Where would you build a city?

[betheballdanny]

The obvious...
There's the obvious places to build and not build (grasslands and mountains). Are plains that obvious anymore?

Floodplains...
I actually read some of the manual before I played, and noticed this tidbit on page 41 (New things with terrain and movement)...

"Disease: Cities near Jungle and Flood Plain terrain squares suffer a chance of being beset by disease."

Because of this, I've been avoiding Flood Plains ( like, the plague ) . But, I've seen so many of them by rivers that I thought I should look into them. Then, I noticed that you get 3 food from Flood Plains. So, has anyone experienced the disease? What are the effects? Does it happen often? If it doesn't, it seems to me like flood plains are the ideal place to build a big city. Of course, some nearby shields would be needed.

I'm considering Hills...
In my civ2 days, I would never build on a hill because of the poor food and no shield output. But, with resources being so important, it may be necessary to build on a hill just to get close to something. Plus, hills in civ3 now having 1 shield. Then, there's the added defense of the hill.

 

[bulletsponge]

My bro lost several population pts over time when located on a flood plain, but in the game im in i have several cities on flood plains, and have never lost a citizen. Dont let it worry you, youll have your city stuck at 12 for a while before you get sewers anyways, plus if your next to the river you wont have to build a aqueduct. i look for flood plains as a good spot to locate a city.

 

[Sodak]

It sounds like a flood plain is a good site overall. The food boost outweighs the down side - maybe Firaxis was trying to encourage players to choose the type of terrain vastly preferred by real humans in the ancient world. Sure, your home and cattle get washed away from time to time, but the granary is full!

 

[zandar]

Disease can be a problem, but it's really a lot like the loss from building a settler without the settler to show for it.

You'll lose a pop point or two, but you'll recover.

I'm assuming the Hospital improvement not only increases the max pop of cities, but cuts down on disease.

Jungle takes a LONG time to clear.

 

[Malys Faisent]

Flood plains are worth it in my opinion. Especially flood plains with wheat (6 food + 2 trade or something crazy like that once irrigated and roaded) .

If you have the option of founding a city on a floodplain in the beginning do so, you'll actually be able to crank out settlers like you did in Civ II.

Disease is annoying, but generally only if it hits early when you are getting ready to crank out said settler. The added benefit of not needing an Aquaduct is very nice...though you will have to worry about unhappiness earlier than you are used to, you might even welcome a disease to get rid of a few malcontents

 

[9 ECAC Titles]

I like flood plains (for historical accuracy, as aforementioned). Disease is a problem, but if you find yourself with a non-trivial desert on your continent, you have little choice.

Units defending behind a river get a bonus -- I wonder if this translates to units in a floodplain city being attacked across a river.

 

[DarkSchneider]

Flood plains are definately a good place to start, and anything by a wheat resource. Not needing an aqueduct early on in most cities is key, as you do not want to try to research Construction simultaneously with a new form of government. It's hard enough just to focus on one thing.