(NEED FEEDBACK Part 4) When do you generally found your VERY LAST permanant city?

We're more than halfway done, as I try to understand general trends in peoples' gameplay.

I want as subjective an answer as possible. Ignore cities that you found just to replace cities that have been razed. I just want to know when you, personally, found your last permanant city on the map. (Replacements don't count as permanant!)

A few other thoughts, to get consistency between everyone's answers:

• The map is neither huge nor tiny.
• The map is not a Pangaea.
• The map is not an archipelago.
• Yes, there WILL be islands that can only be reached by Galleon.
• Do you generally go for more cities, or a few quality cities?
• Do you care about colonizing far off islands?
• Are there any lulls between founding cities, for you?
• How does your favorite victory condition affect your desire for founding your own cities?
• Is the AI generally better than you at grabbing good locations?
• Ignore replacement cities (for cities razed by the enemy, or enemy cities you raze and replace).
• Overestimate. If you can't decide if it's sooner or later, pick later.

(Part 3 was here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=177349)

Add any discussion, comments, or queries as needed.

I'm also going to ask a few more questions about expansion. My NEXT question wants to be before you found your very last permanant city. e.g.: when do you find your immediate landmass has been covered by culture borders. I need some help with the phrasing of this question, so people can understand it.

My profile: warmonger SP/MP player, random leader, "play it now" settings, small maps, standard speed, continents/pangaea/fractal, high seas, win probably 20% at emporer (1 win immortal, hopelessly working on deity), no use of any questionable tactics (i.e. reload).

Quality cities over quantity, especially the higher the difficulty level or during multiplayer.

Small islands are a pain (defending/transporting the settler,worker), unless there is a resource that I do not have and cannot get though war easily.
Most of my game time is a lull in building cities. I prefer to take from others, no matter the map type (SP and MP). I only build cities at the end if I need more land for domination. My end game is cavalry/cannon or earlier. I have yet to see a plane in any recent game.

Domination victories are my favorites/95% of my wins: I build just the capital or 2 cities (maybe 3 if iron/copper not in first two), conquer the rest, keeping capitals and high resource enemy cities. I cannot get domination by building many cities on levels >= monarch. If I play levels < monarch, I find it a waste of time to build my own cities when I can dominate the AI with axes against their archers.

I am usually first to settle the second city at prince and below. At monarch, I usually settle for what is leftover for me or attack if capital contains copper. I am better than AI at city placement, they are just faster at higher levels.

I generally found mine between 1400-1800 depending on how things go. Most of the cities founded after about 15-1600 are because of war razed cities because I like a different spot better. I voted for 1700-1860 though as after 1860 I assure you I am no longer worried about plopping new cities down.

Relatively early, probably by 800AD. After that I'll usually have colonized all available land except in the very rare instance of there being an island only accessible by galleons that is worth the effort of colonizing. Unless I needa particular resource, or there is a very large uncolonized landmass (never occurs on most map types) I regard colonizing far off islands as more trouble and effort than it's worth. After that I rely on taking enemy cities, though occasionally may burn one and refound it in a slightly different place if the AI has made a particularly bad choice.

I generally prefer to have a few high grade cities than more mediocre ones, and will get them in place as fast as possible, no lulls. Victory conditions are of no relevance to my decisions here. Since I tend to play at high difficulty level the AI has a major advantage in grabbing good locations, though their actual city placement is invariabl poorer than my own, particularly where near coastal cities are involved.

Ah, finally! I've been following these surveys and looking forward to their continuation. I've been picking up some useful tips from them, too.

I voted 800 - 1400 AD. It seems like most of the mainland have been settled by the few centuries before 800, but you said not to be too optimistic.

Again you premises for map settings describes almost perfectly the maps I prefer to play on, so no problems there.

- Do you generally go for more cities, or a few quality cities?

I don't mindlessly plop down cities anywhere, but I try to squeeze in as many as possible whitout getting fat-cross overlaps. Unless I desperately need to secure a resource I don't found a city without having a clear plan of how to specialize it. Also, I abhor putting cities in places with lots of useless terrain, such as desert, peaks, tundra and ice.

- Do you care about colonizing far off islands?

Only if there are resources, and there's a potential for a very productive or lucrative city. I quite frequently settle nearby islands, but I don't really like to hassle around with ships more than necessary.

- Are there any lulls between founding cities, for you?

I go by the so called 60%-rule, so whenever I see my science taking a plunge I'll pause to build up the cities I've allready founded. By the time I've built a core empire of 4-5 good cities I find I can effectivly build an army to conquer any city sites the AI may have snatched from me. Of course, you can't count on the AI to place their cities sensebly, so it is a bit of a gambit. If the AIs don't beat me too it, I'll settle there myself.

- How does your favorite victory condition affect your desire for founding your own cities?

I prefer Space Race, so I will eventually need a handfull of good production cities (for the SS components, you see), not just a couple as when I go warmongering. I often look for a site to found an early high-production city to build my first armies, then I look for places which can be lucrative first and productive later (I also find that Universal Suffrage's hammers in towns are not to be scoffed at.) Of course I also need a lot of wealth/science cities to tech like a mad man. I usually make do with just one GP farm, though.

I guess my point is, I want to personally found as many of my cities as possible rather than conquer, because the AI often place cities in less than optimal places when it comes to specialization.

- Is the AI generally better than you at grabbing good locations?

I find we are about equal. I bet I could out-expand the AI quite effectively if I'd put my mind to it, but I find I can just take the city from them if they beat me to a particularly nice spot, so I don't make it a priority. Creative leaders can be a pain in the lower rear sometimes, though, as even if they don't settle in the exact spot I wanted, their borders can still expand to envelop it before I can get my settlers out there. But again, if I want the spot that badly, I'll make an effort to secure it by force.

***

Keeping in mind, I'm just a "lowly" prince level player, I hope this helps and makes sense

I usually only found 3-4 cities on my own but sometimes there is a need for strategic cities much later in the game.

Tiny (one tile) islands that have a food resource or two can be very profitable for centuries without requiring much of a defense. Just use that whip to get a granary/lighthouse/courthouse.

If I have stacks of bombers but can't reach an enemy that owns a whole continent far from my empire I'll look for any tile that can serve as an airbase/troop staging area.

I rarely go for more than a 2nd city. I always prefer to take them from the AI instead unless I am isolated on a large island mass.

I like to found loads of cities (20-40) and try to make at least 30-40% of them very good. I probably have 15% that are exceptional (in relation to the other cities in the world during that game).

Thanks everyone for the feedback! It doesn't surprise me that this one is a bit more spread out, since I asked the question from basically the beginning of the game to the end of the game.

For that reason, I think I'm going to need a LOT more votes to draw some kind of conclusion. I think there's a slight pattern emerging, but I want to get a healthy sample of opinions first.

Does anyone care to help me massage the question for the next poll?

Giving this a bump. I'd like to get a few more votes here before I ask the next question, about the consolidation of the borders on the major landmasses.

Keep the votes and discussion coming!

I voted for 1400-1700. Anything later is unlikely to develop usefully before the game ends, though sometimes I'll build an 'infill' city if there's nothing better to do while I wait for a new tech to unlock another building. And sometimes I stop city-building much earlier, for example when going for a Cultural win and a big empire is unnecessary.

That's what I'm saying, Bushface. I find that if I found a city too late, it ends up costing me more than it benefits me. (Besides the fact that I get lazy, or too bored to deal with another city.)

Keep the votes coming. I want this one to be decisive. And thanks so much to everyone for being such good sports.

I usually tend to found a last city to claim uranium/oil/aluminum, which is around 14th century AD if things go well.

PS I hope the graph will end in a gaussian curve, apart from the 2050 'joke'.

And AI seems to go mad with their boarding paties (transport, settler, 2units), just to occupy a tiny island in the middle of panthalassa with nothing important and high maintenance..

I voted for before 2000bc. I usually just have 3 cities before I go to war. I don't play to any formulas and I try to vary my style as much as I can, but the majority of my games, and all the most sucessful ones have had me settle an absolute minimal amount of cities. Sometimes on a terra i'll still be settling in the 1900's, but thats definately not my most sucessful way of playing.

Generally, I use my second settler to hopefully get copper and found a decent production city, and then my third one settles near as much forest as possible, so I can get a start on my axemen stack. I try and find a special spot for the 3rd one. Lots of forest-grassland is the best, so it can have good production initially from chopping, but then become either a super science city or gp farm later on.

I generally go for lots of cities. I don't really buy into the "less is more" theories... but the vast majority of them are stolen from the AI. If you expand at the correct rate, you can have lots of well developed cities when everyone else only has a few.

I don't care about colonising far off islands. I'll take Barb cities if they've settled far off islands, but I won't bother send a settler there myself. Much better to let the AI use up some of his resources settling the crappy islands, and then attack his homeland when he least expects it.

No lull's in founding cities because I hardly ever found any

I like conquest and domination the most. Even when I go for conquest though, I'm usually close to the domination limit and switch to a raze everything policy.

I play on monarch and emperor, so generally the AI kicks my arse in the initial land grab. I don't even bother trying to compete. I just get an army ready with minimal cities.

I love reading peoples' rationales for their strategies. I think the people who recognize that founding a city on a far off crappy island can have way more costs than benefits are more my style.

But then, this survey isn't about what's best (otherwise I'd have just pushed my opinion pretty darn hard). I'm much more interested to know how people play, because that's indicative of how much fun they're having.

Keep the votes coming. I'd like to get this pretty darn close to 100, if at all possible. We're getting close!

I voted for 800ad -1400ad. The acual date in there, going with your premises for the map, would depend on which style I'm playing but..

If I am playing on deity or immortal then I place by beginning settlers and switch to slavery as soon as possible to so I can hurry my granery, settler, lighthouse, settler, as soon as I can get them out. The goal being to get 4 or 5 cities down and grab what resourses I can get before the AIs grab up all the land.
After that point, I may place the occational city for the same resons everyone has stated before, get some needed resourse, move a conquered city, and I also like to place a new city in places to help flip friendly/netural cities when possible.
This is all done with the goal of produceing as many military units as fast as possible in order to capture/destroy the AIs.

If however, I'm playing on monarch or lower, I tend to go for technological domination of the world and since I also have much more time before barbs attack or AIs fill up the land, I tend to build loads of cities, but even when doing this I tend to have my 15-25 core cities placed by 1400 AD and tend to just capture from there on.


Looking forward to the next poll dh_epic, these are very interesting.

I always keep a Settler ready to go in my city just in case I need to establish a jump board for over-sea invasion or to grab some resources.

If I can squeze a city on the coast between two other civs I will. I often have around 2 settlers in reserve to colonize new islands and other civs' war zones all the way up to the nineteenth century. After that I feel there is too little time to make use of a new city (Unless of course I am mowing over another civ and have a different city placement in mind).