Appropriate City Placement

[Grim Legacy]

While I am aware that packing cities densely is a stronger strategy, I never do it. I regard it a self-imposed limit to play the game with some consideration of my perceived developer's intention, which is not compatible with this packing.

Many similar 'power' methods present themselves throughout the game, such as maniacal horsemen/jaguar warrior pumping to overrun all opponents before 1 AD etc. I don't do this either.

[Shogun Gunner]

There's a diverse set of approaches to the game. I think it's interesting that some players give up known "play style" advantages to preserve their perception and experience of the game.

I have grown more open to packing cities together, but I hate doing math in order to make the most efficient set of decisions every turn. I guess I believe the game should display those trade-offs to you and not force you to keep notes, use a calculator, and track things in Excel. Just my .02

[eris]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
There's a diverse set of approaches to the game. I think it's interesting that some players give up known "play style" advantages to preserve their perception and experience of the game.

I have grown more open to packing cities together, but I hate doing math in order to make the most efficient set of decisions every turn. I guess I believe the game should display those trade-offs to you and not force you to keep notes, use a calculator, and track things in Excel. Just my .02

It is definitely interesting that different approaches to the game are not only strategy based, but play-value based. On this particular subject, I too, have modified my play. (This shows the value that the high level strategists offer to those of us who play a little less deeply. We may not follow their strategems to painful exactitude, but can adopt some of the principles and improve our games without losing "fun".) Now, I always make sure each city overlaps at least one tile with neighboring cities, even if it is a future city that will go into place as a backfill after initial expansion. Along with other considerations, I find it also helps keep a culture lock on my territory. One principle I use in the consideration of city overlap is not to overlap too much. It is less important to me that each and every tile gets worked then it is that my size 12 cities are working the best available combination of 12 tiles in their radius.

And you don't absolutely have to keep spreadsheets and notes, etc, only if you want to play beyond play value and into micro management and meeting the upper level challenges. The programmers don't force people into controlling these exquisite details, the obsessive challenge-meeting nature of these people is what forces them into this behavior. The programmers just put the temptation there. The rest is up to each one of us Civ-addicted individuals.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by eris

And you don't absolutely have to keep spreadsheets and notes, etc, only if you want to play beyond play value and into micro management and meeting the upper level challenges. The programmers don't force people into controlling these exquisite details, the obsessive challenge-meeting nature of these people is what forces them into this behavior. The programmers just put the temptation there. The rest is up to each one of us Civ-addicted individuals.

To an extent, the above is true. Yet, I agree with Shogun Gunner that the game could include more specific descriptions of its mechanics. For example, I find it strange that the effects of corruption for each government are described with one word in the Pedia. A more extensive explanation would have been welcome (as found on forums like this one on the net, but that is beside the point).
Another example is the lack of an indication for units that have a zone of control and those who do not, unless I overlooked it.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
To an extent, the above is true. Yet, I agree with Shogun Gunner that the game could include more specific descriptions of its mechanics. ...

No, No, NO! If you are playing from a Role-Playing perspective at all, then knowing too much detracts from the game experience. Mystery and some randomness are important here. I LIKE strong plagues and wish they didn't stop with medicine.

If, on the other hand, you are playing the game as a pure contest, then sure, knowing the mechanics of everything is preferable.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Jaybe

No, No, NO! If you are playing from a Role-Playing perspective at all, then knowing too much detracts from the game experience. Mystery and some randomness are important here. I LIKE strong plagues and wish they didn't stop with medicine.

If, on the other hand, you are playing the game as a pure contest, then sure, knowing the mechanics of everything is preferable.

Actually role-playing is one of the most numerical things one can do. In the vast majority of RPG's, every relevant bit has an exact value that may be related to a chance (=dice roll), but is clearly specified. A sword does 1d10 damage (1 to 10), modified by your character's strength, perhaps 18, providing an extra +3 damage etc etc.
Note that I do not object to a degree of chance, although I'm not charmed by the "sudden inescapable doom" events in Civ (disease, volcano in C3C). I do stand by the opinion that more specification would have been better.

[risingstaruk]

I usually employ both methods... i will have a few core cities, 2 or 3 which have lots of room and then rest are usually really close together. I usually build the cities so they have a lot of space to begin with, just to claim the land and then fill in the gaps later. I also like leaving 3 or 4 *pockets* of land for ai civs to build cities in, which i will get later culturally . just allows me to expand that little bit extra.

[joncnunn]

Exact placement of my cities depend upon terraign.

I also occansionly place camps, not often. In my current game, the distortions of my city placement resulting from AI city placement resulting in my relabeling 1 or my two planned temp cities as a perm one. (Next city over shifted from 2 tiles away to 3.) And later on the AI landed a unit pair on the tile I was planning to form a city when the settler was in route so the settler had to form a city immedately, which in turn killed a planned infill city spot. That in turn resulted in the last settler build being switched to an improvement.

My remaining temp city has been pumping out Vetran Horses and lately some workers as the neighboring permenant cities are growing into it. It's set to be disbanded shortly after the west neighboring city that needs an Aquaduct gets it built. (The eastern neighboring city is on a river) The most recent worker from it joined a neighboring city since I'm industrious and don't need additional workers given current size of workforce + tile improvements already in place.

[Stylesjl]

i always use optimal placement unless im at the AI's border or near a body of water or any other inhibiting obstacle

[Switch]

I used to always leave my cities with enough room to work all 21 tiles, but recently I've been trying the CxxC strategy. I like it. I don't think it really looks ugly, but rather it gives the appearance of efficient to me. I've also noticed that I can more easily gain territory with this method, and combined with a higher worker production it's a cinch. Note, however, that I am currently playing on Chieftan level, but still I have noticed a marked improvement in my playing style since switching to this sub-optimal placement method.

[diablovision]

I recently jumped up to Emperor level and tried for the first time to pack tighter than optimal. I played the Babylonians (which I havent before) to change things up a bit, and wow did I find myself in over my head quick!

I think the level change has royally screwed me up, because I cannot REX worth crap, I am getting bullied by the AI, my citizens are pissed, and I can't support enough workers to get the improvements done fast enough (not being industrious is a major handicap!).

I just recently waged a war to trim down the Chinese who have been getting too close for comfort, so from that I got a bit of a bump. I think I am about the same size as the rest of the civs on my continent, but dammitall if I don't have one hell of a catch up job to do.....

[joncnunn]

Ok, on Emperor level:
luxaries are much more imporant. If you only see one unique type (or NONE!) in the area you can easily REX to, but see your neighbor with them, plan on a rush.

As Babs, I'd do the Bowmen rush and eat the despotic GA, using whatever is not needed for more Bowmen for extremely fast Temples and Libraries.

And even if you have a situtation that does not call for a war you need more units than on Monarch just to discourage the AI.
With unit support costs, this means that Republic may have to wait. Beeing the Babs helps because you have a balanced unit (2-2-1) and also can switch govts with 2 turn anarchy.

It's also extremely imporant on Emperor level to check cities whenever they grow and when you move a military unit out of a city. There's times when 10% luxaries may be needed on this level.

[Gremnon]

I try not to overlap unless I have to. But when I place cities, I allow for the standard area of the city (the x shape) and a tile between them for both sides. This, in turn gives me plenty of culture quick and full coverage of the tiles.

[ew0054]

I like spacing out metropolises Civ2 style first, then toward the modern era, stuffing small (size 3 or so) towns in the areas around them. This creates the feel of suburbs, but don't steal too many resources from the larger cities.

I hope something like suburbs get implemented somehow in Civ4. Perhaps as the city gets bigger, some houses can appear in the surrounding tiles. I think that'd be cool.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by ew0054
I like spacing out metropolises Civ2 style first, then toward the modern era, stuffing small (size 3 or so) towns in the areas around them. This creates the feel of suburbs, but don't steal too many resources from the larger cities.

I hope something like suburbs get implemented somehow in Civ4. Perhaps as the city gets bigger, some houses can appear in the surrounding tiles. I think that'd be cool.

Just so you know, doing that is not a particularly good idea in terms of game play. By the modern era, you should have most/ all workable squares worked in your major cities. By creating new cities on currently worked tiles, all you're doing is taking food/ shields away from your highly productive cities, increasing your maintenance costs (by having more cities and thus improvements than you need) and worsening your corruption problem.

The real payoff in close city placement is in the early game, when doing so allows you to work more tiles earlier than you otherwise would. The approach you're taking is exactly the opposite of what is best in terms of optimizing your game.

At lower levels, you probably can get away with this approach: doing this at more difficult levels would be very difficult to justify.

[Krill]

The only time you could justify that approach in terms of gameplay is if you were building a "Fort Stanwix". And that only applies if you are playing against other humans.

[Shogun Gunner]

If you like the look of the "suburbs", there is a graphics modpack that updates the railroad graphics creating little buildings along the rail line. In urban areas, this modpack really gives you the feel of urban sprawl.

[Golden Bear]

As noted earlier, different difficulty levels allow different city placements. Monarch and lower you can probably get by with wide city spacing.

However, if you believe that a key to the game lies in early population growth, then you are not maximizing by spreading out your cities. On Emperor and higher you have to grow fast and spread out fast. You need to use all your available resources and monitor their use in detail almost every turn. Generally this means CxxC particularly around your palace city.

This has all been said before. My personal concept is that I start cxxc but will throw out settlers to grab luxuries and resources as soon as I spot them. I can then fill in behind them. After a certain amount of spread I will let my fringe cities go cxxxc with the plan to boom them later when hospitals are available. Also, I will take my two or three most productive cities and put hospitals in them - these cities must not overlap - and let them grow into metropolises at the expense of some 12 pop neighbors.

But, in the early game, spreading out cities too wide will waste resources and terrain and will ultimately delay growth. Also, it is easier to defend cities spaced three squares apart.

Golden Bear

[justjake73]

My strategy is to try and get all tiles included but not at the expense of balance. If there are 2 special tiles, I try and see if two cities can fit. If there would be too much overlap, then I only place one city. "Holes" will eventually be encompassed by your culture and you can build airbases on them.

[Commy]

If someone has already mentioned this, my apologies...but I think it is very important when considering city placement, loose vs. dense...

Lets assume, for a second, that you actually play the game in the industrial and modern ages...

When you build factories, power plants, whatever, you get +50% shields (100% with nuclear)....now, if you put factories in all your cities, and you are working all your squares, whether you have tight base spacing or loose base spacing, you will get about the same amount of shields still...however, with tight base spacing, you will be paying a lot more maintenance...if you build 50% more bases, you'll pay 50% more maintenance, and yet, still get the same amount of benefits...

This applies to a good number of the improvements in the game...marketplaces, libraries, universities, banks, stock exchanges, research labs, factories, power plants, manufacturing plants...

So maybe in the ancient ages this won't matter, since most of the squares won't even be worked unless doing tight spacing...but wait until the industrial ages, sometimes even the medieval ages, and that maintenance will really weaken your economy...

Tight base-spacing is great if you are playing a 200 turn game, but after that, your economy will not be nearly as good as it could have been....

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Commy
Lets assume, for a second, that you actually play the game in the industrial and modern ages...

Sure, but there are many factors that make your points all but irrelevant. The first two are, in my opinion, the really important ones:

• The game is usually decided by the end of the Middle Ages. Either you are on your way to win, or the AI is about to wipe the floor with you. What mattered, was the early expansion, for which a tighter pattern wins by far.
• The cost of more city improvements comes back to you in unit production and support capability. You can have many more units, or build many quickly. This is crucial, as it allows you to shift only a small portion of your production to military builds, even in need. A loose city pattern forces you to build units in more of your cities, adding large delays to city improvements (to the economy).
• The cost of improvements can be made up with a tech deal, if you happen to have AIs to sell to. At this time, my science is usually going at 100% with a healthy surpulus. The few coins for structures mean nothing. And if I take time to actually build Banks (yeah, right...), I can turn it down to 90%, and pay for the structures myself.
• By making smaller cities, you do not have to build Hospitals, and you do not get the increased Pollution from large populations. Another delay on more productive builds (and tile improvements, like Railroads) does not happen to you.
• More cities means +1 Shield in more places, when playing Industrious civs (I like to play the Maya...) This means even faster building of things I need.
• More cities means more Gold, when playing Commercial (and sometimes Seafaring) civs. If you count Markets, and perhaps Banks into this, those civs actually do not need to fear the cost of structures, because they have ways to pay for them on a per city basis...

[Grim Legacy]

The benefits of tight city placement are widely recognized, yet I personally loathe the esthetic aspect of this strategy.

I like the solution implemented in an old fantasy Civ 1 derivate game: Master of Magic. This game mandates at least 3 squares between cities. You cannot build one less than 3 squares away from any other. Overlap is still possible, but not to an unpleasant level. Pleasing to the eye, and the end of extreme (compact) expansion strategies.

[Aqualung71]

What Modo said

With one important addition......3-tile spacing is important in human-human games for defence reasons.

At Emperor and above, it becomes increasingly difficult to win with loose city spacing.