What is your policy on tundra, desert, mountain and ice tiles?

[Sephlock]

Do you ever build a city that has any of the above terrain within it's radius (or will once its borders expand)? How many tiles are acceptable? How do you factor in silver (which appears on tundra at astonishing rates) or fur? How about an Oasis?

Come to think of it, did they tweak the code with regards to the spawning of an Oasis? I never see more than one in a cluster anymore...

 

[frob2900]

Do you ever build a city that has any of the above terrain within it's radius (or will once its borders expand)? How many tiles are acceptable? How do you factor in silver (which appears on tundra at astonishing rates) or fur? How about an Oasis?

It doesn't matter at all. As long as you have 5-6 good tiles that all you need.
Check this Monarch game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=154045&d=1181187979

My second city was built just NE of the fur (it had ca 5 tundra+5 arctic and the tundra deer. It didn't get the cow, because that's inside german cultural radius). It was a great second city. I even got the pyramids and stonehenge in it while my capital built axemen.

Won that game with conquest by 1880 AD.

 

[Soneji]

I would say having three - four useless tiles like that is acceptable.

I have found one in the desert before, to catch some insense and iron.

Was very poor.

 

[frob2900]

I would say having three - four useless tiles like that is acceptable.

It's a mistake to think about how your cities will be at size 20. They'll be at size 4-8 for ages, and that's what counts.

 

[Soneji]

Thats what I am getting at, but you have to take into consideration long term growth.

I do not mind settling cities that will stay relatively small - medium, but only in order to achieve something ie landlock or good resources.

 

[IronCrown]

In the early game I try to only found cities that either bring in more money than they cost in maintenance, or have a good hammer yield. Cities that do neither are worthless and only slow you down.

Later in the game I might settle sparse land to hook up additional resources. But it actually never happens because by that time an AI has settled the spot

Tundra cities at the sea can be great because they tend to have a lot of resources. If you have three seafood tiles it doesn't really matter that all land tiles are only tundra and ice.

 

[Soneji]

Cities that do neither are worthless and only slow you down.

Truth. Especially when you are trying to avoiding dropping down to 10-20% science.

 

[ComradeDavo]

If they got resources, i'll build a small city to harvest them. If they don't, I forget bout them....though a mountain range can be useful defensively if you have an agressive neighbour on your border.

 

[Soneji]

I don't think mountains make a difference, as the SoD's will just come round the sides!

 

[Vynd]

So long as a city has lots of good tiles to work it doesn't much matter if a few of its tiles are poor. It can still be a good city, even a great city. It's likely to max out in population somewhat lower than a "perfect" city would, that's all. But if you get hung up on the idea that every city has to be perfect then you aren't going to build very many.

 

[DrLaban]

I'm with Frob here (who can resist a man with Paris Hilton as avatar?). 5-6 useful tiles is enough for a town to pull it's weight. If I have the great lighthouse I have a very aggressive agenda when expanding as any excrement- hole of a town gets a respectable amount of commerce as long as it is by the sea.

 

[IronCrown]

who can resist a man with Paris Hilton as avatar?

Uh... everybody?

 

[Antilogic]

I would point you to one of the little tips the game gives you when loading: not all cities can occupy ideal locations. A few of these tiles aren't going to hurt your city in the long run. If possible, I actually build on the tundra or desert to avoid having that wasted tile in my city radius, so long as by doing so I don't incur another three bad tiles...

I try to build cities in other terrain first, however. I always prioritize resources and good terrain, then I'll build the tundra city in the north or the desert city to grab the incense I won't be able to use until I hit Calendar.

 

[LDiCesare]

I don't build if there's only such terrain, and even then I might.
I once plucked a city whose fat cross contained 2 forested tundras, one ice with oil, 3 sea, and 3 others that I wouldn't even dream of using. I had to use a great artist to steal the oil from my friend who was using it instead of me and wouldn't give it.
Early in the game, I avoid but if there are 3 or 4 mountains/ice/tundra, it's ok. Even more so with tundra, or desert if there are flood plains to compensate nearby.

 

[Defiant47]

Desert:

Acceptable sacrifice if it means several good flood plains that will either be cottage-massacred, or farm-specialist-spammed. 4-6 floodplains and I can pretty much forget about anything else (whip for production, cottage/farm for science). Counted as non-tiles (in my settling spot evaluation).

Mountain:

A cost of playing that must be incurred. Usually you can't do anything about them, and you'll just have to settle for whatever the location is, taking your mountains with you. Most locations can be perfect except the two mountains that are protruding from the sides. Just sigh, settle, and move on. Counted as non-tiles.

Tundra:

To be avoided. Not very useful terrain at all! The only way it can be decent is if there is seafood and/or deer. That way you can just bring the population up to speed and use specialists to make the city useful. Silver is an annoyance, because you don't really want to pass it up, and you want at least one for the happiness, so I usually obtain it by edging my city a bit into tundra. Counted as less than half-a-tiles.

Land Ice:

Beautiful settling spot! What are you looking at me like that for? Of course, the land is crap, but if you do it right, you'll get some good sea tiles (seafood making it that much better). Usually you'd only ever consider settling these places if it's late in the game and the maintenance is more than acceptable. In this case, you just struggle your way through a lighthouse, and then enjoy as your commerce increases beyond your maintenance. Of course, this works beautifully with financial leaders, not so much with others. Technically counted as non-tiles, but counting ceases at this point in the game.

Sea Ice:

The garbage of all garbage. Get this garbage out of my sight. Not only do you get land ice garbage that gives you nothing, you don't even get the coast food and commerce tiles that make ice cities worth it in the late game. Garbage. Counted as non-settling.

 

[Defiant47]

Desert:

Acceptable sacrifice if it means several good flood plains that will either be cottage-massacred, or farm-specialist-spammed. 4-6 floodplains and I can pretty much forget about anything else (whip for production, cottage/farm for science). Counted as non-tiles (in my settling spot evaluation).

Mountain:

A cost of playing that must be incurred. Usually you can't do anything about them, and you'll just have to settle for whatever the location is, taking your mountains with you. Most locations can be perfect except the two mountains that are protruding from the sides. Just sigh, settle, and move on. Counted as non-tiles.

Tundra:

To be avoided. Not very useful terrain at all! The only way it can be decent is if there is seafood and/or deer. That way you can just bring the population up to speed and use specialists to make the city useful. Silver is an annoyance, because you don't really want to pass it up, and you want at least one for the happiness, so I usually obtain it by edging my city a bit into tundra. Counted as less than half-a-tiles.

Land Ice:

Beautiful settling spot! What are you looking at me like that for? Of course, the land is crap, but if you do it right, you'll get some good sea tiles (seafood making it that much better). Usually you'd only ever consider settling these places if it's late in the game and the maintenance is more than acceptable. In this case, you just struggle your way through a lighthouse, and then enjoy as your commerce increases beyond your maintenance. Of course, this works beautifully with financial leaders, not so much with others. Technically counted as non-tiles, but counting ceases at this point in the game.

Sea Ice:

The garbage of all garbage. Get this garbage out of my sight. Not only do you get land ice garbage that gives you nothing, you don't even get the coast food and commerce tiles that make ice cities worth it in the late game. Garbage. Counted as non-settling.

 

[Spearthrower]

Desert is my most hated terrain... I just hate to see it.... so many map scripts have so much of it in.... obviously I dont mind it if its ripe with lush flood plains, but do I ever get river and desert together? Not bloody likely.... I just get great expanses of sand that I'll need to wait 4000 years before tourists start paying to camel trek across before they'll do anything for my empire.

Did I mention? I dont like desert!

 

[snipafist]

In the early game I try to only found cities that either bring in more money than they cost in maintenance, or have a good hammer yield. Cities that do neither are worthless and only slow you down.

I disagree. If settling in a less-than-ideal spot brings in new health and/or happiness increasing resources, then every other city in your empire experiences a lifting of the previous population ceiling, allowing them to be that much more productive or commercially successful as they utilize more tiles within their superior radius. While individually your newly-founded city is a slight drag on your empire, from an empire-wide view, it was a wise choice.

That said, all the less-than-ideal tiles have some use:
-deserts and ice floes, especially ridiculously large ones, restrict enemy settlement as well. You can rely on being safe from the enemy settling too close to you when these terrain types are near. Deserts tend to have lots of gold, incense and oasies, so settling nearby a flood plain running through the desert can be unexpectedly successful.
-tundra isn't a complete loss. You can irrigate any tundra next to a river, and by simply leaving most of it untouched, you can encourage forest growth over the empty tundra spaces. A properly-planned late game tundra city can do well enough, with irrigated spaces providing 3 food and lumber milled forests providing 2 hammer and 1 food. It won't be a powerhouse city, but if it grants access to all the tundra-abundant resources (good seafood, furs, silver, deer) then it's likely worth it.
-mountains, while completely unworkable can funnel an enemy into having to approach you through a certain vector. This is a good opportunity to place a defensive city or fort in a strategic pass.

 

[deanjack]

Unfortunately its part of the game and not every city can have an ideal location but now with BTS maybe a random event will make them useful. I tend to split it between cities e.g if there is a large desert instead of planting a city in the middle split it between two cities.

 

[tiznoast]

If possible, I actually build on the tundra or desert to avoid having that wasted tile in my city radius, so long as by doing so I don't incur another three bad tiles...

if you do this, that tile HAS to be worked - but if you put it into your city radius, you can choose not to work it, and get the benefits from working some other tile.

one of the few times I'd suggest settling on a low-yield tile in this manner is if it's necessary to max out the number of resources in your radius.