Start Positioning and Rational Thought

[PsiRedEye22]

Hey everybody, I'm still awful at Civ, so I thought I'd try to take the time to understand the rational thought behind decisions.

This is the start I drew as Shaka Zulu. I scouted for a turn, and my dilemma is as such:

If I settle on the plains hill I am on, I miss the corn. If I go 1N, I lose out on the production bonus of the hill! Ahhhh!

Any help would be appreciated, hopefully I'll be able to win a game someday and get off of Chieftain difficulty...

 

[DrLaban]

I would settle one step to the north, hands down. Without that corn you won't have any good food source to work with.

 

[cabert]

first, you should move your scout.
I would go on the corn first then probably on the tundra hill.
Moving 1N isn't a failsafe move, that's sure.
Then again, you don't know what's in the south...looks like coastal.

Since you have high production but low food, moving 1 E or 1 N (depending on what your scout uncovers) could be a wise move.
I would probably go 1E if there is more tundra to the north

 

[AlessioCerci]

What did you do in the first turn, why move the settler and waste a turn?

 

[cabert]

What did you do in the first turn, why move the settler and waste a turn?

in the first turn, he moved from the grasshill to the forest obviously.
And here I come and advice to go back to the initial position .
If this is really what happened, I suggest reloading the autosave from 4000BC. It's clearly not a good way to start the game.

 

[ABigCivFan]

Settle 1E for the following reasons:

1. Claims all 3 resources.
2. Very balanced food/productive capital with 3 plain hills, cow, ivory + corn + plenty trees
3. Hll Defensive bonus

1N gives you tundra tile(s).

Your capital can build workers/settler/worriors very fast enabling a very fast early expansion.

Edit: I mistakenly saw the grass hill 3N 1E as tundra. Also now I noticed your are at turn 2. if Your settler started on the grassland hill 1E, it would be a good choice to settle there.

 

[futurehermit]

1E is the correct location for your capital

 

[PsiRedEye22]

1E seemed to get me onto a pretty good start. Wish I could see that that's what I wanted to do all along.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Hey everybody, I'm still awful at Civ, so I thought I'd try to take the time to understand the rational thought behind decisions.

You've already been given the answer, but asked for the rationale. Here it is: food is life.

Food is easily converted to production, but the reverse isn't true.

 

[sneaky]

I would also suggest settling 1E to claim corn, cows and Ivory.

I think there will even be something interesting in the fog to the south if you are lucky.

 

[Meanness]

You should have settled on the original grassland hill - you can claim all 3 resources from the original location, and have no tundra in the fat cross.

As far as rational thought goes - settle on your original location 90% of the time. Only move your settler if there is an obviously superior spot within a single move. Each turn you wander around is a turn of 0 production and 0 commerce.

Reload to 4000BC and hit 'B'.

 

[Jet]

I'm afraid the evidence for the statement that 3N gives tundra is very poor. You can see that 3N is not tundra, and I'm pretty sure N-N-NW isn't tundra either. N-N-NW could be coast, but I don't think so. I think I could tell by looking at the save, although I'm not certain that I could. But on a practical level, Cabert is right that the Scout can tell you what you need to know about your north.

There might be a resource 2S. The settler position is unusually low-food. But not to the extent of being unheard of. (EDIT: Oh, now I understand that 1E was the generated Settler position. That's not unusual at all.) If 2S was a grain resource, in-place would be OK. Cow resource, still a little bit uncomfortably low food. Deer resource, probably impossible - that tile is probably too far south for it. But you can't see what's 2S on the first turn, so you should do what Cabert said. The plains hill isn't worth giving up a food resource - that's for sure. Generally, cities always need good food surpluses. You can compromise that sometimes, but not in your capital when there's a Corn right there for you by moving 1N or 1E.

 

[Cabay Jet]

I say settle on the grassland hill for the following reasons:

1. The defense bonus that can't be knocked out with siege weapons is always welcome.
2. It has a decent food supply. (Corn, cattle)
3. It has a strategic resource within its fat cross. (Ivory)
4. It has a thick forest surrounding it, which is good for rush building wonders.
5. It will have a lot of production with the plains/hills.

 

[AlessioCerci]

in the first turn, he moved from the grasshill to the forest obviously.
And here I come and advice to go back to the initial position .
If this is really what happened, I suggest reloading the autosave from 4000BC. It's clearly not a good way to start the game.

Ok i see that. I would advise only moving the settler if you see resources that arent in your FC (e.g Sistuli's latest game where gold was close by) and you have to be certain that the place you're moving to is better tham where you started, becasue otherwise you'll have to move back (as Cabert says here)

 

[IAM]

I decree thou shalt place thine one and only settler one tile to the East. Or the fury of the low food capital will strike fear through the pancreas of thine progeny.