Distance between cities - question

[Kael]

Blaine did a bunch of work in this area. He was also wondering if the AI was better off spreading out to control as much land as possible, or packing their cities together to attempt to get as many cities as possible in a given space. In the end, for Civ4, he determined that the AI was better off trying to fit as many cities as possible in the space. Which is why it is like it is.

Now we can argue his finding, especially as they apply to FfH (which may be completely different) or we can find that we just prefer to have a more spread out empire (as I do). But both ways have merit.

 

[cvlowe]

Blaine did a bunch of work in this area. He was also wondering if the AI was better off spreading out to control as much land as possible, or packing their cities together to attempt to get as many cities as possible in a given space. In the end, for Civ4, he determined that the AI was better off trying to fit as many cities as possible in the space. Which is why it is like it is.

Now we can argue his finding, especially as they apply to FfH (which may be completely different) or we can find that we just prefer to have a more spread out empire (as I do). But both ways have merit.

I always wondered if I would get better results as a player from cramming as many cities as I could into my territory. Maybe that system is more efficient in the long run, but I just prefer to spread them out.

 

[onedreamer]

While I can't speak for you... If my city doesn't hit size 20, then the unworked tiles are not worth working. Adding another city would simply make more workers trying to work the same worthwhile tiles. IE instead of one size 14 city I would end up with two size 8 or 9.

The better answer, for me, is to use workers to improve those unused spaces and get both cities up to size 15+

two smaller cities are better than a bigger one.

 

[dyx]

Now there's just the question what "better" means. Production, gold, etc? And if one actually cares about that "better" meaning that one can pump out more Champions for an all out war.
It all depends of preferences and the play style.
I'd just like it if it was possible to set different variables for different civs. Especially the Kuriotates are like unplayable for the AI. :/ But I guess it's not possible.

 

[onedreamer]

production is the roughly same under the all out war point of view. Having 2 cities with 10 prod, or one with 20 prod won't change much. It does make a difference if you are building a wonder. Except from the maintenance point of view, having more cities is generally better though.

They will max population easier and faster.
The main source of commerce in Civ4 are trade routes. More cities translates in more trade routes.
If you are running civics or have wonders that add specialists to all cities, having 2 smaller cities is better than a having a bigger one.
Tighter cities are more easily defendable AND in case you loose one you will still likely control its territory from the other. With the single bigger city choice, once you loose that one you lost everything.
In vanilla BtS more cities also means more espionage and bigger bonus for and from Corporations.

Normally, size 12-16 cities will be good ones. You maybe need one or two bigger ones (20/22) to build wonders, but it will take quite some time before you can afford that population.

 

[Breez]

@Onedreamer:
You laid out all the pros but none of the cons
- Tighter cities are easier to defend? How? You have to build twice as many walls and defenders
- Making 2 small cites requires twice as many settlers
- IF you have unhealthiness or unhappiness issues (which you might not if they are small enough) you have to build twice as many buildings to counteract them.
- While you get twice as much production from markets and councils you would have to build twice as many banks/tax collectors/libraries

Now, is one way better than the other clearly? I don't think so. I think there are trade offs each way.

The best part is this was brought up on how to change it ourselves to fit our play styles. I would not dream of suggesting Kael make the same change to mod without serious tests on if the AI is better or worse.

 

[JonathanStrange]

"Tighter cities" - if that means closer cities - might be easier to defend as one could rely more on a more mobile and central defense reserve to quickly reinforce an otherwise lightly garrisoned city when threatened. Scattered, distant cities may not have that option.

The extra building production and its "cost" seems a non-issue as cities build them out of their own budget, not the national treasury. The maintenance cost of more cities would probably be more of a stumbling point here.

Personally, I usually have widely separated cities. Sometimes I do favor a hub sort of city development in which (usually) the capitol is the central city and its satellite cities radiate in a virutual circle. To spare maintenance costs on the military, rather than garrisoning every city very highly, I might lightly guard them and rely on a fast stack of mounted troops stationed in the capitol to reinforce instantly a threatened city or better to intercept invaders.

Really depends on the geography: I generally play pangaea maps so wide-spread cities are the norm for me.

 

[sable_twilight]

Now there's just the question what "better" means. Production, gold, etc? And if one actually cares about that "better" meaning that one can pump out more Champions for an all out war.
It all depends of preferences and the play style.
I'd just like it if it was possible to set different variables for different civs. Especially the Kuriotates are like unplayable for the AI. :/ But I guess it's not possible.

couldn't the

	<Define>
		<DefineName>MIN_CITY_RANGE</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>

simply be placed in the section which defines the Kuriotates?

 

[Breez]

The extra building production and its "cost" seems a non-issue as cities build them out of their own budget, not the national treasury. The maintenance cost of more cities would probably be more of a stumbling point here.

I would agree IF a size 14 city had no more production than a size 8 city.

While yes they do "pay the cost" in hammers them selves those hammers WOULD have been in the bigger city doing something else. In this cast the "cost" is lost opportunity costs.

 

[dyx]

The main source of commerce in Civ4 are trade routes. More cities translates in more trade routes.

I disagree here. Let's say you have a size 15 city and a size 20, not coastal. 7 trade routes, if I didn't forget something. With the trade routes generating 3 commerce each, that's 21 commerce from trade. The size 20 city can have 5 cottages more, meaning 25 commerce. 30 for a financial leader. Without counting the population modificator for trade routes, resulting 4-5 commerce per trade route for the size 20 city.
Or did I miss something?

 

[Demus]

don't forget city upkeep in these calculations! With additional cities costing over 10 gold each, the equation can become quite different.
Also, different civs have different preferences for these things. Civs like the sheiam need to cram their cities as much as possible for their gates to have the maximum effect. Civs like the kurio's and khazad on the other hand need more spaces out cities for their unique trait/buildings to have the biggest effect.

 

[sable_twilight]

So, is it possible to define different minimum city distances for different civs? Is is as simple as placing imincityrange for in the civilizationinfos for each civ? And which would benefit the most from being closer and which the most from being further away?

Oh, and more important, which would it be more in flavor for?