Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by jnebbe, Dec 31, 2020.
Seeing this caused me physical pain
What's the worst city you've seen an ai place?
Spoiler Chicago :
Granted, sometimes they run out of space and settle crappy cities wherever it's still possible. But this settling decision by Roosevelt is just one example of many where I just don't get it. Why move away from all the food, orphaning seafood in the process... is maybe settling on a hill programmed to be so much more important?
AI knows that for it Hills > Food. And settling on Gold also is preferred because - again, hill. (settling on Gold (sometimes) by itself is discussion worth thing). And wait for industrial age - one of hills will have Uranium and/or Aluminum! AI masterplan is deeper!
IIRC one of the "hints" for BTS is that AIs are supposedly much bigger threats in terms of naval invasions, so that same AI might have been told to prioritize defensive coastal hills over the (actually decent city with) two food specials? As a move as that is?
Granted its the AI, but settling on gold is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Gold's value as a worked tile decreases over time and it is food deficit. It's one of those things that's very nice - from the human perspective - to settle very early so that you can work the gold early for the commerce. Then one factors in later the food. For instance, Gao is not really that bad of a city settling on gold as it is somewhat food poor and the city would have a hard time ever working the gold, but it will have enough food to work the copper tile it will eventually grab. Not that bad a city really. Kumbi Sali might have been better 1N but it is still a fine city....again, from the human player perspective, how I settle Kumbi may depend a good deal on when I settled the city.
I've settled on gold plenty of times.
On second glance though, the rice tile is interesting now that I think of it. Looks like the rice is may not even be worked by any city, such that the city marked "s" on the map would have indeed been better or at least one of those two cities should have been settled to grab the rice.
Gao is just pointless IMO. Not riverside so no Gold+FIN bonus (unlike Kumbi Saleh), and the Gold is basically just another plains hill when settled. Only shares 1 FP with Kumbi, and if you wanted to grab the Copper with Gao, you would settle on it or next to it, instead of 2 tiles away. Depending on who the turquoise AI is, their culture may grab the Copper first. Settling on the s seems preferred (share 3 FP with Kumbi + dry rice, riverside, Copper in 1st ring).
Kumbi is a 3 tile so I can kind of see the reasoning there. Settling 1N gets you the dry rice (meh) and 2 extra mountains... otoh, you don't give up much (2 dry treeless Tundra) by settling 1N. Settling on riverside gold for your capital is a cool move if you're FIN. Kumbi is not Timbuktu so
But consider the revenue from skiing.
Plot twist: Mansa wasn't an AI. It was Sampsa.
Ok, fail from me.
Two cities not ideally, but In my defense, I 've seen worse.
Yeah, the AI knows where resources will appear later and uses this info when choosing where to settle.
Contrary to how much Sullla may insist otherwise, this is actually true. The AI always knows where all resources are (it literally has to, in order to compare sites) and settles even for ones it can't use even if it "was allowed" to see them.
AI settles according to the blue circles, which are often designated by visible and hidden resources.
Good post, but i just wanted to point out that we should rarely judge sites by extra mountains, desert or other useless tiles. Important is grabbing all early benefits
Truth be told, I actually like Kumbi Saleh more on gold than 1N. Gao I definitely don't like on gold, but it's nowhere near as bad as Chicago in Qactus's screenshot.
I don't disagree. If I had the freedom to choose both I'd settle Gao 1NE, and then Kumbi Saleh is fine where it is, especially since MM is FIN. But if for instance, Gao's location was fixed already I would settle Kumbi Saleh 1N. Granted, that's all assuming that the rice couldn't be utilized by another city north of it, which would change things. Settling Gao on gold due to the poor food situation would make total sense, except that the way the tiles are it actually makes the food situation worse and makes copper unworkable til a border pop.
I've just also played a lot of maps that were so commerce poor I jumped on the chance to work gold mines, even with no-food-no-city cities. I don't think settling on gold is inherently a mistake provided short-term commerce isn't a big issue. I do disagree with you about capital city gold settling though. There's a double reason of not wanting to limit your bureau cap, but also early gold can open up a lot of beeline options and strategies that are generally very dubious (oracle->something better than MC; rushing Monotheism; self-teching IW; teching Sailing purely to save on worker turns; plowing towards machinery/engineering to utilize a generally subpar UU; etc. And at the very least it gives you the flexibility to do stuff like confidently tech AH early or get all the prerequisite techs regardless of immediate utility to capitalize even more on commerce.
Honestly I just cringe every time I see a city built on top of a resource. I wish there was a quick and easy way to mod the game so that this can't be done.
Finally, the cat is on the table!
In general, I don't disagree with much, if anything that you say. This is way more Strategy & Tips than General Discussions, but we can take it there if this turns out to be a long, meaningful topic.
Pros and cons, I assume these are all very clear for you and me, but just for clarity:
Working early gold:
+high early , great flexibility, can be used in numerous ways to gain an early advantage
-loss of growth (the importance of this varies very much depending on the available tiles/techs)
Settling on early gold:
+passive gains even at size1
-loss of early
-it's ugly to settle on a resource
I don't list the loss of the gold tile for a bureau cap here, because I somewhat disagree with it or at least don't see it as a big issue. Maybe actually this is where the whole difference of opinion lies? I suppose this is partly because I don't value bureaucracy(/academy) as high as many do, simply because in my experience, a bigger empire does a better job than a small one, thus I try to have a bigger empire at that point if possible. Of course, bureau can be very valuable if there is no way to get a big empire by say 1AD. Another thing why I don't think losing the gold tile is THAT important is because you'll end of working more cottages, not only because they replace gold, but because your city is growing faster. Assuming no -issues (=HR?), granary (+library?) a riverside cottage isn't in my opinion any worse than the gold tile. A cottaged floodplain (say 33, we must assume some growth for that time period already) I value already higher than 37.
I dug on some examples so we have something more concrete.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/deity-pangea-easy-mode-no-cottage.661803/ @soundjata Justinian-game, perhaps the starting point of the whole topic. Settling on gold doesn't work brilliantly, because of the abundance of available. You can already see T0 that there is double food, which was already discussed in the thread. It's clearly not the optimal map for this, but I guess I was trying to make a point that even under sub-optimal conditions it's nowhere near as bad as people think. Reading the topic now made me giggle a bit and I hope no one has any hard feelings about it.
Here, to my shock, soundjata and @Fish Man wanted to settle on gold. I think 2N is pretty obviously a better play (the main point is to get the extra on cc anyway). If there is a no cottage -restriction, I think settling on gold is insanely bad.
Tried to dig up a Willem(?)-game someone posted perhaps last year, where I think settling on gold would've been the best play. Single available agri resource and settling on gold would claim several extra flood plains. FIN is a nice bonus there btw. Maybe I'll find it or come up with a different game where I think SOG™ is the best play.
Sure the tile is not supporting another city up north - it is improved after all ?
The screenshot is somewhat strangely cut.
I've settled on gold hills like that when they are on remote borders of my empire and I expect them to be attacked...
@sampsa Maybe the disconnect is I don't like to tech monarchy outside of iso, and I often don't even have the prerequisites to trade for it. HR is an afterthought in happiness management for me, I usually don't pick it up til my first GA.
I close to never self tech monarchy either on deity, but sometimes it's available for free. Depends also a lot on available -res, available trades, CHA etc. I don't think monarchy is mandatory for the strategy I outlined.
Separate names with a comma.