Some curiosity about colony locations.

[danpat]

Sorry if I'm writing this on wrong forum
I'm quite new to this forum and not that good at English


So, I have been playing RFC DOC (RFCD for short) 600AD scenario as some colonial powers like Spanish, English, and French, and need some help about locations of the colonies.

1. Any suggestion to rather destroy South American cities or not?
I like it to settle the colonies to match locations of 1700AD scenario, and I'm very happy to see most of Aztec cities located right there, matching Spanish colony locations.

The problem is those Incan ones(or, Peruvian).
Non of Inca's [location with settler value higher than 400] match with Spanish South American colonies,
and as a result, in most game, non of Inca's city location match with 1700AD scenario.

So, considering both 1700AD scenario and performance of the colonies, should I destroy those Incan cities and build some new colonies?
Or should I just satisfy with those cities?


2. More colonies on South America inland?
Well... in 1700AD, Most of South American coasts are already colonies,
but, should I build more colonies inland?
or coastal colonies should be enough?
I see most of resources are inside city radius of 2 in 1700AD,
but what would be the developers intention?


3. Suggestion for Japanese Manchurian city locations?
This one, is the question which I have no clue.
Though being historical area, there is no such place with high Japanese settler value on Manchuria.
Well, there is one chinese city there on 1700AD so that's good,
but what about other lands?

What would be the 'best historical' or 'best in performance' city?



Thanks for reading long writing with many questions, and any suggestion or discussion with reasoning will make me happier. Thanks.

 

[Hickman888]

1. Any suggestion to rather destroy South American cities or not?
I like it to settle the colonies to match locations of 1700AD scenario, and I'm very happy to see most of Aztec cities located right there, matching Spanish colony locations.

The problem is those Incan ones(or, Peruvian).
Non of Inca's [location with settler value higher than 400] match with Spanish South American colonies,
and as a result, in most game, non of Inca's city location match with 1700AD scenario.

So, considering both 1700AD scenario and performance of the colonies, should I destroy those Incan cities and build some new colonies?
Or should I just satisfy with those cities?

If you are going for a Spanish historical victory, I would say that you can't really afford to be burning down Incan cities, even if they don't match the 1700 AD scenario. You have to be focusing on spreading Catholicism and building a military to stop the reformation, and training several settlers to settle just a tile or two away from the original Incan cities would just hinder you. The Incan city locations are fine as they are, in my opinion.

3. Suggestion for Japanese Manchurian city locations?
This one, is the question which I have no clue.
Though being historical area, there is no such place with high Japanese settler value on Manchuria.
Well, there is one chinese city there on 1700AD so that's good,
but what about other lands?

What would be the 'best historical' or 'best in performance' city?

I'm not sure about historical, but for performance in Manchuria, I like to settle a city one tile either south southeast of the deer tile on the ocean, and maybe another city to the west of the horse tile.

 

[Derdan]

You can probably burn down the ones that don't have gold or silver in their radius. That's pretty much all you need them for. The more cities you have, the more their cost will drag you down without providing any real benefit.