City Spacing?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by punchandpie, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. punchandpie

    punchandpie Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    Clinton, Massachusetts
    Is there a general rule of thumb when placing new cities near ones that you have established in regards to space? I've be placing new cities with 2 tiles of space from my near city but I find that my civ gets a little too spread out after I've built 6 or 7 cities. Any thoughts?
     
  2. Quasimodo

    Quasimodo Bell Ringer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    137
    Location:
    High above, in the bell tower.
    I've always heard is to place your new city no closer than 5 tiles to the nearest city. That way, they each have their own 'fat cross' to work with.

    One thing I've learned in placing cities in CivIV that's different from CivIII, is that it's more of a strategic placement than a land grab placement. When I'm out looking for a place to send my settler, I'm looking for important resources instead of just expanding out. If there is no good spot that has resources, I look for spot that will cut off another civ from moving into my area.

    Just my thoughts......:cool:
     
  3. Cosine

    Cosine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Boston MA
    I agree for the most part, but I also won't place cities so far away that they're borders won't touch for a significant portion of time.

    No matter what, try to leave four workable tiles between city centers(to allow for full use of fat cross) thus maximizing the city's growth potential.
     
  4. Sevster

    Sevster Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Place your cities according to the resources and the terrain. My cities can be either far apart or really close, no rule of thumb. Well, border cities should be placed on hills for extra defensive bonus (which can't be bombarded).

    Most of the time on higher difficulties your city will never use the entire fat cross, so it makes sense to share the terrain with other cities, plus cities close together are easier to defend.
     
  5. Woodgar

    Woodgar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Location:
    The Land Of Hope And Glory
    I agree with Quasimodo.

    In Civ3 I used to try for a CXXC placement where possible so as to grab all the land I could without leaving gaps, but that won't work in Civ4. Well, it will obviously work, but the financial cost of each new city really means that you have to plan its position more carefully with regard to what the city can provide your empire, whether that be a strategic location at a choke point or giving access to health/luxury bonus tiles.

    With the open/closed border concept in Civ4 I find I can comfortably leave a few gaps between city placement knowing that the AI can't just walk across my empire and plonk down a city of its own.
     
  6. automator

    automator King

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    731
    Location:
    Northwest USA
    Last few games I've been following the "close as possible" rule. Mostly this is because in past games I'd leave a space of four or more between cities. Each city would get big (14 on the small side, 25+ on the large end). But I'd look at the stats screen and I'd be #1 in land area, but near last place in population. I thought something was wrong with that.

    Now, doing 2-3 spaces between cities, and really planning where my cities will be in a grid, I've gotten #1/#2 in land area and #1/#2 in population. I think that's a much better use of space. As also pointed out, it makes cities easier to defend, which I find very important when Barbs are a constant threat.
     
  7. Cosine

    Cosine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Boston MA
    Closer cities means more cities when using land area as a measuring stick. Two empires with the same land area coverage using opposite techniques(close pack, or increased distance) will result in the close pack having more cities(and a result: higher population density).
     
  8. ZippyRiver

    ZippyRiver Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    454
    yes, but if you took the spaced strategy and gave it the same number of cities (costs them both the same amount). Then the tight pack certainly will not be ahead in land area. However, the spaced empire can be the population leader.
     
  9. DangerousMonkey

    DangerousMonkey Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    139
    The distance you're going to want between your cities depends on several things. The most important factors are "how much total land do I expect to have" and "how long is this game likely to last."

    In multiplayer especialy I find that putting your cities a little closer together than you would think of as "ideal" to be pretty useful. For instance, in multiplayer the player density tends to be higher, the games shorter and the competition more intense. Under these conditions games tend to be decided earlier rather than later, and this means that your cities, even the best ones, are unlikely to get much above population 12. This means that if you have a spacing of around 3 tiles between your cities you'll still have plenty of squares to work. Also, a larger ammount of cities in a smaller area means both a more defensible empire and a better use of limited space (as long as every city has decent tiles to work).
     

Share This Page