Im still having trouble making the shift from CIV III to IV and was wondering if I could get some advice on the ammount of cities I should shoot for. Where in CIV III on a given land space I could fit ten cities I find myself putting around four in CIV IV. Is this normal? When I was packing my cities in in CIV IV i found money bacame scare quick. so any hints on this would be appriciated.
Avg. Number Of Cities
- Thread starter rancor
- Start date
It depends how close you were packing them in in Civ3. If you were placing them as close as the game allowed then yes, you're going to have to spread out in Civ4.
However, you can afford some overlap. The cost of a city increases with distance from your capital, so overlapping your next city slightly decreases the cost. Cities do not produce money until they've developed: they drain it, so you can't pack them too tight.
You should aim for 9-10 cities, but spread out so that there's only a few tiles overlap between them, if any overlap at all. You may well send one city quite a way out to grab a resource, because resources are very important. After 10 cities city upkeep jumps up quickly, so stay there until your economy is going well.
However, you can afford some overlap. The cost of a city increases with distance from your capital, so overlapping your next city slightly decreases the cost. Cities do not produce money until they've developed: they drain it, so you can't pack them too tight.
You should aim for 9-10 cities, but spread out so that there's only a few tiles overlap between them, if any overlap at all. You may well send one city quite a way out to grab a resource, because resources are very important. After 10 cities city upkeep jumps up quickly, so stay there until your economy is going well.
punchandpie
Warlord
Brighteye said:
I agree, 9-10 cities will give you a nice little healthy empire as long as you manage in correctly.
Zombie69
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,902
The answer to how many cities you should have is : as many as you can afford. It's still better to have more cities, but when the science rate goes down to what you consider an unacceptable level, you should wait for finances to solidify before expanding some more. You can never have too many cities, but you need to be able to pay for them and keep science at a reasonable level.
civ hasn't changed that much. the more cities the better. but you're not able to expand rapidly right from the start. 10 cities will most of the time result in an empire which runs very healthy and the research slider nearly at 100%.
but 40 cities and a research rate of 40% will result in much more beakers per turn. not to speak of the overwhelming military production and "free units" upkeep.
but 40 cities and a research rate of 40% will result in much more beakers per turn. not to speak of the overwhelming military production and "free units" upkeep.
cleverhandle
King
Answers to this question depend tremendously on which level you play at, and whether or not you're Organized. On Emperor, without Organized, your economy will start to suffer noticeably with 4+ cities unless you've found a way to raise the happiness cap and work 3+ good cottages per city (or work some equivalent economic trick with trade routes, Pyramids/Rep, etc.). With 6 or more cities, your economy will absolutely tank without those economic boosts. Long-term goals for cities really depend on who your opponents are. I've won Emp Space Races with only 9 cities (all good ones), but that's only in games where there are no financial AI's or at least only crippled ones. If Mansa or another tech-runaway AI is on the map and well-established I'd want more than that. In any event, I try to have all the cities I need for commercial success by the end of the Renaissance, or maybe Riflemen-era at the very latest. It takes time to develop new cities, and Infantry-era conquests are really pretty late to do much for you economically.
At lower levels, upkeep costs go down, sometimes significantly. You can afford a lot more cities early on then.
At lower levels, upkeep costs go down, sometimes significantly. You can afford a lot more cities early on then.
Zombie is correct in saying as many as you can afford while maintaining a reasonable economy. The number 8-10 is a complete myth and I don't know why people say 8-10. Early on, before your economy picks up, you can't possibly hope to keep 10 cities without going completely bankrupt. As the game progresses and you start expanding and/or conquering neighbors, the number will grow from 3 to 5, to 10 to 20 and more by the end. As long as you can defend your empire and keep a decent economy, more is always better. Aiming for 10 early on, or restricting to 10 later on, makes no sense whatsoever. For my own indicator, i say during a research era (non-war), you should have positive income at 70% or higher science. hth.
