Where should I settle?

ThoMeuhGal

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
44


BTS, fractal map, monarch level, normal size, epic speed.

Playing Mansa.

I just moved the warrior 1 west and revealed fish.

The starting location is great, but that would make the northern fish/clams quite hard to work...

Any suggestions?


If settle in place:
great, but working the clams would require a city with lots of overlap with capital.
northern fish is sacrificed.

1W:
Sacrifice 1 grassland hill (i dont like that, especially when coastal)
Sarcifice 1 forest
Sacrifice northern fish
Sacrifice 1 turn
Get the clam in FC
2 ocean tiles

1N 1NW (where warrior is):
Sacrifice 1 forest and 1 plain hill
lose 2 turns
gets the northern fish
2hammers city so faster workboats
4 ocean tiles ( :( )
 
I'd settle in place without any other info. Yeah, you're going to take a pass on the northern fish, but you'll be able to grab the clams. Sometimes you just can't grab every resource. This is one of those cases, imo.

The alternative would be to move your settler SE/SW (effectively 2S of your starting location), and take a gamble on that being a decent spot. That would free up the plains/hill for another city, which would grab the fish/clam. And probably make a decent moai city.

Bh
 
One thing to consider is that the plains tile to the settler's NE is very likely to be a hidden resource such as horses, copper or iron. I wouldn't move too far away from it.

One space to the W seems like a decent spot. It keeps the plains tile and sheep in your fat cross, but brings the clams in as well. I'd write off the fish in the far NW. You can send a workboat out there later to grab it for trading purposes, but actually trying to get it in the fat cross would mean giving up the sheepies and the potential hidden resource.

That being said, I seldom move my settler. The map generator knows more than I do and it put me in that spot for reasons I might not see for a few dozen turns.

Zienth
 
great, but working the clams would require a city with lots of overlap with capital.

Not sure why you'd say that, properly placed the northern city would only overlap 2 tiles with your capital (it would be placed 2N, 1W of the clams).

Bh
 
I think you may want to consider 1 NW. There looks to be some arid land immediately to your east, and this makes use of a lot of coast tiles, which are great for financial. You don't need all your food in one city, this looks like a solid commerce capital, not a specialist farm.
 
The location the warrior at is pretty good. The sheep and the crabs can be worked by another city if needed, and with minimum (i think 3 tiles). The good thing is since you'll be working mostly ocean/coast tiles with 3 commerce apiece, you'll catch up two turns of teching and probably overtake other civs.
 
Awesome capital, just settle where you are and forget about the fish. (later cultural expansion will most likely include them for some tasty sushi anyway :p)

A city can claim the northern clams and overlap only two squares which is good, and you might see some other good resources there anyway, so it's all good. Everything else than settling in place sacrifices something so i wouldn't do that. (i always want to stay on rivers so i can make levee later, and more oceans suck :()
 
Thank for replies. :)

But that just prove my point: almost everybody have a different opinion :p

I'm reluctant to try to split the ressource for two cities, because I dont know what kind of land is to my north or my south, so those resources may end up in a minor city that won't be settled before a long time...
But i may be wrong here...



edit:
Awesome capital, just settle where you are and forget about the fish. (later cultural expansion will most likely include them for some tasty sushi anyway )

A city can claim the northern clams and overlap only two squares which is good, and you might see some other good resources there anyway, so it's all good. Everything else than settling in place sacrifices something so i wouldn't do that. (i always want to stay on rivers so i can make levee later, and more oceans suck )


I think i'm coming to pretty much the same conclusions there. having 4 ocean in capital just seems a waste for long term, so this option is gone, along with north fishies.

Moving south into the wild is also quite risky and could take time...

But finally that suggestion of 1NW seems to make sense, leaving 1 crab and sheep for another city. I just lose 1 forest, but keep river access, no ocean tiles. I quite like this location too, finally.

Oh damn, this will never end :D
 
I'm reluctant to try to split the ressource for two cities, because I dont know what kind of land is to my north or my south, so those resources may end up in a minor city that won't be settled before a long time...
But i may be wrong here...

There is a river to your south, you can have a second city on the coast, on a river, with sheep and crabs to feed it. What will you do with all the food resources in one city? What is your plan for the capital?

I also disagree with the warrior hill, it sacrifices too many tiles for the sake of one fish. Go 1 NW....you know you want to....

Edit: Saw your edit, guess I didn't need to convince ;)
 
I post again because i just saw something:

to my east i see two tiles that look like desert.
But ya never get desert in a starting location FC.
So it smells like flood plains (and another river) to me.

Am I right?
 
Sacrifice the fish.
 
I'd settle in place. A capital with 4 food bonuses is better than one with 3, especially in the world of the whip.
 
I'd settle in place, altho i'm slightly tempted to say move 1 W,but i'd probably just go for in place. Thats what i usually do. U have been put there for a reason, just go with it.
 
I would say you could consider moving S to pick up the sheep and southern crab leaving a very nice gpfarm on the peninsula.

I wouldn't put your capital there though unless you plan to move it later because it won't benefit much from bureaucracy
 
Settle in place. Looks to me like you could have tundra down south. Slight hint of snow on trees 2S.
 
1 West is the only way to get five resources in a single city.

But the fifteen non-resource tiles are better in the starting location, so that's where I would build.
 
Thank to all of you guys. :)

So i settled in place and:
- those two tiles to the east was in fact floodplain! :D
- there is tundra just south of the FC so good decision not to move south
- copper appeared on that plain tile someone mentionned earlier!

So that makes for a monster capital:
2 crabs
1 fish (coastal, and that's quite rare)
2 flooplains
1 sheep
2 plain hills
1 grassland hill
1 copper on flat plain

Other land around seems quite poor, though, and i'll probably end up with several mediocre coastal cities.

But that city is amazing, and well balanced.

Never underestimate your starting position :D

I rarely move my settler (almost never) and once again, the game proved that the starting position is almost always tha best option.
 
Top Bottom