Early preferences: Few huge cities or many "villages"?

[logical_psycho]

So what strategy do you guys prefer? Early on in the game you have the decision to buy settlers and try to create a large amount of small villages. On the other hand you can also grow your very first city to a respectable size and wait for the 100 gold settler, and possibly build a new settler once you have built the necessary growth buildings, such as granaries, harbors.


I generally end up trying to achieve scenario 1, but I often find myself to be much more successful trying to achieve scenario 2. With few large specialized cities I find it to be much easier to actually build buildings and defend the city. Usually you don't attract that much attention from the opponents, since not that many have their empire bordering yours. However, later in the game, if you have been able to develop many of the small cities, scenario 1 seems to pay off more.

 

[Aden52]

I generally don't build settlers in my games, or if I do, then it's only one or two. Usually I wait till I get the 100g free settler, then if I want to expand I will generally do it by war.

However, in a game I am currently playing as the Russians, I tried the second approach, which is more expansive. I waited for the 100g settler, and after that I spent some of that money to rush a granary. 4 food from each plains tile means rapid growth, so I could build settlers and grow my city back in no time. I ended up stoping my expansion with 5 cities in total, which is not huge, more a mediocre expansion, but I did it fast. I also have room to put another 2 cities if I want, I just want to make sure I do it at the right time (if I decide to do it).

I never realized the potential of the Russians, their cities can grow super fast. The first thing I built in 4 of my cities was a granary, because they all had atleast 2 plains tiles. My 5th city had no plains, but had 2 fish, 1 whale, and for productions sake, 1 iron. After granaries, plains tiles have 4 food. With irrigation, and a river, thats 5 food.

And getting loyalty promotions for free on archers and pikeman early on is a great boost. It allows you to not have to worry so much about defenses because you know your units are stronger and can handle more.

And once I'm in the modern era I'm sure my 1/2 cost spies will help me to slow down the AI if they try to build the SS or a wonder to win the game.

 

[Masquerouge]

Depends on the civ. With the Chinese in particular, and the Romans but a bit less, I like to pump out a couple of settlers since they have bonuses that will help you.

If I don't have any bonuses to settlers, I'll wait for the 100g.

But in all my games I never build more than 3 settlers, and then I conquer/culture flip the rest. Much more efficient.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

It depends on what the surrounding areas look like. Land locked areas usually have me founding fewer cities with more food and production. If I'm starting in a coastal area I'll found more villages.

If I'm playing as a civ with certain bonuses, like the Japanese, I'll force myself into coastal areas simply because they can have tons of small cities that turn into very large cities rapidly if they are on the coast while getting tons of beakers or gold.

It's a combination of things really. I know I don't play the same every game.

 

[goofyballer]

I try to do as much exploration as possible with my early warriors while rushing Code of Laws, so that when I locate my enemies I can pump out a quick couple settlers along with the 100g settlers and found cities in locations that "box in" my opponents and prevent their early expansion - it creates a kinda sprawling empire but you can "fill in" the empty spots later on.

This is in single player though, I'm sure multiplayer against more aggressive human opponents you won't be able to defend your cities well enough to pull this off.

 

[NaZdReG]

I tend to expand ICS style. keep em tight but keep making them

in multiplayer its rare that a city gets over pop 9 unless you're making a concerted effort towards that end.

the enhanced production and bonuses when rush buying armies is awesome

 

[I-am-a-panda]

Huge cties. I tried villages with arabs but theyre were overrun by zulu quick so I generally focus my first city on production, get settlers from huts and barbs and capture or flip the remaining ones.

 

[Whoracle]

I'm only playing on king right now because I just got the game a couple days ago but I only go for a few cities. I won the recent game of the week (with the French) building only 3 cities. I don't bother with more than 4 unless I get a settler from a hut. Even then if I did get one I'd probably just let that be my 4th city. Any other cities in my empires used to belong to someone else.

 

[bonafide11]

Early on, I prefer to build or conquer many, many cities. I'll let them grow later on, but at first it's all about the quantity.

 

[Hertsh]

I tend to ensure that I have between 4-7 cities in the early stages of the game. Early on in the game, I therefore typically I get behind in culture and/or science depending on strategy and civilization but in the end I find this quantity over quality being the best strat. Note: I haven´t played any MP yet so I´m strictly talking about SP. I play on Emperor level, not Deity.

 

[NaZdReG]

a lot of people discount how devestating it can be to suddenly double the number of cities you have. especially when you're playing zulu, chinese, etc anything that gets a bonus for your city.

hit republic, spend about 100 stored gold to rush 3 settlers for 1 pop each. switch the new cities to gold temporarily if you're happy with your tech rate, otherwise just tech harder.

it also makes the romans scary in the right hands. get yourself a high food area and do a civ 3 style settler factory (size 4, working 2 food tiles 2 production tiles.. crank out a settler at the same pace the city would grow to turn 5)

NaZ

 

[bonafide11]

From what I've noticed in MP, most players do not build enough cities. They may be able to keep up for a little while with only a few strong cities, but by the mid-to-late game, my technology, gold, and production blow them all away.

 

[AznWarlord]

I build at most 2 Settlers, and only after I get the free 100 gold one. If you take out some barbs, the Settler should be really easy to get.

 

[bonafide11]

I build at most 2 Settlers, and only after I get the free 100 gold one. If you take out some barbs, the Settler should be really easy to get.

But why? There's no maintenance cost for cities, so the more cities I have means the more gold and research I can get, and the more units I can build.

 

[NaZdReG]

exactly!! its one of the reasons why the romans are a quiet power.

starting with republic means it is easy and cheap to build settlers early. by the time I hit medieval I usually have 4, including the freebie. by industrial I have 8-12

by then I've probably flipped another couple.. because the 1/2 priced wonders with that mess is just as brutal.

china is another good one for crazy rapid expansion. get bronze for defense, then alpha - code of laws (yes its that quick)

try to have like 200 gold when you hit it and 4 cities.

get some defense units into the positions where you want to drop your 4 cities.. ideally no more than 3 tiles away from the cities where they will spawn

the turn you hit republic, rush buy the 4 settlers. the turn after that you can establish all 4 and start everybody on defensive units. if you have room to expand those new cities are already pop 4, so it won't cost you much to chain out another group of settlers.

both civs are particularly good at taking over islands as well. with a galley playing taxi you can chain out 3-4 cities across a couple of islands over the cource of 10 turns. unless the opponents are on the balll, you probably won't have to build defenders until after the settlers are built.

in either case.. if you get assaulted which does happen.. its like poking a beehive. what can you really do when the city you attacked is attached to 6 other cities by roads? you know thats a ton of armies coming back in to retake it before they head home.

NaZ

 

[erislover]

Villages, if there are good choke points. Usually there are, but I just played a game where I was up against England and had to hold a four-square wall to keep them from getting to the juicy (unsettled) center.

 

[NaZdReG]

if you're center is too big you didn't expand in a tight enough formation

if its not that big of a center.. go ahead and let them have it! while they're busy getting set up you can build a couple of temples in the surrounding cities and just flip it back

NaZ

 

[erislover]

Possibly, but (right now) I find the strategic value of choke points to dominate developing in a tight area. To me, strategic considerations dominate. It is easy to patrol a large area to stop people from dropping in if the main land paths are blocked, but it is tough to maintain a big city if the enemy is crawling all over your best land because you can't control the flow of battle. Almost every game I have two civs pounding at me from two sides and a third landing armies by ship. I don't know how I could handle that without strategic control.

Overall, I try to have at least five mainland cities and two island states before I can even develop Monarchy/Fuedalism. (Though probably my aggressive expansion is the very cause of this.) By the time I get knights/catapults/cannons, I want to be sure I can research tech, build wonders, and rake in cash while still turning the tide of war. (The Russians were made for this kind of sudden turnaround, but it works for most civs). This means a bare minimum of 7 cities (1 wonder, 2 unit production with barracks/GP, 2 gold, 2 science). If I can't pull off 7 I scrap the wonders, though Magna Carta is my absolute, 100% must-have wonder.

What do you suggest the benefits are to tight development? You can't rake in cash and science and still build troops. How do you do it? (Honest question -- the strategy seems very unintuitive to me.)

ETA: I have never made culture a priority since, except for the Aztecs, the benefits are too single-minded. Science promotes warfare and gold, Gold promotes warfare and science; culture supports flipping, but at the cost of time you could have spent building units, gold/science improvements, or wonders. So I don't feel it is as simple as "just" flipping them back.

 

[Raw Power]

The short answer to getting units while still getting gold/science is to buy them.

When you have a good gold city with good commerce, population and market + bank (with wonders and Great Explorer even better) then this city alone is enough to buy a couple of units each turn. If "none" of your cities are focused on hammers, but on trade (science or gold, balance it out as you need, but gold > science as long as you don't get too backward because of it's versatility)

If a threat comes a long buy an army or two and put it in the threatened city, and next turn buy an offensive army and start kicking some AI butt. Repeat as long as you require and then go back to infrastructure or save up some for the next emergency or reward.

 

[erislover]

How soon can this practically be done? Of course late game when I've got cannon armys crushing opponents my gold cities are cranking and I can rush wonders after a few turns of scrimping and production, but we're not talking about that phase of the game. At the early time when one has a choice between expansion and growth, which do people prefer? No way one city is going to produce enough gold before monarchy to support generating armies every turn.