Where would you settle?

[Jet]

A funny one .

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I'd probably settle in place then aim for city #2 to the east amidst the rest of the flood plains hidden in the fog or north on the hill above the Cows.

 

[Cabay Jet]

Why, you son of a gun...

I would waste a turn and settle in the grassland/forest 1S of the wheat and 1E of the sheep. That way, I'd get clams, cattle, sheep, wheat and stone all within my city radius along with about 4 flood plains.

What an excellent wonder/great people farm that city will make, even though your opponents have a 1 turn head start against you.

 

[shyuhe]

settle on the stone for the extra hammer. You're going to miss out on the river anyways and you have plenty of hammer generating tiles in the bfc without the stone (3 hills + sheep hill + cow).

 

[oyzar]

defanitly settle on the sheep on plains hill. +1food and hammer in the starting slot is just insane, clams + cows + stone + weath + sheep + 3floodplains. Only problem could be the lategame health, but seriously who cares with such an insane canon start? 10 turns to build a worker and then 1 extra food while growing is huge. grassland forests doesn't do it for me when i can have an actual totaly isane start instead.

 

[Elandal]

+1F how? Plains hill sheep is 1F tile unimproved, so it'll be 2F2P city tile.

I'd settle on the stone. Grab all resources, it's all up to you what to do with the city. This is probably greedy though - settle on place and another city later 1N of cow to get two good cities.

 

[oyzar]

sheep gives a city +F and plains hill give +P total of +1P+F for a 3F2P title. Post the save please(assuming it is ok settings)?

 

[DeaExMachina]

I'd totally settle on the forest between the Cow, Sheep and Clam. If I've got all those resources I'd want to get the full benefit out of them and and while I'd like to keep the forest it gets me access to the sea so I'd totally say bye bye to those woodland critters.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

Jet, can you post the save please.

 

[oyzar]

that spot you sugest is strictly worse than the one on top of the sheep... loses two floodplains for a couple ocean titles... and starting on a sheep on plains hill is just nuts.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I would waste a turn and settle in the grassland/forest 1S of the wheat and 1E of the sheep. That way, I'd get clams, cattle, sheep, wheat and stone all within my city radius along with about 4 flood plains.

This. In addition to all that:

-You start by the river, which is seriously badass in BtS. Leeves are awesome production boosters that require the city itself to be on a river square (having rivers in the fat cross won't allow Leeves by itself), and the +2 health bonus from fresh water got a huge boost since the late game got so much unhealthier. This is especially true for you since you have so many flood plains dragging down your health.

-You don't get any coastal squares except for the clams. Big deal, since resourceless coastal squares are terrible unless you're the Dutch, which you aren't. (That's Sumer, correct?)

 

[xanadux]

Wow, what a great start, and what horrible advice. I can think of only 2 good places to put the capital from the given starting info. The only one of the 2 anyone has suggested so far is settling in place.

Settling in place is IMO the far superior of the 2 options (oh, BTW, the other option is 1S of the NE lake). Rivers for levees are strong, but a capital has to think about short game. By the time of levees, most games are already won or lost. Although it is a consideration, it is not an important one for the capital.

Settling in place is correct because:

You have great food, great production, fresh water, and start on a plains hill.
No other obvious starting location improves on any of these.
You already know almost exactly where city 2 will be, and extensive scouting before the first settler is unecessary.

 

[xanadux]

A couple more things those that suggest a move did not mention ...

1. any move removes forests from the FC, and forests = the best early game production

2. Settling next to a lake and not coastal with clams in the FC is ridiculous ... you can't build a lighthouse and both squares will always suck.

3. Grasslands are about 7 million times more useful than plains. All suggested moves trade grasslands for plains for no good reason.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Settling in place means the capital can't work the cows or the wheat. That's way too big a price to pay for the single hammer you get for settling on a plains hill.

It seems quite likely that there is a decent sized desert to the east of the lake, you can see a couple desert hills poking out through the fog. Settling 2NE, then, would also be bad. You'd be giving up the cows for a load of desert.

The clams and the lake are 2 squares, and even with the lighthouse the lake is a mediocre one, who the hell cares if you can't build the lighthouse.

Grasslands are strictly better than plains IF you are strapped for food, which this guy isn't. For him, plains are just fine. He will have more than enough excess food to work them.

The chopping thing is your only valid point, and not a strong enough one considering that you can chop outside your fat cross, you just take a slight penalty for doing that.

Also, "extensive scouting before the first settler is unecessary"? What the HELL? Extensive scouting is always something you do, since there's kind of NOTHING ELSE your starting warrior or scout can do. You always do it, and see if you can find a great second city spot. Just because you see a good one from the getgo doesn't mean you won't find an even better one by scouting.

 

[MrFelony]

I would just take the settler and move him halfway across the continent and settle on the boarder of the first civ i find /sarcasm.

 

[Elandal]

sheep gives a city +F and plains hill give +P total of +1P+F for a 3F2P title. Post the save please(assuming it is ok settings)?

Pastured, yes. And 1C. But if you settle there, it's just 1F2P tile and thus the city becomes 2F2P. City tile won't get bonus from the tile it sits on, just if the tile provides higher value than city base values (2F1P1C) then it gets that. Which makes riverside plains hill wine one of the best capitol tiles I can think of - 2F2P2C (3C if Financial).

 

[gallego]

Why, you son of a gun...

I would waste a turn and settle in the grassland/forest 1S of the wheat and 1E of the sheep. That way, I'd get clams, cattle, sheep, wheat and stone all within my city radius along with about 4 flood plains.

What an excellent wonder/great people farm that city will make, even though your opponents have a 1 turn head start against you.

That might get you some desert or desert hill tiles to the east of the lake, from the looks of it..

 

[DaveMcW]

3. Grasslands are about 7 million times more useful than plains. All suggested moves trade grasslands for plains for no good reason.

Plains is equal to grassland if the city has surplus food, which is certainly the case here.

I would settle 1SE for a 16-cottage capital (Bureaucracy!). Then build a worker, tech bronze working, and chop out the second settler to claim the resources up north.

 

[Jet]

Post the save please(assuming it is ok settings)?

I'm pleased to see the contradictory responses. It's a random map and game, but that's what I was hoping for in posting it.

 

[Jet]

Personally I "can't seem to get away from" in-place. You got the plains hill, 13 cottages, trade route bonuses equivalent to a couple more cottages, coastal for more health, good surplus food, good production. Then coast/hills/cows/wheat appears to be a good production or hybrid site.