Where to build the second city?

[marcoo99]

Hi all,

I started a game (regent) as England. Now that I have build a settler in London, I need your help to find the right spot to build my second city.

I don't know if I'm wrong but, I believe that a good second spot can be where is my warrior, on the dyes, at est of London. This spot, if well defended, could block the IA progression because a city there could block the passage. The only bad thing is that this location is far from my capital.

Where would you build your second city ?

 

[Mursi lives]

SW of the wine: fresh water+food+lux.
At this stage, what you really need is food-producing towns to get many settlers/workers. The dykes are way too far and you should think of developping yourself before blocking the Incas.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Exactly!

The road to the new town will connect the wine/lux.
Irrigated floodplain will yield three food in despo.
Mined plains will yield one food and two shields .

Not great as a settler factory in Despo, but every six turns it should pop a settler (if my early morning, pre-coffee rambling is correct).

A bit of advice for your next game: Think ahead so that when your settler is completed, it can walk along a road to the new spot, one or two tiles are improved & ready to be worked and the lux connected. That way, you keep the momentum up.

 

[marcoo99]

Thanks for your advise !

 

[MAS]

Here: (see picture)

Mine the whines, as irrigation will be lost to despo penalty.

 

[Aabraxan]

One more vote for "by the wines." Your warrior's much too far away for your second city.

 

[The Professor]

The chokepoint is a good place to put a city...eventually. But for now, I'm with everyone else. Go for the wines, and spread out from there. Right now, the choke spot is too far of a walk for your first settler to be hiking that far, when it could have already built a city and started producing something useful.

 

[TheOverseer714]

You need a settler factory, and the exact spot everyon agrees to build on should work just fine for that. Since there are no forests, first emphasize growth there and use the whip to get a granary built. I agree on mining the wine for shields and one other plains tile, since flood plains give only food, not shields. Looks like a decent start for England.

 

[Theov]

...


I would put my cities on the red dots. And an extra city between the 2 east cities but I don't know where.

 

[timerover51]

I would say that you put your third city on the chokepoint, with the second near the wines. You need a couple more workers building roads, irrigating, and mining as well. Your problem is that you are on top of the Incas, that the AI normally plays pretty aggressive. Also, he has a settler factory with the cattle resource. However, he does not appear to be on a river, so is limited until he can build aqueducts. You do want to block the choke point, but be prepared to fight for it.

 

[Mursi lives]

IMO there is still more urgent places than the chokepoint: a unit-producing town E of the game, and a second food town near of the flood plains. In which order? depends of what is behind the northern mountains. Sending a warrior exploring here is also urgent.

If you are worried about the chokepoint, just send another warrior here and use both to block the two tiles above.

 

[Pyrrhos]

There is a worker pump possible, the spot marked by Theov next to the game NW of London. At least 30 of the 60 shields needed for the granary will come from chopping wood. Settle, 10 turns to build the granary, 10 turns for the first worker with one every five turns after that. Not bad.

 

[Mursi lives]

1 worker every 5 turns? Any town using 1 plain and 2 flood plains can do that without granary. The NW spot looks more suited to military : barracks + swords or horses depending of the available ressources.

 

[Theov]

Where to build the second city? Great starting area. It looks like there must be 5 rivers nearby. I feel lucky if there is one near I can use.

It's a little late now, but I wouldn't have positioned the capital where it is. I would have put it 2 tiles nw to get in range of the whales. It would also be on the river, I'm not sure if it is now.

That's a good question I'd like to have answered, Is the capitol on a river or not?

The 2nd city I would put where #2 or #3 are, depending on how the AI to the west are acting. If they look like they want to settle near the isthmus, then I would get a city at #4 asap. Either on the tile I marked, or the one se of it, depending on what's beyond sight on the map. Prefer the spot where I marked because of the fish and it would be on the river. Likewise, if there was AI moving in from the east,

#3 would be too far away in my opinion. One East and it would be good because I would put it closer to the capitol.

I would try and get #5 & #6 started asap. Both are roughly where I would place them. With #5, I might move it a little east or south if that puts it on the coast besides being on the river. #6 I would position it in the region marked, making sure it is also on the river there. With #7, #9, #10 & #11, I would place roughly where I marked, depending what is beyond that I can't see on the map. #7 would be on that river somewhere. #10 would get the gold on the mountain and be on the coast, if possible.

Great spot for your core cities. Two luxuries in reach, at least 6 of the 1st 11 cities can by on rivers. A canal through the isthmus, you'll be able to control both seas and with a 3rd coast to the se you can settle to control that sea, too. Good variety of terrain. Several bonus resources. A very nice, strategic spot that should give you a strong early showing.

#6... not so much. I would place it closer to the capitol and one tile east. I don't know the landscape from there.
#7 could easily be NNW of Meisen's #7.
.
Anyway. I like to have my cities about 3 tiles away form each other (12 tiles to work each.)
If someone else knows a better idea, then I think that's the most to get out of your land and corruption.
And overall you're planning your cities to work more than 12 tiles.
( I will not have a deja vu about this... I wil NOT HAVE a deja vu)

 

[Mursi lives]

Meisen's city placement is just a big waste of tiles .
It is also very slow: only 2 food-producing towns = too few settlers/workers.

Basically I would place my cities like Theov, except I would put 3 extra cities around the floodplains before settling on the dykes. A 2nd warrioe is more than enough to peacefully block the path.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Basically I would place my cities like Theov, except I would put 3 extra cities around the floodplains before settling on the dykes. A 2nd warrioe is more than enough to peacefully block the path.

Until the AI plonks down a city on the dyes, yes. The questions are, will I have time to build city 2 before the AI takes the spot or have I lost the race already? Even if I dare leave it longer, will walking a settler there prove to be a waste of turns? Should I start a road in that direction now?

Meisen's city placement is just a big waste of tiles .
It is also very slow: only 2 food-producing towns = too few settlers/workers.

Why the need for sarcasm, Mursi? Here's some friendly advice: Go have a nice cup of coffe/tea, wake up properly and then edit this part and instead try to explain why, in your opinion, a loose city placement is a "big waste of tiles".

 

[MAS]

You don't need to race to the dyes. Its better to first get a productive core going, once you have that, you can conquer the dyes if you have to.

I'm sure the capital is on a river. Otherwise the river would have moved behind the worker.

If I where to use a wider city placement, I would sooner settle the second city on the floodplains one tile lower than my previous suggestion, than move the capital.
the capital is on a very nice spot, as it is both very productive and coastal.
It's a prety good 20K site actually, with the second city becoming the growth city, the capital can focus on wonders.

I don't think I can make a detailed city plan yet, there isn't enough of the map visible.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Whew, I liked this post.

@Theov
I agree with tight spacing when corruption starts to eat in,
but around your core you can usually CXXXC (i.e. 3 tiles between cities).
So my suggestion is:

Spoiler :

@ marcoo99
I ask you, what is your goal in the game?
Let your goals guide your settling locations.

Do you wish to win by the industrial era? Do you want to focus on cities size 12 and less?
Go with "2-tile spacing" or "3-tile spacing"

Do you want to be super-powerful in the modern era? With cities producing 1 or 2-turn tanks?
Mix the above with a little "4-tile spacing"


@ "spacing 4 tiles between cities discussion"
If we assume any finite space, and we assume an un-modded game, then theoretically,
spacing your cities with 3 tiles in-between means:
a) 1 tile is used by city center
a) you budget the 8 immediate tiles for city use
b) you budget at least 1 tile from each of the "Fat-Cross" tips.
1 + 8 + (4 x minimum 1) = 13 tiles per city.

Example:
Say you want your cities to grow to size 12
###PIC IS MISSING###

Let's add 3 tile spacing.
Each city, even when reaching size 12, still has plenty of tiles for itself.
###PIC IS MISSING###
These cities are all at size 12, and reduce distance corruption significantly compared to 4 tile spacing.

3 spaces between cities are more than enough to last you into early industrial era.
4 spaces between cities, you increase distance corruption and run out of land faster.

Note:There are still un-used tiles, even with this 3 spacing formation (see pictures)

"3-tile spacing" fits more size 12 cities in a given space than "4-tile spacing"
"3-tile spacing" cities work fine, even at size 14
This is because "3 tile spacing" makes room for 14 citizens per city: proof in the pictures.

"4-tile spacing" needs to exceed the size 14 population threshold, to yield "payback".
For size 1 - 14, both "3-tile spacing" and "4-tile spacing" never run out of tiles.
Many games are won before any of their cities reach size 15...

Only after you hit that size 15 threshold, can your "pay-back for 4-tile spacing" begin.
Where-as if you go with 3-tile spacing, you've probably won the game by now

I look forward to positive and constructive responses

EDIT: Corrected threshold of payback. 4-Tile spacing payback happens at city size > 14

 

[Theov]

I'll put an extra tile between the cities around my capital and my capital then.
On your screenshot, you replaced 2 cities (of the 4 who matter) one tile further away. Proves my point that fresh water, lux and recources are a big part of the equation.
.
Good post.

 

[Mursi lives]

Until the AI plonks down a city on the dyes, yes. The questions are, will I have time to build city 2 before the AI takes the spot or have I lost the race already? Even if I dare leave it longer, will walking a settler there prove to be a waste of turns? Should I start a road in that direction now?

No, if I suggest to send a 2nd caveman to dykes, it is precisely to block the path after the Incas plonk down a city. The trick is to place the warriors on the tiles N and NE of the current warrior, let the AI settle 1 tile above, then go back to the southern dykes. the Incas will remain blocked unless they build culture, but they arent religious nor scientific and they will be rather far fom their capitol. Too bad...

Why the need for sarcasm, Mursi? Here's some friendly advice: Go have a nice cup of coffe/tea, wake up properly and then edit this part and instead try to explain why, in your opinion, a loose city placement is a "big waste of tiles".

Well, it is true that I needed a coffee cup , but why that city placement is a waste of tiles should be pretty obvious: the cities cant use more of 13 tiles before building hospitals i.e before the game is won or lost. Moreover, since the Incas can be blocked, settling tightly doesnt concede a single tile, even for a peacemonger (for a warmonger, it is even simpler: thanks for your cities, see you next game )