1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

City Spacing and the Patch Effects

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by swordspider, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. swordspider

    swordspider Dread Multiplayer

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    Obviously the patch had some pretty big changes, but one of the hardest ones for me to understand was the city spacing requirements. Whereas I agree maybe 3 tiles would be a smart move, 4 is just ridiculous.

    For a direct example, I played a MP continents game last night on Small. I founded my first city where it was placed when the game started. There was another player on the island as well, and 2 CSs. Well that guy and I knew we'd be battling for this land so we each spread our first city towards each other and *boom* that was it. The width of the island didn't allow ANYWHERE else to build because of the city-states and the placement of our first cities. So there was easily enough room for 4, maybe even 5 or 6 cities that would be healthy, valid cities, but we were forced into war because they would be too close.

    The next game I played was Pangaea on Standard size. I'm growing like normal and have 2 great 3rd and 4th city placements picked and *boom* Ghandi drops a city right between my spots. Now not only can I not build either one of those cities, but I am stuck with nowhere else to expand and ultimately am forced into warmongering.

    The moral of the story is this: 4 tiles is just too far. 2 tiles was too close, yes, but 4 is way too far. WHY wouldn't they test 3 tiles first? This is my biggest gripe, and no it is NOT about ICSing so don't even try to go that route. This is about losing a very valid way of placing cities (especially non-coastal ones) that made sense.

    If this 'rule' were true in life, let's see which cities would never exist... let's even say with a minimum of a three hundred thousand citizens inside the city limits and only in the USA... (since every huge city in Europe is surrounded by other big cities!)

    3 Tile equivalent (so 3 tiles between cities like is required):

    TOO MANY TO COUNT!

    2 Tile equivalent (so 2 tiles between cities):

    Washington DC / Baltimore
    San Francisco/San Jose
    Seattle/Tacoma
    Orlando/Tampa
    New Orleans/Baton Rouge

    1 Tile equivalent (so 1 tile between cities):

    Dallas/Ft.Worth
    Minneapolis/St.Paul
    Raleigh/Durham
    Phoenix/Scottsdale
    Los Angeles/Long Beach/Santa Ana


    THE POINT: 4 TILES IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  2. Tatran

    Tatran Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    4,184
    From memory, before civ5 was released the minimum city space was 3.
    When civ5 came out I was surprised it was changed to 2.

    Before the 1.0.1.217 patch, I've played several games at large/huge maps with city spacing of 4.
    It felt overal much better.
    I did reduce the amount of city states to 8, instead of 20 on a large map.
    More space to settle and to win a diplomatic victory you only need 9 votes.
     
  3. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    All of your examples = 1 civ 5 City.

    In Europe
    France, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy= 1 or 2 Cities per country

    Los Angeles/Orange County + San Diego=
    1 Civ V City
    (possibly including rest of California + Nevada)
     
  4. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    All of the 1 tile examples: Part of the same MSA / CMSA

    The 2 tile examples are a mix of cities in the seperate MSAs but in the same CMSA, and seperate but fairly nearby metros. In the later cases, the smaller of the entities don't really meet civ 5 definition of cities but are more like Civ 4's towns.

    California would be represented by 2 cities:

    Los Angeles & Sacramento.
    The entire bay area would be several hexes full of the "town" improvement; as would a large areas surrounding LA including San Diego, the populated portions of the inland empire, and more.
     
  5. Rittmeyer

    Rittmeyer Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Brasil!
    I don't know what this is about, but I'm sure it's not strategy...
     
  6. Michl2602

    Michl2602 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    259
    As far as I tried, it is 3 tiles (at least in my newly begun post patch Inca game).

    So: ??
     
  7. eris

    eris King

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    623
    Location:
    On this forum
    I disagree with the OP. I absolutely love the new city spacing. Increases strategic decisions and opportunities to block off others or be blocked off. Opens up space on the map to move units around. Haven't tried it yet, but should make world conquering less of a long haul slog, especially on larger maps.

    If it had been up to me, the spacing minimum would have been 5 instead of 4. This is probably a good compromise.
     
  8. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,205
    Location:
    Germany
    "Whereas I agree maybe 3 tiles would be a smart move, 4 is just ridiculous."

    Errr... city spacing IS 3 tiles now. Just +1 tile compared to the game pre-patch.

    X--X (2 tile spacing pre-patch)
    X---X (3 tile spacing now)

    So, YES, 4 tiles could be stupid - if it would be so!

    Nevertheless, in duel sized maps this might be a problem already. As I tend to play larger maps, I'm fine with the change.
     
  9. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,720
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Indeed. That's why it's 3.
     
  10. caeru71

    caeru71 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Messages:
    128
    I think the new increased minimum distance between cities is a good thing.
     
  11. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    The duel size earth map does indeed have problems with the new city spacing in Africa and perhaps other parts of the map as well. (You have to found a city on a luxary in East Africa to be able to build a city in South Africa. [NE of the luxary isn't an option due to the city state in Egypt. West isn't an option due to your starting city.])

    But the generated duel map types seem to be fine; but you need to plot where your next city is going to be before planting the current city to avoid blocking yourself out.

    Playing on a duel contientant right now; as a test. My own landmass under the city spacing rules has 5 major city sites (one occupied by a city state), 4 good city sites and 2 marginal city sites. I've not gotten around to building the marginal infill sites yet, and am unlikely to unless a late game resource appears in them.

    An ICS player could infill what I've done to add another city site under the current rules; but that would basically take tiles being worked by other cities away from it, but the only new tiles it would add would be water tiles + a hill + a grassland. None with resources, no nearby rivers and either the hill or grassland would be the city)

    Under the old rules, and ICS player could also have added a marginal site SW of the city state.

     
  12. Michl2602

    Michl2602 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    259
    As I'm always playing huge-World-cards for me 2 tiles is as good as 3. I never played ICS, as I don't enjoy variants that restrict city growth.

    As ICS was created to win on Deity and probably MP, there's also no cause for me to use it. Probably I'll beat the game on Deity some day, but I'm only interested in that, when I can do it by using a normal REX-variant without any special tricks.

    For me this is a game not a science.
     
  13. pickle

    pickle Lord of the Preserves

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    236
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    I got pinged with it in my first post patch game, I usually up the number of civs/cs by a couple each, next game I will probably cut the number of cs so that there is a bit more room to settle. but it can be frustrating when there are significant amounts of unclaimed land that cannot be settled. overall I think I will like the wider spacing but it been very inconvenient in my current game.
     
  14. SpearMan153

    SpearMan153 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia
    havn't gotten around to playing post patch yet but the change looks good to me - some map scripts may need adjustments to account for the change though...
     
  15. Ben Franklin

    Ben Franklin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Location:
    Canada
    IMHO seeing that players are almost equally divided on this topic, I think it would be a good thing if this spacing was "tweakable" in the game menu... this way everybody's happy.
    After all, this a game and when a player becomes frustrated by an "imposed" changed on the game rules he/she have a right to be p.... off hum... peaved off ;-)
    On a personal basis I preferred the situation before the last patch...
    The last game I started, I aborted because I could not build my city in a large free zone between 2 city states, just because The game wouldn't permit it...
    Hoping some mods will come along to repair that.
     
  16. Rittmeyer

    Rittmeyer Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Brasil!
    This. I had this problem before when playing withou a lot of attention and not being used to the new rules yet. I`m kind of a hardcore player and I still made the mistake. I imagine how frustrating that would be on more casual players, which is why I`m pretty sure the 3 tiles rule is very bad in terms of game design, even if it offers more balance between horizontal/vertical.

    It seens to me that the right way to fix ICS was by not making techs more expansive, reducing the trade route income, reducing the price AI pays for resources and improving production/lowering cost of buildings/making them more effective. Just that.

    Also, I find it outrageous that right now I`m playing the third Civilization 5 game. The first one was the original in which you could win games out of 50 unhappiness and with the services of the four horseman of apocalypse. Or just by warrior rushing (On Deity, go figure).

    The second one was all about the Crazy ICS hiding behind Olygarchy. And now there`s the third one, go patronage.

    I wonder if this is the final game, because if not all I`m learning about it will be useless as it was in the first two times.
     
  17. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    FWIW - the city spacing limitation is stated as 4 somewhere in some info box in the game now (I think the pop up you get if you hover over the settle-city option for a settler).

    4 tiles from nearest city(ies) = 3 spaces between.

    In my current game I was at first a little annoyed by the new limitation, but as the game went on I first got used to it and then started to like it. It seems to make city placement *far* more important.
     
  18. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    Since this thread has come active again.

    Basically on generated maps, Duel, Tiny, Small, etc. I think the current positioning is fine. Occasionally there are fish tiles that can't possibly be worked based on city state placement but it's within reason. I imagine the AI sometimes curses us for us sometimes placing a new city in a way that kills two of their proposed cities as well. (Shoot, in my own game I saw an AI settler on a one tile island near another island I owned and so brought that tile right out from underneath them)

    It's real earth maps that have major issues within current positioning rules. (Not only Duel, but Tiny, and Small as well. I haven't tested standard size yet.) The problem here is that the earth map resources placements seem to have been designed around tighter city placement (at least on small and smaller.)
     
  19. pirsq

    pirsq Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    88
    What I'd like to see is 3 spaces between your own cities, but only 2 between cities belonging to different players. This makes it much more feasible to "steal" a luxury that another city will soon expand to, which adds another layer of strategy to city placement. I also like the increased border tension - 3-range units can bombard a city from the safety of their own city!

    I don't understand the point of this change, actually. I prefer wide spaces (3-6) between my own cities, but even with a 2-space rule, I can still choose to do that. It stops ICS, but I don't see why any strategy should be completely removed from the game (if it's not balanced, then make it balanced), especially one that completely makes sense from a realism perspective.
     
  20. neilkaz

    neilkaz King

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    975
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    My personal opinion disagrees with the OP and I play standard settings, Immortal Small Pangaea so there isn't a ton of room.

    This is a considerably better game with 4 spacing. The AI still tries to colonize every piece of single island arctic rubbish, but there are fewer AI cities to contend with and you can often set up to capture AI cities once again without taking fire from a couple other cities due to previous ICS spacing of 3 by the AI's.

    I doubt I'd still be playing post patch if spacing was still 3.

    .. neilkaz ..
     

Share This Page