Do you try to avoid city radius overlap at all costs?

[-proletarian-]

Personally, I'd rather not fully utilize every available terrain square, if it means that a city is going to overlap another. For the first few months after getting Civ3 I didn't really care, but after getting to the industrial age for the first time (yeah, I'm one of those that restarts a lot ) I saw how devestating it is for your cities to not have an unecumbered radius to draw on. Now my preference to not have overlap borders on neurotic, it can sometimes dictate my early-game strategy. I have to meticilously plan my city placement to take full advantage of any available resources, but do so with no overlap.

Does anyone else play like this?

 

[God]

I play like that up to warlord. I overlap on regent and above, since its more effective. Lesser corruption and more productivity early on. It isn't a big deal into the Industrial Age. I really don't care if my cities don't reach size 30.

 

[Apollo]

I am exactly the same! and I play on the harder difficulty levels (Monarch +). The only time I will violate this is I might place some cities in small areas within my empire that aren't already in a city radius, and then make sure this new city is confined to only these squares and doesn't use a square from an older city's radius if that older city needs to use it. These new cities usually top out around 5 or 6 and can't build much with such low production, but every bit of extra trade counts and the settlers they are built with usually come from cities with high-population problems or nothing better to build.

 

[Quentin]

I do not overlap city radius at all cost because I find it prevents cities from growing to their full potential. I do so and often find 3-5 squares of blank space between 3-4 of my cities.

 

[Alphidius]

I make sure each city is about at least 4 squares apart from each other. There are times where I'd need to snatch certain valuable resources into my borders from the AI and those cities are placed rather closely together to max their cultural powers.

 

[Bamspeedy]

When I first got the game, I hated overlapping. But not overlapping is such a waste. In order to have absolutely no overlapping, you end up leaving a few tiles that aren't being worked on. Also, specialists, suck! A taxman adds 1 gold, a scientist, 1 beaker. Sure, the smaller cities might produce a little less, but when you have more cities, this makes up for it. Would you rather have 10 cities making a tank every 2 turns or 20 cities making one every 3 turns? You spend too much time with so many tiles that are not used (pre-hospitals), that a denser build usually puts the game away before you even get hospitals.

If you want maximum output for your cities, mine as much terrain as you can, so the city has just enough food to feed the citizens working the terrain (no extra specialists). So, with no over-lapping all your cities should cap off at size 20. For max score or research/commerce irrigate everything.

 

[Random Passerby]

The gains of "optimal" (snicker) city placement are illusory. If a tile produces 3 food 1 production 2 trade, it doesn't matter if 1 city has it in its radius or 5; so long as you have at least one city covering it, you get the benefit of that tile. If you're commercial or industrious, you'll lose the tiny benefit from having a metropolis--IF you overlap severely or on very bad terrain. But other than that, the only thing that really hurts is NOT using tiles, and "optimal" placement will cause large swaths of land to lie unproductive.

 

[Kilroy]

Sometimes you don't have a choice if you want certain tiles worked. Overlap is okay so long as you keep it down to 3 or 4 tiles - any more and you're probably doing something wrong.

 

[Bamspeedy]

But other than that, the only thing that really hurts is NOT using tiles, and "optimal" placement will cause large swaths of land to lie unproductive.

Depends on what people call 'optimal'. If optimal is 0 overlapping tiles then yes, you end up with alot of tiles that are unused. The 'optimal' city placement I have seen is where you place cities so that there is no gap and the cities end up sharing only a couple of tiles.

Edit: It's a good theory, because for each city, the first citizen ends up using 2 tiles (one for the city center, and 1 that it's working), but the benefits of the denser build out-weighs the post-hospital patterns.

I made a website on this optimal city placement theory (in the strategy articles forum) and now I feel like an idiot for using that method.

I have learned that you can't place cities by any set pattern. By trying to place cities in any set pattern you end up placing cities one tile away from a river, one tile off of a coast, etc. And then of course you get some stupid mountain in your way and messes up the pattern. Too much frustration. Better to learn how to place cities based on terrain, don't worry if there is some overlapping.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy

I made a website on this optimal city placement theory (in the strategy articles forum)
. . .
I have learned that you can't place cities by any set pattern. By trying to place cities in any set pattern you end up placing cities one tile away from a river, one tile off of a coast, etc. And then of course you get some stupid mountain in your way and messes up the pattern. Too much frustration. Better to learn how to place cities based on terrain, don't worry if there is some overlapping.

Thanks for the edit of your original theory, though the "ideal" you advocated is still worthwhile as a goal of sorts.

Usually, try to avoid overlapping, but overlapping just a couple squares is ok. This makes sure that every square is covered without crippling the later development of your cities. On the higher levels, you can pack them a little more closely to gain an early advantage. But no matter what, you should play the terrain and the position.

Playing the terrain is more fun.

 

[Grey Fox]

I got One big tip to every player, experienced and unexperienced, Overlapping don't hurt you. You benefit from some overlapping, especially post-hospitals. Why should I optimize my build pattern for +20 sized cities? When I can get MORE 12-16 size ones by using a closer pattern.

Smaller and more cities will benefit you more during the longer parts of the game, and with less Hospitals there is also less pollution. Because population is the greatest cause to Pollution. And cities smaller then 12 don't produce any 'population pollution'.

I like metros, I really do. But the benefits of many smaller (size 12 or so) cities is so much larger.

Although I try not to build as tight in grassland areas. And I try to place cities on Hills as much as possible, and by a river, lake and/or coast if I can. (Harbors are really nice, +1 food on coast and sea)

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I try to keep overlap down, but it depends on map size. Large and Huge I tend to play with gaps between cities, smaller ones are often incredibly stuffed. Especially on deity I often have cities spread out like this on tiy maps:

------------
-X--X--X--
------------
-X--X------
------------
---X------X

red x = capital, x = city

with only 2 tiles between them since i play with 16 civ all the time. It is too tight for spreading them out more, and I need many cities early on to build up enough military and conquer my neighbors...

 

[BigBirdZ28]

Im verrrrrrrrrrrry particular when it comes to this.

very very very

But if I have a choice between wasting 5-7 spaces or having 2-3 cities over lap, I'll over lap

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Random Passerby
But other than that, the only thing that really hurts is NOT using tiles, and "optimal" placement will cause large swaths of land to lie unproductive.

That's not exactly true. If you pack your cities, it requires more city improvements and the associated costs of maintaining those improvements. As always, there is a tradeoff. However, I do recommend using every available tile in most instances.

 

[amadeus]

You've also got to consider that the original city tile will be wasted space. After the two food, one shield, and a couple trade, it's not worth anything.

Far and wide for me...early expansion first.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Grey Fox


I like metros, I really do. But the benefits of many smaller (size 12 or so) cities is so much larger.

I dont agree, because you need twice as much city improvement to work those tile. A metropolis can work on 21 tile so 1 marketplace, 1 library, 1 bank...ect are needed for those 21 tile. But if you built 2 cities size 12 insted then you need 2 markeplace, 2 library, 2 bank...ect to work about the same tile as a metropolis will do.
So 2 size 12 city worth less than a size 21 metropolis.

 

[Anglophile]

Map size is the prime determinant for my build strategy. On smaller maps, I go for a denser build with significant overlap since everything happens earlier, resources are denser, and most expansion will be through conquest, not settlers. On the very large to fully expanded maps that I prefer, my strategy is very different. Some cities may overlap a few tiles but I have many more unused tiles than overlapped. There are a lot of reasons for this:
- for any given resource appearance frequency, the actual density decreases as map size increases so that one needs a big empire to ensure the strategic and luxury resources necessary to win. For example, even with coal turned up to 300 (the max) in the editor, I did not have any coal in my current game until my 92nd city. A resource only needs to be in one's cultural range, not city range to be usable so big empires with lots of gaps to be filled by culture later.
- you have much longer to expand peacefully and many fewer opportunities for early expansion through conquest. I tend to expand as quickly as possible to where I suspect/hope my borders will be and backfill later. I build these cities on good spots which inevitably means overlaps or more generally gaps.
- on very big maps, one will hit the hard coded city limit before all available terrain is settled. Therefore packing your cities tight just leaves more empty space and resources that can only be used through the very vulnerable colony and external road approach. I prefer the key resources in my empire, not vulnerable in case of war.
- I tend to build around the lower value tiles (deserts/jungle/) hoping to 'surround' them and gain the resources which appear later in the game through cultural expansion. Hard to surround tundra, but the approach is the same. I will build right beside a jungle because eventually those jungle tiles will be cleared but I try not to build right beside desert because that city will always suck.

I also tend to build two types of cities. The first are the cities on a river with lots of hills, mountains and grassland - high growth, high production - the engines of my empire's economy. I minimize overlap here but also hate to waste a good river tile so some compromises are required. Other cities are the settler/worker cities or just filler cities. Small maps, lots of overlap; huge+ maps, lots of gaps.

Bottom line, there are really no absolutes here. Fit your approach to map size, starting position, distance from other empires, resource appearance, your playing style, etc.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Anglophile

Bottom line, there are really no absolutes here. Fit your approach to map size, starting position, distance from other empires, resource appearance, your playing style, etc.

Good write-up.

That's one reason why Civ3 is such a good game -- there are so many possibilities, so many ways to play.

 

[Grey Fox]

I never said my way is the right way. Just stated it. And yes it will be more banks etc, but also more happy people and easier to get a good WLTK day. More Happy people better score.

Anyway, I usually have metros in my core. And metros in the large grassland areas that are corrupted, as building a city on grassland wastes some food. which wastes some potential happy faces, which is score. And I usually play for score, as most of my games are GOTM, HOF(no complete yet though) and the Tournament games.

 

[bobgote]

I will overlap if there are good tiles that are out of range of the cities placed in the 'optimum' spacing. I will always build a city even if it only has only 5-6 tiles to itself. Also Terrain plays a big part. Try to place coastal cities, as later on, after harbour first, then offshore platform later on the sea tiles become quite productive. Also try to place next to rivers wherever possible, not having to build an aquaduct gives you an early advantage.