A puzzle - where to put the 1st city in this game

Dimension · July 15, 2002, 17:14

I just started up a new game with China and got a pretty interesting location. My settler is standing right on top of cattle. Obviously that 3 food is pretty important for your first city, so I don't want to build right on top of it and scare the cows away, but I'm also on a river, next to an ocean, have two immediately workable grassland/shield squares, and will be able to work a whale square when my culture expands.

What would you do? Just build on the cattle afterall?

Moving up a square is a good idea, because you still get access to the river and the coast, and can initially work the cattle and one grassland/shield square, and your worker could immediately start improving the cattle square... but then the city will not have access to the whales, and building the city will pop the hut. Maybe it's just bad luck, but every time I've ever popped a hut by building a city, the hut is empty.

Or you could move the worker onto the hill to see what's around. You could move the settler to he hill and start improving the cattle square. You could move the worker down and see if the two revealed squares made you want to build your city one square down.

Would you want to build on the river? That lets your cities expand beyond six, right? I haven't played in awhile, so maybe that's only when you build next to a freshwater lake. Would you just not worry about the river, then irrigate the cattle and pump out settlers as fast as possible?

Anyway, I just wanted to see what other people's thoughts were.

Dimension · July 15, 2002, 17:16

here's the savegame

Lawrence of Arabia · July 15, 2002, 17:18

I would move across the river and found it there on the Grassland with shield. (one square right)

The_Hawk · July 15, 2002, 17:25

Personally, I would move one square above the Settler's current position. This is where I would build. The hut is empty, so you should be OK, depending on what setting you use for Barbarians. I'd build a military unit quickly and then see if you can get some gold or science in that empty tribe. The cattle gives you a food bonus, which makes it good to mine on that tile and the river tiles will allow your worker to irrigate and build roads. The 2 hill tiles (one adjacent to the city tile I refer to, and the other to its left) will make good production squares once mined.) If this is your first city, you've lucked out. This should be an extremely productive city that grows fast, kicks out some settlers for you, and eventually land you some key Wonders.

Good luck!

Blake · July 15, 2002, 17:35

You could build your first city directely above the cattle, and a later one directely below the cattle, where it can get the whale. Thats close, but not unbearably so.

Moving across the river to the shielded grassland is also a good choice, you'll get better production earlier. But building up you'll have better final production, with that nice mix of grassland and hills.

Note also the tribe will automatically be explored when you build next to it, no need for a unit.

Konquest02 · July 15, 2002, 18:59

I'd build one square up of your starting position. This would allow you to still get the cattle (therefore to produce settlers faster), you'll have 2 hills for iron/salpeter later and also have an access to ocean.

As said previously, building your city near the tribe will automatically explore it, saving time. If you get barbs, well, too bad, you'll lose 10 gold and your worker (probably...)

That is a pretty good setting, I wish I had one like this on my last game!

--Kon--

Aeson · July 15, 2002, 19:20

You can't get barbs from a hut if it is opened by the founding of your first city. You also can't get a Settler that way either.

I would build one tile north. Much better to cover up a shielded grassland than a cow.

FrustratedPoet · July 15, 2002, 19:21

don't build where you are. I don't really like moving my settler at the start of a game, but wasting that cattle would be worse.

Moving one square north, like most people have said, looks like a good plan, but you might also want to consider moving one square NW - onto the hill. That would give you the advantage of the defensive bonus (while still having access to the cattle and 2 shielded grassland), but it would take you away from the coast. I think that is a decent trade-off.
It looks like there will be jungle to the NW of that goody-hut and my plan would cut the risk of getting half your city radius covered in jungle and giving you more access to the hills (iron!) and grassland that appear to be to the west of your settler.

Take a screenshot of the next turn and let us know what you did. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

Thoth · July 15, 2002, 19:36

I'd build on the shielded grass just to your north. It costs a turn plus a potential shield until you reach size 6, but with the food from the cattle it won't be a problem to work a mined hill and still get decent growth even as a despotism.

First I'd step my worker up onto the hill for a look around. You're not likely to see anything to cause you to move, but I'd risk the two worker turns just in case.

All in all, I'd say you've got an excellent starting location. With the food bonus, river, whale and a couple of rivered hills it looks to me like an excellent spot for a Colossus backed Super Science/Trade city.

Let us know how the game goes.

Dimension · July 16, 2002, 00:50

After thinking about it for awhile, it's not like your first city really needs a harbor badly, so I would consider building on the hill to the northwest, but I think I'd probably just build directly north like Hawk, Blake, Konquest and Thoth said.

I played the game for awhile (building directly to the north), and it actually turned out to be a very poor starting area. I was stuck on a peninsula with a massive wall of jungle to the north. The closest resource was a wheat 6 moves west. The next closest grassland/shield was 5 moves away. The only other resource special on the peninsula was a single wheat 11 moves down. It actually would've been a good idea to build on that hill like FrustratedPoet said, because with all that Jungle to the north (along with the Russans and Indians), there was no place for initial expansion other than south and west. Building on the hill would save a number of turns spent crossing the river.

Anyway, I'll try not to consider that information, but I'm really wondering why Lawrence and Aeson -- good players that I think everybody here respects -- suggest covering up the grassland to the northeast. You're sacrificing a grassland/shield/river square to gain access to a whale. The grassland/shield/river produces 2/1/1 with no improvements and 2/2/2 with a road/mine. The whale produces 2/1/2 with no improvement. Is it worth covering up the grassland to get a little more gold? Is there something I'm missing? Like Blake mentioned, you can later build a city to the south and still get to the whale.

Aeson · July 16, 2002, 01:46

Oops. I said north, and meant north. Just was under the impression that it was a shielded grassland for some reason.

FrustratedPoet · July 16, 2002, 04:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension
I played the game for awhile (building directly to the north), and it actually turned out to be a very poor starting area. I was stuck on a peninsula with a massive wall of jungle to the north. It actually would've been a good idea to build on that hill like FrustratedPoet said, because with all that Jungle to the north (along with the Russans and Indians), there was no place for initial expansion other than south and west. Building on the hill would save a number of turns spent crossing the river.

/me puts on a smug "I-told-you-so" expression.

It's a shame it didn't work out for you. Keep us posted and let us know who the game goes and if you get very far with it.

Lawrence of Arabia · July 16, 2002, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension

Anyway, I'll try not to consider that information, but I'm really wondering why Lawrence and Aeson -- good players that I think everybody here respects -- suggest covering up the grassland to the northeast. You're sacrificing a grassland/shield/river square to gain access to a whale. The grassland/shield/river produces 2/1/1 with no improvements and 2/2/2 with a road/mine. The whale produces 2/1/2 with no improvement. Is it worth covering up the grassland to get a little more gold? Is there something I'm missing? Like Blake mentioned, you can later build a city to the south and still get to the whale.

The Whale+Sea is 2/1/3
Whale+Sea+Harbor is 3/2/3

There is more food and gold in the whale then with the Grassland (if I'm doing it right

)

Now lets take a look at the city when it reaches size three and also has over 10 culture.

Whale Square: 2/1/3 (no improvements)
Cow: 4/1/1 (no improvements)
City Square: 2/2/2 (or is it 3 commerce because it is on a river?)
Total Output: 8/4/6

If you irrigate the cow, you get 5/1/1 (very likely since you have a worker)
Total Output: 9/4/6

Your city will grow fast, have lots of gold. Later on, you can slow down its growth and increase shield output by mining the hills and by making roads there

Lawrence of Arabia · July 16, 2002, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimension

Anyway, I'll try not to consider that information, but I'm really wondering why Lawrence and Aeson -- good players that I think everybody here respects -- suggest covering up the grassland to the northeast. You're sacrificing a grassland/shield/river square to gain access to a whale. The grassland/shield/river produces 2/1/1 with no improvements and 2/2/2 with a road/mine. The whale produces 2/1/2 with no improvement. Is it worth covering up the grassland to get a little more gold? Is there something I'm missing? Like Blake mentioned, you can later build a city to the south and still get to the whale.

The Whale+Sea is 2/1/3
Whale+Sea+Harbor is 3/2/3

There is more food and gold in the whale then with the Grassland (if I'm doing it right

)

Now lets take a look at the city when it reaches size three and also has over 10 culture.

Whale Square: 2/1/3 (no improvements)
Cow: 4/1/1 (no improvements)
City Square: 2/2/2 (or is it 3 commerce because it is on a river?)
Total Output: 8/4/6

If you irrigate the cow, you get 5/1/1 (very likely since you have a worker)
Total Output: 9/4/6
------------
EDIT:
If you mine the cow, you get 4/2/1 (very likely since you have a worker)
Total Output: 8/5/6
------------
Your city will grow fast, have lots of gold. Later on, you can slow down its growth and increase shield output by mining the hills and by making roads there

BTW, thanks for the complement Dimension.
(also check the math because if I'm wrong, then I want to be corrected.

)

phunny_pharmer · July 16, 2002, 13:11

Move south. Work your first guy on the cow. When your borders expand, you get the whale, two grass/shields, and a bunch of hills.

The hills will provide the shields when equipped with mines. The grasslands will provide the food to keep the people working on the hills...

Of course, you lose the free aqueduct if you build there...

Incan_Warrior · July 16, 2002, 14:10

The first thing he should do is move that worker onto the hill for a better view - I know this is common sense, but it isn't in the attachment. I think (even with Frustrated Poet's revelation) most people would still build on the northern hill or the northern flatland. Avoiding the acqueduct build by building on the river is a major boon to your civ, and near essential if you want the GL in the ancient era (a 7 pop capitol with mined squares can do this on Regent easily).