Should i move this settler?

[Gorey]

I generally just settle in place, because it usually places you in an optimal spot anyway.. and i hate burning turns.

but..

This just looks too good:

Think i'll move that settler to my warrior. It just kills me to burn 2 turns though. Old Civ4 habits die hard i guess.

I have a feeling though, that the rest of the land around me is going to suck.

 

[Gorey]

woweeee.. even better:

 

[Lacerda]

You have three luxury resources near you where the warrior stands, why wouldn't you put there the settler?

 

[CPCMaxwell]

You could have settled in place, and produce another settler sooner than usual.

By the time you discover mining, you already have two cities that can work all of those ressources and didn't burn any turn.

 

[mzprox]

I would had moved to that place and I think it is the best for a city. Build a mint as soon as possible

 

[Gorey]

It turned out to be a good move... horses right next to the city

And THIS is why i hate the AI in civ5:

Of all the places for him to settle.. he tries to weasel his way into my gold. I had already settled my second city some turns earlier, and he plops down right there immediately causing border tensions. So i quickly purchase the gold next to my second city.. and then buy up some land to block any encroachment between my cities.

And naturally, im already getting all sorts of complaints from him about our close borders like its MY fault he built there.

Idiot.

Oh well.. im about to hit em with some horses. Seems its just me and him on this island. Gonna be a cakewalk i guess.

 

[Gorey]

You have three luxury resources near you where the warrior stands, why wouldn't you put there the settler?

Because in Civ4, the opening moves were critical. Delaying getting a worker and improving land could set you back (atleast on Emporer, which is what i played). It was almost always better to just settle in place and start on a worker immediately. It was pretty rare for me to want to move.

I'm noticing in civ5 that you have some time.. you aren't in the huge rush you were in civ4. I even build a scout now before a worker... and thats saying alot LOL.

 

[ThoMeuhGal]

prioritizing a scout aver a worker also has a lot to do with CS gold and ruins (that seem to appear more and give better bonus than in cIV i think).

 

[Gorey]

He's no longer a problem

And with that.. i think i'll save it for another day and start a new game. Atleast in Civ5 being isolated as not as bad as Civ4.

 

[Kid R]

Nice going wiping Sully out! Greece seems almost overpowered with its 2 early UUs. (Shame about Sparta next turn tough.)

I've noticed the AIs will settle a long way from their capitals like that if they want the happy resource. Makes sense too as there's no distance maintenance and I'm copying them sometimes myself now if I'm short of nearby.

Drawbacks: Requires more military to defend 2 separated cities from barbs (but you need lots of military anyway), and a road route is uneconomical (but it seems roads are uneconomical for quite a while at the start of the game anyway).

 

[Godclone]

Personaly i would have moved the settler in first turn to the position of your warrior but not routing the below which you allready discovered but above on the mountains . Would have taken the same number of turns and discovered what is above ; which turned to be an even more profitable position and build the city there and buy off the tiles above with gold first -> to prevent ai fro settling there .

Epic capital would have been . With acces to 4 gold, 1 marble, 1 sheep, 2 fish and 1 wheat . (later 1 horse ) . Considering that a city can work 3 tiles away in distance, you would have had all , and a mint in that city focusing on gold, would have been obscene .
Food from the fish/wheat (later) to work the hills for gold and production .

Then again i play on deity , and i don't build any cities until i am alone on the continent . Just churn up warriors and archers (first tech /beeline to swordsman ) and raze all ai cityes (puppet capitals) . Expansion is bad, its always better to build an army and just takeover everything , than building cities and falling behind on army/tech .

Would have just drooled over an obscene starting position like that .

 

[JtW]

Nice going wiping Sully out! Greece seems almost overpowered with its 2 early UUs. (Shame about Sparta next turn tough.)

I've noticed the AIs will settle a long way from their capitals like that if they want the happy resource. Makes sense too as there's no distance maintenance and I'm copying them sometimes myself now if I'm short of nearby.

Drawbacks: Requires more military to defend 2 separated cities from barbs (but you need lots of military anyway), and a road route is uneconomical (but it seems roads are uneconomical for quite a while at the start of the game anyway).

But sometimes they go totally overboard. In my last game on an Earth map (a small one), I was playing with the Aztecs - I started in Central Africa. And Ceasar, who started more or less where Shanghai is (so really far far away) built his second city right next to my capital!

 

[Gorey]

...and buy off the tiles above with gold first -> to prevent ai fro settling there.

Yeah, i think in the future im going to have to be alittle more proactive in that. I had the money's to grab both of them before he decided to settle there. Just wasn't expecting him to do that. I know better now.

Every game is a learning experience. Although, I was smart enough to quickly claim the northern gold before Cape Town expand onto it.