Where would you place this city?

NickyH

Bismarck with lipstick…
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
354
Location
A Goody Hut in Sweden
I just thought it would be interesting to hear what you would prioritize. If the settler moves one tile NW, the city can use the cow once the borders expand. On the other hand, it will be five tiles between the city and my capitol, and the bonus gold on the hill and the mountain will be wasted.

I guess it depends a lot on what you want to achieve. One more city that can produce settlers in a decent tempo, or the best use of the land later in the game, when settlers aren't needed.

Or perhaps someone wouldn't choose any of those two options? Whats your choice? Pros and cons?
 

Attachments

  • cplacement.jpg
    cplacement.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 271
my $.02 I drop the city 1 NW then when you expand you will get both golds and the cow + the tobbacco.

another option would be to drop it there and move the next settler you have south of Paris to take the cow.
 
My 2¢ is the same. 1 NW for the cow. The growth has far greater worth to a city while you'll still get the gold via culture.

It's always hard to tell because if there is a better location somewhere else... take it.

EDIT: On second thought... those Fish are very useful too... maybe you should do like bambam says and send another settler for the cow...
 
My thoughts on this:
I would certainly move your northern settler one NW to take the cow and the tobacco on expansion. The green border is quite close by and therefore you get the cow now or they will.
Your other settler (south of Paris) I would move (diagonally) one tile to the west to include the southwestern gold - and the whale too - on expansion. This leaves the northeastern gold for your next city (to be placed in the jungle).
Good luck and happy civing!
 
the city can use the cow once the borders expand. ...the bonus gold on the hill and the mountain will be wasted.

for me? ... i don't build culture during the expansion phase, so i would have to move the settler two tiles to get the cow. that's too far. the gold won't be wasted. even if i settle in place i can and will fill in those spots with more settlers although there are spots i would settle before worrying about the gold.
 
Well, I settled right where the settler stands, though other options are also tempting. Paris works as a four-turn settler pump, so I didn't have any problems getting enough settlers. Otherwise I would have wanted the cow.

For the moment, I like "optimal city placement" or something close to OCP around my capitol. (I love those really productive capitols that can work all the tiles in the city radius. With one or two of the wonders that doubles science, it just makes me happy to see all the shields and all the gold. :D )

One of the downsides is that Greece (the green one you see in the north west) gets some territory that would have been mine, if I had moved NW.

It's interesting to see what others think, since people have so different styles of playing. :)
 
I would've placed it one S or SE and settled another city on the coast and river by cow...
 
I'm assuming we're not at a super high difficulty here - Emperor at most.

Given that, and that you can see the Greek border, and that you already have a second settler built, and that you have a settler pump for future growth, and that your settler is already this far from your capital, I would have settled two NW, and moved settler 2 next the river 3 to the NE of that. This would give you a major deterrent to Greek expansion in your direction and would wall off some very productive territory, leaving Greece to claim jungle or head in a different direction. The next settler built back-fills to claim the horses, then you can capture the valuable coastal tiles, where you need culture to claim sea-based resources.
 
RysingSun is right: using culture to get the cow would be a bad idea.
The choice is between settling where you are and moving 2 tiles for the cow.

I am very tempted by going for the cow but it depends also of the global situation, what is the map size? is there good tiles east of Paris? are you in pangea or alone with Greeks on an island ?
 
RysingSun is right: using culture to get the cow would be a bad idea.
The choice is between settling where you are and moving 2 tiles for the cow.

I am very tempted by going for the cow but it depends also of the global situation, what is the map size? is there good tiles east of Paris? are you in pangea or alone with Greeks on an island ?

Pangea, standard size, 70% water, difficulty: Emperor. You're very right that it depends a lot on map and situation. Another thing that I took into account was the fact that I was already in the lead with largest territory and being the most powerful nation. I believe that that gives me more room to go for OCP near my capitol and enjoy large and powerful cities.

I've never played at higher level than Emperor, but from what I've read on this forum, I guess I should have gone for a tighter city spacing at higher levels?

Anyhow, I got the cow, and another one, from the Mongols. :D
 

Attachments

  • cows.jpg
    cows.jpg
    166.4 KB · Views: 129
The best possible scenario would be one city on the spot of the N settler, then one on the coast SW from the cow, one S of the first city, and the actual settler on the tip. The two last cities can wait for the end of expansion. Another city on the forests on the edge of the map.

And Orleans shouldn't have been built there. On the plains on the other side of the river would be better.
 
I wouldn't normally advice building culture in the expansion faze, and I would normally prioritize locations closer to the capital first, so that there will be more cities sooner, expanding outward.
I may make an exception if a good worker/settler pump can be build a little further, but only if the capital isn't already good for it. In this case the capital is a 4 turn settler factory, so there is no need to hurry to that cow.

As the situation is right now, I would build the settler on the spot he standing.
 
Personally, looking at your latest screenshot, I'd still put a city on the gold hill. This means that all of your cities are within three tiles of each other, which is very useful for defending them. Or, if you absolutely can't abide having Paris share a desert tile with another city, you could put a city on the Plains just SE of the gold hill, so that it can share the fish with Lyons, and not significant encroach on Paris' territory.
 
I've never played at higher level than Emperor, but from what I've read on this forum, I guess I should have gone for a tighter city spacing at higher levels?

Yes, much tighter.
Actually you didnt even built half of the cities you could put in that territory.
Ask for yourself how many tiles you are leaving unused:( , not to mention the lack of troops support.

Those problems will be solved of course when you will build hospitals, but what will you do if before that, an AI civ at the other end of the map starts conquering its neighbors and grows out of control?
 
It's outside the screenshot, but where I placed Orleans it gets bonus whales, that I would have missed if I placed it west of the river.
Oh, indeed, can't see everything! Still, with what I'm seeing, your second city should have been built more aggressively in the direction of your opponents. You can settle behind on the coast later. Unless the AI sees ressources there, you shouldn't have any problem.

As already said, build tighter! Use every tile as soon as possible. That means no tile (or not a lot) should be left out of city radiuses, and that just about all tiles will be worked by a cities' 12 laborers.

Also, don't forget that the difference between, say, 15 or 17 shields is small (in both cases, as an exemple, a sword will take 2 turns to build), but the difference between 4 and 5 is huge (8 turns to 6). My exemple is horrible, but still, overall, more small production cities is better than less high producing cities.

Efficiency is the key.
 
Back
Top Bottom