initial city positioning

sabrewolf · July 16, 2002, 08:50

hey there

i noticed fairly early, that the AI places its first city on the spot it appers. while i usually feel like moving mine away (don't cover bonus resource tiles, access to sea if possible).

how about you guys? how many moves in average to found your first city?

dunk · July 16, 2002, 16:43

I will almost always move to the shore. I hate being one tile away from the water.

Jawa Jocky · July 16, 2002, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by dunk
I will almost always move to the shore. I hate being one tile away from the water.

I'm the exact opposite. I'd move it farther inland one tile. IMO, Having a capital on the shore lowers the # of possible low corruption cities since you can't build in the water. Pack those cities in around your Capital and FP and you'll notice the benifit in one complete game.

The_Hawk · July 16, 2002, 18:45

I find that where I place my Capital is so critical, I might move a turn or 2 to find the optimum spot. It all depends somewhat on the difficulty level. The harder the difficulty level, IMO, the quicker you need to plant and deal with it. If you get a bad spot, just start over till you get a game you can live with.

vondrack · July 16, 2002, 19:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
I'm the exact opposite. I'd move it farther inland one tile. IMO, Having a capital on the shore lowers the # of possible low corruption cities since you can't build in the water. Pack those cities in around your Capital and FP and you'll notice the benifit in one complete game.

Does moving the capital one tile inland improve the corruption problem noticeably for you? You still end up more or less on the shore, without actually enjoying the benefit of being on the shore... or am I missing something?

Cort Haus · July 17, 2002, 04:50

If the first tile has two shielded grass by it then I'll take it and get the (ind) worker to road & mine those two immediately. Otherwise I'll get the worker to nip up a hill/mountain first move and check out the view. I'll rarely move more than one square and never restart. Even desert, mountain, & jungle starts can be good for resources later.

sabrewolf · September 28, 2002, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
If the first tile has two shielded grass by it then I'll take it and get the (ind) worker to road & mine those two immediately. Otherwise I'll get the worker to nip up a hill/mountain first move and check out the view. I'll rarely move more than one square and never restart. Even desert, mountain, & jungle starts can be good for resources later.

i try never to build a city on a shielded grassland, because you'll lose that bonus with a city. same thing for bonus resources.

you're right, desert, mountains and jungle can contain important resources, but they come a lot later (except iron). so if i build my capital in a big desert, it'll take centuries to build the first settler. by then the AI-civs probably have several cities and you've got an unacceptable backlog.

i once played a game where i started in a gigantic desert (at least 8 tiles in every direction!!). fortunatly there was a river (--> food plains), i would have restarted otherwise

Datajack Franit · September 29, 2002, 18:14

I agree with Sabrewolf-it's like building a city on the top of an iron source, you'll just waste the shield bonus and there's no way to prevent it from depleting. The only good thing about it could be that in this way your opponents can't destroy the road/rail on it.

If I start on a good position but even only one tile away from the sea I just get so angry that I trash the game

I could move to the coast, but playing at monarch... that's not a smart idea, wasting a turn while building the GL or the Pyramids is just bad

Just place your city on a crappy tile near a river, later in the game you won't need an aqueduct and you'll have the chance of building the hoover dam and a nuclear power plant

War4ever · September 29, 2002, 22:39

i build wherever i start as well....unless i play expansionist and move my scout and uncover terrain which will make up for the time delay.

Thoth · September 30, 2002, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I agree with Sabrewolf-it's like building a city on the top of an iron source, you'll just waste the shield bonus and there's no way to prevent it from depleting. The only good thing about it could be that in this way your opponents can't destroy the road/rail on it.

This is incorrect. You still recieve production/trade bonuses from building on a bonus tile. Also, I've taken to building on shielded grasslands when I'm playing Industrious Civs.

If you build on an unshielded grassland (or any other terrain tile that normally does not produce a shield) you will recieve a bonus shield in the city square. This replaces the bonus shield you would normally recieve as a city (size 7).

IE: City #1 is built on an unshielded grassland. The centre tile will produce one shield until the town becomes a city. It will then produce two shields.

City #2 is built on shielded grasslands. The centre tile will still only produce one shield until the town becomes a city. The centre tile will then produse three shields (one for the base square, one for the city bonus, and one for the Industrious city bonus).

(On topic)
I'll normally build in the starting location, or within a move or two if there is an obvious reason to move. If I really don't like the location........Shift-Control-Q.

Torkkeli · September 30, 2002, 04:41

Usually I build it where I start unless there is a hill next to me, when I send the worker there to uncover more areas of the map. If something worth moving is found, move. Else if not on a bonus tile build city where started.

Tiberius · September 30, 2002, 06:32

I voted "move it one or two fields away until i like it", but it really depends on how the terrain is. If the terrain is OK, I build it right there, on the first spot.

Thoth is right. You don't lose the bonus if you build on resources.

SanPellegrino · September 30, 2002, 12:26

I think moving 1 or 2 spots to a good positoin makes up for the time loss

jshelr · September 30, 2002, 13:06

I think that if you add up all the costs of fooling around, an immediate start looks like the best choice most times.

I've been restarting too much lately, but usually only after a few turns to really find out what the land looks like. I respect the folks who take what they are given and do the best they can.

Did you know that there is programming in the game that gives you even worse starting postitions if you abandon too many games on the first turn?

zeh · September 30, 2002, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by jshelr
Did you know that there is programming in the game that gives you even worse starting postitions if you abandon too many games on the first turn?

Are you sure about this? I really never heard about this mecanism.
Do you have a link for some thread talking about this?

jshelr · September 30, 2002, 13:54

That's my twisted idea of a joke.

zeh · September 30, 2002, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by jshelr
That's my twisted idea of a joke.

A smile like

will do fine as a tip for readers at the end of jokes.

Datajack Franit · September 30, 2002, 18:17

Oh I didn't knew that

I always play with the germans btw

Still wondering why romans are ALWAYS the weakest in every single game I play

Solomyr · September 30, 2002, 18:28

i just take the land i am given and go with it. i have restarted a few times a little into the game. when i realize i am in the middle of a juggle surrounded by mountains, on a thin penninsula, that's when i restart. i like to be competitive, and games where i am getting my butt kicked just ain't no fun.

sabrewolf · September 30, 2002, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Still wondering why romans are ALWAYS the weakest in every single game I play

rome is usually quite a powerful civ (militaristic, very strong UU). probably you've got the "culturally linked starting positions" on, so you're always near the romans. and because you're probably playing on a to east level for you, they never get a chance to get strong.

try playing on a higher level or remove the culturally linked starting positions.

im most of my games (mainly standard world size, sometimes small or a little larger than standard) usually the civs with the most "useless" traits for these sizes (expansionist, commercial) are the weakest: iroquois, english, american, zulu, russia.

Datajack Franit · October 1, 2002, 10:52

Sabrewolf, I never play at a level below monarch- culturally linked positions is always off, and I noticed that romans just stop developing new wonders after the Oracle.
Most of the time I even give them aluminum and rubber as a gift, just because they usually get trashed by someone.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong choosing tough opponents? I always play on large, continents, wet, warm, 4 billions with Egypt, France, Rome, Persia and Greece.

(in the last turn I used 34 nukes against the greeks and was so damn fun!

)

sabrewolf · October 1, 2002, 18:36

datajack: sorry, i thought that could be the reason. many settlers here play on levels they always win - i personally prefer the challenge, even if it means losing some games (well usually giving up, when "the end is nigh"

)

but back to you: strange, i don't what else it could be

rome may be wasting it's ancient powers on the greek phalanx, getting toasted by persian immortals or be outbuilt by the reliogious industialist egyptians... i don't know.

uhm... why don't you try varying the combination?

laissez-faire · October 2, 2002, 02:11

I agree. I usually find Rome to be quite aggressive and powerful early. In my current game, they came knocking early, demanding Iron. I refused, and 10-12 horseman immediately took one of my iron-yielding cities. Of course, that was the same turn the GL gave me Chivalry (and thus Riders). Approximately 8-10 turns later, there was only one small blip of red left on my map.

No one likes a bully, Caesar.

This coming to you from another Monarch-or-better Settler.

And I usually build my capital on the 1st turn 60% of the time and 2nd turn the other 40%.

Datajack Franit · October 2, 2002, 14:10

I'd like to do so Sabrewolf, but I'm already waiting for CIV:PTW- then.. spanish, arabs.. it will be so damn fun!

Btw I'll give the boot to Cleo and the happy french, let's hope it will be better- but what I found astonishing is that Rome ALWAYS start on crap maps! In the previous games I had they started: on a small island away from the pangea, on tundra, desert, jungle and desert again

Explorer579 · October 2, 2002, 20:32

It is preferable to build the first city in the first turn. However, I may delay it a turn or two until I find a tile that has at least 2 food resources around it (cattle, weat, fish, grassland, games, or river). Because if I don't have food, my city will never grow!

My strategy is to move the worker (or scout if any) looking for such a tile. I then move the settler there.

If by the third turn I did not find it, I am most probably doomed. It would be a very challenging game. I keep playing though. Because the promised land may be few blocks around me for my second city or I enjoy watching my butt kicked by other civilizations

civjunkie · October 2, 2002, 23:21

If I happen to start next to a hill with gold, I build my 1st city on top of it. Instant wealth, and great defence to boot.

Solomyr · October 3, 2002, 18:24

it's interesting that we are talking about this, or that in the newest game i started, i moved 2 spaces to get a better position. honestly, i think i made the right decision, seeing as how i was in a much more secure position to pump out settlers. of course, i only got 4 cities made before i had start picking on the Japaneese and the Chinese, and am now on my way to world domination. looks like after this game i will be moving up a level and playing at emperor

of course, i probably should study at some point...

sabrewolf · November 23, 2002, 20:30

(bump)

because it's brought up again in another thread...

Robber Baron · November 23, 2002, 20:40

Usually (~67% of the time) I settle right where I find myself. I always send out my worker 1 square for looksee first, and if there's a compelling site 1 turn away, I'll shift over a tile (~33%) of the time. But I never delay further. At monarch+ level, the human player simply cannot afford to delay production.

sabrewolf · November 23, 2002, 20:54

robber baron,
even if your position sucks?
aeson calculated that you need at least 2 tiles with (potential) 2 food, otherwise you lose 10 turns for the growth of the settler. so basicly in that case it's worth moving up to 10 tiles (!)

on monarch and higher the AI anyway has an advantage. e.g. at deity his production costs 60% of yours. so a settler costs 24 shields instead of 30... a major difference in the early game on maps like standard or smaller.