The Benefits (or Lack Thereof) of a River Settlement vs. 1 Tile Away

[EndoConvert]

I'm often faced with a situation in which I can either settle on a river or 1 tile away from a river. The 1 tile away might be a better strategic location (a choke point, closer to a resource, etc.).

So does settling on a river make up for the better strategic location? Off the top of my head, the only benefits of settling directly on a river rather than 1 tile away are:

- garden
- water mill
- hydro plant
- only having to build 1 road to get a bridge (since the city acts as the other side of the bridge) rather than 2 roads to get a bridge
- harder to assault the city if enemies have to cross the river to get to it, but this works both ways (it's harder to attack from the city) and is irrelevant if enemies are not on the other side of the river anyway

Water mill sucks more often than not (cost < benefit), and garden is only good in very specific types of cities geared to building GP. Hydro plant is really late game, requires aluminum I'd rather spend on units, and is a huge hammer investment anyway (especially compared to workshop, forge, factory, etc.).

So are there any other benefits of settling on a river rather than 1 tile away that I'm missing?

You get the civil service farming benefit even from 1 tile away. When there are strategic benefits to settling 1 tile away, it seems better to settle that 1 tile away than on the river, which doesn't seem to offer enough benefits to offset the strategic advantages.

 

[Monthar]

A city built on the river is also better defended, because crossing the river to attack incurs a penalty. That's anywhere from 1 tile to all 6 tiles depending on the rivers.

Also, the watermill got a boost in the patch and it now give +1 +2 for 2 maintenance.

 

[Wyvernjack]

I think you are underestimating the value of a watermill post-patch. For low maintenance you get a specialist + an extra hammer.

 

[Seek]

I was just thinking about this recently. Another benefit from settling offriver is one more riverside farm and possibly closer to production tiles, which cultural expansion avoids.

 

[vexing]

i restart the game if my capital isn't next to a river, and a lot of river land. water mill is really good now.

the boost from hydro plant is huge, 1 base hammer per tile next to river. it's even better than that though because grassland/floodplains go from 0 to 1 production, which make them benefit from the production boost in golden ages.

as for the cost, i just save up gold so i'll be able to buy the hydro plant as soon as i finish the tech... all the super production expensive buildings have comparatively low gold costs.

 

[EndoConvert]

A city built on the river is also better defended, because crossing the river to attack incurs a penalty. That's anywhere from 1 tile to all 6 tiles depending on the rivers.

I already noted this as one of the benefits in my original post, and also briefly critiqued it. I'm asking whether there are any benefits other than the ones I listed.

 

[Jenarie]

I agree that you undervalued watermills. I know you already listed them but not sure if you considered the patch changes. I never built one pre-patch and I always build them now.

I think there are occasionally good reasons to settle off river - if the workable tiles are going to be significantly better it can outweigh the advantages of the river - but I settle on river almost always.

 

[generalwar]

River cities are better than those 1 tile away, except in some cases, but that's rare. If you have a city on river, your pop grows faster, you can assign more people to be specialists or to work mines. Those cities that aren't on river can't sustain big pop and so, thay can't do mines if they are near strategic resources like iron or silver or smth like that.

 

[SeptimusOctopus]

A city built on the river is also better defended, because crossing the river to attack incurs a penalty. That's anywhere from 1 tile to all 6 tiles depending on the rivers.

Also, the watermill got a boost in the patch and it now give +1 +2 for 2 maintenance.

A city one off the river has a pretty big advantage if you're being invaded as well. If your attacker has to cross the river, then its troops will have to stop after crossing the river. This gives you a chance for a counter attack before any of the invaders attack the city. So basically you end up having your city attacked by weakened units.

I personally prefer settling on the river, but depending on the lay of the land, and which neighbors are out there it can be very strategic to leave a city one off the river, particularly if food and production aren't your main concerns for that city (basically because you just miss out on watermills and hydro plants as far as I know).

 

[EndoConvert]

River cities are better than those 1 tile away, except in some cases, but that's rare. If you have a city on river, your pop grows faster, you can assign more people to be specialists or to work mines. Those cities that aren't on river can't sustain big pop and so, thay can't do mines if they are near strategic resources like iron or silver or smth like that.

This analysis doesn't work. Other than water mill, there is no reason a city on river would grow any faster or provide any more specialists than a city 1 tile away. In fact, a city 1 tile away might even grow faster because you get one extra tile which you can farm with the benefits of civil service. Cities 1 tile away from a river can definitely sustain big population every bit as much as cities right next to a river.

 

[Alpedar]

River farm = 4F,1G
vs
river city + one nonriver grassland tile watermill: 2F, 1H -2G, + grassland with trade and total is 4F 1H.

Imo river city is bit better before hydro. And for huge city, hydro is godly, small city does not deserve 1 aluminium for hydro.

So if city is meant to be small happiness + gold city, settle away, othervise on river

 

[RosieJones]

This isn't true. Other than water mill, there is no reason a city on river would grow any faster or provide any more specialists than a city 1 tile away. In fact, a city 1 tile away might even grow faster because you get one extra tile which you can farm with the benefits of civil service. Cities 1 tile away from a river can definitely sustain big population every bit as much as cities right next to a river.

So basically you answered your own question. Except the numbers are different. If you settle 1 tile away from a river, best case scenario is that middle game MAYBE your culture has picked up another river tile or 2 which will give you +1-2 . The problem with this is that if you settle ON the river...you get +2 from the water mill AND your culture will pick up the same tiles giving you +1-2 ish more . So settling 1 tile away CAN sustain growth, but not faster or longer.

Also the only 3 reasons i see not to settle on top of a river are:

1) You started on a river but 1 tile away nets you 2 hills for more than just a water mill's +1 c5production:. So you sac a couple for

2) You started on the coast, and there are 3 or more accessable water worked tiles. It's hard to get lucky with that much gold + growth right away.

3) You have some sort of potamophobia and hate rivers.


edit: This guy above me posted right as I did and his math is better.

 

[Ahriman]

One more benefit: if you settle on a river, then tiles on both sides are included in your initial 6 tiles, and so tiles on both sides equal cost in terms of cultural expansion or gold purchase.

If you settle 1 tile away from the river, then tiles on the far side of the river aren't included in your initial 6, and have higher cultural "cost" (ie are less likely to be selected when culture expands) or gold cost.

So the river might end up become a border, whereas you really want both sides of the river in your empire.

 

[Bibor]

One more benefit: if you settle on a river, then tiles on both sides are included in your initial 6 tiles, and so tiles on both sides equal cost in terms of cultural expansion or gold purchase.

This is, by far, the most important aspect of settling on a river.

If you settle "one off" you get early +1 (or are able to farm a hill) and +1 . That's "2 stuff". Compared to Watermill with its "3 stuff", it's already inferior, athough the Watermill needs to be built. But considering that settling on a river can net you 2-4 more riverside tiles is absolutely in favor of settling on a river.

IMO, tile gains should be programmed in a fashion that they prioritize resources, then rivesides, then all other tiles. But it's not in the game (yet) and that makes settling riverside better.

 

[Phrederick]

A city one off the river has a pretty big advantage if you're being invaded as well. If your attacker has to cross the river, then its troops will have to stop after crossing the river. This gives you a chance for a counter attack before any of the invaders attack the city. So basically you end up having your city attacked by weakened units.

If I'm settling a city I know will be a borderland battleground, I use this reasoning to put it one tile away from a river. It makes defense dramatically simpler, and counterattacks easier.

 

[SeptimusOctopus]

If I'm settling a city I know will be a borderland battleground, I use this reasoning to put it one tile away from a river. It makes defense dramatically simpler, and counterattacks easier.

I found out about the defense difference of one off the river placement from this thread by alpaca: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=393267&page=2

In post 34 alpaca shows how he can get 4 horses to attack Berlin in one turn because it's placed directly on the river. Later in the series, it's shown that Rome's one tile off the river placement leads to an invader suffering heavy casualties.

Anyway, it's highly situational, and I think you're almost always better off on the river in a city that's not likely to be a battleground. I suppose it could be useful if you want to have an AI sacrifice a sizable portion of its army at the outset of a war. But that might be quite difficult to pull of in practice.

 

[bryanw1995]

So basically you answered your own question. Except the numbers are different. If you settle 1 tile away from a river, best case scenario is that middle game MAYBE your culture has picked up another river tile or 2 which will give you +1-2 . The problem with this is that if you settle ON the river...you get +2 from the water mill AND your culture will pick up the same tiles giving you +1-2 ish more . So settling 1 tile away CAN sustain growth, but not faster or longer.

Also the only 3 reasons i see not to settle on top of a river are:

1) You started on a river but 1 tile away nets you 2 hills for more than just a water mill's +1 c5production:. So you sac a couple for

2) You started on the coast, and there are 3 or more accessable water worked tiles. It's hard to get lucky with that much gold + growth right away.

3) You have some sort of potamophobia and hate rivers.


edit: This guy above me posted right as I did and his math is better.

everyone please raise your hand if you just looked up "potamophobia".

clearly post-patch the watermill is much better, not just for the +1 hammer and engineer, but also food is harder to come by and cities grow faster now. settle as many river cities as you can barring one of the above mentioned exceptions.

 

[bryanw1995]

This is, by far, the most important aspect of settling on a river.

If you settle "one off" you get early +1 (or are able to farm a hill) and +1 . That's "2 stuff". Compared to Watermill with its "3 stuff", it's already inferior, athough the Watermill needs to be built. But considering that settling on a river can net you 2-4 more riverside tiles is absolutely in favor of settling on a river.

IMO, tile gains should be programmed in a fashion that they prioritize resources, then rivesides, then all other tiles. But it's not in the game (yet) and that makes settling riverside better.

it would be even better if we had the option to prioritize city border expansion; ie, hills first, then resources, then grass, etc etc.

 

[TheNoodle]

from hippopotamus and the destroyer potemkine we can figure what potamophobia is (the context is also very suggestive). I'd like to add that settling 1 tile away from the river on a desert tile can be very helpful. The flood plain thus liberated is a good tile (4F1G after civil service) and the desert, which normally nets nothing now becomes a city tile with 2F2P1G, so the difference can be important. It is usually as Babylon or Egypt that you'll have this choice at the start because of start bias.

 

[SeptimusOctopus]

from hippopotamus and the destroyer potemkine we can figure what potamophobia is (the context is also very suggestive).

I'd never really considered the meaning of hippopotamus before. I deduced potamophobia's meaning from Mesopotamia, and the fact that it was given as a reason for not settling on a river.