Building Cities on Hills

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

I'm just curious how many people do this. Until recently, I wasn't one of them. I always built on grasslands, plains, desert oasises. I've started building on hills now because:

1. It's realistic. Quite a few RL towns and cities are built up against or on hills.

2. The AI has a helluva time sacking walled cities on hills. Even more so in the modern era when one has jet fighters based in the city and protected by SAM batteries and an SDI shield.

3. Terrain specials. This is why I really altered my strategy. I was simply passing up too many specials because of my avoidance of founding cities on hills.

I'm going to assume that I was a late-comer to what was already a common strategy among fellow Civ players, but I've included a poll just to see what the spread is.

Gatekeeper

[Scouse Gits]

Build on hills when it provides the spot for two or more specials. A favourite is to allow settler #1 to mine wine then settler#2 builds on top...that's nice...

_______________

Sunday night and we are getting there

[TCO]

I just ICS in a checkerboard pattern.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I'm another believer in the mined hill. I'll do that occasionally, usually in the mid- to late- game to take advantage of a 'sweet spot' with 3 or more specials. Rarely will I build on a hill without a second settler mining it concurrently.

Oh, and mining a hils with the second settler in Deity starts has led to impressive results...

STYOM

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by GP
I just ICS in a checkerboard pattern.

rewind, -click-, repeat

I, too, have no qualms about settling on hills. The wine spot is excellent. I will also do it for coastal cities - same effect as a coastal fortress without wasting the time to build it. A fish/whale, the city, and a coal give you a size 3 city with 9+ shields - can't beat it in the early going.

In particular, in the early game, a hill city is virtually impregnable to the AI. With walls, your phalanx can withstand veteran cavalry. Good for strategic spots!

[Gatekeeper]

Hmm. I tried that mine a hill/build city at same time once and it didn't work. I was only using one settler/engineer, though. So the technique is to *begin* mining the hill, then use a second settler/engineer to actually build the city while the first settler/engineer continues to mine?

Gatekeeper

[Campo]

So the technique is to *begin* mining the hill, then use a second settler/engineer to actually build the city while the first settler/engineer continues to mine?

Right, you have to do it that way.

If you build a mine and then found a city on that location, the mine is lost. So be sure you start one settler mining the hill, then have a second one build the city (while letting the first one continue to mine uninterrupted).

mining a hils with the second settler in Deity starts has led to impressive results

STYOM, I occasionally use the mine/build city technique but I've never tried it that early. You're referring to the very beginning, right? I'd have thought that it was more important to have both settlers found cities ASAP to crank out more settlers. It really makes sense to spend the time mining that soon?

[DrFell]

I really prefer not to settle on hills if at all possible... the only times I do is when I'm placing a defensive border city, or when I need to build on a hill to reach a special.

[rah]

Same as Fell, Usually to reach a special and for some defensive border cities. With the exception of wine in 2x games. I'll build right on them and hope there's forests near by.

RAH

[Gatekeeper]

So if I build a city on a hill that's being mined at the same time, I'll still get the two food resources in addition to the benefits of mined wine or mined coal? IOW, I'll have a city square that produces two foods, lots of trade and production (wine), or lots of production (coal)?

Gatekeeper

[Scouse Gits]

If I understand you correctly Cyber - playing 1x 1x once the mine goes in you lose the second food ...

SG[1]

[rah]

That is correct.

RAH

[Gatekeeper]

SG[1], rah:

Dang! There is a trade-off then.

Come to think of it, though, why would one want to mine a wine-bearing hill? If you just plop a city on it, you get two food and tons of trade (albeit only one shield). I like having two foods on any terrain I build on ... so that means I'll never build on non-oasis desert or forests or glacier.

Gatekeeper

[Scouse Gits]

Ah - but it does last nearly long enough for the city to get to size 2!!!

SG[1]

[rah]

Yes, then after that, send one settler to get it to size three, a little celebrating, and voila, a real nice city. Especially with a harbor and ocean near by. It will be a very good, trade/science city.

[rah]

And I'll do the same to cities built on gold.

RAH

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Campo
STYOM, I occasionally use the mine/build city technique but I've never tried it that early. You're referring to the very beginning, right? I'd have thought that it was more important to have both settlers found cities ASAP to crank out more settlers. It really makes sense to spend the time mining that soon?

I rarely do it. Having read DaveV's post on worker placement, I now think I'd use that technique only if I had a fruit or wheat special within the city radius - so as to compensate for the loss of food production on the hill. The plus is, muchos shields... the games I remember playing, I did suffer a bit from tying up a settler for those turns, but then again, the first city was in an excellent location that really called for the mined hill, and it was producing as much trade/shields as 2 'normal' cities (of equal size)would. With a mine on it, the city square is almost like a shield 'special', and then you effectively have 4 or 5 specials that the city can work, as opposed to 3 or 4.

And of course, if there are only 2, or 1 special(s) available from that hilltop, then you should build that first city on plains/grass/river that accesses both, if there is such a square.

STYOM

[Hydey]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
If I understand you correctly Cyber - playing 1x 1x once the mine goes in you lose the second food ...

SG[1]

I just checked a few saves and I find that cities I have built and mined still get 2 food while getting 3 shields in 1x1x games.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Hydey is right - a mined wine city produces 2 food, 3 shields, and 4 arrows. Not a bad spot, methinks! Coal gives you 2 food and 5 shields.

[TCO]

I think it's kind of a cheat. Since you can only mine before, not afterwards. I think the designers intenet would be to make the mine go away, but the code just doesn't include it.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by GP
I think it's kind of a cheat

Probably, and the feature may be unintended - but the facts that there is some debate over whether it's worthwhile doing, and that I have to give something up (use of the 2nd settler while the mine is being built) assuage my guilt

STYOM

[rah]

I'll agree with that on your first city, but later in the game, when you're running out of good territory and have lots of settlers hanging around, I don't think it's giving up anything.

But having said that, I don't consider it a cheat. I'm not sure what the programmers intent was, so I'm willing to convince myself that they just didn't think this one through so they didn't make a judgement. (see how easy it is to rationalize thise one)

RAH

[TCO]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


Probably, and the feature may be unintended - but the facts that there is some debate over whether it's worthwhile doing, and that I have to give something up (use of the 2nd settler while the mine is being built) assuage my guilt

STYOM

weenie, you probably airbase on hills too.

[TCO]

Originally posted by rah
I'll agree with that on your first city, but later in the game, when you're running out of good territory and have lots of settlers hanging around, I don't think it's giving up anything.

But having said that, I don't consider it a cheat. I'm not sure what the programmers intent was, so I'm willing to convince myself that they just didn't think this one through so they didn't make a judgement. (see how easy it is to rationalize thise one)

RAH

Same to you, ferret-master!

[rah]

Screw you sub boy

I can honestly say I've never used it in an MP game because I would never do it on my first city, and most of the games don't last long enough for you to have settlers just sitting around and a lot of territory to still claim

RAH
I still don't think it's a cheat.
And I don't abuse airbases either. (in fact in "RAH" rules, they're not allowed inside the city radius)

On second thought using the wink smile after sub boy might give some people the wrong impression.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I'm too lazy to cheat effectively. I don't build airbases on hills because I'm too lazy to remember not to move planes onto them by accident. I don't ship chain because it's easier to click 'goto' on my ships , I don't incrementally rush because it's easier to just click 'buy', and my Civ versions don't let me click 'h' to rehome caravans ... get my drift?

Oh, and the number of times I see a hill that would be perfect to pre-mine, and then forget to do it, don't even ask...

I do black click though, now. But only after Apollo is built.

STYOM

[Gatekeeper]

Hydey, Marquis de Sodaq:

That's great news.

Since I don't do any of that other fancy stuff — ship chaining, airbases-on-hills and whatnot — that the programmers didn't foresee players doing, I don't feel guilty. Especially since SP is the only way for me to go.

Gatekeeper