Where would you place the 2nd city?

[joyodongo]

I'm learning to play decently on monarch. In this test game (England-Elisabeth) I have three main options for building the 2nd city:



1.- Where the settler is. I have some overlap but 2 resources, 2 hills and lots of commerce and food
2.- 2 resources, hill for extra hammer in town but poor food, commerce and hammers
3.- Lose the cow but have three hills to work

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

 

[demetrious]

What's to the north and ne of site 1? You also loose the oasis?? moving from site 2 to 3 to the ne.

 

[TCGTRF]

I'm learning to play decently on monarch. In this test game (England-Elisabeth) I have three main options for building the 2nd city:

View attachment 116391

1.- Where the settler is. I have some overlap but 2 resources, 2 hills and lots of commerce and food
2.- 2 resources, hill for extra hammer in town but poor food, commerce and hammers
3.- Lose the cow but have three hills to work

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Of the three, I'd go for #2--you have to get out onto the mainland pretty quickly now and number one not only has jungle, but overlaps London's fat cross.

In addition, with an enemy so close, I would use my worker to quickly chop another settler as quickly as I could and send it to the coast northwest of the neighboring Civ, outside of the potential fat cross of city site #1. You're working on Iron Working, so when you make your fourth settler, you can remove the jungle on your peninsula before you plop your fourth city down at site #1.

If you go to number 2 without making a third settler, or just build a city at #1, you will find that within 20 turns or so, London (and city #1 if built) will be cut off from the rest of the continent. There's goes your hope for expansion for quite a few turns and access to a lot of resources, since the AI will get them all before you do.

One thing you have to remember--if you have the resources available to do so, it is always better to make your cities on an outer ring and *then* backfill. You're going to have a lot of money with Liz, especially once you get into the financial techs and Optics, so if you fall behind financially, you'll catch up more quickly than opposing Civs will.

What are your game speed and map size?

Tom

 

[MrCynical]

I'd probably go with location one. The overlap is trivial, and the gems and wheat will be useful. it could even borrow the clams off london for some quick growth since London has two other seafood resources. I can't actually see the top few squares of location 1's fat cross, but even if it's empty sea this is a good site.

Location 2 is a fairly good site with oasis, cows and wheat, and I'd make it the site for your third city. There might be some argument for trying to block off the AI civ by going here first, but you'll need to expand the cultural radius to seal off your peninsula, and if the AI sneaks past you to location 1 you could end up in a real mess.

Location 3 is lousy, not even a contender. A city here would lose acces to fresh water and throw away the cows, for practically no gain. The extra hills aren't worth much if you don't have the food to use them. A city here is going to stagnate at a fairly low size till the invention of Biology. In any case it fouls up the city placement for location 1, and will take two cultural expansions to seal off the peninsula.

If you have a source of quick culture (stonehenge or are going to found a religion soon, I might go with site two and try for a quick cultural expansion, otherwise I'd go for site one. Site three wouldn't be worth considering even if there wasn't an AI civ competing for space.

 

[Mordraken]

I'd also recommend going with #2, and settle #1 as a third location. Reason is: 1) good city site at #2
2) expands your boarders much more (will probably cover site #1 soon enough anyway)
3) a third settler can settle site #1 later which gives a nice buffer east of London.

 

[Thyrwyn]

#2, definitely. you can always build #1 later.

You might also consider building #2 one space NW, on the coast. You are financial, those coastal tiles (and the ability to turn the lake into a 3 food/3 commerce tile) are worth considering.

 

[White Elk]

I'd settle right where your at. Even without seeing the rest of the land around that site. In monarch games I worry less about overlap and more about getting a quick and close second city that can grow quickly and can produce some decent commerce. You've got all that there. I'd send that next workboat up to the Clams. Work it, grow, build a worker and start mining those gems.

And once those Gems were being worked I'd settle on location #2. And I'd consider building the Great Lighthouse and Colossus since every one of those cities would benefit. Even location #2.

 

[GoldenWheels]

I'd go with number 2 myself. I'm a sucker for a good hilltop city, and having it on your border with another civ is a lovely bonus. Great spot to defend access to your capital.

 

[MrCynical]

You might also consider building #2 one space NW, on the coast. You are financial, those coastal tiles (and the ability to turn the lake into a 3 food/3 commerce tile) are worth considering.

You'd lose the wheat and an oasis though, and most of the sea tiles are already in reach of London, so I'm not too convinced that site is a good idea. The only real plus I see is that it would seal off the peninsula immediately, but the city will be substantially weaker in the long term. Going with the current site two, and building a quick obelisk would be better.

 

[Jotakami]

What do you mean "borrow" the clams from London? When my cities overlap, I can't choose which city gets to work the overlapped tiles... the game just gives them to one city or the other (the closest or, if same distance, the oldest). If there's a way to choose which city gets to work a tile, I'd like to know it. I remember in Civ3 how the tile was available to both cities as long as the other city wasn't working it... but this doesn't seem to be the case now.

 

[nilsmo]

#2, since after the first cultural expansion #1 will be closed to Gandhi and you can settle it later.

 

[Panzar75]

Just make sure your first city doesn't work the tile and then click on it in your other city. The tile will turn from greyed out to normal where you can then allocate a citizen.

Basically it works the same way as in civ 3 as long as you click twice on the square instead of one time.

 

[b-dubb]

Even if the first city is working the tile, clicking on a greyed out tile will remove the first city's worker from use, assign the tile to the second city, and automatically re-assign citizens (if option's on). If the governor likes that tile better, it will immediately take it, as soon as it is not greyed out.

 

[VeXeD]

What do you mean "borrow" the clams from London? When my cities overlap, I can't choose which city gets to work the overlapped tiles... the game just gives them to one city or the other (the closest or, if same distance, the oldest). If there's a way to choose which city gets to work a tile, I'd like to know it. I remember in Civ3 how the tile was available to both cities as long as the other city wasn't working it... but this doesn't seem to be the case now.

when your incity mode, click on the tile you want to work, riight or left. i believe works, it will turn the faded area into a bright on that you can work, but make sure it isn't being worked by another city first... But yes you can as long as it is within working distance of your city you can chose what city you want to work it just by either riight or left clicking with the mouse

 

[Dueck]

#1 will give you an edge in the earlier game, since you can develop it immediately, and it's especially good for commerce with gems, and wheat to get started quick. The overlap isn't that bad.

 

[White Elk]

I understand why people suggest to build at site2 first. But for me it would be far better to build right there and right now. That city is going to grow much more rapidly than site2 and you can settle it 5 turns sooner. And it can immediatly yield alot of commerce which is very helpfull towards catching up to those AI freebie techs.

Furthermore, it's close to your capital and it will have quick military support should you need it. Site2 without roads is a looong way away. For 1 movement units, its 11 turns!! A road is gonna take like 44 turns!?! And that means it'll take at least 50 turns before it's connected to the trade route. With the rapid growth of London you will be wanting those luxury Gems very soon. Better to settle now and be able to produce commerce quickly and to grow rapidly.. than to settle site2 just for the sake of securing it from an opponent who has better places to build right now.

Some of the tiles aren't visible; but from what I can see he's got two sites that are better choices for his first two cities. Directly to his North he's got some River front property complete with Cattle, and it's on the river trade network to his capital. And he's got a Golden Oasis to his South. And with that stretch of desert between him and site2.. along with the distance from his capital.. I really doubt he will build there any time soon. And who knows what lies to his East. So I think your fine to settle site1 before site2.

 

[Jorunkun]

Interesting question (and answers). Here´s my reading of the map:

You biggest concern should be that - as far as the screenshot reveals - you are running a serious risk of being locked out of settling the rest of the continent to the east.

Location #1 is a good spot in that it gets you a 2nd nearby city with health and happiness in the short term. However, if you don´t get a 3rd settler out very quickly after this, India might just place a city somewhere in between your #1 and #2/3 position and choke you right off. Thus, I strongly suggest you pick a location further inland that keeps your expansion paths open and settle #1 later. I would agree with previous posts that #2 is much better suited to do this then #3.

However, I would actually settle in a fourth location: on the woods to the east of the lake. While it will cause you some overlap-issues later, a city founded here would benefit from the oasis and surrounding bonus tiles and, more importantly, immediately fill the gap in the mountains to the north and east - a gate that you then can pass while India can´t.

With this, you stake out a very secure claim on all the land between Londres and your new city for later settlement, and keep the door open to further expansion either to the northeast or southeast. (Edit: I would go for the gold-oasis to the south of the suggested site next)

My experience from playing Emperor is that it ususally pays to take a longer-term view (ca first 60 turns) of the map and prioritise sites that cordon off land for later colonisation, even if they are not the best immediate sites for founding a city - overlap issues are preferable to not having land on which to overlap your cities in the first place.

J.

 

[Lord Chambers]

#3 is not even an option. It won't grow.

#2 isn't that valuable either. It just seems like it might be worthy because it looks more aggressive.

#1 is where you should build. The gems will be a major boost to your earlier research, plus it'll be able to use the clams to grow. You will be a stronger empire at #1, anywhere else you're just going to be weaker.

I play on Emperor.

 

[Dueck]

#3 is not even an option. It won't grow.

#2 isn't that valuable either. It just seems like it might be worthy because it looks more aggressive.

#1 is where you should build. The gems will be a major boost to your earlier research, plus it'll be able to use the clams to grow. You will be a stronger empire at #1, anywhere else you're just going to be weaker.

I play on Emperor.

You said it best.

 

[Lanstro]

#1 definitely for the growth here and now, #2 isn't bad for a third city, but if india gets there first, your strong first 2 towns can take it forcefully from him easily