Placing cities on hill squares to maximize tile radius

Artifex · April 6, 2002, 21:49

Is this ok or are hill squares to be avoided if possible? I have a capital city in my current game that is surrounded by all grassland and wehat squares major growth city. The next city will have to be placed on a hill square in order for me not to cut into my capital cities squares. Is this a bad idea? Shousl I place it on grassland at the cost of cutting into a few of my capital cities squares. hmmm.. I am stumped.

Coracle · April 6, 2002, 21:54

I think wherever you buld a town you get the same production. Which is weird.

Artifex · April 6, 2002, 22:16

hmm so even on a mountain? hmm I'll have to test that out. I guess in that case it is benificial to place cities on the worst possible tile (mountains).

notyoueither · April 6, 2002, 22:20

Coracle is correct that you get the same result from any base terrain.

Settle on the hill if that is the best place. Just remember that you will get more shields from a mined hill later. If you are short on hills you might want to reconsider.

BTW. It is proably better overall if you allow for minimal overlap. Let the capitol have nearly all squares. The first ring loses all possible squares to the capitol, but they get all squares further out. The next ring, same thing, and so on. Like the ripples moving out from the stone dropped in the pond. This arrangement with 3 or 4 tiles between cities will reduce corruption for more cities.

ixnay · April 6, 2002, 22:23

You cannot put cities on mountains.

notyoueither · April 6, 2002, 22:23

No not Mountain. You can build a city anywhere else, but not on Mountain. The game doesn't allow it.

Yes, the Tundra square is better than the Grassland square near the poles. The Desert square is a better city site than the Plains square. etc.

Coracle · April 7, 2002, 00:39

Just thought of this. . .

How come there are no swamps in Civ III??

Aeson · April 7, 2002, 00:51

If you build on a gold hill you get the commerce bonus. Building on a Fur tile gives an extra production.

notyoueither · April 7, 2002, 00:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Just thought of this. . .

How come there are no swamps in Civ III??

Because the designers knew you, in particular, would be annoyed by the omission. I've heard they lost 2 whole days of work to remove them.

Aeson · April 7, 2002, 03:53

I just built a city on a Fur resource, no extra production. I'm reasonably certain that it did give the extra production in 1.16f. Gold Hills still give their commerce bonus in 1.17f.

Purple · April 7, 2002, 14:59

The defense bonus makes hills excellent city sites.

nbarclay · April 7, 2002, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
I just built a city on a Fur resource, no extra production. I'm reasonably certain that it did give the extra production in 1.16f. Gold Hills still give their commerce bonus in 1.17f.

I got a bit of a surprise in my first 1.17f game when building a city on a cattle tile didn't give it any extra food, since it had in 1.16f. It's actually more realistic this way, but finding out about that sort of rules change the hard way can be a bit annoying.

Nathan