• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

What's the better National Park city?

slaze

Deity
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
2,287
Location
california
Is it


Or



Or another question could be, What makes a good National Park city? I have yet to implement one and haven't had to weigh the :health: vs :gp: benefits against each other in picking a city. Is there ever a time when you would build it solely for the :health: benefits and ignore the forest aspect? Or does it just go in the city with the most forests, permitted that city can grow?
 
I just use the rule of thumb that whatever city has the most forests is best for National Park. As you don't even actually have to work the tiles to get the benefit of the free specialists, it makes a good combo with National Epic. It would be wasted just using it for the health benefits and ignoring the GP production. A poor city can be turned into a late game GP farm powerhouse.
 
It's all about the specialists. The lack of coal negates any :health: benefit in a production city.

Bactra is better. A fish or corn is worth 2 forests in terms of specialists it can support. You should have already built the National Epic there to pop some :gp: while waiting for the National Park.

Walata would be theoretically better if it could work every resource in its border. But realistically, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
 
I would pick walata and maybe insert 1 or 2 artists to get the extra tiles with wheat. Then you have 2 food resources too and 15 forests or so to 12 in bactra.
 
I would pick walata and maybe insert 1 or 2 artists to get the extra tiles with wheat. Then you have 2 food resources too and 15 forests or so to 12 in bactra.

Since then I've taken the wheat and it's even grown another forest, putting it at 16 (yet still at a low pop, but growing...slowly...).

It's all about the specialists. The lack of coal negates any :health: benefit in a production city.

Bactra is better. A fish or corn is worth 2 forests in terms of specialists it can support. You should have already built the National Epic there to pop some :gp: while waiting for the National Park.

Walata would be theoretically better if it could work every resource in its border. But realistically, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It's a Huge Marathon game with pretty much constant war which has distracted me from even building the National Epic. I was considering getting it chopped in Bactra and farming it as the GP farm. I guess I was planning on Walata having the Park as eventually it has just enough :food: to work everything, either if it steals Pasargadae's cow or I have to resort to Corps.

Another thing to add is I'm Darius, so I would get the financial bonus on forest preserve :commerce:, so maybe that would swing the balance, and with financial, the best National Park city would simply be the one with the most forests (provided enough food). I guess that makes sense, having a fat cross of forest for your National Park.
 
Bactra is probably the best option as it will be much better developed and will have more infrastructure than the other city by the time you get Biology. Getting the most out of the National Park is not just about getting the most free specialists but about getting the most output from the city and that includes the time before building the NP. Bactra will be a powerful and useful city while it builds the infrastructure the NP needs to be most effective. Walata will be stunted if it keeps all the forests. Walata would benefit from more food and chopping some forests and building farms and mining hills will make it a much better city. It needs to up its cultural output to take that wheat tile.

As DaveMcW says if you manage to squeeze the NE into Bactra before the NP you'll be pumping out a load of late game GPs which means several Golden Ages when they count. It doesn't make sense to build the NE in Walata, even if you could do that in time, as it has too low food to run specialists.

So go with Bactra and enjoy one of the most powerful wonders in the game :)
 
I agree on Bactra. Although hypothetically it could go in Walata but you would need to add farms and mines.

Aside from the National Epic debate, there's another reason to have food and infrastructure in the National Park city; you need to build all of the production buildings to really get this city rolling. I've often used the National Park as one of my main production cities, running 6 free engineers for example plus working a few tiles.

Of course, the best place for a city like this is one that is half forest/tundra.
 
I'm not sure but Walata has enough growth potential too: There is a grassland cow and wheat (if you get more culture). Further there are enough grassland forest tiles that will keep the city growing without additional farms. The two empty tiles might get a forest too and so could be a difference of 6-7 forest tiles or 6-7 specialists in the end.
Walata is the better production city in my opinion too. The cow tile and the wheat will add shields while crabs and fish don't. And you always have the extremly good iron tile to work, so you will get better infrastructure in long terms in Walata.
 
I say Bactra, you do have to build the thing though. The 2 seafood and corn will grow the city enough to work forrested tiles without worrying about lack of production. You can also drop a mine on the hill to build the park, then raze it and allow the forrest preserves from adjacent tiles replenish it. You can also selectively chop out the national park since forrest reserves will let then regrow.

Walat would be better I think if you can get the wheat that is outside your culture (war or culturally). That would be wheat, cows, iron; enought o ge tit build and fed.
 
The NP could be partly built in both cities chopping forests outside the fat cross without losing any potential forest preserves inside. I admit that Walata could eventually make a very good NP city but I'm worried it will be slower developing the other infrastructure. That infrastructure will make the NP a lot more effective.

It depends if the OP is planning to run the Caste System or another civic in that category like Slavery or Emancipation. That will depend on the rest of his economy. But it can be hard to get enough specialist slots if a city is founded late in the game as Walata seems to be. Walata could have 15 forest preserves (if I counted correctly) and maybe 2 more forests could grow. Bactra could have 10 forest preserves. Bactra could using whipping easily build a whole lot of building slots to run specialists.

5 Spies : Courthouse, Jail, Int Agency = 120, 120, 180 = 420 hammers
3 Scientists: Library, University, Observatory = 90, 200, 150 = 440 hammers
4 Merchants: Market, Grocer, Bank = 140, 140, 200 = 480 hammers
5 Engineer: Forge, Factory, Assembly Plant = 120, 250, 250 = 620 hammers
1 priest: Temple = 80 hammers
National Epic = 250 hammers (+ 100% marble)
National park = 300 hammers

Total hammers = 2590 hammers for a fully productive city.

It is likely that Bactra can build a lot of those buildings before needing to construct the NP using a combination of slavery and working grassland forest tiles. On the otherhand Walata will have to build more of them after the NP is in place so without running Caste System most the free specialists will be citizens just giving 1 hammer and 3 beakers. In Bactra the lower number of free specialists will give their full normal output AND it will be boosted by the relevant buildings (e.g. merchants by banks) and of course their GPPs will be boosted by the NE.

It is a simple case of more forests in the NP city does not necessarilly mean more output over the course of the game. You have to consider the time it takes to build everything needed to make it really work well.
 
Top Bottom