• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Why here?

I agree with KMadCandy that what's good for one, is not good for another :) Also, it's not a particularly good example because theres only 2 settler suggestions there and we cant see what else is in the eastern one.

However...

1) Move 1 tile N.W. - I'd never settle ON a floodplain - a puppy dies every time you do that!! :jesus:

3) Move 1 tile N.E. for river goodness, especially with all that jungle!!


The AI would probably have built about 12 cities in that same space!! :crazyeye:
 
The blue circle on the right side of the picture I posted on the first page is a horrible spot. The fog of war covers 1 more mountain tile south of the one you can see, 2 more jungle tiles south of the blue circle, one rice tile southeast of the blue circle, and the rest of the space that'd be in the cross is ocean (with no food tiles).

I chose #1 and #3 in what look to be poor places for different reasons. I hate settling on flood plains too, and I know there's not a lot of food there, but moving 1 tile NE doesn't help the food situation, and I'd exchange 2 grassland tiles for desert.

#3 is surrounded by jungle, and isn't fully utilizing the river. The jungle isn't an issue, with the great food resources and hills in my capital city I was able to build up only 10 or so turns later to be able to produce workers in 5 turns (on epic). So I beelined IW, cranked out 3 workers, and just chopped the jungle. So the health isn't an issue, and I use all the river tiles anyway between my 3 cities. So I lost a few turns of production and growth due to unhealthiness and producing probably 2 more workers than I normally would, but those 180 hammers and 10 or so food are trivial compared to the bonus of having what I think is 2 more tiles that would otherwise overlap.

I planned both #1 and #3 to simply produce commerce (my main city has loads of production and nearly enough food to support it (without having to link farms over). This does leave a dearth of overall production though, but there's a great spot off the map just left of #3 that has loads of food and hammers.

One thing I don't do well and probably should learn to do better is build a GP farm. I tend to turn potential GP farms into cottage empires instead.

But yeah, as Spearthrower mentioned, the AI builds towns far more tightly packed now. It really seems like BtS sort of gimped the AI's ability to pick good town spots. Another good example of this is to note where Barbarians place their towns - I'm consistently shocked by barbarian towns popping up in the dumbest places (not that they do much, but I remember being happy to see them plopping down in decent spots where they'd grow to size 2 quickly so I could just kill it and save a settler, now they're ALWAYS in spots where I raze them and end up placing a settler a tile or two over.
 
But yeah, as Spearthrower mentioned, the AI builds towns far more tightly packed now. It really seems like BtS sort of gimped the AI's ability to pick good town spots. Another good example of this is to note where Barbarians place their towns - I'm consistently shocked by barbarian towns popping up in the dumbest places (not that they do much, but I remember being happy to see them plopping down in decent spots where they'd grow to size 2 quickly so I could just kill it and save a settler, now they're ALWAYS in spots where I raze them and end up placing a settler a tile or two over.

Uh, I got the impression from my games that barbarians are doing way better than before! :crazyeye:
 
I chose #1 and #3 in what look to be poor places for different reasons. I hate settling on flood plains too, and I know there's not a lot of food there, but moving 1 tile NE doesn't help the food situation, and I'd exchange 2 grassland tiles for desert.

Try 1 tile North WEST! ;)

And I would still have placed 3 on the river there, it would have snatched the extra resource missed from the replacement of number 1 too.
 
I chose #1 and #3 in what look to be poor places for different reasons. I hate settling on flood plains too, and I know there's not a lot of food there, but moving 1 tile NE doesn't help the food situation, and I'd exchange 2 grassland tiles for desert.

it just screamed out at me due to your SUFFICIENT FOOD in all caps. you'd not be gaining 2 desert, just one. the other desert is the gold hill you already have *giggle*. and you'd be exchanging grasslands on the east which your capital can use for some grasslands on the west to avoid overlap, which bothers some people (me!) but not others. i don't have a never settle on FP rule, just about everything with city placement is situational for me. i was just in a goofy mood, they're your cities do what you want! good luck with your game, and have fun :).

edit: oh i see, you read it as "up and over" = northeast, not northwest. nope, i meant northwest, but doesn't matter.
 
Situational??.... puppies!! ..... every time!! :please:

i love puppies, i really do. but if i have to be on a river for health issues that the very same flood plains are causing, and there's no grass or plains around, only flood plains, then you know what that means...
 
i love puppies, i really do. but if i have to be on a river for health issues that the very same flood plains are causing, and there's no grass or plains around, only flood plains, then you know what that means...

OH! If they're ALL flood plains... then... bye bye puppy! :D
 
This clears things up for me. I seldom use the blue circles but I always think "Is there a good reason I don't see that tell the computer to tell me to build there?". Now I know....the AI is trying to screw me. I have no problem believing that.
 
This clears things up for me. I seldom use the blue circles but I always think "Is there a good reason I don't see that tell the computer to tell me to build there?". Now I know....the AI is trying to screw me. I have no problem believing that.

:lol: :lol:


True, true!
 
That's kind of weird. I duplicated your map exactly (or the part from the screenshot), and it placed the blue circle right where your settler is. I can't see anything about your situation that would be different enough to cause it to put the blue circle where it did for you.

Bh
 
That's kind of weird. I duplicated your map exactly (or the part from the screenshot), and it placed the blue circle right where your settler is. I can't see anything about your situation that would be different enough to cause it to put the blue circle where it did for you.

Bh

Did you have the whole map explored or something?
 
Spots #2 and #3 are so far from the settler that there is not a recommendation in that area.

I dont think that matters, I know i've seen blue circles 2 screens away, but perhaps that was changed in a patch somewhere along the line?
 
well, your #1 is cutting it close on what i'd define as sufficient food. i'd probably move #3 to be on the river (yay for levees and health!) and catch the silk, and move #1 up and over so that i could use the flood plain rather than settle on it. not that you asked ;). i see your point, i wouldn't go where the blue circle is!

Yeah, I agree. You'd have to farm half the grassland tiles to work both mines.

I'd also move city site #2 two tiles up and one to the right. You still get all the dye tiles in the fat cross and you get the spice tile too. Site #3 is nice where it is except for not having +2:health: for fresh water access. Can't have everything though.
 
People, the capitol placement in 4000BC takes in consideration the hidden resources as well. In truth, forget the blue circle when you build your capitol because the blue circles only take in consideration what you already can see, and nothing else, but the capital, and only the capital, knows what hidden resources are around. In truth, the capitol placement has its own script, to change the tiles around it, so it has a 'good' placement and that is why it is normally a good idea to settle there.


Ps: Blake said it himself!


Indeed, that's why I always plop down and settle wherever the computer starts my settler at, because I know those spots are special ones with additional resources (Even if you can't see them yet).

As for the blue circles, I disabled those from when I first started playing. I also disabled all other "recommendations" and "tips" as well.

If I'm going to make bad city choices, I want to learn from my mistakes. I also like to think that I have better foresight and strategy than an AI using limited processing power.

Now... if only I could disable the first two "recommendations" within the pop-up menu of what to start next when you finish producing something or research a tech. So annoying... :mad:
 
I marked on the map sites that are better. 2 and 3 are understandable I suppose (given I don't have BW let alone IW), but are they drunk by missing 1? TWO GOLD MINES WITH SUFFICIENT FOOD NEAR A RIVER not recommended? Yeah right.
Actually, that doesn't look that bad. Your planned location burns 3 tiles as opposed to its plan of burning 2, and I'm reasonably certain that tile has been selected due to synergy with future tiles it wants you to settle on. Your plan is probably better, but its overall plan probably isn't as bad as you think.
 
Blue circles - ptui, tchah, and yecch. I choose where I want to build a city for my own reasons, such as to gain more territory or avoid a resource which I already have to gain a new one, though I admit to glancing briefly at the computer's suggestions before dismissing them. But those that come up for workers ?? Why, for example, do I get blue circles on tiles where I have already built an iron mine and a railway ?
 
Actually, the error in blue circle placement in BtS seems to be that only the INITIAL city radius is condiered. Bonuses and production in the fat cross area are ignored and only the "thin cross" is consisdered. This simple error seems to explain most of the bad city placement suggestions I have seen.
 
Top Bottom