City Council: City Placement/Spacing

[UnOrthOdOx]

OK, it's time to get this going.

With the game underway, it's time to discuss city placement and spacing. I will keep an updated map here, once we know our surroundings a bit better as well.

Generally, in most my games, I prefer 3-tile spacing for my core at the start of the game. However, this being Diety, we may need to go a bit closer to begin with by building temporary 'suburbs'.

I know there are many who dislike overlap, and I was one of them some time ago, I intend for the DM to place cities according to the will of the people, so we need to discuss both the advantages of placement as well as ways to convince the public at large. Once more map is revealed, a discussion on specific locales will take place in this thread as well.

References:
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...threadid=78486 Good visuals to help see the different spacing

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...threadid=77451 Very good and detailed debate on the topic, some visuals, mostly screenshots

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm not the domestic minister, and with good reason.

build them the way that gets me swordsmen

[Octavian X]

I think we can all agree that, with a packed world on a deity game, initially a tight build would be best for us, so as to minimize corruption and maximize production for a smaller space.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Here is a current map. We will have a settler in 11 turns, barring and GOOD luck with huts...we had to empties so far

[Epistax]

As far as being able to support a city, there are plenty of good spots on that map. Considering that we want to be dense, and don't want to miss out on a resource...

The jungle SE SE SE S of our city would have access to fish, and would have two mountains under its radius. It would have many tiles connected by river. However it looks like production would be scarce and it would end up sharing two tiles with our initial city. Still, it looks like it's this, or good-bye fishies.

It's entirely possible that any one/number of those mountains will have important resources, not sure how to tackle it.

[Inverse Icarus]

theres been no real consensus on city spacing.

personally, i'm against ICS on grounds of homosexuality, and i would advise expanding towards our enemies.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Here is my original thoughts on city locations around the core.

A3 has the advantage of being able to share units with the capitol in both directions, where A1 and 2 could only recieve units from the capitol in one turn due to the river. Depending on what lies behind the darkness, I would suggest A2 as the best site, and my first choice for the first city out.

B 1 has the advantage of eventually gaining both bonus grasslands, one to it's north, and one to the south. B2 gains the grass south immediately and may not give anything in terms of long term developement depending on what the darkness holds. One of these I would like for the second/third city out if possible.

C is supposed to be on the shore, kinda unclear on that map, sorry, I need some graphical help. This is lower on my priority list as a city.

D1 has the advantage of sharing a bonus grass with the capitol and the ability to share units. D2 may be a better long term choice, and could possibly gain the bonus grass north, but misses out on the fish. I would take D1 as the second/third city out, personally.

E 1 shares a bonus grass with the capitol, and could share units with both the capitol and D1 with proper roads. E 2 will have a port, though. I like E1 as the third/fourth city out, personally.

Thoughts? Contentions? Suggestions? Heart attacks at being too close/far?

[Epistax]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
D2 may be a better long term choice, and could possibly gain the bonus grass north, but misses out on the fish.

The fish is W, SW of D2, so unless I have an incorrect view on the city radius, the fish is in D2's range.

[Donegeal]

We are the Vikings. We are a seafaring Militaristic civ. We need to maximize our strengths. A tight city build (with "Camps" as opposed to "Cities" that build no cultural and can be disbanned once we grow) with emphsis on production, not food, is what is needed. Building in the direction of the Ottomans is also desirable. Site C, or one SE of C for the extra commerce, would be a great start. Another one 3 NW of Asgard would be a great location. These three cities would put almost all the "Where Is It" Forest and River to excellent use. A fourth city, If possible as mentioned in my WAR Party thread, would be great at D1.

[joncnunn]

Much as I dislike tight city spacing, with 24 civs in the game, we will need this, at least until we get into areas other civs initally founded the cities.

We also need to have some coastal cities with productive shields so that we can produce the Galleys to transport our Berserkers.

[Octavian X]

It looks good, unorthodox. The cities are about as close as we want them.

[Epistax]

I'm personally used to large cities with specializations, but I agree lots of little ones are needed.

My suggestions on D2 are long-run based, as in the short run, we'll need production rather than trade and research.

The question isn't which of those choices we will do, but which first. Assuming short run, the B's have the highest production potential (unless I am reading a forest as a jungle somewhere). Of the two offered I like B2 more because it has an extra production square we are aware of.

I would want an A afterwards to increase our Area / Border ratio. Assuming we will build in both a D and E, I would go with E before D as it will tighten our border barrier between the two bodies of water.


I am also big on keeping a high ratio of Land Area to Border, so any cities that don't increase border (push it out to sea) probably wont be defensive liabilities. Then again that's just me.

[GodKing]

I like a2.
I would move c one to the southwest so it is at the mouth of the river.
D1 is good.
B3 should be due north of B2 - that makes lots of woods available and closer to water for future irrigation.
E2 I like.
F can go where Thor is by the lake and the river.
G should be somewhere in the hills by b & c
I wonder what else is to our north.
Any goodie huts discovered?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Apart from the two popped nothing ones, there are no others yet.

[GhengisFarb™]

Little cities are fine, but we need to space them out first to claim the area then build them in between our cities once the land is all taken up.

Otherwise we could end up with 5 cramped cities and the AI civs could have 5 well spaced cities and then fill in the gaps later.

[badams52]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
C is supposed to be on the shore, kinda unclear on that map, sorry, I need some graphical help. This is lower on my priority list as a city.

Try ctrl-g next time (I realize it's not your map)

GF: If that happens, just means we'll be more prepared and faster into war. But I have found that instead of building 1 complete ring, building out to the second ring in 1 direction inwardly out creates the disired effect of holding off the AIs REXing while not wasting our turns moving settlers over unroaded terrain.

I like unorthodox's scheme except I'm unsure exactly about his B idea. I might build B before A because B is in the direction of our only known enemy.

But your current scheme for B is also out of range for the one turn reinforcements. From the capital it doesn't matter, but even once C is built it will take 2 turns from C to reinforce, so I would consider pulling it closer to the capitol, but oh those lovely cows! If we build A2, then B1 would be 1 turn reinforcable from A. If we knew what the unexplored land contained over there (maybe more COWS! ), we'd have a better idea where to build B.

D1 and E1 look good. E is tough, cause you'd like to be on the coast, but E2 misses 2 bonus grasslands (granted one is shared with the capitol) and E2 would make irrigating the plains on the other side a very long task!

I like GK's F, but we're getting too far ahead and don't know the map yet or our enemy placements.

If you can't tell, I love to keep cities 1-turn reinforceable with at least one sister city and hopefully 2.

[Panag]

hi ,

move C one to the left

have a nice day

[BigFree]

I like the general layout you have, UnOrthOdOx, but I feel a little differently about exact locations and what order to place them. This is just to get some more comments. (I think I mis-labeled D2, it should be D1, as it is on your map)

I left the colors and the letter's you assigned to the spots the same for my map, so as to help anyone when compairing the two.

I would like to settle them in this order:

1. D2
2. A2
3. B
4. E2
5. C

[MrWhereItsAt]

A good point, GF, but things depend on what our strategy will be. I expect we are going to attack the Ottomans ASAP, in which case we must not worry about their growth and only on making cities close to Asgard with decent production. When we ARcher or Sword rush them we won't be worrying about their city placement or where they have built cities - except on where to reloacte them to.

However, if for some reason we are NOT going to attack them straight off then we need to consider expanding further to begin with to carve out more land. Frankly I expect (and hope) we go the militaristic way with them - take their well-placed cities with troops born in our cramped quarters! That lack of space will make our soldiers all the more vicious in battle.

[Beta]

This is the joy of deity. We/I have to think a bit differently. I am thinking back to all the strategy threads I have read (velocyrix et al). I don't usually play on Deity, so my first instinct was to expand towards the Ottomans. But I agree with MWIA, and that what we need is a very effective, tight core of cities to pump out archers and/or swordsmen. I think A (as suggested by UnOrtho), or D (as per BigFree) would be the way to go.

So A2/3 or D2 or vice versa. Probably A first.

I first believed that east of us is a point of land - then again - we have been warned that this is not a typical map.

[Aidun]

I was justr thinking of posting my own cityplan when I saw yours, Bigfree, exactly the same as what I was about to propose. I am but thinking of founding them in another order:

1 B
2 D2 (UnOrthO's D1)
3 A2
4 C
5 E2

I also want make a suggestion about the placing of city F: NW NW NW NW of city A2, just to the N-NE of the lake.

Aidun

[Hot Mustard]

Shouldn't we make a priority of getting the cattle, and depriving the Ottomans of it? (site B)

[Aidun]

Originally posted by dejon
Shouldn't we make a priority of getting the cattle, and depriving the Ottomans of it? (site B)

That is just what I am suggesting


Aidun

[Panag]

hi ,

, c should be one up two to the left , so that we can have all those hill's , .....

sorry , no photoshop tools on this terminal

Aro , where are you , ....

have a nice day

[Donegeal]

With the this plan, here is what our Archer Rush city placement should look like:

Asgard
Food: 7 (six eaten, 1 surplus)
Shield: 7 (Archer in three turns with 1 lost shield)
Commerce: 6
1 Warrior Garrisoned for Defense/Happiness

Yellow
Food: 6 (Six eaten, 0 surplus)
Shield: 7 (Archer in three turns with 1 lost shield)
Commerce: 5
1 Warrior Garrisoned for Defense/Happiness

Blue
Food: 6 (Six eaten, 0 surplus)
Shield: 6 (Archer in four turns with 4 lost shields; this is as it is pictured, if there is a bonus grass, then this site is optimal)
Commerce: 5
1 Warrior Garrisoned for Defense/Happiness

Green
Food: 6 (Six eaten, O surplus)
Shield: 7 (Archer in three turns with 1 lost shield)
Commerce: 5
1 Warrior Garrisoned for Defense/Happiness

Red
Food: 6 (Six eaten, 0 surplus)
Shield: 6 (Archer in four turns with 4 lost shields)
Commerce: 5
1 Warrior Garrisoned for Defense/Happiness


Now I know that we won't be able to build all 4 cities before the rush, so the cities are listed in the order that I think would be best (Yellow, Blue, Green, Red). Blue is only #2 on my list IF we find that much needed bonus grassland under the Fog.

All minimum tile improvements are listed in blue (to include the beginings of an Archer Road towards the Ottomans).

I am not sure what corruption factors may play out, but it could change the entire outlook... I will check and post here.

[edit]
Crap! The 7th shield produced is corrupted! This changes everything!!!

* Donegeal thinks he should have done the research BEFORE he posted...

[edit part II]
After further testing, a one tile spacing gives no corruption. The Archers could be completed VERY quickly and the closer city placements means that they would be built quicker (and thusly be more productive sooner).

I would post an image of what I think would be the best one-tile placement but I need to go to sleep. Maybe when I get up...

PS- for all those that completely cringe at the thought of one tile placement, just remember that after we give ourselves some breathing room, we can rearrange our core for more optimal placement. We won't be needing any improvements in these cities (except maybe 20 shield barracks) so they won't be too detrimental to move.

[joncnunn]

A big for the city placement plan.

[Donegeal]

Ok, I did some more work on city placement last night at work. The one I posted earlier would be best if we went with a Sword campaign. With the corruption of 1 shield, it would mean that each city would produce a Swordman in 5 turns and Red would build a Spear in 4.

I worked out a DM plan (city-placement and PW) for an optimal Archer Campaign, but be forewarned, it is a one tile placement arrangement and looks crowded. At this difficulty level, keeping our people happy is going to be difficult. This plan will maintain these initial cities as size 3 with one garrisoned unit for defense and happiness.

City build priorities:
1) Blue (if there is a bonus grassland under the fog)
2) Yellow
3) Green
4) Red
5) Blue (if there is NOT a bonus grassland under the fog)

[Donegeal]

Please note that every tile improvement is worked save 1 road and that every forested river save one is also worked. In this placement, out of all the cities, we loose no shields or commerce to corruption. It requires the least amount of time for tile improvements and makes river crossing almost negligable as a movement obstacle (ok, movement towards the Ottomans. This plan will also allow us to use just one spearman to defend all the cities if need be (we would have to raise the Lux slider for this).

Asgard:
7 Shields (Archer/Spearman in 3 turns)
6 Commerce

Yellow, Green, Blue:
7 Shields (Archer/Spearman in 3 turns)
5 Commerce

Red:
5 Shields (Archer/Spearman in 4 turns)
5 Commerce

[GodKing]

Lets move yellow one south and that can become a perminant city. A little more corruption, but it saves us lots of work later on.