City spacing - How do you all do it?

[kb27787]

Try not to overlap freshwater flat (grassland or plains near river or lake) tiles, you can overlap hill tiles or whatnot without any problems as long as each city has access to plenty of food.

You should not space your cities too close apart unless going sacred sites ICS

 

[Crimson13]

Considering that I use a mod that lets me use all the tiles within a city's borders I try to space 'em so that they all interlock and everyone doesn't touch another city's tiles. So now that it's 5 instead of 3 I try to space them 9-10 tiles apart.

I tell you, planning is a pain.

 

[Laurwin]

usually my cities are 5 tiles apart, even if I would like them to be the necessary 6 tiles (due to mountains and sea based resources I will usually settle within 6 tiles.

gotta love the seafood! (and seaport which gives tile yield bonus on top of normal naval unit production bonus)

 

[beetle]

Try not to overlap freshwater flat (grassland or plains near river or lake) tiles, you can overlap hill tiles or whatnot without any problems as long as each city has access to plenty of food.

I don’t like to overlap freshwater hills either. The reason is a little counter-intuitive, as tiles with access to freshwater are just too valuable to share.

I know many folks here like to toggle high-value (food or hammer) tiles between two cities, but the way I see it, that is fighting with yourself. One of your cities is loosing out 100% of the time! I figure 50% of great tile is almost always of less value than 100% of a mediocre tile. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but I think mine is a good rule of thumb.

Overlapping mundane tiles is not an issue, since you won’t be working half of them until maybe near the end of the game anyway.

 

[bcaiko]

I don't think there's a universal answer here. I tend to keep my cities a bit apart, but there's benefits to each approach depending on the circumstances. If you're coastal and can get to harbors early (or you're Carthage), you don't need to worry so much about road maintenance, ect.

I personally tend toward spread out cities because I want to keep the AI from forward settling me, and creating large territorial walls can prevent that somewhat.

 

[Draco84]

I usually build my first wave of expansion cities 9 tiles away from any other city if possible, that leaves me the option to build cities in between later when I have little use for tiles due to specialists.

besides if I build too close to my capital I risk losing out on much of the land.

 

[Lazonby]

I usually space 4-5 tiles away. It's really dependent upon the terrain. Valuable terrain? More spacing. Less valuable? Less terrain then shift to a specialist city once the available terrain is fleshed out.

I once loved to spread my cities out, particularly in Civ 4, but with 5, I've shifted my priorities. I focus on growth and production. That brings me money and science. I don't worry about culture or religion too much, as it seems to come in bunches anyway.

I try to give my cities a 2 tile radius. Three when in fertile land. Beyond that, I shoot for maximum food surplus then use specialists according to what the city is best at or what I need. Growth and production is key. More growth = more science to out-tech the enemy, and production to create the buildings required to give you that edge, as well as an army. Opposing civs lick your boots when you have a strong army.

Keeping your cities closer together allows for easy defense, less road maintenance, and less travel time. It is not necessary to have huge cites (24+ pop). It is far more beneficial to have more cities that are well defended. My goal is to be able to shift my garrisoned troops across my entire front as quickly as possible, reducing the need for extra small armies, which in turn allows for more $$$.

 

[Laurwin]

I usually space 4-5 tiles away. It's really dependent upon the terrain. Valuable terrain? More spacing. Less valuable? Less terrain then shift to a specialist city once the available terrain is fleshed out.

I once loved to spread my cities out, particularly in Civ 4, but with 5, I've shifted my priorities. I focus on growth and production. That brings me money and science. I don't worry about culture or religion too much, as it seems to come in bunches anyway.

I try to give my cities a 2 tile radius. Three when in fertile land. Beyond that, I shoot for maximum food surplus then use specialists according to what the city is best at or what I need. Growth and production is key. More growth = more science to out-tech the enemy, and production to create the buildings required to give you that edge, as well as an army. Opposing civs lick your boots when you have a strong army.

Keeping your cities closer together allows for easy defense, less road maintenance, and less travel time. It is not necessary to have huge cites (24+ pop). It is far more beneficial to have more cities that are well defended. My goal is to be able to shift my garrisoned troops across my entire front as quickly as possible, reducing the need for extra small armies, which in turn allows for more $$$.

Valuable resources would allow you to get away with tighter city spacing?

I think you always want to work the good tiles, lux and strategics (remember that civ4 tip: never work unimproved tiles, hehe!)

The extra gold from lux does add up, IMO.

But the problem with the tight spacing cities is, that you get penalties on your science the more cities you have. I understand though that you can mitigate this by building universities in all your cities. But let's be honest, these cities cost lots of gold through building maintenance (science buildings)

Another bonus of going wide though, something that IMO is underrated, is that you are pretty much guaranteed to have good strategic resources for late game, if you don't win early.

If you play tall empire, with only 4 cities, and you don't win before industrial era (and you get bad strategic resources) what then? It's not always so simple to buy city states if there's like greece on the map as AI...

 

[Lazonby]

Again, it really depends upon how you play. I play with diplomacy in mind. I make allies so they can support me. I play with a heavy emphasis on allying with CS. IMO, games finished before the industrial era is like wasting the game. I make friends to get what I want then kill off the annoying or weak. Call it the passive-aggressive style of play. Anyone is my friend...until you outlive your usefulness.

In this regard, area coverage for strategic resources is not a problem. I get them from CS or kill anyone who has enough to be a threat to me (or simply who has what I need). By the time the modern era rolls around, I'm pretty dang strong because I've out-teched almost everyone. I don't buy the more cities = science penalty thing. Universities are a must. When you're hitting almost 2k a turn in research in the late modern era, I don't see the issue. And by that time, I know who my friends are and who needs to be wiped out. That's when I go to war because I can churn out soldiers at will.

More cities = more money + more science + more production = larger army = total domination.

Simply put, early war is a handicap to a strong nation. Just play defense until you can kill with overwhelming force. It can be tricky, but it works when you can time it just right.