Adequate # of cities

[kokomo]

Let's say I want to have a decent number of cities in order to support effectively the growth and science of my civilization, which would that quantity be?

I've read in some other thread that 6, was the lowest suggestable number of cities you should have.

My question is, according to your experience, fellow civilizers, which is the average number of cities you usually manage without lagging behind?

 

[PibbZ]

At LEAST 6 indeed, I however always aim for atleast 8, preferably 12 (i.e. 3 cathedrals of one religion).

 

[Echo of Celts]

I think it depends on the kind of game you are playing.

My last game I had a High Science Peaceful state with 15 Cities, but maintained a large Navy and Army.

Game before the I ended the game with 113 Cities, war mongering the entire game. State Property came in handy then...

 

[Quotey]

Echo, how many cities did you have on Governer and Research then?

 

[DigitalBoy]

In the long run, at least six cities. Seven or eight is better though.

 

[Willem]

You need at least 8 in order to build the Forbidden Palace, so it seems to me that should be the minimum.

 

[Echo of Celts]

Echo, how many cities did you have on Governer and Research then?

I actually had none on governor or research.. the shear number of cities sent my science into overdrive and when a city popped with something to build I usually just clicked a recommended military unit. I had most cities rallying into 2 point and I would grab the army's that gathered from those points and move them into combat.

 

[Rotty]

It depends on victory condition. I think the most efficient way to win a cultural victory is only 8 cities on huge maps (6 on standard) for 2 cottaged cathedral cities, 1 National Epic food city running Sistine-powered artists, and 5 to build temples and units. 8-on-huge should also be enough to win the space race. For other victories, you want to be coveting every flood plain, grassland, and non-desert hill on the map, and then you'll need to expand some more.

 

[Silence101]

I generally try to settle at least six cities myself before resorting to warfare expansion. I consider it an early game failure if I can't get at least six decent cities settled peacefully - (Failure in terms of not reaching my expansion goal, but I'll still continue with the game.)

There's also the question of quality - Those first six cities have to be in decent locations as opposed to settling for the sake of settling. I'd sooner not settle than put a city in bad location. (Assuming that there's no strategic reason for it.)

I've heard a lot of people say that you can win with six cities alone - I'm sure that you can, but I've never really tried it. After the very early game, I usually start attacking my neighbors and taking their cities. Again, assuming that you're keeping good quality cities, then I figure the more you have, the better. It makes producing a huge military quickly a lot easier by mid-game.

 

[Draknith]

I think it depends on the kind of game you are playing.

Saying it depends upon what kind of game you are playing is def. the way you want to go.

Your map size is the first thing you want to think about. If you are playing larger sized maps, you need more cities with certain buildings to build the different national wonders. Smaller maps, less cities.

If you are going for victories where you need land to win, you're probably going to want to have lots of cities, and some vassals.

I've always wanted to go the route of the religious super power, but with maybe 3 cities. That way you go all diplomatic, and use nation against nation until the end when you take over all the leftover nuclear wastelands!

 

[AlessioCerci]

Let's say I want to have a decent number of cities in order to support effectively the growth and science of my civilization, which would that quantity be?

I've read in some other thread that 6, was the lowest suggestable number of cities you should have.

My question is, according to your experience, fellow civilizers, which is the average number of cities you usually manage without lagging behind?

As many as possible

 

[ChicagoCubs]

On a standard sized, panagea map, I shoot for six decent cities and three others that are usually placed for strategy or resource.

 

[Draknith]

My question is, according to your experience, fellow civilizers, which is the average number of cities you usually manage without lagging behind?

I can play a Huge Terra Map and easily have 20-30 cities without anything lagging behind. In fact it's like a nuclear powered locomotive plowing through the game.

Huge I try and have between 11-15

Large 8-12

Standard 6-8

Smaller than that... haven't really done but probably 4 or so.

 

[Vanadium]

i tend to like 9 since if you get a quest seems to be the magic number ...although i also play large maps

9 is what i aim for then after that i expand at the expense of anyone im killing

 

[Ball Lightning]

At least 6, unless a wonder strategy where i have gotten by with 2 (i was 2nd last with score, #1 with GNP).

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

Once I got boxed in and was only able to get 3 cities down, and the 3rd one I just barely managed to squeeze in, and had heavy culture pressure. Seemed like an unwinnable situation, but i managed to keep up in tech through the early game thanks to lots of gems, riverside cottages, and plenty of food. If that happens to you, you need to bust out through force, which I did. Got construction asap, thankfully had elephants, and cats+elephants let me bust out, and go on to win a domination victory.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

There are two very conflicting schools of thought for number of cities.

On one extreme, there's OCC, and on the other extreme, only build the bare minimum buildings in each city, then crank out units non-stop, without pausing for even workers, relying on capturing workers and leaving improvements as they are. Of course, what's "bare minimum" can vary tremendously.

For OCC, you're effectively creating cities in your one city by settling great persons, and highly efficient too, because of all the bonuses you get from multipliers and wonders. As long as you have health resources and enough to trade around, you should blast ahead in tech early and will eventually last through to a diplomatic or space if your spot is great.

On the other extreme, here's what I consider building if you want pure warmonger, cranking out units non-stop:

- nothing but courthouses in all cities
- libraries in some
- barracks in most
- granaries in very population-devastated cities (high homeland unhapiness, but then in large cities granaries are usually standing anyway)
- theatres if religions somehow doesn't spread there for a long time, and libraries are not worth the hammers. Also hippodromes if you're Byzantines, as you can draft like mad and simply turn on the cultural slider 40%.

And that's is IT.

Your slider will be low, you won't have a good great person farm, and you can pretty much forget about national wonders. However, it works really well because in Civ, having twice as much land means having twice as many luxury resources, which usually ALL your cities are larger. You don't need things like colosseums and aqueducts, as your sheer variety of resources will sustain your underdeveloped empire.

For a builder-biased game, I would still build the minimum number of cities needed for national wonders, and for an expansion-biased game, build a city as long as it either gets you a new type of resource, or if the spot is good enough such that MB>MC (check your maintenance costs).

 

[theKurgen]

I usually try to have ALL of the cities

 

[Sjaramei]

Depends on map and difficulty, the more the merrier.

 

[DMOC]

Usually, 6 or 8. Obviously more if you can handle it. The reason? What others have said before, crucial national wonders.

I'm playing a giant 36 civ map right now and I have approximately 100 cities (anyone know how to find the exact value of cities you have?). And I have also won an OCC so it really does not matter how much you have as long as you can maintain tech and military.