I have hated it from Civ1 to Civ3. Make the computer space their cities 4 squares apart so they don't overlap and steal resources from eachother. Please!!! The maps should be big enough now so that there is no need for overlap. That really pisses me off when the comp city rips off my cities resources.

Sounds like they are using a pretty good strategy to me.

Sounds like they are using a pretty good strategy to me.

You like the 3 spaces between towns thing? Arggh!! :cry:

I agree that it is agrivating, but since I do the same thing I don't care so much. When you look at it from the computers point of view it is a smart stratagy. The thing I hate is when they make worthless tundra colonies above my cities.

I agree that it is agrivating, but since I do the same thing I don't care so much. When you look at it from the computers point of view it is a smart stratagy. The thing I hate is when they make worthless tundra colonies above my cities.

In Civ 1 or 2, since the Settlers are so stupid I can understand it for defensive purposes since they are close together. I see no other purpose for it though. Why would the computer want them close together, and why do you?

Actually, I think the AI spaces it's city too loosely. It's particularly galling when they miss a resource or strategic location because it's on a peninsula or isthmus that already has one city, and there's no tile far enough, in the AI's opinion, from it to plop down a second city.

(I usually have three tiles between my cities, mostly because I object to ICS on aesthetic reasons.)

Actually, I think the AI spaces it's city too loosely. It's particularly galling when they miss a resource or strategic location because it's on a peninsula or isthmus that already has one city, and there's no tile far enough, in the AI's opinion, from it to plop down a second city.

(I usually have three tiles between my cities, mostly because I object to ICS on aesthetic reasons.)

I don't know what ICS means, but yeah, I like it for aesthetic reasons, and because I want my towns to grow to their full potential. It makes a huge difference when your city can build a unit in 1 turn later in the game. That doesn't happen otherwise. Plus I just don't like building 500 cities. I want to keep it to a manageable amount, but I built more in Civ3 than any other Civ due to how much automation is available.

Infinite City Spacing - I think. Bulding cities as close together as possible.

Infinite City Sprawl. Means the same thing though.

I, too, think that the AI spaces its cities out too far, usually wasting some tiles.

Why is building a city too close a strategy which is smart for the computer to do? I don't uderstand that. In general both your city and the computer city grow poorly. I surely raze those cities when I conquer them.

I also don't understand what ICS means. Does it mean that players build on every single possible square?

Basically, yes, although you have to have at least one square between them.

The idea behind ICS is that you don't need all 20 tiles from the start (you only use 12 max for 2/3rd of the game, which is when the game is usually won).

Okay, first of all when you are placing your cities 4 tiles away from each other you are wasting the potential of all that land between your cities that could be worked by your citizens for the first two eras until you get hospitals . Second when you place your cities too far away from each other they become unproductive because of the distance corruption. And the third thing is that you have less cities than you could which means less support for your military.

i like to place my cities close enough to each other to not overlap, but that seldomly happens as i'd like... cause there is usually a resource or 2 that i want in my city limits... whales tend to be a big problem here... and so often i will overlap 1-5 spaces in my cities... i don't see much of a difference throughout the game... it doesn't usually affect gameplay until the very end... which i seldomly play till anyways cause i get annoyed at how easily the enemy falls before my armies...

pack em close early,then disband and add em into other cities later to be better than both ICS and perfectionist players :)

I actually like the civ strategy of plopping down close and stealing resources. makes perfect sense to me. Seriously though, i'd love to see them get rid of the AI tendancy to build pointless cities in the middle of deserts and tundra.

My strategy doesn't follow a spacing requirement, but is to have about 8 to 12 tiles overlap for most cities. This means, on average, 4 to 6 tiles of the 21 are not usable by the host city, but are usable by another. I do not leave any tile uncovered, if possible. If happiness is a restriction later, I can then choose which cities to expand beyond size 12.

Very certainly the AI places its cities too loosely.

I also am pretty sure 12 tiles per city is the best placement for your cities. If you haven't tried it, you really should.
If it doesn't work out for you, that means you lack the skills to build enough settlers and workers to grab enough land and work every tile of it.

if you don't believe me, take a look at the spoilers from top finishing gotm players.

I think Urbanization models would allow for ICS early(which is realistic) but not make it tedious later on. Actually I mainly support Urbanization because it keeps the number of cities you manage at any time pretty constant past the middle ages.

Very certainly the AI places its cities too loosely.

I also am pretty sure 12 tiles per city is the best placement for your cities. If you haven't tried it, you really should.
If it doesn't work out for you, that means you lack the skills to build enough settlers and workers to grab enough land and work every tile of it.

if you don't believe me, take a look at the spoilers from top finishing gotm players.

I'm going to give it a go. Just build cities close enough together so that they never go over 12. That way you wouldn't have to build sewage (Civ2) and can't remember what - maybe Hospitals? (Civ3). Still, the maps are so big that I just can't see a benefit to having the cities so close, but i'll try it for a game.

I used to try to minimize overlap between cities by having 3-4 spaces between them, but after looking at how others did it here, I switched to CxxC (not rigidly, but in general). It made a huge difference to my game--basically the difference between Monarch and Emperor level.

I usually settle based on what is nearby, but I only count overlap of the first radius cultural border (as opposed to the full 2-square radius).

Very certainly the AI places its cities too loosely.

I also am pretty sure 12 tiles per city is the best placement for your cities. If you haven't tried it, you really should.
If it doesn't work out for you, that means you lack the skills to build enough settlers and workers to grab enough land and work every tile of it.

if you don't believe me, take a look at the spoilers from top finishing gotm players.

Great tip - but I am feeble and can't work out how many tiles between cities that is.

I've been using the 1-turn by road system. It seesm to work in terms of ICS, although I bet there is more efficient systems out there.

I dont have a strategy, I build cities where i need them, and dont really think about it ... i guess that also shows why i am 9-14 in the ladder, doesnt it :)

The AI plopping down cities in Desert and Tundra is not pointless. In fact, I do it all the time myself.

It is a way to get some oil without having to fight over it. If I'm near a Tundra or Desert, I always try to make sure that only I settle it; that way, I have a chance at the oil. The point is being able to have the oil in your grasp for a very long time before it's useful. So I always settle the Tundras and Deserts in Ancient times or the Middle Ages, since that gives me plenty of time to build up the culture in the area.

I do it to the AI :mischief:...

How many tiles is it if you do twelve tiles per city?

Hmm, you know, the ICS strat could actually be considered a cheat by the player, since the AI can't do it so well. I wonder if at some point in the civ series they will find a way to make food/environmental conditions more strictly dictate early city placement, seems this would be both more realistic and make for a more rigorous game.

I know how to eliminate the ICS scourge, eliminate the free-tile. If you have a size 1 city, you are still working 2 tiles; the city tile and the tile by the worker. In C-evo you had to use a citizen to work the city square. This out of anything would eliminate the gross advantage of ICS. Close placement would still be a smart strategy though.

sometimes having more cities is more important than squeezing out max squares per city
and since civ3 has the culture borders i always start cities up against enemy borders and rush a few culture improvements to take over their land and eventually cause a culture flip

Maximum city coverage is a very inefficient strategy for the part of the game where you need tile usage. My suggestion was simply to remove the overpowering affect of the free tile. ICS would still be useful, just not overpowered. Hopefully they will change the city radius concept to something more flexible.

The AI puts cities in useless places for score and culture, and you should too. This isn't Civ II.

In the ancient age, you are not using a third of the tiles in the city raduis.
AI builds them too far apart