Should I build a city here?

[Alric]

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1847/citymo.jpg

 

[vmxa]

I don't see why you should not.

 

[Alric]

seems like it would take squares away from adjacent cities.

 

[Optional]

I think there are enough tiles, but many are not improved yet. Every town I see is making military, no town is making workers. You can really use a bunch, but I'm not even seeing a single domestic worker.
Personally I would probably have made Utica a worker factory. With irrigating the wines it would have done +5 food per turn.

 

[EvilConqueror]

Looks like a fine spot. Just have to get rid of that marsh.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I would move it 1 square north west to give your one city some more space

 

[Chieftess]

Looks like you're going for a tight build, so I'd move that settler 2 SW on that hill. That way, you don't waste the central mountain tiles (you have enough eventual grassland with rails + irragation). Also, Hippo and Leptis Magna would've all been better 1 tile NW, and that southern city that's starving 1 tile SE (less tile overlap)

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

Do you have a specific victory condition you are going for that would show a need for a city there?

Initially I go for getting the land within my cultural borders: you've done that already.

So would the city be good for production, science or settler farming? IMHO, a sad settler farm.

I don't know enough about the various victory conditions to guess about contributions to them.

But then again, I suppose it's a great place if you keep all your cities to town size (6).

 

[Spoonwood]

For a science based game, yes.

 

[undertoad]

I'd say move it 2 SW like Chieftess says. That way you capture the Gold tile within the city's borders. As it is now, your city will have a huge number of Sea squares in its potential fat-X.