What tiles should I settle on?

[kamikazees]

I hope I didn't miss something in the info center about this, but is there a list of what tiles give what yields for settlement purposes?

For example, I know that the general output of the actual city tile is +2 Food, +1 production. That seems to apply whether you settle a city on plains (which is normally +1/+1), or desert, which is 0. But settling on a mountain gives a +2/+2. What gives?

It might be that the +2/+1 is the lowest you can get, but the actual tile adds whatever bonuses you can get on top of that. Is that it? For a mountain that is normally +2 production, settling on it would give +2/+2. If so, it seems good to settle on a tile that was either 0 to start so you get the full benefit of the +2/+1, or one that would add something, like a mountain (production), a river or a luxury (perhaps gold).

 

[n00bxqb]

If I'm trying for early expansion, I usually settle on top of luxuries. Removes the need to spend 20 turns + movement to work it (I play on Marathon) but you give up some bonuses from the luxury.

 

[S.K. Ren]

It depends on how strong of a start you want.
All cities have a minimum of 2 Food, 1 Hammer so settling on tiles less than that will give you the difference. If there is 1 bad tile and a bunch of good tiles, settling on the bad tile may be best if it's in range.

Settling on Luxuries is nice as it gives you the GPT in your city tile and gives it to you once you research the right lux tech.

Settling on hills is more of a now or later type deal. By settling on a hill you gain 1 Hammer which is great for the early game but lose out on building the Windmill which gives 2 hammers later.

Settling next to a river gives you access to the Watermill which gives 2 Food, 2 Hammer

Settling on next to Mountains allows you to build the Observatory

 

[hix]

In single player, I always settle on lux, unless it's a border city expecting war, then I will settle on a hill.

In MP, I settle in the most tactically advantageous spots, trying to make "approach and surround" as difficult and time-consuming as possible for the enemy.

If warring early, I will settle a city right next to my target. This gives me healing tiles and a place to buy troops if necessary.

I agree that settling on lux early is the best way to expand quickly. Forget the +1 food and gold you'll get later, you need the early cash or happiness.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Does settling on hills not give you a defensive bonus?

 

[Alrin Kharr]

Does settling on hills not give you a defensive bonus?

AFAIK, no, there is no defensive bonus for settling on a hill. City tiles are considered neither rough nor open for the purposes of calculating attack strength. However, settling on top of a hill ensures that your garrisoned archers will not have their line of fire blocked by other surrounding hills or forests.

 

[MyImmortals]

I settled on a lux once and I didnt end up getting it cause it wasnt improved.

 

[Erneiz Hyde]

AFAIK, no, there is no defensive bonus for settling on a hill. City tiles are considered neither rough nor open for the purposes of calculating attack strength. However, settling on top of a hill ensures that your garrisoned archers will not have their line of fire blocked by other surrounding hills or forests.

Really? I always have the impression it does give defense bonus. Even if it's settled, the underlying tile shouldn't change.

I settled on a lux once and I didnt end up getting it cause it wasnt improved.

Maybe you haven't researched the tech yet? It should give you the lux if you settle on top of it. The only exception I know is when you settle great peoples, who can only give strategic resources when settled on the terrain.

 

[Jalkaa]

If you choose the Stone Circles pantheon you don't get faith if you settle on marble.

 

[Putmalk]

Settling a city on a hill should provide the city with a defensive bonus, but not units inside the city (they don't even get attacked....)

 

[ggmoyang]

A city on a hill receives +15% in vanilla or +5 in G&K