Tips on city positioning.

[Herr Gutentauben]

I've love civ 4 for years. I got civ 4 complete long ago and this sale I decided to get it on steam..

But I've always had a problem. I am absolutely retarded when it goes down to positioning in the map. I can't really identify what a good base spot is and I tend to lose resources because of it. (I just had a gold mine unreachable from the production area of my cities)

Any guide or tips I could get?

[CHE]

I don't understand what you want to know exactly, but I'll write some general advice for you:

Your cities can only benefit from the food, hammers & commerce (coins) of resources by founding cities with those resources inside the 20 squares of the "big fat cross" around each of your cities. The "big fat cross" is the shape that you get after a city has its first cultural expansion.

I suggest you build cities on rivers and/or coastal tiles if you can. I also suggest you try to found cities where they can get 1 or more food resources within their "big fat cross", and preferably other resources, too.

I also highly recommend founding cities in forested areas. Once you have the "Bronze Working" technology, you can use workers to chop down forests, and this gives a one time boost of hammers to your nearest city, speeding its production of whatever it is producing at the time. The closer those forests are to one of your cities, the more hammers that city will receive from that chop. NB: this only applies to forests, NOT jungles. Jungles require the "Iron Working" technology to chop down, and give no one time boost of hammers to any of your cities.

If you start a game at 4,000BC, then founding cities to grab horses and copper and/or iron is very useful for your military. (You need certain technologies to see certain resources on the map - e.g. Animal Handling to see horses.)

Also, founding cities, especially early on, where you can grab gold, silver and/or gems is very useful - you can mine them once you have the early technology of "Mining" (some Civilizations even start with this technology), and these 3 resources give plenty of commerce, which helps your science rate - especially beneficial early in the game, when civilizations have few other ways to get much commerce or beakers (science points), and when technologies require fewer beakers than they do later in the game.

If you want to build walls (and later castles) and cathedrals and certain wonders, then the Stone resource will enable you to build them 2x as fast.

Each resource requires a certain technology to access. You can see what technology it is by hovering your mouse cursor over the resource on the map - or by looking up the resource in the Civilopedia. The "Calendar" technology is required for some resources. This technology could take you a while to get (it's further along in the technology tree than Agriculture, Animal Handling, Mining, Masonry, etc.), so I suggest you prioritise other, easier-to-access resources for your earliest cities.

[Herr Gutentauben]

Thanks, about research... Is it OK to focus in researching every minor tech like bronze working, agriculture, hunt, etc before moving forward to the modern age or should I move forward asap?

What I meant with the waste of gold is that I wasn't able to locate a city in a spot where the fat cross could reach it. It was in my cultural frontiers but out of reach for commerce.

And how many cities should I aim for in the early game? I always try to produce a worker in a new city asap.... But I'm never sure about how many settlers to create.

[CHE]

Originally posted by Dr Kappa:

Thanks, about research... Is it OK to focus in researching every minor tech like bronze working, agriculture, hunt, etc before moving forward to the modern age or should I move forward asap?

What I meant with the waste of gold is that I wasn't able to locate a city in a spot where the fat cross could reach it. It was in my cultural frontiers but out of reach for commerce.

And how many cities should I aim for in the early game? I always try to produce a worker in a new city asap.... But I'm never sure about how many settlers to create.

I play at Noble difficulty, and I don't have a lot of difficulty against the AI civs. And my way of dealing with technology is this: I get most early techs before later ones, but I do a bit of focussing on later techs before getting earlier ones....

E.g. I often prioritise getting metal casting early in my games, because I like forges for their production boost for everything I produce in that city from then on, I like the way they enable me to make a citizen into an Engineer Specialist to get Great Engineer Great Person points, and I like how they increase the happiness that my people already get if I have access to gold, silver and/or gems (and I like triremes to get a significant advantage in ancient naval combat).

E.g. if I have a significant number of resources unlocked by Calendar, then I usually prioritise getting Calendar early in my game.

E.g. if I want a certain later religion, such as Taoism or Christianity, then I usually prioritise getting the appropriate tech for that religion. And regardless of whether or not one gets Christianity's "Theology" tech first, that tech also allows one to build the "Apostolic Palace" Wonder, which I certainly prioritise in my games. You see, being the one who controls the Apostolic Palace has significant benefits in diplomacy and strategy. Even simply ensuring that one has the religion of the Apostolic Palace means that one's religious buildings for that religion each produce +2 hammers (e.g. 1 church + 1 monastery + 1 cathedral in a city would give you +6 hammers in that city)!

As for gold - yes, the gold resource is much more useful if you ensure that you found one of your cities close enough for the gold to be in one of your cities' "big fat crosses".

As for settlers, well, like everything else in the game, it's a matter of personal choice - there are many paths to victory in this game - many play styles, and even many victory types (diplomatic victories, cultural victories, space race victories, domination victories, conquest victories and time victories).

Some people prefer to focus on spreading out a lot, while others prefer to only have a few very high population cities. Some people prefer to play peacefully, others prefer to conquer a lot (I prefer to only fight wars and conquer if someone declares war on me or one of my allies). Some prefer to raze conquered cities (and perhaps fill the empty land by sending their own settlers to found new cities there), others prefer to keep all conquered cities, and others prefer somewhere in between, and perhaps even to give some conquered cities back to their original owners or to someone else.

Some people prefer to have their science slider always at 100%. Others are more flexible about that. Personally, I like to set it as high as possible in the early game, but even in the early game I keep at least 20 gold saved at all times, in case a random event requires some money to benefit or to prevent a problem. Later in the game, once I have built at least 1 money building (e.g. a market), I like to reduce the slider, to benefit more from money buildings. Plus, once I can build culture, if I want to expand any of my cities' cultural boundaries fast, and/or if I have any unhappy cities, then I devote a bit of my commerce to culture. I might even devote a bit of my commerce to espionage, if I see enough benefit from doing so.

So... whether or not you produce a settler and found a new city depends on how you want to play. Do you want to keep your commerce slider at 100% science? If so, then founding a new city might be a problem, because it will mean more city maintenance....

But maybe it is a high priority for you to grab a resource, or control a geographically strategic area before a rival does....

Frankly, I reckon founding more cities might only be a problem for you in achieving eventual victory if this type of thing is happening:

(1) you are founding so many cities that you can't defend your land with what military you have (in that case, I'd suggest prioritising the production of military units more)

or

(2) the maintenance costs are reducing your rate of science research so much that you are dropping behind your rivals and have no way to catch up with them technologically (e.g. you might catch up by trading techs with them);

or

(3) your settler production means you aren't developing your cities with new buildings nor with workers improving the land around them, so each new city is costing you maintenance, but not giving you much benefit.

[Eauxps I. Fourgott]

As far as having resources be workable by cities, the easy way to tell it is this: First, look at the 3x3 square around your settler (this is usually marked for you on the map). Then, for each square there, also take the square(s) that share a border with that square (there should be twelve). Everything in one of these squares will be workable after your first border expansion. After a while this becomes second nature.

As far as research, my personal opinion is that it depends on your situation. I like to just look at the list of techs and say "Which of these do I need now?" Sometimes I'll choose to beeline a later tech (Civil Service comes to mind) and come back to get the earlier techs. Sometimes I'll skip some of the early techs entirely (or at least for ages) if I don't think I need anything from it - this can especially happen with Hunting, Archery, Horseback Riding, and the early religion techs (although the latter are eventually necessary to proceed). The advantage of skipping early techs is that later in the game, if you suddenly discover you need one (like, say, you need Horseback Riding so you can build cavs), you can always go back and research it in one turn with plenty of overflow.

For early expansion, the general trend that I've noticed is this: Civs that expand more in the early game tend to be weaker in the early game, as city maintenance and building all of the settlers/workers/soldiers they need make them less productive. Civs with less cities (especially just one or two) get the early advantage since most penalties won't apply to them (or at least as much) so they can go strong for a long time. However, later in the game, small civs start to become weaker, as one or two cities only have so much potential and this has usually already been reached, while if the larger civs have been able to make it through, they become much much stronger as all of their cities grow more productive and they end up with much more raw research and production power. So in general, choosing not to expand early is only a good idea if you're planning on somehow making your game fairly short. Building a giant civ is difficult early on and you probably won't make it if you're under a lot of pressure from other civs, but if you can get the territory, hold it, and prevent your economy from totally stagnating, then you'll become unstoppable in the late game.

Hope this helps.

[Herr Gutentauben]

Thanks a lot for all this info.

[Purplefairy22]

With regards to your technology question and the same applies to your game plan.

Be good at one thing! wether its money, research, religion, war, diplomacy, culture.

If you're isolated or have real nice neighbours, war probably isn't something you're going to prioritise, therefore
hunting, archery, horseback riding, engineering, guilds, theocracy, would likely be mostly useless to you, just trade for these things instead.
Pointy stick technologies are only good if you're using them!

Focus your efforts, a "jack of all trdes" is a master of none

[CHE]

Originally posted by Purplefairy22:

With regards to your technology question and the same applies to your game plan.

Be good at one thing! wether its money, research, religion, war, diplomacy, culture.

If you're isolated or have real nice neighbours, war probably isn't something you're going to prioritise, therefore
hunting, archery, horseback riding, engineering, guilds, theocracy, would likely be mostly useless to you, just trade for these things instead.
Pointy stick technologies are only good if you're using them!

Focus your efforts, a "jack of all trdes" is a master of none

I take a balanced ("jack of trades") approach, and I enjoy playing this way - and I don't find the game very difficult playing this way. I have seen no evidence that it would be. I specialise certain things withing my civ (e.g. focussing 1 or 2 cities mainly only producing military units, and another mainly on producing Great People), but overall, I take a balanced approach.

[Purplefairy22]

CHE. I have seen in many of your posts you specify that you play at nobel level.
That's fine, whatever pleases you.
(Personally when i play nobel, i'm bored. i know i'll win.)

But.... when you take the difficulty up you'll find yourself looking for an 'edge'.
Specialisation will give you that edge.
If you take on Emperor with that 'jack of all trades' mindset you will lose.

Civ is a money management game, i don't have armies standing around doing nothing taking wages. i summon armies when i need 'em.

[Herr Gutentauben]

I am watching deity level game plays in YouTube and I'm certainly learning a lot. Mixed with all this info I hope I can stop beeing a civ noob soon enough. Thanks for your help.

On topic tho... I love cultural approaches. I play Holland because of the financial /creative leader

[Purplefairy22]

The only objection i would have to that (watching Deity vids), Dr Kappa is you'll only learn war and one style of play. it'll stunt your creativity.
Every game will feel the same.

[Herr Gutentauben]

Originally posted by Purplefairy22:

The only objection i would have to that (watching Deity vids), Dr Kappa is you'll only learn war and one style of play. it'll stunt your creativity.
Every game will feel the same.

The info i'm getting from it is city positioning, tech order and the meaning behind it. Then i'll have to adapt it to my culturalistic style through experience.

[CHE]

Originally posted by Purplefairy22:

CHE. I have seen in many of your posts you specify that you play at nobel level.
That's fine, whatever pleases you.
(Personally when i play nobel, i'm bored. i know i'll win.)

But.... when you take the difficulty up you'll find yourself looking for an 'edge'.
Specialisation will give you that edge.
If you take on Emperor with that 'jack of all trades' mindset you will lose.

Civ is a money management game, i don't have armies standing around doing nothing taking wages. i summon armies when i need 'em.

Yes, I purposely choose Noble difficulty because it gives the AI the same as the human player. I don't want the game to be more difficult due to the AI having happiness or health bonuses or extra settlers or other units at the start.

If I want to make it more difficult, then I do it without unrealistic gamey things like that. E.g. I play as the Inca on the 1000AD Earth map and whoever I play as, I don't bully other civs, I don't start wars, I don't attack & conquer rivals just because I see they are weak, and I don't join other civs in ganging up on other civs - I help the weak ones instead. I'm also intending to mod that scenario to make the Mongols more powerful (not to play as them, but to make them a more powerful opponent, like they were powerful in Medieval times in real life).

I don't play merely to win as fast possible by being immoral (enslaving people, starting wars of aggression, razing cities, etc.). I find the thought of doing THAT boring, and disgusting. I play to enjoy the entire game, creating my own story.

Civ is whatever the player wants it to be. It's a sandbox game.

I, too, generally maintain a smaller military during peacetime, and focus on building up my economy (including my productive capacity)... and then when a war breaks out, my economy is well-prepared to produce many new experienced and technologically advanced units rapidly, and support them with my money income.

However, I also vary how much military I maintain, if I want to deter rivals from declaring war on me. It depends what my rivals are doing, and depends on my relationships with them.

Most of my games so far have been scenarios, which I have won by achieving the scenario victory conditions.

However, my favourite way to win is through diplomacy... that said, I don't enjoy merely focussing on boot-licking the AI civs & bee-lining for the Apostolic Palace or UN and then trying to win a victory vote ASAP. I'd find that boring. I like to savour the game, make it last, enjoy every turn, enjoy the story, build particular wonders that fit my story for that civ in that game, spread my religion, defend little civs from warmongers (and if I don't want to directly confront the warmongers, then I like do this work covertly, e.g. by gifting units to the bullied civs), help vassals to break free of their master civs, explore the world and meet other civs and develop trading relationships with them before other civs do, found a few distant cities to grab new types of resources (maybe expensive maintenance-wise, but I like the happiness benefits & the ability to trade the resources to other civs for various other benefits - e.g. helping my allies with oil, and denying it to some of the powerful warmonger civs), etc., etc..

I.e. I play to ENJOY, not merely to win ASAP.

[Purplefairy22]

We'll have to agree to disagree CHE.

I'm positive (could be H.I.V.) You're a competant enough player to always beat nobel difficulty, and when i say beat it i mean win by a clear mile.
To build every Wonder You want to.
To Be first to every thing(liberalism, astromony, etc).
Bully whoever you like into submission.

I think you should skip prince and go for monarch.
The AI builds plenty more units and isn't as easy to push around.
the Increased maintenance costs of playing on monarch isn't much and the extra beakers for tech is marginal.
The AI has more gold for trade too to help balance your deficit.

I honestly believe that will provide you with a more balanced realistic game.
Control of world affairs won't be yours unless you earn it.
At this level you'll find your actions have actual consequences.

You never know, you might find spy's actually useful for stealing adv techs you don't have and selling them on.

[CHE]

Originally posted by Purplefairy22:

We'll have to agree to disagree CHE.

I'm positive (could be H.I.V.) You're a competant enough player to always beat nobel difficulty, and when i say beat it i mean win by a clear mile.
To build every Wonder You want to.
To Be first to every thing(liberalism, astromony, etc).
Bully whoever you like into submission.

I think you should skip prince and go for monarch.
The AI builds plenty more units and isn't as easy to push around.
the Increased maintenance costs of playing on monarch isn't much and the extra beakers for tech is marginal.
The AI has more gold for trade too to help balance your deficit.

I honestly believe that will provide you with a more balanced realistic game.
Control of world affairs won't be yours unless you earn it.
At this level you'll find your actions have actual consequences.

You never know, you might find spy's actually useful for stealing adv techs you don't have and selling them on.

You seem to have not listened. What you wrote does not take into account what I said about what I enjoy. Bye.

[Purplefairy22]

Its impossible to listen with text!

Why you enjoy playing a game on a difficulty you could win by just rolling your face on the keyboard is beyond me.

I guess the real truth is you're afraid to lose. Oh well.......