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

[Akka]

Overlapping is ugly

So I try to keep it at the lowest level, no more than 1 tile, 2 if needed.
I use a pattern for my cities, and most of the time it works well

 

[-proletarian-]

Let me give you some insight into my games. By the time I've reached the industrial age (when i've built my railroad network, so a third way through it) I've got a nice amount of cities, usually between 15-25 on a standard map (I only play standard, anymore is too slow for my CPU) with absolutely NO overlap. Now, this may cause a few minor problems, such as a few river tiles unused, or perhaps that cattle is out of range of the closest city but I still placed it there to maintain my no-overlap pattern.....but the gains are well worth it in my opinion. My empire LOOKS beautiful. I don't play for score, so I'm not bothered about unused tiles. I have large metropolis' surrounded by islands of railroad, and I even have a substansial amount of unused terrain, so I can leave it unspoiled by roads or rails, and let it function as my "countryside" for my nation.


Sound just a little neurotic to you?

 

[ShredZ]

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.

Thats how I play too.

I used to play so there was no over-lap, but then I came to realize the slim benefits of having a city over the size of 20, esspecially since some of my best cities are sometimes around size 10 (production-wise), as long as my cities can produce tanks in 2-3 turns, Im happy. And the techs always seem to come in at 4-5 turns so I dont hafta worry about that...

Over-lap is okay

 

[God]

Originally posted by 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)

I agree with you. I used to use optimal city placement which I got from Bamspeedy. It seemed effective on regent, but I don't bother with it anymore.

I have delayed hospitals for as long as possible. Before I usually went for santitation after getting atomic theory, but now I don't. I buy it from the AI later when its cheaper.

KIND OF SPOILERS -- GOTM 8:


I overlapped quite a bit. All my cities except a few overlapped, 1,2,3,4, or 5 tiles. Infact my capital the most productive city had 6 tiles being used by other cities. And yet still I can produce panzers in 2-3 turns. Very effective, and I have alot of cities as a result of this. I forced myself to build 5 hospitals only for Battlefield Medicine. Most of my other cities haven't reached size 12 as yet, including my capital. I did this, because I am not industrious and don't have tooo many workers, to afford cleaning pollution everyturn, so I have kept population down to build railroads.

Hills are a good place to put cities, also so is desert. Lets say you have a few squares of desert, I would build the city on the desert. The square its built on gets 2 food anyways. Then build whatever on the surrouding plains.

 

[Creepster]

It really depends upon what your end goal is. I prefer not to overlap. I like huge empires with huge cities, even if I have to buy every improvement in it, and then build up the population from elsewhere, but there are times where overlapping is the way to go.

When playing on Diety you are almost forced to do this, just to get enough production to barley keep up with the AI. Every tile needs to be worked early in the game to allow for you to pump out the units and money you need to keep up. If you are going for a quick cultural victory then this is the way to go also. You can fit 3 times the amount of cities by crowding them in. It just happens that that is not as much fun as having huge monster cities.

Just my two cents worth!!

 

[Random Passerby]

First off, let's assume that your land is PERFECTLY laid out so that using a standardized grid with minimalized overlapping outward from your capital will not lose you any tiles, which is an assumption that gives major advantage to non-overlapping methods.

Now, if you overlap, say, four to six tiles of a radius on average, you will have to build more improvements, yes. However, two factors offset this cost: one, most of those "extra" improvements are giving you "extra" benefits--two temples give you twice as many happy people and twice as much culture. Secondly, you will get to use your tiles faster, which will give you more total shields and total gold in the long run.

Now throw in the fact that non-standardized placement with a few extra tiles of overlap will enable you to use many, many more tiles than any standardized maximized-city placement will, and there's no practical advantage to having all your cities being maximized. Sure, you'll want a couple of bigger cities for wonder building (though you probably won't even need those except on emperor/diety; the huge amount of production power available in the late game and the AI's poor management of it, coupled with the human player's better understanding of GLs and rushing wonders, means that all the major late-game wonders are guaranteed on the middle levels and below). Then you get to the aesthetic value, to which I say perfectly grid-spaced cities look monstrously silly and I want no such thing spoiling my screen.

 

[Zouave]

If your cities eventually grow so much they overlap you will have food problems and growth will stop; perhaps starvation will eventually knock down some pop. points.

BUT. . . the other edge to this sword is Settler Diarrhea. If you try to avoid such problems by starting your cities farther apart you risk having some idiot AI settler wander into your territory and settle on an open tile - which it should not even know exists but does via cheating.

So you'd better have some warriors or workers ready to block those rival civs' settlers from moving in.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Zouave
BUT. . . the other edge to this sword is Settler Diarrhea. If you try to avoid such problems by starting your cities farther apart you risk having some idiot AI settler wander into your territory and settle on an open tile - which it should even know exists but does via cheating.

I hate this so much, but they do it for a reason. They'll only do it if there's enough spare space to warrant it. If they do it, you should really put a town there.

When I place my cities, i generally try to place them in optimum range, but if it's better for me to build city one square next to optimum placement, I'll do it.

 

[Ozymandius]

I previously looked for the perfect no-overlap system because I sufferd from hunger a few times as my cities grew to 20+. Now I achieve cultural victory around 1700 and my cities never get that large anymore.
I look for rivers to avoid those expensive aquaducts and pack my cities close together even on a huge map. City * * * City etc.
The most annoying aspect of this game is still corruption. Since corruption increases with distance, the more cities close to the capital and Forbidden Palace the greater my production. Once corruption is severe I just go for coverage after the temple is built.
City * * * * * City.

 

[MuddyOne]

I build with minimal overlap to start with. Up and Down 5 squares, out the sides 4, offset by 2 or 3- so that the tabs cover the holes that would be produced if I expanded 5 in all directions.

This grabs as much land as possible starting out. I have been experimenting with then going back and doubling the density, so that you get two size 10-12 cities until hospitals are researched. Once hospitals are researched, I produce settlers in the added cities, adding the settlers to the original cities. Repeat until I can abandon. Not sure if I like it yet, but it does lower the corruption at earlier stages- when distance is the key factor- and later stages- when your hitting against the optimal number of cities limits. I rather have 64 19 tile cities rather than 64 10 tile cities that produce. I say 19 because I do have some overlap- My cities run from 36-40 in grasslands normally.

Note: This is when I am trying for highscores, where I don't want "wasted" squares. Since they count against domination limits. If trying for other things my tactics vary.

 

[BiatchGuy]

I try not to overlap.

 

[Amask]

I don't think having huge cities (more than size 16-20) is that good. All you get from the citizens who don't have any tiles to work is one gold per citizen, or some entertaining. I'd rather have more production and more cities.
One thing that matters is terrain. If you have 5 plain squares surrounded by hills or mountains, you do not need all 20 tiles around this city because it is not goin to grow to be so big. So overlap is not a big deal. More cities give more production in the game until you have hospitals, and also give you unit support (if you play on monarchy like I do). Therefore having 2-3 tiles overlap is not going to kill you in the game

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Random Passerby
First off, let's assume that your land is PERFECTLY laid out so that using a standardized grid with minimalized overlapping outward from your capital will not lose you any tiles, which is an assumption that gives major advantage to non-overlapping methods.

If the land is perfectly laid out, then a standard grid makes sense. For instance, in the American midwest, the land is generally flat and rises to the Rocky Mountains from east to west. The towns are laid out at equal intervals, spaced the distance between steam engine stations, which required regular water stops on their way west.

Play the terrain for best results and for the most fun. But in Civ3, the terrain is not often flat.

 

[Masquerouge]

I try not to overlap. I've got a feeling that an overlapped square is a "wasted" square. But it is just a feeling, it's not very rationnal.
There are only two situations that will make me overlap :
1. Fill an open spot in my territory where I KNOW the AI is goign to settle sooner or later (I hate that MORE than overlapping squares). These cities' population I do not develop afterwards
2. Because I rushed early on to a spot with luxuries, and afterwards I realize I can't properly fit cities in between without overlapping

 

[Qitai]

Try this --> have flexible cities.

In the beginning, I settle whereever there is food (cattles, wheat, floodplain) ignoring overlap (sometime having the max 9 overlap tiles). This allows me to generate massive settlers to combat the AI.

After the expansion stage and way into the developmental stage, when the tiles gets crowded, I disband those "extra" cities to reduce corruption. And no building loss there cause I never build a single building in those "extra" cities (maybe only a temple of library). They are my settler/worker generator. Sometimes, I also do the trick of "re-positioning my cities" before I start to build those cities up.

This way, I get the best of both world, tight build in the beginning for growth and loose build later on for power.

By the way, I did that to my capital too! To get the free palace jump after I get FP up.

 

[bobgote]

Bleargh, don't disband cities, overlapping isn't that bad.

 

[col]

I used to play with 'perfectly' spaced cities that grew huge eventually. The key word here is 'eventually'. Having read Billchin and Aeson on the merits of ICS aka the dense build, I practised a few games with it. It can be devastating grouping hundreds of size 6-12 cities within 2 spaces. You need to expand rapidly to claim space at the start then backfill when you reach the borders of the next civ. If I have forty cities growing early then I get a bigger boost than 10 cities which will one day reach 30 pop. Usually the outcome of a game is pretty much clear by the time cities are anywhere near their max size. I dont mind if there is a lot of overlap! An extra bonus is that corruption is low because many cities are geographically close to the capital(s) and defence is easy when cities are only 2 or 3 spaces apart.

 

[Qitai]

Disband a city is not a big deal if you think about the fact that it only cost 30 shields for that city. Just need to get over that emotion barrier and you will get the best of both worlds. Growth in the early stage of the game and power when you need it.

Overlapping isn't bad. Corruption is.

 

[Ozymandius]

There is a geographical explanation as well. In the 19th century, a German geographer came up with a central-place theory. On a level plain where no location has any advantage over any other, settlements will spring up at even intervals of 3.5 miles apart. Because there should be no overlap, each settlement will have a hinterland of 3.5 mi radius shaped as a hexagon.
3.5 mi was the distance because no farmer should be more than 1 hour's walk from the nearest pub.
I used to call this the beer theory ("Christaller's cenral place theory" I believe)
The county where I live in southern Ontario is a near-perfect example of this:

--*---*---*
*---*---*---*
--*---*---*

 

[robinm]

I'm with the ICS / Dense build school of thought.

I build very dense cities , ensuring that each one will have access to 2 glassland or other 2 food producing tiles. I also try to use rivers and grab the real power tiles such as cattle, gold and whales. I try to visualise which towns will make good 12 pop cities, and which will just get in the way once I've grown. The "in the way" towns I give a name the ends in "Farm" so I remember not to develope them. If they are food heavy then they are just settler worker farms. If they seem to have enough production as well then I build a bararcks and use the to build units as well as worker / settlers. Eventually they will get abandoned, but often not until the local city builds a hospital. Often a city does not need a hospital. Core cites generally benefit with their low corruption, but ask yourself if a 60% corrupt city really needs to work 1 hills , 4 coast and 3 sea squares extra, and create pollution in the process.

A city with the Ironworks, the colossus or any of the science boosting wonders should realy be allowed acces to the best tiles it can reach, but often there is room for a farm in its radius until a few turns after it builds its hospital.

In the far reaches of the empire, as city is only there to control territory and resources. I build a temple, a wall, and a barracks. If the town looks like its going to be under cultural pressure I'll build a cathedral too. If the town is on an island and controls a resource I'll rush a harbor if I need the resource. I only rush the temple unless I expect combat in the area. Border towns are spaces so that the boder closes after one expansion ( ie 4 clear tiles apart) or sometimes further spaced. They are positioned on hills, besides rivers ( for defense), or actually _on_ the resorce they are there to control. If there are no more useful buildings to put in the border town the I set it building my best defensive unit at 1 shield per turn, eventually it completes.

Capital moving :
Your capital is generlaly in a bad place for a capital. Its on the coast, and you positioned it when you knew virtaully nothing about the map. The method I use is to rename the capital "Capital Farm" to remind you not to develope it, use it as a settler and worker farm. Once you have enough towns to build the Forbiden palace, build in close to the capital (this allows it to get build in a reasonable time as corruption is low) to be positioned to support your inital expansion lobe. You'll hav scouted the map by now, so choose an area to be your second core, with lots of good city sites in a roughly circualr area, then grow a city there ( it will be corrupt to hell ), get it to be the largest cisty in your mpire by mikling and other big town for settler s/ workers, then abandon your original "Capital Farm". You now have 2 productive cores to your empire with well chosen centres.