Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

City square "rules"?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 5:23:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

What is the rule for city square productivity?

In Civ2, a city built on a terrain type giving no shields would get a
bonus of 2 shield.

Is that still the case in civ3 (vanilla civ3, latest patch)?


Secondly, it seems to me that if I found a city on a forest or jungle
tile, the tile is instant-cleared and becomes either grassland or plains.

In civ2, clearing jungle always made grassland and clearing forest
always made plains. Is this the same in civ3? I get a vague impression
that it is not...

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

More about : city square rules

Anonymous
September 10, 2005 5:23:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:432218ae$0$78282$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk...
>
> What is the rule for city square productivity?
>
> In Civ2, a city built on a terrain type giving no shields would get a
> bonus of 2 shield.
>
> Is that still the case in civ3 (vanilla civ3, latest patch)?

Forget civ2, this is a different game. You always get at least 1 shield on
the city tile. If it is founded on a shield bonus you will get that assuming
you are out of despotism and subject to the penalty.


> Secondly, it seems to me that if I found a city on a forest or jungle
> tile, the tile is instant-cleared and becomes either grassland or plains.

Correct.


> In civ2, clearing jungle always made grassland and clearing forest always
> made plains. Is this the same in civ3? I get a vague impression that it is
> not...

Jungle always creates grassland but there are both plains forest and
grassland forest. It's up to you to figure out which it is, it won't tell
you.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 2:48:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:23:23 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>What is the rule for city square productivity?
>
>In Civ2, a city built on a terrain type giving no shields would get a
>bonus of 2 shield.
>
>Is that still the case in civ3 (vanilla civ3, latest patch)?

No, the rules for the city square are not like Civ2. For *all*
cities, you get two food. You get a minimum of one shield, but no
bonus in a new city.

>Secondly, it seems to me that if I found a city on a forest or jungle
>tile, the tile is instant-cleared and becomes either grassland or plains.
>
>In civ2, clearing jungle always made grassland and clearing forest
>always made plains. Is this the same in civ3? I get a vague impression
>that it is not...

Clearing forest or jungle leaves the underlying terrain. Forest on
grasslands will produce grasslands, forest on plains will leave
plains, etc.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/faq/#town_production

The center tile:
Produces exactly two food for all terrain.
Uses terrain shield production, but has a one-shield-minimum.
Uses terrain commerce production. Includes road commerce bonus, if
applicable to the terrain. Capital produces four commerce minimum (new
to 1.21f, and subject to government penalty).
If size 7+, produces one extra shield and one extra commerce.
If size 13+, produces yet another shield and another commerce. On top
of that, but only for this size, commercial civs produce an extra
commerce, and Industrious produce an extra shield.
Despotism/Anarchy tile penalty applies as for any other tile.
this info from alexman on Apolyton - thanx, alexman
since you cannot build mines on city squares or irrigate them it
usually is not a good idea to settle on bonus or strategic resources.


--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Related resources
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 4:33:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
[...]
> The center tile:
> Produces exactly two food for all terrain.
> Uses terrain shield production, but has a one-shield-minimum.
> Uses terrain commerce production. Includes road commerce bonus, if
> applicable to the terrain. Capital produces four commerce minimum (new
> to 1.21f, and subject to government penalty).
> If size 7+, produces one extra shield and one extra commerce.
> If size 13+, produces yet another shield and another commerce. On top
> of that, but only for this size, commercial civs produce an extra
> commerce, and Industrious produce an extra shield.
> Despotism/Anarchy tile penalty applies as for any other tile.
> this info from alexman on Apolyton - thanx, alexman
> since you cannot build mines on city squares or irrigate them it

That seems generally true...

> usually is not a good idea to settle on bonus or strategic resources.

....On the other hand, except for Hills and Mountains, a mine only boosts
production buy 1, and irrigation always boost food by one regardless of
terrain type. That makes both of those acts somewhat worthless in the
particular. Only when done on many tiles does the benefits "add up".

Therefore it seems to me that it is only wrong to settle on a tile with
a food-bonus ressource (3 or 4, or possibly even 5, basic food before
irrigation). If one finds a tile with a production-bonus ressource or a
commerce-bonus ressource, settling there is a wise decision.

Or have I got something wrong?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 11:52:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in news:43235e7c$11
$78280$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk:

> ..On the other hand, except for Hills and Mountains, a mine only boosts
> production buy 1, and irrigation always boost food by one regardless of
> terrain type. That makes both of those acts somewhat worthless in the
> particular. Only when done on many tiles does the benefits "add up".
>
> Therefore it seems to me that it is only wrong to settle on a tile with
> a food-bonus ressource (3 or 4, or possibly even 5, basic food before
> irrigation). If one finds a tile with a production-bonus ressource or a
> commerce-bonus ressource, settling there is a wise decision.
>


When you build railroad on that tile, you get a additional shield or food
depending on whether there it is mined or irrigated.

data64
September 12, 2005 4:54:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

data64 <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> When you build railroad on that tile, you get a additional shield or food
> depending on whether there it is mined or irrigated.

So you lose potentially two shields and and two commerce when settling on a
production and/or commerce bonus square.

In the alternative, you lose potentially two shields and two commerce when
settling on a square which has neither bonus. There's no difference.

> data64

--
We're Londoners, we just put the kettle on -- Avedon Carol

Daran
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 4:33:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:50:38 GMT, "The Stare"
<wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>Jungle always creates grassland but there are both plains forest and
>grassland forest. It's up to you to figure out which it is, it won't tell
>you.

Forest grows on tundra too. I can see through the forest at what
terrain is underneath.

If you look closely many grassland squares have an extra white dot
which produces a shield. I find cleared jungle squares frequently
have this extra shield. Cities I clear from jungle often accelerate
into my best later in the game.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 4:46:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:33:32 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>...On the other hand, except for Hills and Mountains, a mine only boosts
>production buy 1, and irrigation always boost food by one regardless of
>terrain type. That makes both of those acts somewhat worthless in the
>particular. Only when done on many tiles does the benefits "add up".
>
>Therefore it seems to me that it is only wrong to settle on a tile with
>a food-bonus ressource (3 or 4, or possibly even 5, basic food before
>irrigation). If one finds a tile with a production-bonus ressource or a
>commerce-bonus ressource, settling there is a wise decision.
>
>Or have I got something wrong?

If you are saying don't settle on the food squares then that has been
my conclusion.

One extra trick I have learned building cities is to keep an eye on
irragation. Often times hills/mountains will prevent irragation to
all your cities. I had one recent game where I could not irrigate one
of my first eight cities. In that case I didn't have any water so
there wasn't anything I could do. If the hills/moutains cut your civ
in half the city placement may leave half your civ without water. If
you place one city on a centering hill you can irragate through the
city and at the same time get water to the other half of your civ.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:23:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On the 10 Sep 2005, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

<snip>

> since you cannot build mines on city squares or irrigate them it
> usually is not a good idea to settle on bonus or strategic resources.

On Colonisation, I once had to abandon a city and rebuilt it one square
to the left after I realised building it on the Prime Timber (or
whatever it was called) square wasn't going to get the bonus. Never
made /that/ mistake again. :-)

--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
September 15, 2005 3:38:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

> One extra trick I have learned building cities is to keep an eye on
> irragation. Often times hills/mountains will prevent irragation to
> all your cities. I had one recent game where I could not irrigate one
> of my first eight cities. In that case I didn't have any water so
> there wasn't anything I could do. If the hills/moutains cut your civ
> in half the city placement may leave half your civ without water. If
> you place one city on a centering hill you can irragate through the
> city and at the same time get water to the other half of your civ.

Very interesting point. Thank you.

--
We're Londoners, we just put the kettle on -- Avedon Carol

Daran
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:06:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

P12 wrote:
> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>>Or have I got something wrong?
>
> If you are saying don't settle on the food squares then that has been
> my conclusion.

Well, yes. I'm saying don't settle on wheat squares or game squares.

I've tended to settle on grasslands over plains, but that may have been
a mistake.

What about settling on shield-grasslands vs non-shield grasslands? Do
you get the bonus shield?

> One extra trick I have learned building cities is to keep an eye on
> irragation. Often times hills/mountains will prevent irragation to

In my experience (still quite limited, in terms of Civ3), rivers are
scarce, even on "wet" maps. Real scarce.

> all your cities. I had one recent game where I could not irrigate one
> of my first eight cities. In that case I didn't have any water so
> there wasn't anything I could do. If the hills/moutains cut your civ
> in half the city placement may leave half your civ without water. If
> you place one city on a centering hill you can irragate through the
> city and at the same time get water to the other half of your civ.

That's nifty advice. Thanks!

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:06:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:4329a935$0$67264$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>
> What about settling on shield-grasslands vs non-shield grasslands? Do you
> get the bonus shield?
>

You get the bonus shield back when the city reaches size 7.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:53:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:06:06 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>Well, yes. I'm saying don't settle on wheat squares or game squares.
>
>I've tended to settle on grasslands over plains, but that may have been
>a mistake.
>
>What about settling on shield-grasslands vs non-shield grasslands? Do
>you get the bonus shield?

I would only avoid settling on grass squares in a few situations.
With lots of other grass squares there isn't a problem because you can
always irrigate a few if needed. Although settling next to cattle may
make the city grow faster in the early years.

If the city has a great deal of mountains, hills, or tundra squares I
will look for a square with the least food to settle on. For
instance hill, desert, or plain squares. Then I can irrigate the
grassland to provide enough food for the city to spread into the
mountain, hills, and tundra. I have had these cities grow to be very
productive if they are settled early one.

Another exception is if the city is crowded with jungle. I will
settle on jungle square over a grass square giving more time to clear
out the surrounding jungle. Just a few grass squares will let it grow
a bit before wasting workers clearing jungle. The exception is extra
food squares like tropical fruit.

>In my experience (still quite limited, in terms of Civ3), rivers are
>scarce, even on "wet" maps. Real scarce.

I think the terrain in Conquests is much tougher than the first civ.
It seems one or two civs get ideal locations and then pick on all the
others.

One other city placement I do is avoid too many flood plain squares in
one city. Just one or two can make city boom. You need enough shield
producing squares to make the city useful. I have seen the AI with
size 40 cities and zero shields. They must have bee rioting every
other turn.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:55:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:23:18 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
<nospam@jades.org> wrote:

>On the 10 Sep 2005, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> since you cannot build mines on city squares or irrigate them it
>> usually is not a good idea to settle on bonus or strategic resources.
>
>On Colonisation, I once had to abandon a city and rebuilt it one square
>to the left after I realised building it on the Prime Timber (or
>whatever it was called) square wasn't going to get the bonus. Never
>made /that/ mistake again. :-)

What is a Prime Timber?
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 12:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

>>
>>On Colonisation, I once had to abandon a city and rebuilt it one square
>>to the left after I realised building it on the Prime Timber (or
>>whatever it was called) square wasn't going to get the bonus.

Yes, that was a pain - and you also didn't get the full benefit of any
other special resources if you built your city on them. If they were
initially hidden by trees, you couldn't even tell.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:22:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On the 17 Sep 2005, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:23:18 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
> <nospam@jades.org> wrote:
>
> >On the 10 Sep 2005, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> since you cannot build mines on city squares or irrigate them it
> >> usually is not a good idea to settle on bonus or strategic resources.
> >
> >On Colonisation, I once had to abandon a city and rebuilt it one square
> >to the left after I realised building it on the Prime Timber (or
> >whatever it was called) square wasn't going to get the bonus. Never
> >made /that/ mistake again. :-)
>
> What is a Prime Timber?

Unlike the abstract resource system in Civilization, Colonisation
worked on the principle that resources gathered from the land around
your cities would enter your storehouses as what they actually are
(i.e. farming tobacco would result in tobacco being stored). They could
then either be sold on, processed into something else (i.e. cigars) or
used directly in construction.

In some cases, squares could have certain resource types on them which
you could harvest as well as the usual food or wood. These came in two
sizes, the larger the resource the more could be produced. In the case
of prime timber, these squares would produce much more timber than
normal forest squares. Since practically everything you built in a
colony required timber, these squares could be very valuable indeed.

--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:33:32 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
>[...]
>> The center tile:
>> Produces exactly two food for all terrain.
>> Uses terrain shield production, but has a one-shield-minimum.
>> Uses terrain commerce production. Includes road commerce bonus, if
>> applicable to the terrain. Capital produces four commerce minimum (new
>> to 1.21f, and subject to government penalty).
>> If size 7+, produces one extra shield and one extra commerce.
>> If size 13+, produces yet another shield and another commerce. On top
>> of that, but only for this size, commercial civs produce an extra
>> commerce, and Industrious produce an extra shield.
>> Despotism/Anarchy tile penalty applies as for any other tile.
>> this info from alexman on Apolyton - thanx, alexman
>> since you cannot build mines on city squares or irrigate them it
>
>That seems generally true...
>
>> usually is not a good idea to settle on bonus or strategic resources.
>
>...On the other hand, except for Hills and Mountains, a mine only boosts
>production buy 1, and irrigation always boost food by one regardless of
>terrain type. That makes both of those acts somewhat worthless in the
>particular. Only when done on many tiles does the benefits "add up".
>
>Therefore it seems to me that it is only wrong to settle on a tile with
>a food-bonus ressource (3 or 4, or possibly even 5, basic food before
>irrigation). If one finds a tile with a production-bonus ressource or a
>commerce-bonus ressource, settling there is a wise decision.
>
>Or have I got something wrong?

No, that is the one which really gets killed if you pick it for the
city square. All the others are OK, and won't cost you any of the
resource's bonuses.

Only thing is, if you build a city on a no-shield grassland, you get
one extra shield of production from the city at the start. That makes
the no-shield grassland the best from a standpoint of starting
productivity for the city, because you can make full use of any extra
resources in surrounding squares anyway.

A grassland with shield, or plains, gets you the same one-shield
production in the city square from the start. When the city grows to
size 7+, it will have two shields vs. the no-shield grassland's one
shields.

But that is only one shield, and by that point you should have a lot
more production from other squares. Given a choice, in the early game
where speeding up production can be critical, I'll settle on
zero-shield squares (floodplains and no-shield grasslands) if the area
around is good. Later on, I'm much more interested in the overall
production of the city as it grows, and I know I can speed its growth
easily via terrain improvements or extra workers/settlers put into it.


The big thing to remember is that food bonuses are lost for city
squares, so it is always bad to settle on them. A lot of resources
offer some food bonuses.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
!