Need Help w/Locations for New Cities

[I'mNowCivilized]

Just wondering is it better to follow the recommendations of the game when I settle a new city or am I better off following a pattern closer to Civ III? This may be too general, or too much to simplify into 2 or 3 sentences, but how should my city placement strategy differ from Civ III?

[Urban Ranger]

I generally found cities on sites that have most resources in the fat cross. If two sites are equal I'll pick the one on hills. Unless doing so puts me one tile away from the coast, then I'll choose the coastal one instead. If choosing a coastal site gives you one less resource, you need to consider how important that resource is to you. I will generally pick a coastal city site unless that deprives me the only source of a stretagic resource (iron, copper, coal, oil, aluminium, etc) within my reach.

[rjmatsleepers]

This was discussed briefly in another thread. In general, the best location for a city depends on the state of the game and your strategic objective. Access to specials and resources is good, but so is access to water and forests. Do you want the city to produce lots of hammers or lots of commerce? Often, you found a city simply to claim the land or to give access to the resources. You don't care if the city languishes after that.

As far as the blue circles are concerned, it is certainly worth understanding why the computer is making that suggestion. But only follow it if it fits your strategic and tactical situation.

I can't compare with Civ III since I've never played it. Compared with Civ II, you have to think a lot more about what resources are (or will be) in range - access to (eg) iron can be vital, even if it isn't in the fat cross..

RJM at Sleeper's

[axisworks]

I generally try to include at least one or two tradeable resources, and weigh sites for amount of production I can get (usually regarding how many hills there are), but I also have to weigh that with how much food the site can potentially give me for growth.

I look first for resources, then for food, then for production.

[make]

The computers recommendations fore citysites is, according to my experience, based mostly on howmany resources you can get into the fat cross.
This is very important, but what the computer does not take into account is the layout fore future cities.
When I know the lay of the land, I plan fore how to layout all my cities at once, so that I get to use the maximun number of tiles possible. The computer only look at where the best site is around the settler. It dosnt see the hole picture.

[johnmcd]

My goal in any city is to have a food special, after that two hills. Any city that can give me that I'll found, if I need a city at that time. If you have those basics you can generally cottage the rest of the land or fish it or whatever and the city will be a useful long term addition to the empire.

The super deluxe cities are worth founding too of course but you don't get many of those. I founded a city yesterday that was on river, had three grassy hills, two grassland gems, two spice, rice and an elephant. For me, that was worth breaking my normal build root to get a settler out and about as quickly as possible.

[Hermann the Lombard]

As always, it depends.

A few things: it's been said that the AI (blue circles) undervalues water. The current "settler vs capture" thread (whatever it's called) mentions the irritation level of capturing a city that is one tile off a river and one tile off the coast, when either would make a better city. Naturally the right combo of specials and terrain might make that annoying site the best available.

I don't worry too much about a strategic resource just outside a fat cross because I'll pick it up by culture anyway. Most of the time I *would* rather work the tile, but sometimes that's not convenient...and sometimes a later "fishing village" (or land equivalent) can work the tile.

Regarding founding on a hill: I'll go a little out of my way to do that on a PLAINS hill, where you get the bonus hammer as well as the normal bonus defense, but I'll rarely found on a grassland hill where I 'd rather have a mine that generates a little food.

YMMV

[I'mNowCivilized]

Thanks everyone for your comments. In general, I don't know how I'll like IV compared to Civ III. But many have said it's the best of the series, so I think I will try and learn all the nuances. I bought the strategy guide too, so perhaps that will help.

My only thought is that I miss the civ choices of III, but then I guess I need to remember that all those choices came after the main game and two add-ons. I also hope that at some point, more of the civs will have extra leaders to choose from.

Strategy wise, I am trying to learn the ropes. In IV, it seems less important to do the land rush then it was in the last go around, but then I supose even that depends on which map you are using and if you have company on your map.

I guess an important thing for me to learn (as rjmatsleepers said) is to understand why the computer is recommending certain locales and to see what it is seeing.

In terms of picking a good civ to start out with, I was a little disappointed to see the thread about some civs not being as good as others. I would like to think that a person had equal chance no matter who they played, but I guess that wouldn't be very realistic.

[Willem]

Originally posted by I'mNowCivilized
My only thought is that I miss the civ choices of III, but then I guess I need to remember that all those choices came after the main game and two add-ons. I also hope that at some point, more of the civs will have extra leaders to choose from.

Those concerns will most definitely be covered in the expansions, probably new traits as well.

In IV, it seems less important to do the land rush then it was in the last go around, but then I supose even that depends on which map you are using and if you have company on your map.

A land rush is not a good idea no matter what the map size. You have to build slowly but steadily in order to get a good sized empire in Civ 4, otherwise you'll bankrupt yourself.

In terms of picking a good civ to start out with, I was a little disappointed to see the thread about some civs not being as good as others. I would like to think that a person had equal chance no matter who they played, but I guess that wouldn't be very realistic.

I wouldn't take those comments too seriously. Played right, any of the civs has a chance of winning the game for you. It's how you manage your empire that counts, not your basic traits. Each civ has their strengths and weaknesses, you just have to learn how best to use them to your advantage.

[axisworks]

The computer also doesn't take into account possibilities for improvements regarding irrigation of farms (stringing farms from water sources) or long-term growth plans for getting more gold out of cities from having more towns toward the end of the game. It also doesn't take into account defense and often seems to disregard the notion of production entirely. I've had several "suggested" city spots that were on top of the only hill around, with no forests nearby to allow for lumbermills later in the game.

The biggest thing I keep an eye out for when placing cities aside from what I've already mentioned is whether or not the "fat cross" overlaps a fat cross' zone of improvements in another city. Sometimes you might want to build a city one tile closer to a rival to steal away some of those resources through culture later in the game, or you might want to start a city further away from one of your own so as to not stifle the growth of an already-existing city.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by I'mNowCivilized

In terms of picking a good civ to start out with, I was a little disappointed to see the thread about some civs not being as good as others. I would like to think that a person had equal chance no matter who they played, but I guess that wouldn't be very realistic.

After a game or two, you will probably want to experiment with leaders that suit your style. I tend to choose on the basis of traits, but sometimes I go for initial techs. Others like particular unique units - you pays your money and takes your choice.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Spiderjeru]

Worst choices for city squares; cities with a large body of water that do not border the city center. I *hate* having a wonderful city site that I can't use because of the distance from the coast - it would be excellent in my opinion to have a tile upgrade that turned a tile into a city-linked harbor of sorts at the cost of the tile's normal functions.

When I'm building a city web, I start by doing what I can to claim a corner for myself and lock the AI out. When that's done, i worry about the interior and trying to find the ideal spots to cover as many of the resources as possible, following the priority of

Food
Commerce
Industry

if I have to make a choice on what to leave in or out. I really despise founding small-patch cities as filler, but it's a weakness of my strategy and if you're up for the micromanagement required by all means take up every tile.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Originally posted by Spiderjeru it would be excellent in my opinion to have a tile upgrade that turned a tile into a city-linked harbor of sorts at the cost of the tile's normal functions.

Hmm...something like the Houston Ship Channel, or maybe Classical Rome's dependence on Ostia to act as its port.

[Sandwich]

A canal improvement would be great. Limit it to a length of 1 tile only to connect a city to water. It could add a little commerce, maybe a hammer, reduces food, but also gives access to water to allow the water tiles to be worked properly. Possibly not large enough for large ships to pass through.

Or, like Hermann canal idea, a canal national wonder that can be built in the appropriate place, like on a 1 tile wide piece of land separating two bodies of water, allowing travel between the two. I've always liked founding cities in such spaces to allow my ships to pass through.

Maybe this should be a separate thread...

[Hermann the Lombard]

I see such a canal as a tile improvement. A Wonder of the World would be something like China's Great Canal...not really practical in this game.