City placement

[Phrederick]

From reading all the advice in Aelf's and Sisiutil's threads, it seems like there's a lot of people who view having 3-4 mountains/deserts in a city as a negative. I've always wondered about that. How often do you get cities up to 19/20pop? How early in the game? I've found that most games are decided by the renaissance era at the latest, and I rarely have cities over 14 or 15 by then. Also, why are a lot of people so obsessed with minimizing overlap between cities? For most of the game, I'll have cities at size 8-14, so there's plenty of room for overlap. Overlapping allows for lower maintenance costs and a larger percentage of tiles in territory worked.

It seems inefficient to me to have tiles that are only going to be worked for the final 10 or 20% of the game. It seems more efficient to place cities so that the tiles worked are optimal at population 8-14, since that's where they'll be for most of the game. Am I alone in this?

 

[Drake007]

no, a lot of civ players think about cuteness first and efficiency second. thats why a lot of them are stuck on prince. its like settling great people in cities a lot for the sake of making oxford, ironworks, etc. more powerful and having some uber-cities. cute but rarely the best option.

 

[eric_]

I'm not sure why, but I have the hardest time stomaching fat-cross overlap. I don't avoid it completely, but I do try to minimize the instances of it. This statement may help me feel better about it in the future, though:

It seems inefficient to me to have tiles that are only going to be worked for the final 10 or 20% of the game.

 

[manu-fan]

Well, my reasoning is:

The AI tends to build them closer together with overlap, so it must be bad

Cheers.

 

[Wodan]

I think a lot of players are stuck on warmongering.

Agreed it is currently the best way to exploit the AI. However, the improvements from Iustus and Blake are attempting to address that.

As a result, games will last longer. And, it will become much more important to get the most out of each city, rather than simply build axeman, whip, attack, rinse, repeat.

Wodan

 

[Sisiutil]

I like to have a balance myself.

That is, I'll have a handful of top-notch cities which I know I'll want to have growing to their top population in the late game. These will be my commerce/science/production powerhouses. I try to ensure that these cities have minimal overlap with others, and that all their tiles are not only workable, but also of good quality (i.e. no desert or peaks, very little tundra).

On the other hand, I know I'll have several other cities that will be mediocre in comparison, but will nevertheless support my empire. Often these will be placed so as to claim and work a valuable resource (silver is a good example of this, as it usually only shows up in arctic terrain). Sometimes they're built just to add to my territory for a domination win. These will inevitably have unworkable or substandard tiles. The main thing I look for is a good food resource to ensure they can at least work the valuable tiles I want them to claim, or just have enough population to make them worthwhile.

Even so, I will often have some of these secondary cities overlap tiles with my primary ones, especially for commerce cities. Then I can ensure that cottages are being worked and growing if I have to reassign citizens in the primary city (to production tiles to build a wonder, for example, or to become specialists).

 

[automator]

I avoid mountains/deserts in my fat x as much as possible. They're wastelands, so why bother? I've had empires with big holes in the middle (not within my cultural borders) because there's a vast desert or mountain range there that I don't want to settle. Why limit the number of tiles to work if you can help it?

Overlapping is different. If you're going to do an SE, why not overlap? It'll encourage more specialists? But I wouldn't overlap unless a bunch of each cities tiles are farmable grasslands or flood plains. Kind of odd that the Civ4 trend is to avoid overlap when the Civ3 conventional wisdom was to pack cities in tight with lots of overlap.

 

[lilnev]

I generally consider two factors: what will the city look like when it's fully matured, and how quickly it will initially grow and contribute. The second factor is determined entirely by the city's best tiles, and it's the factor with which I'm generally more concerned. The first is what some people try to optimize, and they start frowning at mountains and such. My rules of thumb: If it will stagnate at size 6 or less, I'll only build it to bring in an important resource, or for domination territory. If it will stagnate around 8-10, I'll build it if it can contribute significantly fairly soon. (A great example is the Oasis map, which has rivers running through deserts. So it's quite common to build a city with 3-4 floodplains and several hills, for example. That city can grow quickly into a reasonable production center, while blocking your neighbors to the north.) Most of my cities will max out between 12 and 18. The only time I really worry about maximizing the number of workable tiles is if it's going to be a cultural city for a cultural victory, or other odd cases (e.g. the Super Size Me challange).

And I love overlapping my fat crosses. It's only a drawback once your cities are maxing out, and in the meantime it can often be a significant benefit. The classic example is poaching a food resource off my capital. The capital will hit its happiness cap soon anyway and want to switch to cottages or mines. Mise well let the new city use that rapid growth, eh? More generally, it makes for a more compact empire (reducing distance maintainance and movement times), or a denser empire (more cities on the same amount of land).

peace,
lilnev

 

[Eggolas]

I used to be obsessive about 4-3, and 4-2 placement with an occasional 3-3 to minimize overlap. Then I watched an Immortal game where a 3-1 placement was used to great effectiveness and I began to realize that overlap can be a great tool.

Now, I'll routinely overlap three or more tiles in the early game, especially when a new city can use an existing food resource or mine to power its early growth or production.

 

[manu-fan]

I used to be obsessive about 4-3, and 4-2 placement with an occasional 3-3 to minimize overlap. Then I watched an Immortal game where a 3-1 placement was used to great effectiveness and I began to realize that overlap can be a great tool.

Now, I'll routinely overlap three or more tiles in the early game, especially when a new city can use an existing food resource or mine to power its early growth or production.

What do you mean by 4-2, 3-1 etc.?

Thanks.

 

[lilnev]

4-2 would be 4 East and 2 South (for example) from an existing city, resulting in one tile of overlap.

peace,
lilnev

 

[manu-fan]

Wow, that means 3-1 is 3 squares east/west and 1 square north/south. That's a heck of a lot of overlap!!!

I need to try that on my next game.

Cheers.

 

[Eggolas]

Wow, that means 3-1 is 3 squares east/west and 1 square north/south. That's a heck of a lot of overlap!!!

I need to try that on my next game.

Cheers.

It's situational though, not 3-1 all the time. The latter is akin to ICS which got heavily nerfed in Civ IV.

 

[Phrederick]

That is, I'll have a handful of top-notch cities which I know I'll want to have growing to their top population in the late game. These will be my commerce/science/production powerhouses.

On the other hand, I know I'll have several other cities that will be mediocre in comparison, but will nevertheless support my empire.

I tend to do that too. I'll build a couple cities that have obvious long-term potential, and the rest that will peak in the renaissance/industrial eras. For the longest-term cities I tend to aim for grassland and grassland-river/hill cities, for either cottaging or workshop/windmill/mines, for commerce/production cities.

I avoid mountains/deserts in my fat x as much as possible. They're wastelands, so why bother?

Would you accept three or four wasted tiles in return for snagging an extra gold mine or pig? I would. That gold mine is going to give you an extra five commerce every turn over the entire game (if you can work it, of course). Those wasted tiles will only matter once you might need to work them.

Agreed it is currently the best way to exploit the AI. However, the improvements from Iustus and Blake are attempting to address that.

As a result, games will last longer. And, it will become much more important to get the most out of each city, rather than simply build axeman, whip, attack, rinse, repeat.

Even when a game lasts a long time, I think it's still worthwhile to build the first few cities close together, not worrying about long-term potential. No matter what, on high difficulties, you will have to war at some point (I think I've only won a single game on emperor or higher without going to war for territory). That territory you capture can be optimized for longer-term potential, while your initial territory is optimized for immediate productivity to allow for more efficient capture of that additional territory.

Another reason for using overlapping city placement: If the game does go to the modern ages, then you can always rejigger tile allocations. I often build cities knowing that they will either work their full complement of tiles or only work whatever tiles aren't worked by other cities. So when it's mid-late industrial, I might have three cities size 14, all overlapping. I'll let one of them grow to size 19 or 20, one to 17 or 18, and the last will starve down to 8 or 10, working whatever tiles no one else can work.

 

[Wodan]

Even when a game lasts a long time, I think it's still worthwhile to build the first few cities close together, not worrying about long-term potential. No matter what, on high difficulties, you will have to war at some point (I think I've only won a single game on emperor or higher without going to war for territory). That territory you capture can be optimized for longer-term potential, while your initial territory is optimized for immediate productivity to allow for more efficient capture of that additional territory.

This shows the (probably subconscious) bias that I don't necessarily agree with. The emphasis is added.

To me there's a big difference between "at some point" in the game and "immediate productivity" for conquest. The use of the word immediate implies that wartime productivity is needed, well, immediately.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you're saying. Don't mean to jump all over your thoughts.

Anyway there's something to what you say, especially as things stand currently with the big emphasis on early wars and combat being a big weakness of the AI. I'm very interested in the new Iustus/Blake beta builds and have been experimenting with them quite a bit over the past week or so. Best thing since cheesecake.

Wodan

 

[Phrederick]

This shows the (probably subconscious) bias that I don't necessarily agree with. The emphasis is added.

To me there's a big difference between "at some point" in the game and "immediate productivity" for conquest. The use of the word immediate implies that wartime productivity is needed, well, immediately.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you're saying. Don't mean to jump all over your thoughts.

Please do jump all over my thoughts. I encourage vigorous disagreement. What I meant is that in all my games, I expect to expand my empire prior to the renaissance era. I build my first cities to peak in productivity by then, so that I can expand as effectively as possible. By "at some point" I meant "early enough to provide economic benefit" and by "immediate productivity" I meant "early enough to provide a benefit in the above war". I'll try again:

Even when a game lasts a long time, I think it's still worthwhile to build the first few cities close together, not worrying about long-term potential. No matter what, on high difficulties, you will have to war in the first half of the game (I think I've only won a single game on emperor or higher without going to war for territory). That territory you capture can be optimized for longer-term potential, while your initial territory is optimized for early productivity to allow for more efficient capture of that additional territory.

I didn't completely understand what part you don't agree with. Could you clarify, given my clarification?

Another note I'd like to add: I'm not trying to say that I always overlap my cities, or that I make a shift from the first couple to the rest. I'm arguing that if it best fits the territory, don't shy away from overlapping or conceding dead tiles in a citie's BFC(deserts/mountains). Perhaps I'll build my second city optimally for the long-term, then the 3rd and 4th will overlap something or have some mountains. Also, I'll never worry about 2-4 dead tiles: 4 dead tiles leads to a maximum of 16 tiles worked, and that's sufficient in most games.

 

[Wodan]

Please do jump all over my thoughts. I encourage vigorous disagreement.

What I meant is that in all my games, I expect to expand my empire prior to the renaissance era. I build my first cities to peak in productivity by then, so that I can expand as effectively as possible. By "at some point" I meant "early enough to provide economic benefit" and by "immediate productivity" I meant "early enough to provide a benefit in the above war".

One minor point... what do you mean by "productivity"? To me, that's hammers only. But I gather that instead you mean general infrastructure, the cumulation of commerce/hammers/whatever. right?

Even when a game lasts a long time, I think it's still worthwhile to build the first few cities close together, not worrying about long-term potential. No matter what, on high difficulties, you will have to war in the first half of the game (I think I've only won a single game on emperor or higher without going to war for territory). That territory you capture can be optimized for longer-term potential, while your initial territory is optimized for early productivity to allow for more efficient capture of that additional territory.

I didn't completely understand what part you don't agree with. Could you clarify, given my clarification?

Sure.

I believe it's more possible than is generally realized to succeed in the game without a war of conquest for territory.

That said, I recognize that the AI is currently weak in its capability to defend against such a war, and this exploit is one that humans can most easily find to their advantage. And I use the term "exploit" advisedly. Anyway, given this recognition, I can still hope that the game can be improved such that non-warlike strategies become more on par with the current warlike strategies.

Back to previous paragraph. For example, it is inarguable that committing to a war of aggression costs more in resources in producing units (many of which will die), researching military techs in advance of the enemy, opportunity cost for not having economic techs earlier and being able to construct buildings earlier or realize free trade routes and cottage bonuses (etc) earlier. The presumption here is that there is a payoff in terms of crippling the opposition as well as gaining territory (cities) that can eventually turn a "profit" in terms of hard beakers/gold/hammers.

In addition, many such warlike strategies rely upon supporting strategies such as Slavery. These in turn have their own opportunity cost. Slavery, for example, especially post-patch, definitely hurts the generation of research, whether using specialists or cottages. This is a somewhat hidden opportunity cost.

Furthermore, I think there is a bias by many people that an earlier win is a better win. I totally refuse to accept that assertion, as well as all the assumptions that go with it. We can talk about that if you like.

Anyway I've rambled on enough. I'm not saying a warlike strategy is a bad idea. It's a proven good one. However, I think that a devoted "builder" strategy as well as other strategies (such as a religious one) can be just as successful, if not more so.

Another note I'd like to add: I'm not trying to say that I always overlap my cities, or that I make a shift from the first couple to the rest. I'm arguing that if it best fits the territory, don't shy away from overlapping or conceding dead tiles in a citie's BFC(deserts/mountains). Perhaps I'll build my second city optimally for the long-term, then the 3rd and 4th will overlap something or have some mountains. Also, I'll never worry about 2-4 dead tiles: 4 dead tiles leads to a maximum of 16 tiles worked, and that's sufficient in most games.

I don't disagree. However, it really depends on what your particular goal is in a game, as well as the layout. If there is plenty of room, then why go to the production effort to crank out another settler and cram 3 cities in the space that would fit 2? And, perhaps you're shooting for a long-term game, or a missionary-spam that will quickly make all your neighbors your allies. (Your "war of expansion" will occur more distantly, creating your own "Prussia" as it were. This, actually, is a very fun game IMO.)

Wodan

 

[Phrederick]

One minor point... what do you mean by "productivity"? To me, that's hammers only. But I gather that instead you mean general infrastructure, the cumulation of commerce/hammers/whatever. right?

You're right. I define productivity as the sum of useful production, commerce, and food. That's probably a little misleading since productivity and production kinda mean the same thing. I guess "empire-wide output" would be a better term.

I believe it's more possible than is generally realized to succeed in the game without a war of conquest for territory.

Do you believe that on emperor? What about with Agressive AI? I find that the AI will often found cities so close to me that I can't build more than 3 cities on some maps. This is verging off into an issue other than city placement entirely, but whatever. Perhaps it's just the settings I use, but usually the only way to get a similar amount of land as the ai civs is to take it from them, because it's too expensive to immediately drop 5-7 cities, and by the time I'm ready economically to place the fourth, there's no land left unsettled.

In games where it's possible to expand peaceably, I'd prefer to do so usually. See the current game Sisiutil is playing: I wouldn't have gone to war with Mehmed, because there was still possible expansion. Peaceful expansion is better than invasive expansion, unless it's also cutting down the biggest rival. This ties in with your thoughts on opportunity costs.

That said, I recognize that the AI is currently weak in its capability to defend against such a war, and this exploit is one that humans can most easily find to their advantage. And I use the term "exploit" advisedly. Anyway, given this recognition, I can still hope that the game can be improved such that non-warlike strategies become more on par with the current warlike strategies.

I agree. The AI can't war well, so that's the best way to win when you face overwhelming odds. However, my main point is that with the settings I play, you cannot get enough land peacefully to compete. Perhaps I should post some savegames to show you what I mean.

I don't disagree. However, it really depends on what your particular goal is in a game, as well as the layout. If there is plenty of room, then why go to the production effort to crank out another settler and cram 3 cities in the space that would fit 2?

I agree with that. The reason I posted this thread was that I had the impression that a lot of people axiomatically disregard possible city placements (dotmaps) that include significant overlap or dead tiles.

 

[cabert]

I'm not a top notch player, and I'm not the most overlapping happy.
But I like overlapping when :
1) it allows for more "something" fast (more units fast, connecting a vital resource fast, building a second city fast to give dual production fast = wonder + units, or settlers+ units)
2) in cultural games, for cottage maturing.

I don't like deserts, because they're useless, but I like to have some peaks in the first ring/fat cross.
Why?
Because they provide very effective fogbusting!
If you have a peak in your fat cross, you can see 3 tiles away.

 

[Wodan]

Do you believe that on emperor? What about with Agressive AI?

As I said, currently the easiest and most sure way to exploit the AI's weaknesses is to wage war. On Emperor, that's almost mandatory. However, if the AI's ability to wage (and defend against) war is improved, this will change.

Aggressive AI is no different from normal AI. All that matters is if the AI declares war on you, which could happen in either case. Regardless, if the AI declares war on you, all bets are off. That's not really what we're talking about, though. Planning your game with the strategy to conquer more territory is totally different from being able to successfully defend yourself (even if you gain some territory in the process). For one thing, the AI might never declare war on you, especially if you have a suitable defensive force in place.

I find that the AI will often found cities so close to me that I can't build more than 3 cities on some maps.

On some maps? We're talking in general.

If the map is crowded all around, so that all civs are crowded down to 3 cities, that's a net-no-gain to anybody, so it's back to the base case.

If the map is such that you (possibly along with one or two AIs) are crowded while others have much more room to expand, then I totally agree a war of conquest is probably called for.

This is verging off into an issue other than city placement entirely, but whatever. Perhaps it's just the settings I use, but usually the only way to get a similar amount of land as the ai civs is to take it from them, because it's too expensive to immediately drop 5-7 cities, and by the time I'm ready economically to place the fourth, there's no land left unsettled.

It's true the AI gets production bonuses on high levels. Unless you prioritize settler production more than the AI prioritizes it, then you won't be able to keep up. So, for two reasons, this is a self-fulling prophecy. 1) planning on a war of conquest almost certainly affects the initial builds and initial expansion phase, delaying what could otherwise be more settlers (in other words, I think it's easily possible to prioritize settler production more than the AI does), and 2) high levels mean the AI has more production which results in faster settlers, resulting in faster AI expansion, which means you have no choice but to go on a war of conquest in order to simply gain equal territory to the rest of the AIs.

Peaceful expansion is better than invasive expansion, unless it's also cutting down the biggest rival.

Devil's advocate here... I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, the term "better" is usually open to interpretation. For another, is it cheaper to build a couple of axes and take a city, or to build a settler plus garrison and build your own? Hard to say.

Perhaps I should post some savegames to show you what I mean.

Not necessary. I agree with you (see above).

I agree with that. The reason I posted this thread was that I had the impression that a lot of people axiomatically disregard possible city placements (dotmaps) that include significant overlap or dead tiles.

Probably true. If you plan to go on an early war of conquest, then crowding probably is a good idea. If, however, you're not sure (and we recognize that being crowded is a sure-fire way to make you sure), then to me it makes more sense to give yourself the option to have better long-term cities. It's not like being spread out hurts you appreciably, if you end up deciding to go to war. At worst, you have one fewer cities with which to churn out units.

Wodan