This started by with a discussion between me the soon to be President and Eirei, the Domestic leader, on the CFC chat...

The Discussion

<Grey Fox> I like tight city locations so you know... in the core
<Eyrei> I like them pretty spread out at the core, and tighter the further from the capital, particularly near the borders.
<Grey Fox> the more cities in the core the better
<Grey Fox> try to get as many 12 cities as possible
<Grey Fox> then you won't need Hospitals, and you get more shields for a longer period
<Eyrei> hopefully, i will be able to use circular pattern
<Eyrei> I do use some overlap. I usually have a port city very near the capital with a habor. The bonus shields from coast squares can make a big difference if they are not corrupted.
<Grey Fox> my suggestion is 2 squares horizontal/ and 3 Diagonal... I'll show you... w8
<Eyrei> oops, meant commerce, not shields
<Eyrei> and then build a marketplace asap
<Eyrei> this city doesn't use any of the capital's tiles unless they are not going to be used
<Grey Fox> Like this: http://medieteknik.bth.se/frst01/settler-menace.jpg
<Grey Fox> will make 6 capitals instead of one
<Grey Fox> 7 I mean
<Grey Fox> all cities could have 12 or less or more working citizens
<Eyrei> hmm. way too close for me. if you moved them all out one square and eliminated a couple, it would still be closer than I place them.
<Grey Fox> yea, I have never don it like this before
<Grey Fox> but wouldn't this make 7 VERY good 12 cities?
<Grey Fox> Wouldn't that be the best thing in SPEED, city in the same turn as the Settler is built... and you won't be having the next ring as close
<Eyrei> I am pretty good a controlling corruption and waste, so I like them to be a little farther apart. Plus, this would cause us to go over the optimim city limit very fast, and our border cities would be nearly worthless.
<Grey Fox> well, they are always still
<Grey Fox> only having closer packed cities in the core areas and widelt placed corupted cities (if not for score), thet would make up for the downsides
<Grey Fox> I'll try without cheats on a LARGE MAp tonight and make AN EXCEL FILE to compare?
<Grey Fox> give me your City placement
<Eyrei> I don't have the tools here. I'll try to come up with something.
<Grey Fox> this map I lowered the turn to make settlers and I no people lost when building them
<Eyrei> I basically try to set up two rings around the two palaces.
<Eyrei> Then one more ring around the entire empire, which are very close together, and seize as much territory as possible.
<Eyrei> The cities in the first ring around each palace are given plenty of room to grow into powerhouses in the industrial age.
<Grey Fox> tell me how, vertically and horizontally and diagonals... you know that 2 tiles sideways is equal to about 3 tiles diagonal when it comes to curruption/wast right?
<Eyrei> let me try it in word real quick, it won't be pretty but it might work.brb
<Eyrei> never mind, that won't work
<Eyrei> Basically, the capital will not have but a couple squares overlap, except for its port city, which doesn't use those anyway.
<Eyrei> Then, the next ring around the capital are 4 to 5 squares away depending on the direction
<Eyrei> I then try to plan for the forbidden palace, give it plenty of space, and create another of these rings.
<Eyrei> Around each inner ring is another ring, but closer this time to the first ring. 2 to 3 squares usually, but sometimes 4 depending on terrain.
<Grey Fox> well that seems pretty good...
<Grey Fox> couldn't you make a text file with X's or something so I could try it out?
<Eyrei> Then, if there is still space left, I begin placing cities right next to my neighbors cultural borders,and rush temples and libraries. These cities are usually pretty corrupt, but they are mostly there for culture.
<Eyrei> It is hard to show the distance in a text file. Try it by not allowing any city next to the capital to take overlap more than two squares of the capital. and no more than 2 or three squares of each other.
<Eyrei> Then make another ring around these cities that overlap up to like 8 squares, but trying to keep them as far apart as possible.
<Grey Fox> well if you place like I do there will be overlap, but no stealing of tiles... all cities will get 12 tiles, which is more then they need most of the game
<Eyrei> I like the capital to eventually work all 22 tiles, and most cities near it to work 18-22.
<Eyrei> Of course this doesn't happen until the industrial age.
<Grey Fox> well you won't need any cities like that... when you have 7-14-20 MONSTER 12 Cities... you can still get every wonder from the HOOVER
<Eyrei> But I always get a huge lead on the AI around this time.
<Grey Fox> and the Great Library if you wnat to...
<Grey Fox> and Sun Tzu or Sistine
<Eyrei> I like to have a city that can produce an army in 4 turns.
<Grey Fox> well you can LOL
<Eyrei> There will be some serious debate when we get a leader.
<Eyrei> I think the ability to use armies is more important than any one wonder.
<Grey Fox> many of these cities will crank out 30-40+ shields with railroads and no Factories if their is enough hills and food
<Eyrei> True. but the other cities will be completely corrupt.
<Grey Fox> I don't consider armies more important...
<Grey Fox> no not really
<Grey Fox> as you place all cities CLOSE there will be more Uncorrupted cities the in your system
<Eyrei> Maybe we should have this discussion on the forum, so we don't have to repeat our opinions.


Here is My idea (GREY FOX) of the INNER CORE:

http://medieteknik.bth.se/frst01/settler-menace.jpg

I use a "no plan" option. That is, I try not to think of what is the absolute best positional "grid" before I start. I follow a couple of general guidelines. Things that make me tend to build cities in closer are a nearby neighbor, smaller land mass, earlier build time and flood plains or other high food tiles. Figure that the "best" layout is 3 tiles horizontal and 4 diagonal and subtract 1/2 to 1 for each condition that is present. Actual topography is the deciding factor for which particular tile to place the new city on.

I have updated the picture in the first post. Now it's correct.

This setup will will give us a Core of 9, 12 size cities, with 1 corruption/waste each... adn as the Map probably will be a Large one, we could make a ring outside this one to that will have insignificent Curuption and Waste.


I'm not saying we should build like this if there is a resource in the way... but one way to prevent that is by placing the capital on the right spot and moving cities once step some direction (making them as close as the were before...)

I think city placement is a combination of having a good grid pattern around the capitol, and I would place mine a bit further out than you do Greyfox, but I think all of this is really more driven by geography and the strategic situation (controlling choke points, luxurys, resources, etc... all are higher build priorities to me over the early pattern approach).

To me, the bigger question to address is: "Are you a wanderer with your initial settler, or do you plop down right where you begin?"

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
To me, the bigger question to address is: "Are you a wanderer with your initial settler, or do you plop down right where you begin?"

Usually I build it on the spot, but if there is a better location One or two squares away that can be of an heavy advantage throughout the game I move it...

The picture above is a Home Made map with modified rules to build settlers fast...

I'll use the worker and scout (if expansionist) to get a quick look around on the first turn. If there's something that looks very promising I'll move to it. If not, I build right where I am.

personally, i never crowd my capital. i move 5 spaces out. i will crowd my 1st ring cities, which happens naturally, or by topigraphical decisions. why limit your best cities (corruption-wise)? and placement of the forbidden palace should be held back until deep planning can be made. just my opinion. as far as placement of a settler, i would rather throw down on a 2 food tile, as apposed to a 2 food,1 shield tile.

My overall design consists of two sets of two rings centered on the two palaces. In each ring, where possible, the center city's workable squares are only overlapped a couple of times by the surrounding cities. In the first ring, the cities workable areas overlap slightly, usually 2- 3 squares. The cities in the next ring, overlap with each other significantly, and 2-3 squares with cities in the first ring. This obviously has to be adjusted for terrain and oceans.

The benefit of this becomes apparent in the industrial age, when you can build hospitals. The two capitals become industrial and commercial powerhouses, as their populations approach 30. The first ring cities also become powerhouse, with pops of 20+ and very little corruption and waste. Also, this reduces corruption in fringe cities, because we would not be well beyond the optimum city number.

Finally, I place cities right on my neighbors borders and rush-build cultural improvements. These cities are usually pretty corrupt, but their main purpose is to expand territory.

As far as first city placement goes, if I can see the coast, I settle on it. Otherwise, I move the worker to a high point, and may even wait a couple of turns before I settle.

This will probably be the subject of polls (held by the domestic adivisor) and chat discussions (while the game is being played). We should not impose a model since people will probably want to express their opinion for every new city being settled.

Originally posted by Pggar
This will probably be the subject of polls (held by the domestic adivisor) and chat discussions (while the game is being played). We should not impose a model since people will probably want to express their opinion for every new city being settled.
To some extent I agree. However, it will be very useful to have a general idea of how we wish to arrange the cities before we start. A poll to decide the placement of every city would be far to cumbersome, as well.

It may be necessary for the domestic advisor to chat with the president while he is playing the game through the expansion phase. In fact, it may a good idea for the entire cabinet to do this at times when it is possible.

Originally posted by eyrei
A poll to decide the placement of every city would be far to cumbersome, as well.This was done in the Civ2 game, and should be done here as city placemaent is one of the most important part of the game. If we don't have a discussion for every new city we'll not be playing a democracy.
A good thing of this game is that you can express your ideas and persuade others. For instance, the concept of half-city, that is used by some experienced players, is not known by everybody and people might not like to see lots of overlapped tiles. You can only instruct and convince people by discussing each placement.

If you check out my city placement you'll see that you will fit MORE (like twice) cities onto the same area as the first ring.

This will improve your game overall, you won't need any Hospitals, you won't be wasting any territory (becaues you are not waiting for Hospital). You don't even have to research Sanitation.

You will have an overall Higher Income. And Shield Output.

The HOOVER DAM will improve more cities.

Why won't anyone agree with me?

The cities are OVERLAPPING, YES!!! BUT they are not stealing any Tiles from any cities, they are SHARING them!

As your President(am I?), I think of it as my assignment to prove this to you all.

I'm going to do a little test now, where I Build the optimum number of cities(maybe twice the amount or something instead...) on a Large Maps filled with only BONUS GRASSLAND + Rivers.

I will play this twice, one time with my Strategy and one with a more spread out core.

Maybe I will compile an Excel file for you all to compare.

Originally posted by Grey Fox
If you check out my city placement you'll see that you will fit MORE (like twice) cities onto the same area as the first ring.

This will improve your game overall, you won't need any Hospitals, you won't be wasting any territory (becaues you are not waiting for Hospital). You don't even have to research Sanitation.

You will have an overall Higher Income. And Shield Output.

The HOOVER DAM will improve more cities.

Why won't anyone agree with me?

The cities are OVERLAPPING, YES!!! BUT they are not stealing any Tiles from any cities, they are SHARING them!

As your President(am I?), I think of it as my assignment to prove this to you all.

I'm going to do a little test now, where I Build the optimum number of cities(maybe twice the amount or something instead...) on a Large Maps filled with only BONUS GRASSLAND + Rivers.

I will play this twice, one time with my Strategy and one with a more spread out core.

Maybe I will compile an Excel file for you all to compare.

Sounds good. Of course, I expect to be able to reduce corruption to under 10% by the mid-industrial age, and I think too many cities will make this impossible.

Originally posted by Grey Fox
If you check out my city placement you'll see that you will fit MORE (like twice) cities onto the same area as the first ring.

This will improve your game overall, you won't need any Hospitals, you won't be wasting any territory (becaues you are not waiting for Hospital). You don't even have to research Sanitation.

You will have an overall Higher Income. And Shield Output.

The HOOVER DAM will improve more cities.

Why won't anyone agree with me?

You're not alone, Pres. My typical build is a lot closer to yours than to the traditional biggest city pattern.

Another benefit of a more spread out placement is that we will claim more land more quickly, especially if we rush temples in cities. Territory is all important as far as resources are concerned. If we are left without rubber because we didn't expand our territory fast enough, I will be extremely upset.:p

Originally posted by eyrei
Another benefit of a more spread out placement is that we will claim more land more quickly, especially if we rush temples in cities. Territory is all important as far as resources are concerned. If we are left without rubber because we didn't expand our territory fast enough, I will be extremely upset.:p

Not necessarely, more Cities earlier = More Settler producers, earlier.

If you keep on producing Settlers with almost every city, you will get more territory and more cities then you would if you spread out your cities early. A settler should build it's town in one turn. With roads to all future sites that's possible. (If not produced far away)

Originally posted by Pggar
This was done in the Civ2 game, and should be done here as city placemaent is one of the most important part of the game. If we don't have a discussion for every new city we'll not be playing a democracy.
A good thing of this game is that you can express your ideas and persuade others. For instance, the concept of half-city, that is used by some experienced players, is not known by everybody and people might not like to see lots of overlapped tiles. You can only instruct and convince people by discussing each placement.

This was a quote from the civ2 demo forum by DofF: "It was never the intention to have the decission's to be made withought the people being informed of it.In the "poll's on demand" thread i have stated that the Leader's would have to make the decission's prior to playing the next few turn's ,so that the people would know what the decission's are and could comment on it when nessecary."

I believe it should work this way with city placement to avoid constant polling. If enough people voice concern over a particular placement, a vote will be taken. If noone dissents, then the city goes where the leadership wants it.

Originally posted by Grey Fox


Not necessarely, more Cities earlier = More Settler producers, earlier.

If you keep on producing Settlers with almost every city, you will get more territory and more cities then you would if you spread out your cities early. A settler should build it's town in one turn. With roads to all future sites that's possible. (If not produced far away)

Closer cities does not equate more cities earlier. They are simply closer. It does not take many shields to produce a settler, so even a far flung city, placed to secure a border, can be a settler producer.

This was done in the Civ2 game, and should be done here as city placemaent is one of the most important part of the game. If we don't have a discussion for every new city we'll not be playing a democracy.

My friend Pggar has experience in the democracy game's ,but it seem's he isn't aware of the reform's that have swept through the democracy game the last few turn's.So when he is reading this ,wich i hope he will ,then i want him to read this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19013) ,so that he is updated on this new information.Basicly ,leader's decide for themself's defacto now instead of polling the citizin's.

gentleman, it almost sounds like bickering already. this is the nations first step. we must be careful where we place our foot. grey fox, i think it is a good idea that you are testing your theory.but i think you should play out you theory alone and not start the other one. play it out for a long time. (as much as possible.) i do have a question for you. have you ever seen this city placement strategy done by any of the AI nations?
my feeling is that you will be self-imposing a corruption standard on the core cities. i see your point about fitting more cities in closer later, but i don't see the return outwieghing the restrictions we will be placing on the core cities. of course, i've never tried this. so you may be right. test out your theory and play till the birth of christ. then post your findindings. by the way, i fully support my president in his decisions.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders


My friend Pggar has experience in the democracy game's ,but it seem's he isn't aware of the reform's that have swept through the democracy game the last few turn's.So when he is reading this ,wich i hope he will ,then i want him to read this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19013) ,so that he is updated on this new information.Basicly ,leader's decide for themself's defacto now instead of polling the citizin's. I'm aware of the reforms.
The problem I foresee is that we'll end up having too much discussion about city placement in the begginig, because it's a crucial matter and as we can see in this thread we have lots of different views on the subject.
What I think it'll happen: the domestic advisor will post his decisions, everytime he posts about city placement, someone will disagree and start a discussion that will be followed by a poll. This might become overwhelming.
What I'm trying to say is that city placement is an special topic, and I believe we should make a queue of positions in the beggining because it's such a crucial matter. However, we can try this way first and see if things go well.

I'm in agreement with Pggar. City placements are very important and shld be polled I think, to reflect the wishes of the citizenry. Otherwise, the citizenry may have too little time to respond before the plan is posted by the Prez and then the city is placed in the game. Not everyone can log on 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week like you guys. :p

Prez Grey Fox, while I understand the rationale behind your idea, this is not the way to play the demo game. As Prez, you shld lead the discussion, taking into acct all views; not simply imposing your own (or seemingly so) over the citizenry.

Otherwise, it'll simply scare and drive away interested new potential players, with all this top-down I-know-it-all approach.

Apologies first if I misconstrue your posts. :o

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Prez Grey Fox, while I understand the rationale behind your idea, this is not the way to play the demo game. As Prez, you shld lead the discussion, taking into acct all views; not simply imposing your own (or seemingly so) over the citizenry.

Otherwise, it'll simply scare and drive away interested new potential players, with all this top-down I-know-it-all approach.

Apologies first if I misconstrue your posts. :o


Sorry about that, I got carried away a little...

Anyway I have the fullest confidence in everyone here in choosing good city locations. And I would like us to discuss them all of course... My Idea was only a suggestion to Eyrei as he is the Domestic Leader.

I don't really think that my theory would work that well with our demo-game.

Again, I'm very sorry if I stepped on anyones toes.

you da man, grey fox. i stand behind you 100%. hold true to your constitution, and we will follow you:goodjob:

Originally posted by Grey Fox
Sorry about that, I got carried away a little...

Anyway I have the fullest confidence in everyone here in choosing good city locations. And I would like us to discuss them all of course... My Idea was only a suggestion to Eyrei as he is the Domestic Leader.

I don't really think that my theory would work that well with our demo-game.

Again, I'm very sorry if I stepped on anyones toes.Don't worry about it. ;) Now let's get this show on the road. Lead on, Mr Prez. :D :goodjob:

I do hope we'll get more committed players though. Only time will tell. :o

Mr Spice and Knight-Dragon ,are you aware of the changes i made in the constitution regarding the presidential power?
From now on ,the president can make evry decission he want's ,and can override any leader ,as long as he has the support of the cabinet.
What does this mean? Well every turn the president could make some decission's like "we gona build a wonder in that city" or "we gona start a war against that civ" ,and as long as nobody of the cabinet opposes to that ,then it will be done.However ,if somebody opposes ,a cabinet vote will be initianated and if more than 50% of he cabinet opposes nhis decission will not pass.
Why have i made this a rule? Under the reform's in the CivII demo game all leader's get much more power ,but the president's power wasn't changed ,and i feel the president needs more power to make it interresting for him.I don't think he will try to make all decission's ,with all his work he would be likely to make a few though important decission ,and if mostof the people disagree his decission can still be overturnd.
In real life it's a bit like that to ,in a democracy a president can declare war against a civ ,and if the "senate" (in this ex. the cabinet) agree's then his decission passes ,otherwise it is overturnd.
I will try to implement that in the CivII demo game to ,although with a poll there ,over here it will be a rule at start.

I think you are taking to much power from the citizens with those changes. In this model, even decisions made by people consensus might be overturn by a few group of leaders, and that´s not good.
I think if the leaders decide to use this too much, it'll be the first time we'll need a revolution. The first time we'll use section F of the constitution. :goodjob:

I like the new rules, Duck. The old game moved way too slow.

This time, there will be more controversy too. ;) :lol:

Should be a good one!:goodjob:

How can the President overrule a leader with the support of the cabinet? Surely the cabinet must contain that leader being overruled. If the cabinet are split then surely it would go to the people to decide the course of action to be taken.

I think I have an idea on how to solve the city placement question.

Why not hold an election for a governor of the new "province" and then the elected person decides the placement. Also, with the new governor's "core city" he can expand hs own little fiefdom and if the greater empire wants to contribute then the president decides.

As to the core cities I'd say let the domestic minister decide, whoever that is. The domestic guy is the one that has to deal with all the inner-goings-on of the empire.

So in effect the only ones involved in city placement are the president, the domestic guy and the governor if there is one.

It'll keep discussion down and it could demonstrate leadership on the governor's part so he can get elected elsewhere if he wants to.

I think we should go with Daaraa's solution. It'll make more people feel special :D.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Mr Spice and Knight-Dragon ,are you aware of the changes i made in the constitution regarding the presidential power?
Yes, I am aware, vaguely.

But city placements can make or kill a game, considering the level of corruption in Civ3 so I feel in this particular case, shld still be made with input fr the citizenry. I don't want us having to live with lousy placements all thru the entire game, which would hinder all succeeding Prez and leaders. ;)

After the city founding, everything else can go your way.

Except for war. Only a war supported by the citizens shld be allowed to be put into op, esp if we're the aggressor. War in Civ3 is very very tempting and rewarding (haha), and we shld put some safeguards in place, just in case we got warmongers in the govt (haha).

Yeah! That's my goal! Make everyone feel special! :lol: :D
Didn't think of it that way but ok. Whatever blows yer skirt up.

When we are starting to get many cities and the names on them are starting to be called "New [CityName]", why don't we get to name ONE city ourself. So that some players, if many, all players get to NAME a City?

Thet'll happen from the start. There's no reason for us to keep the name of the cities since we're changing the name of the civilization.
You're probably getting one of the first cities since you're the mighty president. :p

Near Resources, Rivers and not (unless specially decided) next to any mountains aor hills (so if the enemy is near the city, they won't have any defense bonus if we coutnerattack from the city itself.)