) for which you need extra commerce and for which Pottery is a detour, you probably don't want to do this.

I'm not sure how this analysis carries over to a desert riverside gold, where you won't get the extra 1 in the city tile. (Of course you don't get it for the gold mine in that case either.) But I'm not sure if those can ever show up in your initial BFC unless you move.

Also, if you have a plains hill available, (riverside or otherwise), settling there is clearly better than settling on gold, but I think everyone already knew that.

As for GKey's comment, you can apply the same logic to settling riverside corn, and you'll find that it's a terrible idea (no surprise). You can in fact apply it to any special tile, riverside or otherwise. Almost everyone already knows that settling plains hill marble or stone is very strong. I think most people already also know that settling riverside calendar resources that give +1 is good when you're financial, because it gives you a 3 city tile. What surprised me was that this could also apply to riverside gold.

 

[vranasm]

i think this is very good topic with some good insight, but one has always to wage the start you were given.

but was worth the read, since from now on I will watch for this eventuality.