City Build Style
- Thread starter Chieftess
- Start date
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
I voted "tight build", but I might be playing OCP. Generally I try to keep overlap between cities to 4-5 tiles max, and there has to be a god reason for the overlap. What I look at first is getting a site with 3-4 good tiles, access to freshwater, and either adjacent coast for harbours later or no coast at all. If these considerations lead to some overlap, so be it.
Also when I have a city with 3+ bonus resources (i.e. cattle/wheat/game) I often build another city close enough to share one of those tiles, especially during expansion phase when cities oscillate between size 2-4, so that tile is always being used by one city or another.
Also when I have a city with 3+ bonus resources (i.e. cattle/wheat/game) I often build another city close enough to share one of those tiles, especially during expansion phase when cities oscillate between size 2-4, so that tile is always being used by one city or another.
this all depends on the dificulty im playing, if im playing deity i prioritize growth, and i try and spread my empire out in concentric circles, but that usually doesnt happen.
If im playing on Emperor, i go for OCP mostly and also focus a lot on growth.
Im still experimenting with these two dificulties, so if im playing on a lower dificulty like monarch, each of my citties is placed somewhere for a different reason, not sticking ot one thing and often for lots of things at once.
so i must say growth, as on the higher difficulties, quick growth is really important, or else ull fall behind too quickly.
If im playing on Emperor, i go for OCP mostly and also focus a lot on growth.
Im still experimenting with these two dificulties, so if im playing on a lower dificulty like monarch, each of my citties is placed somewhere for a different reason, not sticking ot one thing and often for lots of things at once.
so i must say growth, as on the higher difficulties, quick growth is really important, or else ull fall behind too quickly.
Well I start out with the best of intentions but I generally end up with what most would call ICS.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I don't really have a strategy. I guess the strategy I use is a mix of OCP and random. I try to get my inner ring of cities to use the best tiles around, but I won't just build cities at random. I try to get each city in the first two rings to at least size 10, and that usually works with OCP. I voted other because I try to use the best city spots with little overlap and little wasted tiles, which often results in a semi-OCP. I try to use a mix of this strategy for fertile, core areas, ICS for deserts and tundras, and semi-OCP for medium cities (not core, but not fringe).
Its hard to describe my strategy; a screenshot would tell it better.
CG
Its hard to describe my strategy; a screenshot would tell it better.
CG
Czarina
Chieftain
How about "Fanatical City Pattern Style" as an option? I chose "other" but I might be ICS. All my cities are 4x4, unless I hit the coast, then the coastal might be only 3 tiles away from the nearest city.
I can't stand overlap; I always think it's taking away from the potential growth of another city. By the time all the cities expand (X- style) they meet each other for optium territory control.
I can't stand overlap; I always think it's taking away from the potential growth of another city. By the time all the cities expand (X- style) they meet each other for optium territory control.
DaveMcW
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 6,489
It depends on how long I expect the game to last.
Knight Rush Conquest: 2-3 squares apart, 6 tiles per city.
Cav Rush Conquest: 3-4 squares apart, 12 tiles per city.
Industrial/Modern Win: 4-5 squares apart, 20 tiles per city. After planning my OCP I fill in the pre-hospital gaps with size 6 unit factories.
Obviously my second city will prioritize food/growth to expand faster, but eventually I claim all land around my capitol.
Knight Rush Conquest: 2-3 squares apart, 6 tiles per city.
Cav Rush Conquest: 3-4 squares apart, 12 tiles per city.
Industrial/Modern Win: 4-5 squares apart, 20 tiles per city. After planning my OCP I fill in the pre-hospital gaps with size 6 unit factories.
Obviously my second city will prioritize food/growth to expand faster, but eventually I claim all land around my capitol.
Sayounara
King
Whatever that turns in the most profit from ALL squares in territory. usually 18-20 first than build small cities to fill unused land for more culture, wealth production, hurrying..etc.
Unique Unit
Chieftain
I voted OCP -- but of course with caveats. (I always have caveats! 
) At the highest levels, those first 3-4 cities have to be growth-oriented. Sometimes particular resources/chokepoints dictate placement, esp. (I find) for the next round of 4-6 cities. And then there are those cities that are less than optimally-located, but seem vital to plant anyway (e.g., to get a toehold on a largely settled continent overseas).
) At the highest levels, those first 3-4 cities have to be growth-oriented. Sometimes particular resources/chokepoints dictate placement, esp. (I find) for the next round of 4-6 cities. And then there are those cities that are less than optimally-located, but seem vital to plant anyway (e.g., to get a toehold on a largely settled continent overseas).
hbdragon88
haunted by blackness
OCP. It relieves me of gulit that I could be hindering my cities growth - nope, with cities 4 tiles of space inbetween them with cities N S W E and cities 3 squares apart diagonally - ahh, I can site back and not worry about putting them too far or too close.
coup d'etat
Chieftain
I voted OCP-- I usually try to fit my city radii together perfectly, but I also try to make it so there aren't any tiles in between cities that are unused -- anyone who does a no overlap knows these 2 goals conflict each other 
. So generally my cities end up with about 16-20 squares a piece, unless there is some strange circumstance... resources or human error or something
. So generally my cities end up with about 16-20 squares a piece, unless there is some strange circumstance... resources or human error or something My first cities are built for growth.
The 2nd lot to monopolise resources.
Then I try to fit a productive core of OCS cities around my capital and Forbidden palace.
From then on I aim to grab as territory as possible using small cities with only a temple and perhaps a library and catheral to extend my cultural borders. I general spread these out so that there are about 6 squares between cities. As these produce only one shield and I like to create a lot of these I like to site the city next to 3 or more forest squares and build the improvements using forestry (3 forests = 1 temple).
The 2nd lot to monopolise resources.
Then I try to fit a productive core of OCS cities around my capital and Forbidden palace.
From then on I aim to grab as territory as possible using small cities with only a temple and perhaps a library and catheral to extend my cultural borders. I general spread these out so that there are about 6 squares between cities. As these produce only one shield and I like to create a lot of these I like to site the city next to 3 or more forest squares and build the improvements using forestry (3 forests = 1 temple).
PersianImmortal
Warlord
I dunno how anyone can have a 'large' empire in Civ3.. the corruption just kills me so I keep my build a 'tight' one not wandering further away from the Capital.. and I can't even build the FP more than two cities away from the capital as it takes like over 200 turns!!!
RobOz
Whatchoo lookin at?
I play with a mixture of OCP and Tight Build, but I voted Tight Build because that was the easiest to reach with the mouse at the time. 
I don't like a whole lot of overlap (1-3 tiles), but I don't like to have my cities too spread out. Which is why I hate huge maps. Too many cities to build and take care of. Some people like that, though, from what I hear.
I don't like a whole lot of overlap (1-3 tiles), but I don't like to have my cities too spread out. Which is why I hate huge maps. Too many cities to build and take care of. Some people like that, though, from what I hear.
Tight build, bordering on ICS for a few straightforward reasons -
IMHO it is better to have 100 cities of size 8-15 than 50 cities of 25-30. Why's that? ...
1: Cities of 12 are easier to keep happy than one of 30.
2: More cities closer to your capital (I'd rather have 25 corruption-less cities than 6 or 7 circling the capital.
3: Just as big overall population without needing hospitals, and with 5/6 luxeries, every one of them will be happy.
4: Drastically reduced pollution (factories dont produce that much, it mostly comes for population in huge cities)
5: No need to build cathedrals, because you dont need to keep 25 people happy.
6: No need to build Mass Transit/recycling centre, there isnt that much polution
I would take 200 size 12's over 100 size 25 ANYDAY!
IMHO it is better to have 100 cities of size 8-15 than 50 cities of 25-30. Why's that? ...
1: Cities of 12 are easier to keep happy than one of 30.
2: More cities closer to your capital (I'd rather have 25 corruption-less cities than 6 or 7 circling the capital.
3: Just as big overall population without needing hospitals, and with 5/6 luxeries, every one of them will be happy.
4: Drastically reduced pollution (factories dont produce that much, it mostly comes for population in huge cities)
5: No need to build cathedrals, because you dont need to keep 25 people happy.
6: No need to build Mass Transit/recycling centre, there isnt that much polution
I would take 200 size 12's over 100 size 25 ANYDAY!
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
I put down prioritize growth. I try to have at least two cities with good growth (well the best possible) to pop out settlers and workers. That is about my only constant. Then it depends on where my neighbors are. I like OCP but it doesn't always work out that way, I like to tailor to the situation at hand.
PersianImmortal: So what do you do when your strategic resource of choice is tiles away (pun fully intended
) from your tight bundle of cities? I suppose you could trade for it, but statistically speaking, larger landmass = more luxuries/resources. It's by no means a guarantee, as my own bitter experience tells me that even owning half the world can mean 'no coal.' Also, what if no one is willing to trade (this happens a LOT)?
