Do you found cities on the tiles the computer recommends?

[Arrian]

There may be times, however, when it's better to build on the resource to get access immediately w/o having to build the improvement (such as plantations - you have to do quite a bit of research before you get to Calendar).

For resources that require very basic improvements (farm, mine, pasture), building on top of them seems to be a waste. For some of the others... maybe not. It's a trade off (access now vs. lost benifit of food/cash later).

-Arrian

[Bhruic]

I understood that you still need the tech to be able to get the benefit from whatever you are on. Is that not the case?

Bh

[Arrian]

Probably. In which case nevermind my previous post.

Given that, then, the only reason I'd build on top of a resource would be to get the city in *just* the right place.

-Arrian

[QuestGAV]

I think there are a few other cases of resources giving bonus production to a city founded on top of it. Rice was one of the ones IIRC.

Theseus, I know we heard that the AI isn't supposed to know stuff that we don't. This is the second example I've heard of that not being true. The other one had to do with resources also, as an AI who shouldn't know what uranium has shown an affinity for city sites near it. I don't think anyone has proved it, but there's definitely some anecdotal evidence to that end.

[Dis]

I rarely place my cities in the blue circles (although maybe I should ). But I do build them close by often times.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Bhruic
Even worse is building a city on a resource, as that resource will disappear (does it reappear if the city gets razed?).

The resource doesn't disappear. You have access to the resource, but you can't build a mine/farm/whatever on it to get a big boost; the bonus you get from building the city on it is much more modest.

Originally posted by remconius
You should always found the city on the worst tile. The city standard gets 2 food, 1 hammer and 1 gold. Only exception is plains hill which gets 2 hammers. Hence they are the uber-tile for city founding.

Exactly so.

Originally posted by Theseus
I thought part of the whole CIV design philosophy was to avoid AI cheats... including knowledge of resource locations.
...
So does that mean the "suggested city location" routine is different? And the human player gets that versus the AI civs not ?

Originally posted by QuestGAV
Theseus, I know we heard that the AI isn't supposed to know stuff that we don't. This is the second example I've heard of that not being true.

This is incorrect. You are equating the AI with the game engine. Those are two different things. The engine defines the world, while you and the AI both operate within that world. The game engine gives you (the human player) hints about where to found cities, which is completely different from the AI controlling Julius Caesar knowing exactly where the Iron deposits are from 4000 BC. When they say the AI doesn't cheat, they mean that the AI is not treated in a special fashion by the game engine (with the exception of the boosts and handicaps of different difficulty levels). They can't "see the Matrix," to put it another way, but they can have steroids.

[QuestGAV]

Wouldn't seeing Iron prior to having Iron Working being an example of seeing the matrix? I'm not sure I get your point sophist. I don't think anyone minds the production boosts, it does seem a bit more artificial for the AI to be targetting uranium sites before they have the appropriate technology though. And that's exactly the behavior that some have reported.

[okblacke]

I don't think anyone has proved it, but there's definitely some anecdotal evidence to that end.

Probably the most compelling anecdotal evidence in Civ history is the persistent belief that the AI gets a combat bonus at higher levels. Just try to shake someone of that belief once their army of tanks have been beaten by a spearman. (Haven't heard this yet for C4, though....)

It's up there with the gas pedal/brake on an Audi. The people who believe it are VERY convinced.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Arrian
I ignore the computer's suggestions. I build with the following things in mind:

1) Fresh water - health bonus
2) Coast - found either on the coast or 2 tiles inland... 1 tile off the coast should be avoided if possible (but may be the best spot for other reasons)
3) Resources - if I'm gunning to gain control of a particular resource, this can trump #1 and #2
4) Strategic position - cutting off an AI's expansion or the "panama canal" city.

I'd add to this (in no particular order) :

5) Placement relative to existing and future city sites. With less cities in CIV I want a loose spacing to give each city plenty of room where possible.
6) Access to river tiles for commerce.
7) avoidance of 'dead' tiles (tundra, desert, mountain) where possible.
8) Exploitation of resources for production purposes rather than strategic. So, I might let those wines be outside the city radius because my borders will get them later, and I can't use wine until (I think) monarchy, but I want the wheat NOW because high food tiles can be used NOW.

I find the blue circles amusing and mysterious.

[sophist]

Originally posted by QuestGAV
Wouldn't seeing Iron prior to having Iron Working being an example of seeing the matrix? I'm not sure I get your point sophist. I don't think anyone minds the production boosts, it does seem a bit more artificial for the AI to be targetting uranium sites before they have the appropriate technology though.

That's not the AI seeing the iron. That was an example with the human player. The game engine knows where the Iron is and told the human player to found the city near it. That has nothing to do with whether the AI player for Caesar knows where Iron is without the technology because there is a wall between the AI and the game engine. One is a simulated human player while the other is the referee and playing field.

Originally posted by QuestGAV
And that's exactly the behavior that some have reported.

That's not a slam-dunk case. What does it mean that they've seen that behavior? The AI has founded a city near where there later turns out to be a resource? There are numerous legitimate explanations for that.

I don't think there's any ambiguity here. Soren has repeatedly said that the AI does not cheat. He has no reason to lie, especially when the source code of the AI is going to be released in just a few months, so we can all see for ourselves.

[khumak]

The problem with the locations that the computer recommends for each city is that it's only taking into account what would be good for THAT city, not what would give you the best results for ALL of your cities. If you aren't planning on building anything else within about 4 or 5 moves of that city then the location the computer recommends is probably the best one. Otherwise it rarely is.

I build with these things in mind:

1. Maximize use of all "special" resources
2. Maximize number of cities I can squeeze in to my available land area without overlap
3. Minimize the number of desert, peaks, and ice in workable city radii
4. Place in strategic locations to block the AI from expanding into my territory
5. Give preference to coastal access whenever possible
6. Place next to fresh water when possible
7. Exploit the fact that ANY location you build on ALWAYS has at least 2 food, 1 shield, and 1 commerce. This is great for eliminating the resource disadvantage of 1 desert or ice square or to get a bonus shield out of a plains hill.

When the computer makes a recommendation it seems to ignore numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5. Surprisingly the AI DOES seem to take number 7 into account. It frequently recommends building on a hill or a patch of ice or desert.

[Spaced Cowboy]

I rarely use the computer's suggestion.

I always placed based on resources and the following.
1. Plains/hills...the uber tile.
2. Desert, no production unless you build on it.
3. Optimal city layout with no more than 1 square overlay, if that.

[Sauron07]

I agree with the previous poster that while the blue circles seem to do a relatively good job of telling us where a prodcuctive city position would be, the ui's decisionmaking seems to take place in a vacuum and does not consider many factors that a human player is able to utilize to make a more sound strategic decision. The most important factors the AI seems to ignore are the benefit of founding a city on a hills/plains tile, the strategic benefits of city placement (cutting off opponents or claiming rare resources), and the possibility that 2 or more cities could use the resources in an area more productively than one with a more efficient placement (ie advisor recommends founding a city w/ 4 resources but ends up wasting 3 more resources nearby because they don't have enough other usable tiles or too much overlap due to a coastline, mountains, desert or tundra.

The main benefit of the blue squares for me is it gives me a good idea of which direction I want my warrior/scout to start exploring so that I can evaluate why the computer chose the square it did. Once I have uncovered the area in which I plan to settle initially, however, the only thing the blue circles really do for me is make me take a little more time to evaluate whether my chosen city spot is truly the best.

Don't even get me started on the worker ai and how it determines what squares to recommend, I haven't been able to decipher that at all, particularly when it constantly recommends having workers change already developed tiles rather than developing unused ones.

[khumak]

Originally posted by Sauron07
Don't even get me started on the worker ai and how it determines what squares to recommend, I haven't been able to decipher that at all, particularly when it constantly recommends having workers change already developed tiles rather than developing unused ones.

Easy solution to that, there's an option to make workers ignore already improved terrain. Unfortunately there's no option to make them ignore forests unless you have built a lumber mill on them.

[Bobby Chicken]

The computer suggested squares are usually close to good places. I usually found my cities near them.