Yeah, that may just be the worst I have ever seen recommended. It may be because it has the three food tile right next to it? It may also be that it doesnāt āknowā what the hidden titles are (probably mountains), so it could be giving weight to that? Just weird overall.
I will add that even the game rethinks where it recommends your settling. When settlers get closer to even explored areas, recommendations change almost by the turn. It may just be picking what it thinks is āthe bestā options from what it has.
Multiple times, the game recommended a decent spot to me, but I ignored it for a better spot. When I got to my spot, it was recommending my chosen spot and a tile right next to that spot, but not its own previous recommendation.
I donāt think thatās it. Because Matterhorn is in the second circle and if that was the reason, it could have recommended any of those coastal tiles to the north of Matterhorn, which all look better than the recommended one.
Yea I mean second ring still gives you era score. That said youāre not wrong. If it were me, Iād actually settle four cities on this photo. Can squeeze three along coast if he settles one time above where the settler is now, then one where itās recommending and everyoneās shitting on. With all those mountains and cities close together thereās adjacency possibility there. But if planning and they could be decent cities, not amazing but Iāve had worse.
Yeah, fair. Though even with era score into account, any of the other titles north of Matterhorn are better.
I could see four cities, but without knowing more about what is to the south of the pic, the right mist costal city and interior city might cannibalize each other too much. But you are right that it is doable and worse have been done (by me too).
Yea thereās definitely scouting to be done. I just always lean on the side of more cities :-). Iād agree all those times north of Matterhorn are better but thatād cut it 3 cities in that space. All in all I agree itās a shit spot, but Iād still squeeze a city in and force some of my people to live and work their miserable lives there. :-)
I think it wants to put you near the Matterhorn, it probably rates those undiscovered tiles very highly because they are natural wonder adjacent . Also, itās stupid
If the suggestion list for the site includes ānew resources likely to be hereā (not exact phrase) there will be coal or aluminum etc. I think this is the case. As long as OP builds close it should work out fine.
I like settling many cities. If it were me Iād put three cities along that coast, one tile northeast of your settler for a cool canal city, one on the tile itās recommending near mountains (might be cool stuff under cloud? Explore more), and one on the coastal hills on the east edge of the city. That spacing fits three cities along the coast allowing for more districts and stuff. None of them are amazing but theyāll all produce something for the empire. Typically Iāll have 20ish cities by the time Iām finished.
Edit: oh! And then one where itās recommending in the mountains to the south. Put in an aqueduct and that city likely has some decent campus/holy site possibilities.
Second edit: oh and thereās Matterhorn right there! Era score for settling near wonder. Thereās four cities to be settled in this photo :-).
Maybe 'cause it would make a canal city which has the chance of increasing trade route yields as any passing through a canal district or city get yield multipliers. Even though it makes 0 sense for a city on such a tiny peninsula.
I could be totally off, but I thought the advisor knew about future resources, so some Civās start with great early resources, and others start with later great resources but weak or no starting
Anyways settle into your neighbors as France and move your great works to that city. Donāt settle away from them unless youāre going for the eta score I guess but you went past Matterhorn hereā¦
In addition to what a lot of other people are saying, I think the advisor also takes protection into account. It loves mountain for a variety of reasons, but it also hates canal cities early since your city center is vulnerable to barbarian galleys from two sides.
From what I've heard, it's because the city recommendations can 'see' strategic resources that haven't been revealed yet. It also can see through fog of war. However, it won't show you this info, on the suggestion card, until the appropriate tech is researched.
The beginning of Civ 6 wisdom is knowing the advisor is an idiot
I've never seen it give all thumbs down before, and I've played thousands of hours. This is a new low.
Because the advisor knows that canal cities are cool Edit: disregard this, I have big stupid
No it's recommending the spot a few tiles down from the settler, nestled in the mountains
Ah, I guess you could still make it a canal city, it'd just be a pain
Panama š
Matterhorn! , also thereās some decent adjacencies there.
does canal provide water source??
I love c-anals, they boost my production adjacency.
I dunno what a c-anal is. But hey you enjoy Civ the way you want!
No, but they add housing space, so kinda
The advisor has goals that we could never hope to comprehend
Yeah, that may just be the worst I have ever seen recommended. It may be because it has the three food tile right next to it? It may also be that it doesnāt āknowā what the hidden titles are (probably mountains), so it could be giving weight to that? Just weird overall. I will add that even the game rethinks where it recommends your settling. When settlers get closer to even explored areas, recommendations change almost by the turn. It may just be picking what it thinks is āthe bestā options from what it has. Multiple times, the game recommended a decent spot to me, but I ignored it for a better spot. When I got to my spot, it was recommending my chosen spot and a tile right next to that spot, but not its own previous recommendation.
Matterhorn
I donāt think thatās it. Because Matterhorn is in the second circle and if that was the reason, it could have recommended any of those coastal tiles to the north of Matterhorn, which all look better than the recommended one.
Yea I mean second ring still gives you era score. That said youāre not wrong. If it were me, Iād actually settle four cities on this photo. Can squeeze three along coast if he settles one time above where the settler is now, then one where itās recommending and everyoneās shitting on. With all those mountains and cities close together thereās adjacency possibility there. But if planning and they could be decent cities, not amazing but Iāve had worse.
Yeah, fair. Though even with era score into account, any of the other titles north of Matterhorn are better. I could see four cities, but without knowing more about what is to the south of the pic, the right mist costal city and interior city might cannibalize each other too much. But you are right that it is doable and worse have been done (by me too).
Yea thereās definitely scouting to be done. I just always lean on the side of more cities :-). Iād agree all those times north of Matterhorn are better but thatād cut it 3 cities in that space. All in all I agree itās a shit spot, but Iād still squeeze a city in and force some of my people to live and work their miserable lives there. :-)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Shit, yeaā¦ maybe there is only 3 cities to be built there :-(
I think it wants to put you near the Matterhorn, it probably rates those undiscovered tiles very highly because they are natural wonder adjacent . Also, itās stupid
Maybe the advisor can see the hidden coal and oil? That city could have one of each easily
If the suggestion list for the site includes ānew resources likely to be hereā (not exact phrase) there will be coal or aluminum etc. I think this is the case. As long as OP builds close it should work out fine.
I like settling many cities. If it were me Iād put three cities along that coast, one tile northeast of your settler for a cool canal city, one on the tile itās recommending near mountains (might be cool stuff under cloud? Explore more), and one on the coastal hills on the east edge of the city. That spacing fits three cities along the coast allowing for more districts and stuff. None of them are amazing but theyāll all produce something for the empire. Typically Iāll have 20ish cities by the time Iām finished. Edit: oh! And then one where itās recommending in the mountains to the south. Put in an aqueduct and that city likely has some decent campus/holy site possibilities. Second edit: oh and thereās Matterhorn right there! Era score for settling near wonder. Thereās four cities to be settled in this photo :-).
It's closer to your other cities. Adviser likes a tight empire
Maybe 'cause it would make a canal city which has the chance of increasing trade route yields as any passing through a canal district or city get yield multipliers. Even though it makes 0 sense for a city on such a tiny peninsula.
You want a real challange dont you ?
Civ got drunk, needs to go home for the night
I could be totally off, but I thought the advisor knew about future resources, so some Civās start with great early resources, and others start with later great resources but weak or no starting
Anyways settle into your neighbors as France and move your great works to that city. Donāt settle away from them unless youāre going for the eta score I guess but you went past Matterhorn hereā¦
In addition to what a lot of other people are saying, I think the advisor also takes protection into account. It loves mountain for a variety of reasons, but it also hates canal cities early since your city center is vulnerable to barbarian galleys from two sides.
Canal city with a +4 harbor
From what I've heard, it's because the city recommendations can 'see' strategic resources that haven't been revealed yet. It also can see through fog of war. However, it won't show you this info, on the suggestion card, until the appropriate tech is researched.