Suggestions and Requests

Randomize spawn point in 3x3 area around current point for all civs.

Britannia Rule the Waves, and get an early start by settling London in the sea 1E of its current location. :lol:

Yeah no, I can see so many possibilities for this to go wrong already: Amsterdam and Paris, Portugal and Madrid, Berlin and Warsaw etc.
 
I strongly suggest allowing cities to be founded on non-food resources and improving it for islands of all sizes (where island is defined as in real life). Size 5-tiles islands do not even include Ireland, to say nothing about Britain. After British nerf settling Inverness on Fur and Edinburgh on Iron become the most optimal city placement, but not being able to improve the resource discourages it.
 
I strongly suggest allowing cities to be founded on non-food resources and improving it for islands of all sizes (where island is defined as in real life). Size 5-tiles islands do not even include Ireland, to say nothing about Britain. After British nerf settling Inverness on Fur and Edinburgh on Iron become the most optimal city placement, but not being able to improve the resource discourages it.

Even within the current 5 tile island framework, allowing resource improvement food in addition to production and commerce may help cities such as Colombo (1700 start version), Kingston, Port-au-Prince, and Funchal which suffer from few tiles to exploit other than coast.
 
I strongly suggest allowing cities to be founded on non-food resources and improving it for islands of all sizes (where island is defined as in real life). Size 5-tiles islands do not even include Ireland, to say nothing about Britain. After British nerf settling Inverness on Fur and Edinburgh on Iron become the most optimal city placement, but not being able to improve the resource discourages it.

It's known that Leoreth does not believe making optimal city placements even more optimal is the criterion for changes...
 
It's known that Leoreth does not believe making optimal city placements even more optimal is the criterion for changes...

Indeed.

Imo we should strive to make it so that real life positions of important cities are optimal city places in gameplay as well as long as it's reeasonable.
 
But Inverness is not an important city.
 
But how would you position the resources in such a way that actually founding Edinburgh is preferable? Of course, what you could also do is have it spawn as an independent city, which would semi-force it as a city.
 
I don't have a copy of the current game map with me, but I'm pretty sure it depicts the U.S. 'Great Plains' region as mainly plains with occasional grasslands. I was wondering if there's been any proposal to include the Ozark Plateau as a single-tile forested hills a bit southwest of the St. Louis city-site.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozarks
 
But how would you position the resources in such a way that actually founding Edinburgh is preferable? Of course, what you could also do is have it spawn as an independent city, which would semi-force it as a city.
I never understand this type of discussion. How does Edinburgh become a preferable location when founding on resources gives more resources? The Edinburgh tile does not have any resources on it.
 
Nothing, just to do with the whole problem of historically important cities not actually being the optimal place (and thus rarely, if ever, being founded).
 
I'm still confused? Is Edinburgh the optimal spot for northern Britain right now or not?

The angle of extra yields seems to be that there would be an even better spot with this change, which is an entirely different subject.
 
I'm still confused? Is Edinburgh the optimal spot for northern Britain right now or not?

The angle of extra yields seems to be that there would be an even better spot with this change, which is an entirely different subject.

Edinburgh is a very good spot. But 1S (on Iron) is better (if you allow Iron to be improved). It leaves room for 2 cities in England and 2 cities in Scotland. Working Whale is a very lovely option.
 
No no no. Right now York (because of oil) and Inverness are the best city locations. If Edinburgh were to become more favorable, the whale and island would just have to move within its fat cross. Even then it's 50/50 since settling on a fur is better than settling on a naked hill. One more thing would have to be added to make Edinburgh better.
 
I am not sure about York -- you only get to work Oil very late in game. And your culture gets there from Edinburgh anyway.
 
Given the rather diverse opinions being presented on optimal city placement, is it possible that there isn't one optimal position right now? I don't remember exactly which tiles in Scotland everyone is referring to, but I can think of a number of pros and cons for different placements as it is.

I've played a bunch of games as the vikings and colonizing Scotland is always tempting for me. Choice is often between settling one city in the middle or one east and one west. Settling one city gives it more resources to itself, but not all of them are reachable. Settling two cities gets more resources immediately, but fewer for each city. I think you can make a good argument for either.

As for on the iron or beside it, again there a few factors. I usually prefer to not settle on resources (though I guess that depends on the earlier discussion). Sometimes though, I do settle on the iron to ensure England can't get it without actually taking the city.

There are a lot of elements to this game. Sometimes there's a clear best choice. Often there isn't. And while I understand the appeal of making historically important cities more desirable (it drives me nuts when Constantinople isn't founded), part of the fun of this mod is seeing alternatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom