Whats more important:

[MrPhil]

[list=1][*]Contigous Land Area[*]Resources with splintered land area[/list=1]

I am trying to figure out whether I should try to maintain a solid land area for my civ while possibly missing out on some resources (copper right now) or to go for the resources and leave my civ borders open for foreign settlers.

Opinions?

[Willem]

My opinion is Contigous Land Area. First of all it's easier to defend. Plus placing cities willy nilly across the map leaves you open to having a barb or another civ plopping a city down in between. And building out from your capital keeps your maintenance costs to a minimum.

PS I wouldn't worry to much about missing Copper. I usually find if I don't get Copper, I'll end up with Iron. It's more of a delay than a setback.

[Loader2k]

For me the decision would depend on difficulty level - while
copper is important and with it it should be easy enough to
defend those scattered cities, for me it's too expensive to
found a city far away on higher difficulty levels.

[LordShiva]

Resources.

That way, you can build an army and then make your land area contiguous.

[johnmcd]

I would try and hold off making your land area too spread out till you've discovered iron working and established if you will at least have that.

[Urban Ranger]

It depends on:

1. How far away is the copper
2. Difficulty level
3. Other settings (Raging barbarians?)

I generally go for the copper and backfill to link with the rest of my empire. Though I generally expands quite rapidly, so that may not suit your own style.

[MrPhil]

Well, I went with the contiguous land area and it is really working out well for me. I essentially have the left rounded area if you picture a distorted heart. Haspetut and Bismarck still managed one small city each along my coastline but, they are very isolated so I am not worried about them at all.

I am playing on Noble, Large Continent Map, Marathon with default barbs.

I had a choice between the Copper or a coastal city. to get the copper, i would have been inland about 5-6 squares. I did get lucky and discover iron within my boundaries so that helped.

Unfortunately, it appears as though I have no source of oil in my territory which will make it hard to develop the modern military stuff. I will have fin dthat somewhere and take it.

[uberloz]

I know you already made your decision, but I'm going to offer my opinion anyway.

I prefer grabbing the resources, even though it takes a while to close your borders ( I usually either let cultural expansions fill in the gaps or plop down another city if there's room ).

My reasoning is that it is easier to defend your areas from the occasion barbarian invasion ( and less costly in the long run ) than it is to go to war with another civilization that stakes it's claim to that resource first. (Sure, diplomacy and trade here is an option, but it's less reliable than I care to gamble on, especially when it's a resource I know I want or need! )

Also, I have played quite a few games, although only as high as Prince level, but I honestly have never seen a barbarian horde attack and take ( or destroy ) an ai civs level 1 or level 2 city! It's not that they are any better defended, but from my experiences if the ai plops down a stray city for a resource grab it goes unmolested, but the city I use for my resource grab is usually better defended than my capital and it almost always needs to be!

Sorry for the long rant.

[Urban Ranger]

I have seen barbarians destroying AI cities. That's with the raging option on, though.

[fed1943]

I always go for territorial coherence.
But two city'squares 5/6 tiles close each other create contigous territory.Even a little more distant.And if you are creative...
Best regards,

[MrPhil]

Originally posted by uberloz
I know you already made your decision, but I'm going to offer my opinion anyway.

I prefer grabbing the resources, even though it takes a while to close your borders ( I usually either let cultural expansions fill in the gaps or plop down another city if there's room ).

My reasoning is that it is easier to defend your areas from the occasion barbarian invasion ( and less costly in the long run ) than it is to go to war with another civilization that stakes it's claim to that resource first. (Sure, diplomacy and trade here is an option, but it's less reliable than I care to gamble on, especially when it's a resource I know I want or need! )

Also, I have played quite a few games, although only as high as Prince level, but I honestly have never seen a barbarian horde attack and take ( or destroy ) an ai civs level 1 or level 2 city! It's not that they are any better defended, but from my experiences if the ai plops down a stray city for a resource grab it goes unmolested, but the city I use for my resource grab is usually better defended than my capital and it almost always needs to be!

Sorry for the long rant.

I do appreciate your opinion even though I had already made my decision. I think I got lucky with the iron. If I had no iron resource, I might have been in trouble.

In fact, I might STILL be in trouble as I currently have no source of oil either onland or offshore. I will need to secure some by diplomacy or force if I want to build a modern military force.

[MrPhil]

Originally posted by fed1943
I always go for territorial coherence.
But two city'squares 5/6 tiles close each other create contigous territory.Even a little more distant.And if you are creative...
Best regards,

I agree fed. I used this method and even though I lost out on the Copper resource it seemed to work for me.......at least in this game. So, I will keep trying it until it doesn't work or I move onto the next difficulty level.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I have seen barbarians destroying AI cities. That's with the raging option on, though.

I've seen it several times on normal. I played a game a short while ago where it happened twice to two different civs. One game I even got a report that Egypt had lost her capital to barbs.

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I have seen barbarians destroying AI cities. That's with the raging option on, though.

I couldn't imagine even playing this game without raging barbarians, it would seem like cheating! I hadn't seen it even with RB turned on.

But, it's nice to know that it happens even if I haven't seen it myself. I must admit I was begining to wonder, though.

Perhaps I will stake out a scout or two ( once their usefulness is done or limited ) outside of an ai resource city in order to attempt to witness it.

[Crossfire]

I vary my choice somewhat based on what resources are available where. If there is a killer site with lots of floodplains and a couple of specials a few extra tiles away, I will settle in the perfect spot every time. Eventually my culture will fill in the void. If I left a large enough void I will go back and build a city later if it makes some financial sense to do so. Other times the tiles are such that it isn't that important exactly where I put my cities (other than maybe my financial center) and I will try to be more contiguous. But I never let the fact that I have a few unworkable tiles keep me from a key resource or a special city site.