[.952 Bug] Can no longer snake cities to rivers or forests and build piers, logging camps etc.

There's an option to turn on manual building placement, actually.

Sorry, mate, but you've completely misread my post. I know about the option and HAVE turned it on, but even when I reach the river or the forest through manual placement the option to build a pier or a logging camp is missing...

same here (same as OP)

Bump +1

Would love to see again some planning in city layout, not only for strategic blocking. Is a BIG part of my funfactor.

If the concern is that the AI is disadvantaged by it, limit it to maybe one tile extra, any AI will reach that once the city starts to sprawl by itself (without having to write algorithms for it I would think).

I have had a thread about this for a while and it hasn't gotten any attention. It would be nice if this would at least be confirmed as a bug or working as intended. So far we're getting nothing but silence on the matter. I figured out how to make a change to the xml to permit the improvements to be built anywhere at all (up to you if you want to honor system proper placement or use your new powers for evil) but that's just a work around.

I think it's WAD, and I'd like to keep it that way.  There was a discussion about this around the beginning of beta 4.

Definately something I hope is reverted.

I really liked that you could 'snake' to a forest or river. In addition, it seems only natural for city growth to want to grow towards the resources. Afterall, cities can 'snake' such that other improvements enter into ZofC. Should be the same for forests & rivers.

Fully agree. I understand they have this thing about wanting nice tidy city footprints, but why even have the manual placement option if they're cutting off the tree/river snaking thing. Its no worse than snaking for resource nodes, as said here. From a gaming perspective, neutering the manual placement mechanic like this is puzzling.

Plus, it makes no sense for a city to sit there and stare at those trees just a few feet away and not bother building to them to start cutting them down.. or even less sensably, build their way into a forest, clear cut to make room for buildings, and discard the trees simply because they didn't found the city inside the woods? Or we somehow can't/won't build a dock because this city was founded 200 yards from the river and not ON the river? Goosery.

If you can snake to rivers or a forest city placements mean nothing. Then there will always be a non-brainer choice just based on the highest grain/prod/mana in the city tile where you'll build your city. No point in considering sacrificing anything to get a tile next to a river or a forest if you can get to it by snaking anyways (and get it all eventually).

They could help to control but not destroy snaking by requiring that you fully fill the tile before you can expand to the next tile. That would help to keep cities tight, but you could eventually stretch 3 or 4 tiles alltogether for access to something.

I don't have a problem with saying that you want city placement to matter, what chaps my cookies is when the viable tiles you can settle are just a tile or two from the woods or from a river, and no matter how much you want to snake to and envelop the river/forest, it's useless to you. Surely there can be a middle ground of some sort struck here?

It's not just that you can't creatively snake -- even when I start (or capture) pretty near, and autoplacement eventually brings me next to forest or river, I still end up with cities next to rivers but not permitted to build watermills, or cities adjacent to forests but not permitted to build lumber mills. 

Like I said, all I want is just someone to let us know "yeah, this looks like a bug" or "as intended".