So the dev once changed 2 tiles between cities to 3. This change is needed because AI's have an unhealthy obsession with building more cities. I was just thinking if this distance increase by one more to 4 tiles between cities would make gameplay better? I tried this one time on Huge Pangae with max civs and city-states and it was hard to find spots for cities. I couldn't even build a city or work next to Mtfuji because there were 2 city states nearby and my capital was there too. Do you guys think 3 is good or 4??
Best distance between cities??
- Thread starter Glassmage
- Start date
Thaitanium
Chieftain
3-4 is both a normal good distance for me, depends on the resources location and rivers, Sometimes I even go for 5-6. (resources race xD)
weird when did they changed the Ai city distance to three..... Mine is still 2... lame. D:
weird when did they changed the Ai city distance to three..... Mine is still 2... lame. D:
what.... it was a patch that changed min distance from 2 to 3.
I have actually edited GlobalDefines.xml so that my distance has changed back to 2. I normally have more space, but I think that having that small distance allows for each city to have room to grow, but it still allows nice city placement.
In my opinion minimum distance rule should _always_ be at least three tiles. Even if the cities are on a different land masses. When earlier the distance was just two tiles I hardly played the game at all. It was too irritating for me when AI spammed cities all over the place.
Just what you said. This is how I play too. If I must squeeze in some coastal city, gain access to some important resource or have chance to place city on a strategic choke point (mountain pass or narrow land between water tiles) I might step out my city placement formula.
Just what you said. This is how I play too. If I must squeeze in some coastal city, gain access to some important resource or have chance to place city on a strategic choke point (mountain pass or narrow land between water tiles) I might step out my city placement formula.
muhtesem insan
Amateur Revolutionary
I usually play wide so i don't really need all the space. mostly i place them with 4 or 5 tiles. But resources on the map are more important i could go as high to 7-8 or low to 3.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
3-4 is normal, but in the beginning of the game if I'm close to someone I might go 8 to block them.
Aristos
Lightseeker
I have been testing (and enjoying) MIN_CITY_RANGE of 4 (which means 4 tiles BETWEEN cities) for the last two months or so. I can attest that it betters gameplay, specially for the AI. Of course, you cannot run everything else on default values either. You have many options there: reduce/eliminate CS, or play a larger map with settings of the immediately inferior (for example, Large with 8/16).
But more room means better maneuvers for the AI, and they tend to use it. You should notice better maneuvering of their armies, and also you cannot "pool" your city defenses anymore to fight an invasion (as it should be), whichn is a cheap form of defense.
All in all, I would say the optimal value is 4. I tried 5, but then the AI gambles more heavily with early unescorted settlers, and that makes some games easier. Also, 5 leaves a "blind spot" in the center of the perfect triangle of cities that cannot be worked by any one of them. 4 has some of the tiles in the center overlapping, but that is not a big deal.
But more room means better maneuvers for the AI, and they tend to use it. You should notice better maneuvering of their armies, and also you cannot "pool" your city defenses anymore to fight an invasion (as it should be), whichn is a cheap form of defense.
All in all, I would say the optimal value is 4. I tried 5, but then the AI gambles more heavily with early unescorted settlers, and that makes some games easier. Also, 5 leaves a "blind spot" in the center of the perfect triangle of cities that cannot be worked by any one of them. 4 has some of the tiles in the center overlapping, but that is not a big deal.
Alright, I'll force Min distance between cities to 4 tiles again, so CxxxxC. Let's see what happen on Huge Pangaea with max civs & city states again. Also, archipello will be a pain for human and AI's to settle cities if min distance increase to 4?
Smokeybear
Emperor
Even on archipelago, I never settle my own cities closer than 4 tiles apart- 5-6 by preference. And it works fine. Dunno about the AI civs, they may have to settle for cramming only 27 cities on that mini-continent, instead of 43... could really crimp their style...
Good and insightful reply Aristos 
I hope the dev team considers this and hopefully changes min distance to 4 tiles in upcoming patch. As it improves tactical AI combat. Perhaps it might be good idea to add option in the advanced settings menu to change min distance in whatever you like between 2 - 6 tiles(?). With info on how it changes AI behaviour.
I hope the dev team considers this and hopefully changes min distance to 4 tiles in upcoming patch. As it improves tactical AI combat. Perhaps it might be good idea to add option in the advanced settings menu to change min distance in whatever you like between 2 - 6 tiles(?). With info on how it changes AI behaviour.
Aristos
Lightseeker
Good and insightful reply Aristos
I hope the dev team considers this and hopefully changes min distance to 4 tiles in upcoming patch. As it improves tactical AI combat. Perhaps it might be good idea to add option in the advanced settings menu to change min distance in whatever you like between 2 - 6 tiles(?). With info on how it changes AI behaviour.
I cannot guarantee that it "improves" tactical AI as we don't have the C++ code to examine. I would say it seems to give the tacAI a better chance to use whatever code is already in there because the congestion around cities is lowered, and because the human player cannot rely on "close" cities to bombard the incoming horde with more than one city defense, which I find cheap and not realistic.
Also, 5 or more could also be a good number if you accept that the AI gamble with early unescorted settlers is "fair game" in the sense that when the gamble fails you are left with a weakened opponent, but when it works you are in trouble (assuming you as human never gamble with unescorted settlers, which can or cannot be true). There is some discussion about that with Thal et al around the idea of the AI gambling vs being plain dumb when it sends unescorted settlers. I have tested the game on Autoplay no FOG to ses what happens, and basically the AI can do both; when it has spare units it uses those to escort the settlers, when it doesn't have much then it tends to gamble early. Sometimes it does both, early it gambles, and when it does not work, it starts sending escorted settlers later. That suggest that the code to escort is there, and the AI can use it when necessary.
Anyways, it is relatively easy to change so I doubt they will include that as an option.
NotSure
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 712
The game was designed this way, so I can't help thinking this is best. On smaller maps there is still the occasional unsettled CS and good spots no one can settle. Increasing the settling rule is a creative work-around, but I see improving AI performance as a separate issue. I don't know anything about AI programming, so my question is can't the AI be improved (ID vulnerable flank city to start attack, spend gold for upgrades & unit purchase, etc.) to perform better instead of piling on player limitations?
Agreed.
If I remember right, the distance was 3 tiles when the game was released and then changed to 2 tiles in one of the early patches (Dec'10 or maybe Feb'11?) and then back to 3 tiles. I hope it will not ever changed back to 2 tiles and would gladly see it increased to 4 tiles. As a option in a advanced setup it would be nice to have choice to set shorter distance in smaller maps and higher on large maps.
