What justifies a good city spot?

[goldenhero]

This question is more directed to a city that does not have access to resources. How do you determine that the spot you chose for a city is a good one? Do you look at the tiles that will be worked in the BFC? Do you have a certain plan for the city? I just cannot seem to build a city without a resource in the BFC, and when I do I don't know what to do with it.

 

[DaveMcW]

No access to resources?

Generally I don't build those cities until the industrial age when I have all the terrain improvement upgrades.

If a city has enough grassland to pay its own upkeep, I will sometimes build it, cottage it, and let it build a 100-turn library.

 

[JujuLautre]

A simple river (even better with flood plains) can allow you to have a good city spot without any ressource. So main point is that it's growth (both pop and infrastructure) will take longer (except perhaps with enough flood plains).

Irrigate to help population growth, build cottages or mills (wind and water), workshops to help production if you are under state property, or expand corps if you can, and here you go.

In one of my last games, one of my cities when the game ended had just a river. But it was placed a long time ago, near the capital (so without too much maintenance), used 2 farms pre-biology, and was cottaged on every other tile it could work. After a while, it got a levee, a hydro plant, and with towns under universal suffrage, it had lots of production at the same time as lots of commerce.

But I'm not sure I would create a city without ressources AND a river; unless perhaps with chain irrigation and lots of grassland, or special cases (a city in the middle of forested tundra for a national park; and even this one would be much better with 1 or 2 farms or a food special to help production).

 

[Belisar]

The direct economical value of a city is bound to it's growth potential, which means (at least in the first stage of the game)
food ressources (I also call floodplains technically food ressources) and green land with access to fresh water.

But there are additional reasons that justify cities, indirect economic value (lux- and strategic ressources)
and strategic value (for example blocking land)

 

[Diamondeye]

Without resources I'd go for a riverside with a couple of plainshills and floodplains.

 

[shyuhe]

coastal cities can be good on their own too. If you're financial, coastal cities will break even with a lighthouse (you may want a hill or two to speed up production of the granary, lighthouse, courthouse, and harbor). Even if you're not financial, coastal with harbor is a huge plus at higher levels where AI foreign trade routes are very lucrative due to large city sizes.

 

[madscientist]

My criteria to build non-resource cities.

1) River and hills. Cottages/farms/mines. Future watermills. This will produce slowly, but usually pays for itself and becomes more powerful later in teh game.

2) Coast. The classic fishing village can get alot of commerce from working seatiles and higher yield trade routes (harbors/custome houses).

3) Stategic placement: cutting off an AI.

4) LAte game: anyplace possible if looking for that extra population for a domination or diplomatic win.

5) Extremely forrested area mid-game. Ideal for national park (with forrest preserves) becaue of the extra specialists or ironworks (with railroaded lumbermills) for the extra helth benefits.

 

[Ultimocrat]

This was a fantastic no-resource city:

Actually, I think it turned out to have Uranium and Coal, but founding it, and its development post-biology, was not contingent on having any resources. With 9 mined hills, there's actually a pretty good chance of just making up for the lack of resources by just popping one!

 

[Bhruic]

This was a fantastic no-resource city

Fantastic in what respect? Because you've got hills on both sides of the river, there's no irrigation. So pre-Biology, you're going to have no farms. That means that in order to work all the tiles, you're forced to go windmills. That's certainly going to make it a decent city. But I don't really see fantastic.

Bh

 

[Ultimocrat]

I colonized the whole island and chain-irrigated.

 

[futurehermit]

Access to enough food (grassland farms I guess) that it will grow quickly and then work other tiles (e.g., cottages, mines)

 

[Diamondeye]

Fantastic in what respect? Because you've got hills on both sides of the river, there's no irrigation. So pre-Biology, you're going to have no farms. That means that in order to work all the tiles, you're forced to go windmills. That's certainly going to make it a decent city. But I don't really see fantastic.

Bh

With CS you can "carry water" into the bfc by farming two outside squares wouth of the city. The barb city is plaed nice aswell, imo?

 

[CivCorpse]

Any spot you can place a city that isn't near Monty is an ideal city site.

 

[Morgrad]

without resources? Food to grow + something else useful.

That'd justify it. =)

 

[Levgre]

If it can at least produce either good commerce or good production.

I think these cities can be nice because sometimes you are just lacking production or just lacking commerce, so you don't need a good city that gives both.

Although, these basic cities are better for production centers, imo, as building more cities can be counter-effective commerce-wise.

Basic production cities can in turn increase commerce, because if you can build troops in these cities your capital and such are free to build markets, universities, or wealth/research even.


If it is for production you are going to need access to some extra food, if you are doing commerce you just need to break even with food, although a little extra is good for faster growth.