AI builds worthless cities
- Thread starter Harre
- Start date
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
So, there's really no such thing as a worthless city. It's just a question of how many you want to take the time to manage.
yea, i should prabably make more "worthless" cities.
but when i get a dodgy city thats cut off from my empire etc, i concentrate on airports and culture in a way that AI doesnt. i doubt it can tell the difference between that city and its core cities
but when i get a dodgy city thats cut off from my empire etc, i concentrate on airports and culture in a way that AI doesnt. i doubt it can tell the difference between that city and its core cities
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
The AIs are programmed to fill up as much land as possible. They eventually reach a point (after their OCP is hit) where they don't do so as vigorously, but they won't stop until the entire map is filled.
A lot of the time the places they buil them are really stupid, but that's just how it is.
Usually just spitting Settlers out ad nauseum (aka "Settler diahrrea") is not a good move, especially when it depletes your cities' populations. It's much more efficient to have larger cities with Granaries produce Settlers, because that way they produce more gold and shields in between Settler builds.
A lot of the time the places they buil them are really stupid, but that's just how it is.
Usually just spitting Settlers out ad nauseum (aka "Settler diahrrea") is not a good move, especially when it depletes your cities' populations. It's much more efficient to have larger cities with Granaries produce Settlers, because that way they produce more gold and shields in between Settler builds.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Arathorn said:
Because very often it just isn't very intelligent, how the AI behaves.
Instead of building a city in a grassland environment with no current/future ressources but with a potential contribution to nation's growth, it often builds a city somewhere in the tundra or whereever...
Maybe, it *could* claim oil or uranium this way... if it would be still alive then.
Choicest One
Chieftain
Longasc said:This is why i love communism - even far away cities will suddenly become at least moderately productive.
C3C version of course - C3C communism might be a good model for the real world, it is really good... ooops.
LOL! I think I see a couple of men in black suits coming to get you Longasc
toh6wy
Emperor
In one game I played as the Maya (who are Agricultural), I had somewhere between 8-12 cities crammed into a smallish desert - and it was almost all desert - irrigated and railroaded it, built a harbor in all my coastal cities, and eventually they were all at least size 17, and some were at more like size 23.tofe99 said:
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
12 cities in a smallish desert above size 17... 
One must wonder how "small" this desert really is...
One must wonder how "small" this desert really is...
Chaos_BF1942
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 488
Trip said:12 cities in a smallish desert above size 17...
One must wonder how "small" this desert really is...
Well if that desert has rivers (and wheat) it can give you like 5 food un-irrigated if your a civ with Agricultural trait.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
There's a difference between a desert and flood plains though.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Yes, but even then you'd need at least 11 RRed-Irrigated desert tiles to support even one size 17 city.
Even 2 cities means at least 22 tiles... definitely not a small desert by any means.
Even 2 cities means at least 22 tiles... definitely not a small desert by any means.
toh6wy
Emperor
Trip said:Yes, but even then you'd need at least 11 RRed-Irrigated desert tiles to support even one size 17 city.
Even 2 cities means at least 22 tiles... definitely not a small desert by any means.
All right, fine. There *was* a river, with floodplains, but it was small and only a few cities used its tiles. Most were on the coast and had a harbor, though. I'd post a screenshot, but I think I deleted the save game.
Well, now that I think about it, it was more a medium sized desert, which was part of an island. I thought it was pretty cool at the time, but I'm not trying to say this is some stunt that only a master could pull off or something.
And I suppose that in this case, I only thought the cities were "crammed" because they were a lot closer together than I normally build cities - but it still wasn't any ICS...
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
I've modded Tundra and Desert to be un-buildable terrain and have been pleased with the result.
I found that it also increased, marginally, the value of colonies.
I found that it also increased, marginally, the value of colonies.
How would you do this as its something I would be interested in trying. Perhaps a larger map then normal would have to be chosen to make up for the loss of terrain but it could certainly make the game more interesting. A possible problem would be making maps fair as starting positions may become even more influencial.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I agree with Heffalump. This kind of modding indead makes the AI to build cities on more reasonable places AND leads to the necessity of having colonies - with all implications as you need some units to protect the supply lines from the colonies or you are allowed to interrupt an opponent's supply lines.
@Dell19: open the editor and disallow "build cities" for the terrain types. I am currently checking the consequences, if you disallow cities in jungles and forests as well. To compensate for the loss of space, I changed the size of huge maps to 350*350 as well. By this kind of settings, it becomes difficult even for the human player, to find good places and to connect them properly. What I am not clear about at the moment is, whether the AI will chop forests to build cities at an otherwise good location.
@Dell19: open the editor and disallow "build cities" for the terrain types. I am currently checking the consequences, if you disallow cities in jungles and forests as well. To compensate for the loss of space, I changed the size of huge maps to 350*350 as well. By this kind of settings, it becomes difficult even for the human player, to find good places and to connect them properly. What I am not clear about at the moment is, whether the AI will chop forests to build cities at an otherwise good location.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
Heffalump said:
...not to mention that it works exactly that way in DyP since ever
And yes, I'm pleased with this as well.
The only problem is that you can plant forrests on Tundra and found a city then; however, in DyP 'Planting Forrest' is enabled by an industrial era tech, so that's not gamebreaking (the problem is not the human doing it, but the AI not understanding it).
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Doc Tsiolkovski said:
The reason, why I disallowed cities on forests... This becomes even more necessary since there are a lot of forests on tundra tiles even without planting which might invite the AI to do some senseless things.
The only problem, I see with that is that the human player is able to recognize this one forest tile surrounded by three or four games and will chop it for founding a city there. Will the AI be able to do so as well? I doubt it...
Ah.. forgot to mention that I disallowed cities on desert tiles as well. So you need flood plains to build a city there - I was inspired by Egyptian history to do so, since the Nile was just like a long stream of flood plains in the desert.
