City Square resources

[iapetus556]

In Civ2, the resources generated by the tile a city occupied depended on the base terrain type, plus irrigation if it was possible.

Ever since SMAC, however, the city square resources have been fixed at 2 food, 1 production, 1 trade (not counting bonus resources or rivers).

I liked the old system, as it made choosing a city's location that bit more strategic (do you build on a mountain for the 3x defensive bonus, even though you will only get 1 Food* from the city?)

I suppose one could argue that you couldn't farm in the same place a city was built, but given the area a tile represents, I don't think it would be unreasonable. (Besides, where does the +2 food in a desert city come from?)

Does anyone else think this would be a good idea?



* Mountains could not actually be irrigated, but in the rules.txt file, the were set to give +1 food if they were, so the city square was treated as if it was irrigated. Glaciers could not be irrigated, and there was no irrigation bonus, so the city square was treated as if mined).

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I think this is a good idea. In C4, building on hills always gives you a defensive bonus, without any corresponding loss in food. Consequently there is less of a decision making process involved - you'll always build on a hill, all things being equal.

/me misses the Civ2 premined hills exploit

[Qwertqwert]

Okay, well if the city only produced 1 food, and all the tiles provided no food, what would happen when that 1 guy starves?

[Thedrin]

Hopefully the player would realise they had used very bad city placement and would learn from that mistake.

[Dauphin]

Sire, are you sure you want to build *insert city name* atop a mountain? We can't eat rocks!

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert
Okay, well if the city only produced 1 food, and all the tiles provided no food, what would happen when that 1 guy starves?

The same thing that happens when you found a city in deep jungle, and run a food deficit - you stay at size 1, with no growth.

[Cort Haus]

Nope. There is too much tundra and other crappy terrain in Civ 4 to allow any city growth with less than 2 food on the city tile.

Surely Civ 2 players are not suggesting that Civ 4 city placement isn't 'strategic' enough. There are many new variables to consider.

[MasterDave]

Just so everyone knows, your city square can provide more than the standard 2 food, one hammer, and one commerce. If you build your city on a plains hill, you get an extra hammer (so 2food, 2 hammers, one commerce). If you build your city on a resource (such as wheat) that produces one extra food before being worked, then you city will make three food. You also will have that resource included in your network (thus gaining the health or happy face). If you build on a commerce producing resource (such as grapes), then your city will make one bonus commerce.

Clearly, in most cases, it is better to mine those resources and not build your city on them, and that is why most people do not know about that. Plains hills are probably the best spot overall for a city, giving both an extra shield and the defense bonus.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory


The same thing that happens when you found a city in deep jungle, and run a food deficit - you stay at size 1, with no growth.

Each person requires 2 food, and if a total of 1 food is produced then how would the 1 person live.

It just wouldn't work, 2 food on the city tile is nessissary.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MasterDave
Just so everyone knows, your city square can provide more than the standard 2 food, one hammer, and one commerce. If you build your city on a plains hill, you get an extra hammer (so 2food, 2 hammers, one commerce). If you build your city on a resource (such as wheat) that produces one extra food before being worked, then you city will make three food. You also will have that resource included in your network (thus gaining the health or happy face). If you build on a commerce producing resource (such as grapes), then your city will make one bonus commerce.

If you build your city on a strategic resouce (copper, iron, etc.), you will have immediate access to that resource once the corresponding tech has been acquired.

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


Each person requires 2 food, and if a total of 1 food is produced then how would the 1 person live.

It just wouldn't work, 2 food on the city tile is nessissary.

Nope. In CivIIToT building on a mountain would grant 0 food and 300% defence (and potentially lots of production or gold). If the starting city dweller was put to working grassland the city would break even on food and remain stagnant. Basic worker improvements or high food tiles would allow the city to grow.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


Each person requires 2 food, and if a total of 1 food is produced then how would the 1 person live.

It just wouldn't work, 2 food on the city tile is nessissary.

You are forgetting that the city tile "works itself" and that a 1-person city effectively works 2 tiles (the city tile and the tile the worker is working).

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert
Each person requires 2 food, and if a total of 1 food is produced then how would the 1 person live.

It just wouldn't work, 2 food on the city tile is nessissary.

Try doing what I said - found a city in deep jungle, and make the lone population unit a specialist. The city will not starve to death.