Everyone does it. We see it all the time. People see that someone has their own city and greenery production, and plops down a city to catch one or two spaces where the other player's greenery placement - whether the greenery is already there or not - will give them some passive VP.
But is this a strategically sound move? Is it actually worthwhile? On a purely numerical point, placing a city next to someone else's greenery really isn't worth it. The "raw" cost for a city is 21mb (Standard Project 25mb - "Standard Tax" 4mb). So you'd need to get either two Terraforming Points or 4 VP out of it for it to be (almost) worthwhile. By playing that city for two VP from someone else's greenery, you're vastly overspending, especially if you don't have the engine to be able to put down some more greenery of your own. It is a tactically unsound move.
But we're not talking about a spherical cow here. The space of a tile is quantifiable and limited. There's only so much space that can be covered on the map, and your city not only blocks that tile, it limits what others can play in the tiles around it. By playing that tile, you're strengthening your claim to those surrounding tiles, while weakening others' claim to those tiles. While they can certainly still drop a nuke or raise a volcano there, they can't play a city there, and their other options are limited. So the placement of your city, in essence, can effectively limit someone else's expansion. If your opponent has an engine that can let them plop down cities and greeneries regularly, doing something to limit that can be tactically sound, even if it's financially less sound.
More importantly, though, is opportunity for the future. People instinctively don't want to place greenery in a tile where other people are getting a benefit. This is human nature - we don't want to give someone something they haven't "earned" (whatever that means). So when someone plants a city next to our greeneries, we often feel a little grumpy about it - they're "stealing" VP from us. This is the wrong mentality to have. Let them have their two VP. Congratulate them for it. Because most of the time, they're wasting money for minimal gains.
Personally, I greatly enjoy placing cities two tiles away from where another person's city is, with NO greenery (or anything else) between us. This makes people not want to use those spaces. They won't put their greenery there unless they HAVE to, because the other player's gonna get a VP out of it. But I will place greeneries there, because it hurts them.
What? You're marveling at my claim that they're hurt when they're gaining VP from my action. You don't see how that's possible. They're enriched. They gained score points without having to exert any action to do so. But... I just cut them off from bigger rewards that they could have had. By placing that greenery there, I'm getting a minimum of 2 VP, and possibly a TP as well if Oxygen isn't maxed (so, 3 points at the end of the game). They're getting one. It's a win for me no matter how you slice it. And if we're playing a 3-, 4-, or 5- player game, those other players are missing out on it altogether.
And that player with the other city? If they run out of spaces around their city to play their greenery tiles, they'll either have to spend (probably waste) money to drop another city, or place the greenery where they only get one point for it.
It is always better for you to claim the space between two cities than it is to have someone else claim it. Whoever places it is gaining more in the action.
And it is always better for you when other players place cities recklessly, even if it's adjacent to the greeneries you've already placed. Maybe especially then.
But is this a strategically sound move? Is it actually worthwhile? On a purely numerical point, placing a city next to someone else's greenery really isn't worth it. The "raw" cost for a city is 21mb (Standard Project 25mb - "Standard Tax" 4mb). So you'd need to get either two Terraforming Points or 4 VP out of it for it to be (almost) worthwhile. By playing that city for two VP from someone else's greenery, you're vastly overspending, especially if you don't have the engine to be able to put down some more greenery of your own. It is a tactically unsound move.
But we're not talking about a spherical cow here. The space of a tile is quantifiable and limited. There's only so much space that can be covered on the map, and your city not only blocks that tile, it limits what others can play in the tiles around it. By playing that tile, you're strengthening your claim to those surrounding tiles, while weakening others' claim to those tiles. While they can certainly still drop a nuke or raise a volcano there, they can't play a city there, and their other options are limited. So the placement of your city, in essence, can effectively limit someone else's expansion. If your opponent has an engine that can let them plop down cities and greeneries regularly, doing something to limit that can be tactically sound, even if it's financially less sound.
More importantly, though, is opportunity for the future. People instinctively don't want to place greenery in a tile where other people are getting a benefit. This is human nature - we don't want to give someone something they haven't "earned" (whatever that means). So when someone plants a city next to our greeneries, we often feel a little grumpy about it - they're "stealing" VP from us. This is the wrong mentality to have. Let them have their two VP. Congratulate them for it. Because most of the time, they're wasting money for minimal gains.
Personally, I greatly enjoy placing cities two tiles away from where another person's city is, with NO greenery (or anything else) between us. This makes people not want to use those spaces. They won't put their greenery there unless they HAVE to, because the other player's gonna get a VP out of it. But I will place greeneries there, because it hurts them.
What? You're marveling at my claim that they're hurt when they're gaining VP from my action. You don't see how that's possible. They're enriched. They gained score points without having to exert any action to do so. But... I just cut them off from bigger rewards that they could have had. By placing that greenery there, I'm getting a minimum of 2 VP, and possibly a TP as well if Oxygen isn't maxed (so, 3 points at the end of the game). They're getting one. It's a win for me no matter how you slice it. And if we're playing a 3-, 4-, or 5- player game, those other players are missing out on it altogether.
And that player with the other city? If they run out of spaces around their city to play their greenery tiles, they'll either have to spend (probably waste) money to drop another city, or place the greenery where they only get one point for it.
It is always better for you to claim the space between two cities than it is to have someone else claim it. Whoever places it is gaining more in the action.
And it is always better for you when other players place cities recklessly, even if it's adjacent to the greeneries you've already placed. Maybe especially then.
