Science city site choice

[Campo]

I had a game yesterday in which I wanted to build 6 cities (arbitrary number) and go for conquest. I wanted one of them to be a science city. I got my first few down fairly quickly, but I had trouble finding a good spot for the science city -- lots of mountains and hills would have meant slow growth potential.

I wandered a bit and eventually found a satisfactory site with two options, one square apart. I could have positioned the city:

a. On a grassland river (center of 3 river squares) within reach of whale and gold specials.

b. On a jungle square adjacent to the river within reach of whale, gold, wine, and iron specials. (With the 3 river squares within the city boundary.)

There wasn't too much difference in the non-special squares between the two locations. The jungle location had two more swamp squares whereas the river location had a hill and a plains square. The rest were hills, plains, and forest for both.

I opted for the jungle location, going for long-term potential. However by the time it really got going I was a little behind in techs to two of the AI civs. (Since my region had a lot of mountains, growth of my other 5 cities was pretty slow, so I fell behind the civs that had more and larger cities.) That screwed up my original intention to be first to gunpowder and destroy the three nearby civs early. It also cost me Adam Smith's (which I love) and Magellan's (which is nice).

I'm wondering if I should have chosen the river site to get a faster start. What do you guys think?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Campo (edited June 26, 2000).]</font>

[Bohlen]

Finding the perfect spot for a SSC is what keeps me playing SP and sometimes you have to look for just the right spot for it. Although sometimes you'll find an acceptable spot within the first 10 turns or so, there are times when a better spot is needed or desired.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, but nonetheless, I would have probably settled for the two special spot on grassland. Sure a 4 special location is awesome, but if it takes too long for the city to grow to a size where it can work all 4 specials and still grow, then it is not worth it. Everyone has their own idea of what takes "too long" for a city to grow to the size that you need it, so it's really up to the player how much of a delay in growth they are willing to take. I'd be willing to bet that you'll end up killing the dumb AI off anyway.

------------------
Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance

[Campo]

JPK:
"I would curse the unfairness of it all"

That I did!

"You don't mention whether you changed the jungle square to grassland prior to building the city"

No, I didn't. I had already been wandering too long and was afraid I'd get beaten to Colossus if I didn't start the city soon.

"My query is: Why wasn't your capitol or second city good enough for a science city?"

The capital city had only one special (banana) and the second city too many hills and mountains. (It had peat and iron though, so it was a good production city.) And of course I didn't know yet what to expect elsewhere -- I figured I'd find a decent 2 or 3-special city with more grassland or at least plains. The more turns that went by, the more I became "compelled" to find a great spot.

"The great advantage of using your capitol for the science city is that you lose nothing to corruption."

That was indeed a problem. My final site was at the edge of my region, so I had to build a courthouse ASAP and even then lost arrows to corruption for quite a while.

So you both would have taken the grassland river. Guess I chose wrong.

When I lost Adam Smith's I thought about going back and restarting from the science city placement turn using the river square, and replaying to see how it turned out. The trouble is that you can't really do that untainted, since you know too much about the map.

[Civ-wrecked]

If you have another settler to spare then you can get one settler to irrigate the jungle square while the other settler builds the SSC city immediately, without waiting for the irrigation to complete. Then your SSC can be established right away, but just a little handicapped at first before the irrigation is completed. After that, you can have the best of both worlds .
Sometimes when I expect to be attacked then I get one settler to mine a wine/hill square while another builds a city on it. After the mining is completed I have one hell of a good and well-defended city. It's also easier to protect the mining settler that way since he won't be killed with the defender as in a regular stack. Great strategy in a contested region to get the AI to waste tons of units on it.

[jpk]

I would curse the unfairness of it all and then choose the grassland river square.

The problem with the jungle square is you spend tons of turns changing the jungle into grassland. During all those moves you are getting little or nothing in the way of science. You don't mention whether you changed the jungle square to grassland prior to building the city but in either case it's too many turns to waste.

My query is: Why wasn't your capitol or second city good enough for a science city? The great advantage of using your capitol for the science city is that you lose nothing to corruption. Prior to building a road between you science city and the capitol, the corruption may be horrible. But in a mountainous land it is time comsuming to build the roads.

[Campo]

You're saying that I could have put one settler on the square and told it to start irrigating, then immediately have another settler build a city on that square? And the first settler would finish irrigating even after the city was founded?

I never knew that was possible. I don't suppose it works after the city has already been founded?

But wait -- doesn't founding a city automatically irrigate the city square?

[SCG]

quote: But wait -- doesn't founding a city automatically irrigate the city square?

it does only if it doesn't change the terrain type. Hills, tundras, deserts etc will get irrigation. Forests, jungles and swamps have their terrain change with irrigation so they don't get irrigated.

[Scouse Gits]

You might also have considered giving your SSc a running start by building a couple of extra settlers in your initial cities and B-ing them into the SSC.

Not relevent here, but worth remembering - the city auto irrigate can be a pain particularly if you choose to build upon a hill (mountain) so here it is essential to start a settler mining and then before it finishes (this is essential) get a second settler to found a city on top of the miner.

You can get a great city by building on (mined) Wine.



------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

[Paul]

You can irrigate swamps and jungles to grassland after you build a city on them. The same goes for forest to plains. I assume you can also mine grass or plain to forest, but I never saw the need to do that.

[Ming]

SG... have you tried the mining trick in MP yet. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that trick works in MP... Just asking

Paul, in double production MP games, mining plains squares is a great way to boost production, and increase the defense of a city. In most DP MP games, I will always mine grassland or plains city squares when I have a free settler to do it. It really helps when another player finds you, and you have a good defensive position



[This message has been edited by Ming (edited June 27, 2000).]

[jpk]

I tend to be fussy about my starting location. As a result I often give up around 3500 BC and start over. Before I do so I try to guess which square was the best possible location for a city from those that are visible. Then, using the cheat menu, I reveal the entire map and see whether my guess was accurate. The value of doing this is that you get practice in guessing that is the best likely location for a city.

Four special locations with the central square a river grassland square are very nice when you can find them. It is my experience that if such locations exist at all they are often far from the starting location. Sometimes your science city just isn't going to be that great. Make up for it by building delivering even more trade caravans. I apologize for being a one trick pony.

[Campo]

"it does only if it doesn't change the terrain type."

"building a couple of extra settlers in your initial cities and B-ing them into the SSC."

"You can irrigate swamps and jungles to grassland after you build a city"

It's amazing what I learn from this board. I wish I could remember all of it when I'm playing. Thanks for the suggestions.

[Civ-wrecked]

I didn't know that I could still irrigate and change the terrain after a city is built. I'm sure that I cannot mine a hill after a city is built on it (at least, I tried so many times and couldn't figure out a way to do it) but I haven't checked the irrigation.

[Ming]

I've been able to mine grasslands and plains to convert them to forest or hills... I've also been able to irrigate swamp and jungle.
The command menu works like a charm.

But, I've never been able to mine a hill.

[Scouse Gits]

I have just fired up a seven player hot-seat game to test this out - I am assuming that the behaviour is identical in 'real' MP.

The rule seems to be as follows:

If the square can be irrigated genuinely (plain, grass, hill) building a city performs auto-irrigation and further irrigation is not possible

If the square can support a real mine (hill, mountain) building a city prevents this from being done.

Otherwise, whatever pseudo function the I and m keys perform (such as transforming jungle to grass) is legitimate and possible after a city has been built.

Cunning Stunt: If a mine is started (but not completed) on a hill/mountain and then a city founded (by a second settler) upon this - the mine completes normally and the city enjoys the proceeds. Warning: if the mine is allowed to complete - building the city irrigates the hill and thus destroys the mine (not tried it on a mountain [that can't be irrigated] so not sure what happens here)

Hope this helps, good civin'

Edit: for typo and to add this 'note in proof' as you will gather from our recently unveiled home-page we are now on-line in our respective homes -- once we can get away from the exhorbitant call charges look out for the SGs seeking some MP experience.
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited June 27, 2000).]