How to pick city locations: Discussion

[snafuc4]

Re: Settling on a resource

Originally posted by Edgar Newt
If you settle a city on a resource (like marble or dyes), do you lose that resource? If it is horses, since you cannot manipulate that square, I imagine that you cannot gain access to the horses. Does the resource go away?

I believe if you settle on a stategic resource (including elephants & horses) you gain the resource but not the tile bonus (for working the tile); if you settle on a luxury resource you don't gain anything (but this may be the same as above). I'll test this shortly..

[wattevr]

my strategy is a combo between military checkpoints and productivity

after ive placed my first three or so by then you have sort of figured out you r friends and enemies and where you have to be cautious in expansion and where you can expand quickly

i usually like to work against coasts and in heavy resourced areas
ex. the map im on now - inland sea, tiny, 2 opp, I've wasted three decent squares in order to get cow, crab and copper in one city. could place two cities and get more in the end, but rather have a good productive troop city now, plus it acts as a cornerstone for the empire along the coastline, i'll place a small city later to reach for those undeveloped squares and the few below for those extra specialists

as far as placing, OCP is useless to me, loses realism, becomes too time consuming to figure out where this one should go and where the next should go, how can you know? too many what if's.. you can only plan for so much, as for so far ahead.. i prefer using the terrain as protection and guiding where the cities go

ive always liked overlapping cities halfway and limiting the growth developments in them.
ex. if a city is three squares from the water, place a city on the coast and focus on the commercial aspects of it, lighthouse, harbor, and only have it work the water, while the other works the overlapping tiles between them.
This is efficient for getting as many productive squares as close to your capitals reach as possible
it also puts more tiles in use earlier in the game giving more productivity during the middle ages when alot of fighting and conquest happens.

**note to developers** there has to be an option to abandon cities since there is no way to shrink them through worker/settler building anymore

[eluciv]

Just curious, has anyone seen a resource become "exhausted" like they used to? I haven't.

I think OCP is strategy dependent, as has been alluded to earlier. I rarely form a strategy until at least 30+ turns into an Epic-length game. First and second city locations are pretty easy choices most of the time - given what little you know about the world at that point.
In all, I try not to use more than 2 resources per city unless city specialization would dictate otherwise. I've never built on top of a military resource, though a few games worth of having to deal with enemy air pillaging has made me think it might not be a bad idea.

It all depends on what type of victory you're after. In general, if you plan on conquest/domination you already likely have the immediate resources you need for troops (else you wouldn't be wise to employ this strat). Future conquest will likely fullfill future needs (aluminun, oil, etc), but more territory obviously increases the odds of having what you need. The particular game (and civ to a lesser degree) will determine if you can afford the increased cost of farther spacing. IMO there is no hard, fast OCP.