One tile off the coast...

[guermantes]

So, I am planning to rid the map of a close-by barb city. And I had previously scouted the area for a city placement but alas not where the barbs settled their city. So I will be razing their city and sending in a settler to settle one tile to the north-north-east (right above the copper).

I figure this would be a good spot since I can grab copper, pigs, marble and rice all within the city radius, as well as a few mountains. Not much food around but I figured I would see how far the pigs and the rice would take me.

But then there is this thing that people always say: Don't settle one tile off the coast. I never quite understood why because I always thought that would be depending on what the other tiles had to offer. Sometimes it's better to settle one tile off the coast, and this would be one of those cases.

But I have actually never seen anyone elaborate on why not to settle one tile off the coast and it seems to be one of those things that gets repeated but never explained. So I don't know if I am missing something crucial, and that my planned city would be a bad choice

1- What do you think? Is my planned city a bad choice? Perhaps it's better to settle on the hill by the coast between the rice and the marble and skip the pigs because I have 2 pigs already hooked up elsewhere and this way I could get get food from the sea instead of from the pigs? Actually writing this makes me beginning to think if it is not actually better to settle on the hill....

(My second city spot will be closer to the horses but since I already have horses this is only in order to block Hatty who is coming down from that direction...)

2- BTW, are catapults useless against barbcities? I seem to remember a previous game where I was bringing a huge stack but I could not use them to bombard for some reason. Can't remember if I could sacrifice them for the barrage benefit either.

[ben04]

From what I can see your city spot is the best. If there are sea food resources then a coastal city could be better.

But I have actually never seen anyone elaborate on why not to settle one tile off the coast

Coastal cities give more trade routs and allow you to build a lighthouse. If you have lots of sea fields but can't build a lighthouse than it's bad. Also often you rearrange cities so that more get to the coast and thus have more trade routes. For example you could consider leaving the pigs for a city that also gets the horses. To really know what is best I'd need more information about tiles around. However 1 above the chopper certainly isn't a bad move. Keeping the barb city would be one.

Catapults can only bombard cities that have defenses. Bombard doesn't attack units directly. Barb cities are not different from other cities when it comes to war.

[Solver]

In this case, your location seems better. The coastal barb city only has 2 water tiles, isn't worth keeping, and that hill between Rice and Marble would be a nice city spot, but not that excellent. Also wastes 2 tiles in the fat cross.

I'd settle above Copper indeed - with Rice and Pigs, you'll grow fast, and Copper + Marble will give good production. And then there are three more Hill tiles - you could have a very highly productive city there.

[Crossfire]

Don't forget to check the water tiles above the rice, there may be a food source there in which case the city could be another tile up than you are planning.

In general though, if I can build on the coast I will. It brings in trade dollars, it allows ships to be built, and it lets you build a lighthouse and a harbor both of which really help your food and happiness.

[guermantes]

As it turned out, and since I am playing a finanical leader I opted for the tile directly to the east of the marble. That way I lose the pigs but get 9 coastal tiles that with the colossus will give 4 C each. Regrettfully when I got up there, Kublai khan had already the rice within his borders (new city) so now it will be more slow growth with a lighthouse to help me.

I also settled another city just right of the horses to block hatty and try to get some production out of those hills. And there are spices in the jungle to the north as well so maybe a short war with Kublai is necessary.

Thanks for your help everyone! I am now going to try to culture bomb the rice tile into my possession. Was thinking that it could be better to put that bomb in the city by the horses instead, but Hatty's culture is not really that strong there yet. Only a 2pop city on the other side of the mountains so I don't really feel threatened by her yet. The jungle to the north of the horses is mostly no-man's land still. I guess Kublai and hatty are colliding further up north....

Oh well... well see how it goes.... maybe I settle the great artist instead somwhere...

[dregor]

That early on I'd definitely settle a GA.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by guermantes
As it turned out, and since I am playing a finanical leader I opted for the tile directly to the east of the marble.

It's the one I would have settled. Getting hill pigs in a city is not worth losing the coastal position which allows lighthouse (+3 food vs your first option) and harbours (extra trade)

[Blake]

This is a case where it's probably not worth being so greedy - the thing is, by founding that position, you not only can't work the 3 coast tiles in radius -
YOU ALSO PREVENT ~10 COAST TILES FROM EVER BEING WORKED! With fin/colossus that's 40 lost commerce right there!

It's not possible to dotmap that area without knowledge of what lies in the fog of to the east of the Marble, however my inclination would be to keep the barb city (never raze barb cities unless you have a darn good reason, they have a good headstart on development and save you 100 hammers).
I would either found a 2nd city, east of the Rice.

OR found two cities:
One south of the marble
The other north of the rice

In other words I'd actually want 2-3 cities in that area.

Each city provides inate trade income (potentially a lot with a harbor), +1 raw gold in your shrine city (up to +3 gold in the hand), +1 commerce in the city tile itself, possibly some commerce from.

Founding cities 1 off the coast is not so much about the lack of a lighthouse - it's more about big-picture wasted plots and the loss of Harbors (less trade income, less health).

[Provost Harrison]

I'd be tempted to found two cities in that situation, one of which on the coast and the inland one to take advantage of the horses and the pigs...

[Brael]

Knowing whats north/east of the marble is important to know where to found I think. Depending on food sources I would do what Blake said for placement I think. If there isn't a seafood resource though I would probably settle 1 west of the Marble and another city to the east in a position that could grab the horses and make the most use of the land such as 3 north of Ghungzhou.

My thinking behind 1 west of the marble is that while south of the marble would provide an excellent source of Commerce and allow you to work the most tiles in your land that you can, the city appears to lack in food and production capability so while you could place it there and have the city by a great boost to your empire in the very long term, by founding west of the marble you can take advantage of the rice for building infrastructure, have grassland for cottages, have more forest to chop in vital buildings for coin/science, and still get a good number of coastal tiles.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Brael
Knowing whats north/east of the marble is important to know where to found I think. Depending on food sources I would do what Blake said for placement I think. If there isn't a seafood resource though I would probably settle 1 west of the Marble and another city to the east in a position that could grab the horses and make the most use of the land such as 3 north of Ghungzhou.

This is not possible because the first critical decision is to decide what to do with the barb city. Since it is good enough. Better to keep it and then find out about the coastal tiles near the marble

[Brael]

The barb city isn't in immeadiate danger of being captured by another civ so he can let it sit until he has more information. With his current unit placement he can know the surrounding terrain in 3 turns and 3 turns isn't a big deal (atleast to me, but I play marathon almost exclusively). The horse archer in his territory currently can move to where his horse archer now is. The horse archer near the barbs can circle around to the pigs, it's unlikely in my experience that a barb city with 2 defenders will send one out for that horse archer so it will be safe. Next turn it can be moved to the plains hill ne of the pigs, and then by going through the grassland to the se it can move east 2 and get a view from the grass hill. That will reveal east of the marble and I think east of the desert? Depending on that information the horse archer could then be moved either to the marble for a better look or be in a position capable of attacking the barb city.

The potential payoff is more than worth 3 turns of scouting.

[Nugog]

Re: One tile off the coast...

Originally posted by guermantes
2- BTW, are catapults useless against barbcities? I seem to remember a previous game where I was bringing a huge stack but I could not use them to bombard for some reason. Can't remember if I could

Catapults can only bombard if the defenses down. Yous hould be able to attack the city and do collateral damge though.....

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Blake
This is a case where it's probably not worth being so greedy - the thing is, by founding that position, you not only can't work the 3 coast tiles in radius -
YOU ALSO PREVENT ~10 COAST TILES FROM EVER BEING WORKED! With fin/colossus that's 40 lost commerce right there!

Is it 30 or 40? With Warlords, I don't think Qin is Financial.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Brael
The potential payoff is more than worth 3 turns of scouting.

It really does depend on the sea resources.