City packing vs. Optimal location settling

[ShinigamiKenji]

So, I'd been placing my cities as before Factory nerf. That is, I've been trying to pack my cities as closely as possible, to reap benefits of Colosseum, Factories and Entertainment Complexes.

But after reevaluating my strategies (partly bacause of a thread challenging the Commercial Hub status quo), I've tried to place my cities in better locations, instead of just placing them wherever I could fit more cities. So far, it seems to be more effective.

What are your thoughts on it? Do you place citieswherever you can fit more cities, or do you place them where it seems to fit more, regardless of regional buildings?

 

[ShakaKhan]

I think you strive for the best of both worlds, or at least as close as you can. I try to make as many cities "aqueduct-able"as possible and aim for 5 tiles apart, so you can still cram in a great many but there's enough tiles for the cities to get some height (then again, I've been playing a lot of Rome lately, so aqueducts are cheaper and better). However, you're still trying to maximize how many you can fit in, so often I'll end up with a cluster of cities four tiles apart so I don't end up with two less overall. Of course, there's also the difference between theory and practice; the map usually determines city locations.

On the same note, I've tried the German strategy of "all cities are 4 tiles apart, and all cities grow to size 4 only and each have 3 districts (hanza, commercial hub, victory condition district) and it failed miserably for me. Districts became too expensive too quick. Maybe others have had more luck with this, though.

 

[azzaare]

I feel my cities grow the best with about 4-5 tiles in between each city center. You have enough space to spam farms/cattle, and have fewer buildings/districts to build on average per number of global citizens. Of course, you don't get all the advantages of having a couple more districts, but I you have more variety in discricts, you can place more wonders without crippling your city and so on.

It is probably closer to what the designer had in mind I guess.

 

[UWHabs]

I still like playing them in "good" locations overall. Hate to cram in a city just to cram in a city, although probably next time I play as Germany, I might try just sticking cities everywhere and relying on Hansa/Commerce hub spam.

 

[MyOtherName]

What are your thoughts on it? Do you place citieswherever you can fit more cities, or do you place them where it seems to fit more, regardless of regional buildings?

A citizen is a citizen, and a citizen in a small city requires far less food than a citizen in a large city. There isn't much advantage to having them in a large city, so you're better off spreading your citizens out so that you can have more of them (in addition to all of the other benefits new cities bring).

 

[azzaare]

A citizen is a citizen, and a citizen in a small city requires far less food than a citizen in a large city. There isn't much advantage to having them in a large city, so you're better off spreading your citizens out so that you can have more of them (in addition to all of the other benefits new cities bring).

I disagree here. You still have fewer buildings to build per citizen since you have fewer cities. Also, you have a higher variety of district and have more chance to pay less for them. And finally, you have higher yields per city, which can be situationally useful.
It probably does not compensate all the benefits of having more cities (such as the number of trade routes and, indeed, the food requirement). But still, it is something.

I think the devs will nerf the almighty commercial district, and maybe the harbor district (maybe by nerfing trade routes, or limiting them in number). Then it will change the optimal distance between cities.

 

[Kyro]

There's no compelling reason to clump cities together now after the regional building nerf and I always prefer my cities large so optimal location is paramount.

 

[Lanthar]

I prefer fewer, larger cities. I tend to place optimally, with plenty of space in between cities. I don't like ICS style gameplay.

 

[MyOtherName]

I disagree here. You still have fewer buildings to build per citizen since you have fewer cities.

I don't follow. If you don't want another, say, monument, then don't build one; your citizens don't care. Buildings generally don't benefit from having citizens in their city, and citizens generally don't benefit from the buildings in their city.

For the buildings that do interact with citizens, more cities means you need fewer buildings, not more; e.g. if your housing is coming from free sources like (e.g. fresh water), you don't need to build buildings to raise the caps.

Civ 6 isn't like, say, civ 4 -- your citizens produce the same amount of science whether your city has a library or not. Conversely, a library functions just as well in a pop 1 tundra city as it does a fully developed pop 30 city.

Also, you have a higher variety of district

Again, this doesn't really make sense (at least as stated). If you want a theater square rather than yet another commercial hub, then build the theater square instead of another commercial hub.

 

[Tacgnol]

I tend to prefer the optimal location strategy.

But in practice more of a mix is needed. In the cities you found early on there is plenty of time to grow, develop and add districts and buildings. So getting to 20+ pop, having 5 or more districts and using most or all of the entire 3 tile radius works best. But if you are not founding a city until 1600 or later there's very little chance it's going to get anywhere near 20 pop and no way you're going to complete more than 3 or 4 districts. So unless a lot of that terrain is deserts, mountains or ocean, you're not really going to take full advantage of the optimal location.

As people have said, yes, a citizen is a citizen, regardless of where. But development is a major factor, I've really found in Civ VI that I don't get to fully develop my cities by the end of the game, in IV and V if I went for a peaceful victory I'd pretty consistently have my core cities fully developed with all the buildings I was going for and most of the potential population by the atomic era. With how expensive buildings are and how slow growth is at higher populations it just doesn't happen now. Founding more cities in your core area might get slightly more complete coverage of the land, but it means you aren't going to colonize the further reaches of your empire as quickly, so they won't grow and develop as much. Letting your core cities grow vertically and use all their land helps you expand more horizontally around your borders. Conversely, if one of your colonies only has a couple hundred turns to grow before the game end, it's not going to get that much population or work that much of the land so not stacking in more cities is letting the land go to waste.

There is also a material difference between having a few very high-production cities that can pump out a unit in 5-10 turns and many smaller production cities that can make more units but take 15-20 turns to do so. Both for units and the Space Race victory, in fact if you're doing science having 1 or preferably 2 very tall production cities is pretty much required.

Early game, though, I'm much more focused on claiming as much territory as possible for my empire and securing early resources than on maximizing development, I try to settle near opponents to block off as much of the map as I can with my first cities and then fill it in later.

 

[bmrigs]

I lean towards placing cities strategically to block off areas I don't want the AI to pass through and look for resources I will need down the line. I usually keep my first 8 cities in the same vicinity and then build a few off somewhere else that is used as a base to attack AI or an important strategic resource that I can't get back on the home continent.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

I'm in the optimal locations camp. By the time the AOE effects come into play, the game is often lost or won. I also play MP a bit, where placing cities in defensible positions and chokepoints is a much higher priority, so take it fwiw. I also consider what kind of terrains and borders internal trade routes will have to travel. I like a triangle/ square/ hexagon/whatever of core production cities, I place theater districts (if at all) and harbors much later in the game in my second wave of expands (though, likely most of these are conquered cities)
Even in SP though, I'd rather have optimal workable tiles and adjacency bonuses for much of the early/mid game than worry too much about AOE effects. if I get some AOE bonuses... that's exactly what it is- a bonus

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

As @Tacgnol said, I now think it's pretty much a hybrid approach. You need them somewhat close together, but still trying to place them in good spots. Not necessarily optimal spots, but good enough (fresh water or coastal, with resources and hills, near natural wonders etc)

 

[joncnunn]

I go with following approach that follows the natural map:

1. First with the pin tool place cities in good spots that are along rivers / don't require an aqueduct. For good measure use the pin tool for Commercial District, Harbor (if applicable), and where there's a great site for this city for industrial zone and/or campus and/or holy site and/or to block off an area with an encampment pin those as well.

2. Second with the pin tool place the cities that couldn't have been placed to not require the aqueduct but can be built in a location where one can be built, use the pin tool to place the city, it's aqueduct, and above mentioned districts. (These will be both the cases in which citystates are preventing you from placing a city where it should be along with cities near mountains.)

3. Third place the coastal cities (for the +1 housing cap since neighborhoods are a long ways away), and it's districts.

4. Last place the other cities and its districts.

5. Use the pin tool to place out remaining IZ so that all cities have one within 6 hexes.

 

[Futumch]

I tend to use the terrain to help plan my city locations. I will pack cities along rivers as close as possible. I will aim to get a couple of coastal cities fairly quickly both for the eureka and as a place to start mapping out the shallows with boats. I'll look for clusters of stone / copper or lots of hills for mining settlements and mountain ranges or rainforests for the campus location bonus. In older civ games I enjoyed having a dozen or so really well developed cities, but in Civ 6 I will spam cities at the start of the game to lock out areas from the AI players.

I have found I prefer to use the map generation setting "new" for the age of the world, as the terrain features are not as spread out. This can have disadvantages though because sometimes great city spots might be bisected by a mountain range which you can't cross.

(I do hate the way the AI forward settles close to you, then cries when you settle nearby. Especially if you are only eight or nine hexes from your own capital.)

 

[kamex]

I have to admit, the majority of answers here are the opposite to what I was expecting. I'm now doubting my strategy...

I typically always go for three tiles apart, mainly because the majority of important yields come from districts and their buildings, not from the citizen count. Two pop 10 cities with completed campuses produce more science than one pop 30 city with a completed campus. True, it's more production and maintenance, but for higher yields that seems fair. Apart from the belief Work Ethic, I can't really see anything that scales with population. Its true that the close settling caps your growth a little, but because the way amenities work, you still need the same amount, and seeing as you get three amenity-free citizens per city, going wider means you make more of a profit margin from that. Another advantage is having complete borders (without spending loads of gold), as culture border growth is so very slow

I'd say the downside of wide is its typically a slower start, more production needs to go on Settlers, Workers, and defensive units, but it eventually breaks even around industrial era and then makes huge profits later on.

In short, wide is better than tall, so squeezing in as many cities as possible into your land area is the most effective long term strategy.

 

[greygamer]

Initial city

• 3+ food tile or 3 2 food tiles in ring 1
• 3 tiles I can improve for the craftsman bonus, ideally for extra production - for policy agoge

Additional cities

1. Secure a source of horses?
2. Secure a source of iron?
3. Forward settle an AI (to limit their growth)
4. Fill in any gaps in the perimeter

 

[MyOtherName]

I have to admit, the majority of answers here are the opposite to what I was expecting. I'm now doubting my strategy...

Don't worry about it; the thread reads more like a poll than a critical evaluation. I'm not surprised by the results, both because people tend to shy away from extremes and because Civ has a long history of people feeling the urge to build up cities moreso than is wise.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Maybe I should have made a poll, I didn't even consider that. I've added it.

As I said, I did that post after coming from a couple of games where I settled in richer areas, rather than just packing cities together regardless of terrain features. Those seemed to go smoother (and I set a new personal record at a Cultural Victory).

I believe that is because better tile yield lead to more growth, which leads to more worked tiles and even more yields. Also, I settled almost every city in fresh water or coastal tiles, instead of cramming cities without any water. Lastly, better production tiles led to faster districts and units. But still, I try to settle settle as many cities as possible within terrain limitations.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Hybrid I guess. I often settle within 3-4 tiles of one city but I don't honeycomb them. This gives you the ability to cluster districts for extra adj bonuses. Then the other borders of your cities have plenty of room to expand.