The game recommended that I move my opening settler ...

bhavv

Glorious World Dictator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,358
To settle on a riverside rice. I was hesitant, but then this happened:

Spoiler :


Oh. My. God. Im. Destroying. Shaka. Easy.
 
Resources?
 
What were you thinking with your second city placement lol

I think what he was saying is that if you had moved your second city one tile to the left, you could have settled on a hill, built the tile improvement for both sugars (thus getting the food and gold bonus) while retaining all the resources available in the area.
 
Jungle sugar is better to settle on. It takes Calendar + IW to improve, takes ages to actually make the improvement and gives a limited bonus.
 
Settling on sugar is a valid choice. Settling 2nd city in the jungle, especially a city that also requires a borderpop to grab the good tiles is questionable. It just takes to long to get going.

When playing a non-creative leader 2nd city should usually be settled with food inside first ring or shared food with capital.
 
Settling on sugar is fine. +1 city tile food vs +1 improved food. The second city got fast growth and worked 2 scientists.
 
lol, you had to road 6 tiles to get to your second city, and it's in the middle of the jungle. With only what I can see from the picture, there are two vastly superior spots: NW of the copper next to the cattle, and 2 E of the pigs in the cap.
 
But I prefer to land grab first, then settle inbetween spots later.
 
OK...here is a "beginner level" question for you that is somewhat related to the OP:

In what circumstances do you place cities on top of resources?
 
If you need the resource ASAP and/or it would take too long to improve the resource (this is obviously relative).

e.g. if getting that jungle sugar instantly (as opposed to first getting IW and Calender and then clearing the jungle and building the improvement) and the beneficial effect on your empire's growth outweighs the "loss" of not "properly" improving the tile.
 
If it gives extra base tile yield, and you don't lose much bonus compared to improving the tile

Sugar, Ivory, Wine, dry rice, plains marble / stone (better with hills) etc.

Or usually a 4 yield tile, rarely a 5 yield, never a 6.
 
Yeah, land grabbing far away jungle spots makes no sense if there is better land to settle. Let the AI spend their worker turns clearing the jungle, then grab the land.

OK...here is a "beginner level" question for you that is somewhat related to the OP:

In what circumstances do you place cities on top of resources?
When settling on top of the resource would gice you a better overall city and the improved resource wouldn't be very strong to work, or the improvement for the resource is far down in the tech tree. Resources that I don't think twice about settling my first cities on (if the BFC benefits from it) include sugar, banana, wine, ivory, stone, marble, silk, dry rice and sometimes even dye. Resources I would pretty much never settle on are corn, pig, gold, gems, wheat, cows, sheep. Strategic resources like copper and iron depends. Prefer not to settle on them, because they are strong tiles to work, but sometimes you have to do it to get them hooked up immediately.
 
OK...here is a "beginner level" question for you that is somewhat related to the OP:

In what circumstances do you place cities on top of resources?

Settling on the rice here also puts the city within working distance of that fish. (Although he could have also settled 2S to reach it.)
 
lol, you had to road 6 tiles to get to your second city, and it's in the middle of the jungle. With only what I can see from the picture, there are two vastly superior spots: NW of the copper next to the cattle, and 2 E of the pigs in the cap.

I think I might have gone for 1S of the cow to the east of the capital: corn,copper and cow and settled on a plains hill.
 
Jungle city isn't a bad city, but it's far from the cap and isn't a great city, especially when you can't work cows yet.
The only reason there is even a debate where your second city should go is because you blundered your capital location -- which is ironic because the point of the post was to show how good it was :p

You've basically got more food than you know what to do with. The fish tile is going unworked, the pig is a mine, and the rice was settled on. And you still have an angry face over the city.
Settling 1N of the current capital, and then putting your second city 2S of the capital would mean starting off the game with two strong food cities as close as possible.
 
If I couldn't have seen the fish, I wouldn't have moved on the rice, too risky. And drews suggestion is good, but could you see all this with your scouting warrior?

With this many AH resources skipping AH isn't worth it. My 2nd city would probably either to east, on the ph 1W of the cow to share pigs as the cap has so much food or north to the grass cows.
 
I almost always move my settler. You can often do better than the original spot
Quote this if you ever were recomended to settle on flood plains. YAY FREE UNHEALTHYNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:
 
Floodplains disappear when you settle on them (like forests). No unhealthyness from that.
 
Top Bottom