Buying tiles vs founding new cities

[Artifex1]

What city placement strategy do you use in general is it a good idea to get a city and buy tiles all the way out to 3 squares for resources or if you can get a new settler there quicker found a city next to it and save the money?

 

[zyx]

I settle cities in a way they hardly overlap. Each new city should give me a new luxury or another strategic resource.
I don't spam cities, because each new city increases the cost of a SP by 15% - 10% if you have representation.
I like the Angor Wat wonder which reduces culture cost for border expansion.

I like to play "peacefully", warmongers would just spam units and conquer cities, so they don't need to settle more than say four to five cities and puppetting the rest.

If an alien city is already nearby or is put next to mine, and I can afford it I buy the important tiles, But I would never buy all the tiles. Sometimes I buy cheap tiles so that the next to claim tile is the one I really want - if the expansion will be in max 5 turns away.

 

[jtb1127]

Personally, I think I'm addicted to buying tiles. Besides coliseums, most of my money goes to buying the tiles surrounding all my cities. I think it is important that there is not empty land between or immediately around my cities. If there is a resource three tiles away from a city I would rather purchase it then build a settler. This is mostly because I like to spare all unhappiness possible while taking up all the land I can. When it comes to city preferences, in civ V I normally will build cities about four or five tiles apart. I think there should be some overlap so that I can minimize road expenses and maximize profits. And besides, it would take till the year 2050 for the city to grow to the size necessary for there to be fighting over tiles between the cities. My cities normally do not grow much past ten.