Would you Settle it?

Would you settle it?


  • Total voters
    21
Are we ranking it purely on terrain,

that was my Original thought, to see if people thought the AI was settling “good spots”. But people are eager to talk about other factors, so it makes sense to broaden the perspective.
 
From a yields standpoint, it's not really that atrocious. There are 4 bonus resources within reach, 2 hills, and an extra desert for a GPTI. It will struggle with culture though.

From a defense perspective, he could slap a citadel down on that desert tile which would do a ton of damage to coastal bound galleasses. He could also use a Great Diplomat to flip that city state to the south east and then immediately declare, giving him strong choke points. In fact I would say that Harran is just as vulnerable as Goa.

Edit: @Recursive does the AI ever intentionally throw out "bait" cities? I could see planting that city and then attacking those northern city States that Portugal is sending diplomats to. If sacrificing Harrar slows down the Portuguese navy navy just 5-6 turns, he could capture the CS which is way more important than a mediocre city
 
Last edited:
From my experience in AI-only games, cities like this end up being captured most of the time, at Industrial or later.
 
As Portugal?
Probably, the placement of the fish is unfortunate when it comes to Feitoria, but the coastal tiles should make for a serviceable city with seaport and Imperialism. It will also deny the AI the spot. The tiles are meh but could hide late game Strategics.

As Assyria;
I will need to conquer cities in order to get the most out of my civs UA. Who is my next target? If it's Portugal, most definitely I'm settling it and start moving troops and ships. If I have more pressing targets or open spots to settle closer to me then no. We can't really see what's going on in Assyria's continent soooo.
 
Back
Top Bottom