City overlap - Really bad or not that much of an issue

[scu98rkr]

Whats peoples current thinking on city overlap.

I used to think it was really bad and should be avoided at all costs. You want to keep maintaince down max your cities output.

But recently (especially as I've been playing LAN games with another human).
I've begun to think its not so much of a issue.

Its not trivial to max out your population and generally making sure each city get access to one of two resources is whats important.

Any pop that cant work can be turned into specialists in fact you might want this to happen.

And the early game is whats important if the AI is strong and you fail to quickly get land its more important to get some strong cities and maximise the use of your land to make sure you keep in the game rather than fall behind.

I mean Mega cities are great but normally you've won or lost by this point.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

My feeling is that generally you don't want overlap. When I'm trying to max out production I'll space my cities so that there's no overlap until the borders have grown sufficiently.

 

[JujuLautre]

Cities should be placed the best way possible to maximize their effect. Not invidually, but as a whole.

This implies that it's usually bad to ovelap cities fat crosses. But on the other hand, two overlapping but well placed cities are much better than one well placed city and one not so well placed without overlap.

Or actually, this is what I think of that matter

 

[LiberiGlacialis]

I never seem to be able to avoid overlap, but usually can get by with a 1-2 square overlap. It seems to work to get as many resources as possiable.

 

[DigitalBoy]

For me, it depends how much they overlap. One- and two- tile overlaps are completely insignificant. The benefit of having another good city now far overshadows the petty disadvantage of having one less workable tile in the end game. I've built cities that overlap with a nearby city (my capital, nonetheless) on four tiles before, but it was worth it, as the prospective city site had two seafood resources and ending up being my Moai Statues city.

And the early game is whats important if the AI is strong and you fail to quickly get land its more important to get some strong cities and maximise the use of your land to make sure you keep in the game rather than fall behind.

I mean Mega cities are great but normally you've won or lost by this point.

I agree completely.

 

[scu98rkr]

I think I position is now similar to Digital Boy now.

Like I said this has come from playing more cut throat LAN games. If I dont keep up in power from the start there is always the chance of my housemate convincing all the AI to go to war with me. Which he has and will do.

I used to plan where all my cities would go but I just dont have time for the perfect arrangement anymore.

 

[Adam7Eight]

I'll overlap cities, especially if the tile(s) is desert or mountains.

 

[volfan37132]

I'm a spacious builder as well. Fewer cities mean less maintenance
costs. The problem arises when capturing enemy cities. The AI
uses excessive overlap and poor city placement. I don't like overlap,
but sometimes I do it for the same reasons as previous posters.

 

[KMadCandy]

the higher level i'm playing on, the more likely i am to overlap early. sometimes my second city can shared an already-improved high food tile with the capital, getting it up and running quickly with really low maintenance costs. then again, i like micromanaging, so rearranging which city gets the tile as appropriate isn't an issue. not everybody is patient enough to do that.

i very much like big healthy happy cities late game, so in an ideal world i would have at least one of each resource and every city can work 21 tiles. but the world is never ideal /sigh.

 

[bonafide11]

Overlap isn't a problem at all. Of course, sometimes you want to build further away to claim to more land, but you can have three excellent cities that are sharing a few tiles. It's not a factor at all.

 

[GT_OKEZ]

I TRY to build my cities far enough apart but sometimes you need to overlap . It really depends on resources and terrain . The computer has been fairly kind to me by suggesting spots to build my cities but its been off plenty of times . I used to rely on the computer for most of my city placement since it tries to balance available resources but as I got into city specialization I found that I usually do this on my own now .

They key word is resource and then terrain would be equally or less important . If you have an Iron resource which , when developed , adds some nice hammers , then its wise to build there . Its even better if there are some hills around it . If you want to maximize space this way , you don't have to place the resource in your beggining city squar . Keep in mind it will expand pretty quickly once the culture quota is met and then you can put up a mine for that iron or whatever . SOMETIMES I will forgo a ripe Iron resource in favor of a hilly terrain if I want to make a production based city . If the terrain around the Iron pretty much sux , then its not worth it at the time . This is of course , if you at least have copper or horses to make up for it to build some formidable units . If you have no metals or horses , you might just have to build in a crappy spot just to obtain a key resource .

If the resourcs are good , and the terrain is good enough at least , I am willing to overlap if I have no other choice .

 

[Lanstro]

The vast majority of cities don't grow any bigger than 15. With non-creative civs, I'd much rather have a good initial 8 squares than a perfect fat cross. If you're not willing to overlap your cities, then you're not playing optimally.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Hate overlap in pre-4 civ games, but here it's not so bad. Civ4 really ramped up the number of useless junk squares, and provided no means of fixing them such as Civ2's transformation command ( R.I.P ). I often overlap cities because in order to avoid it, I'd need to accept extra deserts, peaks or non-river tundras in my fat crosses, which are functionally WORSE than overlap squares.

 

[Powerslave]

The vast majority of cities don't grow any bigger than 15. With non-creative civs, I'd much rather have a good initial 8 squares than a perfect fat cross. If you're not willing to overlap your cities, then you're not playing optimally.

The vast majority of my cities grow to larger than 20. In fact, I once had a city that grew to the size of 30. It's all relative to how you play.

 

[TheLastOne36]

i say overlapping 3 tiles is most i'd do.

 

[Junuxx]

I often overlap cities because in order to avoid it, I'd need to accept extra deserts, peaks or non-river tundras in my fat crosses, which are functionally WORSE than overlap squares.

Good point.

Besides, I think it's better to have a couple of tiles overlapping, than to have a lot more tiles not being used at all.

 

[Desert-Fox]

In civ3 we had buildings (Aqueducts and Hospidals) whose allowed cities grow further. Now we have not these needs... in other hand cities hadn't maintance, they had corruption when they were far away from capital. So cities with cize 12 were good enough because for warmongering "Sanitation tech" came too late so tight placed cities were very good. People still try to play civ4 as civ3 and fail quickly.

 

[X death]

Overlap is good for cottage growth, they are more likely to be worked on. I had one game where a mountain range forced me to have two cities over lap my capitol (5 tiles). I built cottages on these squares, and ended up with a huge research boost fairly early in the game.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Depends mostly on how much land you have and how much time you have to fill it... and difficulty level I guess.
I have no problems with overlapping when it's necessary.

There are strategic advantages like, for example, having some cities 3 tiles apart (on the diagonal direction preferably) so they can share defenders/martial law enforcers (HR anyone?). I usually don't mind overlap of coast/sea tiles either but I don't usually like overlapping land tiles in coastal cities since they already have a lower number of land tiles to work.

 

[mboettcher]

Use every square available and overlap as necessary.

just give your big production cites tile priority and let the weaker cities divide the scraps.

And make the weaker cities about food and money. They'll turn a profit and provide you with additional support with little effort put in.

In terms of early maintenance issues. I spread out early and fill in the unused tile gaps later. Saves maintenance money for when I am not limited by number of cities as well as having extra resources to grow these cities quickly and have them turn a profit sooner. A city on marginal land will not be productive for a LONG time early but can be made so relatively quickly later in the game.