What's there to do with Tundras? In a recent game I had some wet Tundra, so I made farms, but tose are pretty poor tiles, still. I guess the only thing of any value would be cottages, even those would suffer from providing too little food. Is there anything that makes more sense?
Tundra
- Thread starter Hesha
- Start date
georgjorge
Deity Wannabe
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 921
Not really, no. It's there to avoid.
Sometimes, though, you want to make a city in the tundra to secure Fur or Silver for happiness. And if you whip repeatedly, a single seafood and two grassland farms can make even a tundra city produce some stuff in the medium run.
Sometimes, though, you want to make a city in the tundra to secure Fur or Silver for happiness. And if you whip repeatedly, a single seafood and two grassland farms can make even a tundra city produce some stuff in the medium run.
More or less completely worthless until you reach biology.
These are tiles that only get your attention when you have a surplus of workerturns, ie after you have taken care of most other tiles.
Can be helpful to farm one or two of them if there is no other 2F tiles available at all, so the city have something to grow on from pop2->pop4.
Once under a blue moon you might settle your capital in proximity of tundra, and if you have an abundance of food it can make sense to cottage these tundra tiles too.
But like plains-tiles, which are basically ignored for most of the first half of the game, you generally ignore tundra and to a even larger extent than plains.
These are tiles that only get your attention when you have a surplus of workerturns, ie after you have taken care of most other tiles.
Can be helpful to farm one or two of them if there is no other 2F tiles available at all, so the city have something to grow on from pop2->pop4.
Once under a blue moon you might settle your capital in proximity of tundra, and if you have an abundance of food it can make sense to cottage these tundra tiles too.
But like plains-tiles, which are basically ignored for most of the first half of the game, you generally ignore tundra and to a even larger extent than plains.
In a recent game I had a city placement where I had 2 tiles of floodplanes in the north, some grassland east and west and 2 tiles of wet tundra in the south. Another effect of this city placement was that it fully fogbusted the rest of my continent, freeing up 2 of my units. Seemed worth it at the time, I just wanted to know what the best use of those tiles is, provided everything else is in place.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 26,851
Well, first one must ask why settle that city in the first place. It really depends on several factors On occasion one might roll a heavy tundra start ..rare but possible..so it may be a case of having little room to settle city otherwise. Generally though, tundra area is very poor. One major exception is sometimes tundra might have a plethora of resources - namely lots of fur and/or silver. Also, it is possible you might find horse or iron in the vicinity. Food is usually deer and maybe some sheep or something. However, often one will find little food, but will eventually settle for the resources in what we term a "resource city' whose main purpose is simply to bring those happy resources online with little expectation that the city will otherwise be very productive - at least for a long time. Later food and hammer corps can make pretty much any city productive if you choose that route.
Early game though one will likely avoid settling heavy tundra areas, favoring food and production..i.e. productive cities early. Certainly I would not just settle a tundra spot with no resources simply for the sake of settling the spot or fogbusting as you say. A unit can be placed in the area for that purpose. A single unit will fogbust a 5X5 tile area from the spot they stand on..no barbs can spawn on those tiles. A city like you mention is simply not worth it for the cost.
In direct answer to your question regarding wet tundra tiles, as mentioned these tiles will be ignored for a long time. A city is only going to grow so large anyway early, so just make use of whatever food you have and grow into scientists. Later on though, if the game is going later, wet tundra (tiles that can actually receive improvements) are probably best used for workshops and watermills. Those improvements actually become fairly productive late when all bonuses kick in and especially in State Property.
Early game though one will likely avoid settling heavy tundra areas, favoring food and production..i.e. productive cities early. Certainly I would not just settle a tundra spot with no resources simply for the sake of settling the spot or fogbusting as you say. A unit can be placed in the area for that purpose. A single unit will fogbust a 5X5 tile area from the spot they stand on..no barbs can spawn on those tiles. A city like you mention is simply not worth it for the cost.
In direct answer to your question regarding wet tundra tiles, as mentioned these tiles will be ignored for a long time. A city is only going to grow so large anyway early, so just make use of whatever food you have and grow into scientists. Later on though, if the game is going later, wet tundra (tiles that can actually receive improvements) are probably best used for workshops and watermills. Those improvements actually become fairly productive late when all bonuses kick in and especially in State Property.
Thank you! That makes a lot of sense. I will post a screenshot of the city and a savegame when I'm back at home, so you can see the overall situation. I remember that in the previous game I had a city in the tundra region that was really quite productive, able to produce riflemen in 4-6 turns, I believe. It had silver, multiple furs and oil I think. And one sea resource.
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,976
Sometimes tundra cities can contribute (esp early) just by working 1 deer + 4 river cottages i.e.
An example would be a poor Iso map (like so often
), where any river cities are welcome to increase commerce.
In general any city with +4 food could get a library somehow and run 2 scientists.
Without something like deer, silver or furs they are ofc worthless.
An example would be a poor Iso map (like so often
), where any river cities are welcome to increase commerce.In general any city with +4 food could get a library somehow and run 2 scientists.
Without something like deer, silver or furs they are ofc worthless.
It's crabs whale and fish in the tundra regions. Clams are closer to the jungle.
And yes, coastal cities with multiple food sources are always worth settling!
Cities with only a lone crab are also worth it, but it's mostly a question of prioritization and order.
There is usually much better sites to settle first, before one ventures into the tundra.
And yes, coastal cities with multiple food sources are always worth settling!
Cities with only a lone crab are also worth it, but it's mostly a question of prioritization and order.
There is usually much better sites to settle first, before one ventures into the tundra.
It depends. 
How far away, how many silver/fur, how much does the rest of the empire stand to benefit from the added happines, etc, etc.
But I have settled plenty of cities out in the tundra with no food, just to grab resources.
Just staying at size1, working the silver building wealth for the rest of the game, the city is likely to almost pay for itself.
How far away, how many silver/fur, how much does the rest of the empire stand to benefit from the added happines, etc, etc.
But I have settled plenty of cities out in the tundra with no food, just to grab resources.
Just staying at size1, working the silver building wealth for the rest of the game, the city is likely to almost pay for itself.
6K Man
Bureaucrat
One quirk of tundra is that you can build lumbermills on Tundra Forest, but if you chop the forest, you can’t do anything with the tile if it isn’t adjacent to water. A rare case where lumbermills are viable ahead of the usual chop+state prop workshop method.
Tundra cities with lots of forest and some food aren’t bad National Park choices, but that’s usually more trouble than it’s worth. Especially if you were forced out of Caste and have to build infrastructure to run specialists.
Otherwise – yeah, it’s generally bad.
Tundra cities with lots of forest and some food aren’t bad National Park choices, but that’s usually more trouble than it’s worth. Especially if you were forced out of Caste and have to build infrastructure to run specialists.
Otherwise – yeah, it’s generally bad.
That always kinda bugged me. If I've got excess food, how come I can't build cottages on a non-river tundra? The 1
yield from tundra is already bad enough, but they had to nerf it even more by not even letting me build most tile improvements on it.Makes some sense though.
People in the real world doesn't seem all that keen on settling in barren icescapes.
Can't build cottages on ice, desert or peaks neither.
Not that it is _impossible_ in the real world, it just doesn't seem natural.
Nothing forbids settlement on coast either, could have gigantic floating villages, but we don't really see much of that.
Something thats more weird though, is that you can't improve oasis tiles. Thats really weird!
People in the real world doesn't seem all that keen on settling in barren icescapes.
Can't build cottages on ice, desert or peaks neither.
Not that it is _impossible_ in the real world, it just doesn't seem natural.
Nothing forbids settlement on coast either, could have gigantic floating villages, but we don't really see much of that.
Something thats more weird though, is that you can't improve oasis tiles. Thats really weird!
I don't think of the tundra as being some barren icescape though. It's cold, but there is some life there. People do live in places like Siberia.Makes some sense though.
People in the real world doesn't seem all that keen on settling in barren icescapes.
Can't build cottages on ice, desert or peaks neither.
Not that it is _impossible_ in the real world, it just doesn't seem natural.
Nothing forbids settlement on coast either, could have gigantic floating villages, but we don't really see much of that.
Something thats more weird though, is that you can't improve oasis tiles. Thats really weird!
Anyway it's just a game. What's the point of having tundra separate from ice if it's functionally the same? Am I supposed to work a bare tundra tile for that sweet 1
yield? Might as well make it all ice if I can't do anything with it.
6K Man
Bureaucrat
Makes some sense though.
People in the real world doesn't seem all that keen on settling in barren icescapes.
Can't build cottages on ice, desert or peaks neither.
Not that it is _impossible_ in the real world, it just doesn't seem natural.
Nothing forbids settlement on coast either, could have gigantic floating villages, but we don't really see much of that.
Something thats more weird though, is that you can't improve oasis tiles. Thats really weird!
One reason I play a lot of LoR is the option to improve deserts/tundra when you have sufficiently advanced tech. Tiles are still pretty crappy (-1 food versus grassland), but at least it's an option, for chain irrigation or whatever. And you can improve Oases - Oasis Towns are pretty nice
Similar threads
