Where do I start my next city

Zardos · February 13, 2002, 17:54

Attached you'll see that I have a big decision I need to make...where do I start my next city?

Zardos

Aeson · February 13, 2002, 18:33

I like to keep to a strict spacing pattern wherever possible. Temporary cities could always be built inbetween, and later disbanded.

Purest Warrior · February 14, 2002, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
I like to keep to a strict spacing pattern wherever possible. Temporary cities could always be built inbetween, and later disbanded.

What do you mean ny strict spacing pattern? I remember seeing an attached image, somewhere, from one of your games and that was indeed strict. Even the naming!

I worry about you - I worry a lot!

But do you mean no leftover tiles or no overlapping city tiles?

Purest Warrior · February 14, 2002, 03:08

Just took a look at the map w/ numbers and that kind of clarifies it for me.

Worthingtons · February 14, 2002, 04:59

THe map with numbers is almost identical to the placement i'd follow too..

Harovan · February 14, 2002, 05:33

Many people strive for this pattern, including me too. It has maximal city space with minimal overlap (0-2 tiles per city). It's not that easy to apply on non-huge maps though, and sometimes I allow minimal changes to build my cities near rivers, or have one more harbor.

Skanky Burns · February 14, 2002, 06:28

No matter what type of placement you go for, your next city near number 1 would be your best bet. That much food potential can only help your civ

Purple · February 14, 2002, 11:42

Site 1 is the best, all other things being equal. But 3 might be a contender depending on what's hidden in the lower righthand corner. If it's an isthmus leading to more land with nearby AI, it might be better to block it as soon as possible.

Ironikinit · February 14, 2002, 14:44

Aeson's site #1 is the place for the next city. That's a certifiable no brainer.

Arrian · February 14, 2002, 15:06

Personally, I agree that you should go for the food-rich site.

-Arrian

Edit: I suggested building it in a different spot than #1, but I looked again and I was wrong. Go w/#1, no question.

Ironikinit · February 14, 2002, 16:21

That map really lends itself to a nice tight pattern. I might personally upgrade #3 to #2 in order to get that ivory into the road net.

Er, of course by the time that you plant the city there your culture boundry might overtake the ivory anyway. Jinx on anybody who points that out while I'm editing...

Aeson · February 14, 2002, 16:22

One other suggestion I would make in this situation. Don't build any infrastructure in Thebes. Just keep building settlers/warriors/workers there, and eventually disband Thebes to get a Palace jump to city 2. Just make sure city 2 is the only one size 3+ at the time you disband Thebes and it should center your capitol quite nicely.

star mouse · February 14, 2002, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Purest Warrior
But do you mean no leftover tiles or no overlapping city tiles?

It is mathematically impossible to achieve both goals simultaneously because the 21-square "fat X" does not tile the plane. The best that can be done is to take away one of the corner tiles because that 20-square shape does tile the plane.

As for the original question:

I would build the second city on the #1 city site (the one with the cows). Send a worker there with the settler and start mining the cow square next to the city. This city will be able to produce settlers more quickly than the other sites, thus giving the fastest colonisation speed.

Marquis de Sodaq · February 15, 2002, 11:10

While I'm not at all strict about precision city placement, the tile marked 1 is the best place to go. Work the cattle, you can roll out settlers for the other spots.

My only objection to site 2 is that is would need irrigation in order to later use all of its tiles (hills). I would consider putting two cities in the center of your landmass.

Dry · February 15, 2002, 12:17

Without a temple (re: in expansion phase), on site #1, you have access only to 1 cow.
If you build a temporary city on the grassland just midway between #1 and #2, you have access to 2 cattles and 1 game: most juicy place for a settler/spearman city.
And this temp city does not forbid you to build later city #1 and city #2.
I would go for this grassland tile.

Arrian · February 15, 2002, 12:51

Yes, but he's playing the Egyptians, who are religious. A city at #1 can quickly build a temple (or even rush it if needed) to expand its borders.

-Arrian

Thrawn05 · February 15, 2002, 13:46

I'd follow the numbers also. But I would move number 1 just a space to the left. Those three cows and hay stack would make a killer place for a city to churn out settlers!

Cairo_East · February 17, 2002, 21:57

I'd go with number 2. I like my second city to be resource-ready, so that I can produce some units if someone tries to attack me early in the game. The net production rate of a settler in site 1 or 2 is about even, so you can keep expanding quickly to site 1 and 4. But then, I could be completely wrong.

Aeson · February 18, 2002, 01:19

The only problem with site 2 is that if a city wasn't already founded at site 1 the cultural borders wouldn't include the game along the river.