good cities vs many cities

[weasel77066]

I was wonder what people thought of this ordeal. If I build cities that have full room to expand to their potential, they become great cities in all aspects. The problem is that on a small or medium continent, I may only have five or six cities. One or two of them may be building wonders/projects, leaving only three or four to build other things. As the tech advances, upgrading city buildings and modernaizing troops seem to always overwelm national production. Where the hell is the AI getting these massive armed forces?
My current game I stuffed as many cities into a large island as I could, most of the city domains are overlapping. Some of them are good cities, some of them are crunched. (Note) I used the ocean squares for general food production, so that helped) Now I have like ten cities. After fighting off the large maint. costs, and balancing my budget, I now have good production, courthouses and necessary building are all built. Im behind on tech of course, but now I can produce at least four or five units at any given time, as well as stay in the race for wonders, and keep the buildings up to date. As my world map is growing, I notice that most other civs have onle five or six cities.
It seems to me that short of the space race, I have a good chance to win this game, though Im backwards on tech. My VP are steadily catching up and Im a bit shy of third place. Early 1700s/ noble.
Its apparant I'll never catch up on tech, without extorting a neighbor, so Im planning my first invasion.
I was wondering what people thought of this route. Is it an unnecessary hassle? It was very hard to stove off the maint costs, and considering that I won the game I outlined at top, this may be a doomed attempt.

 

[Finite Monkey]

I recently went through a learning process similar to this. It is (for me) the largest change in Civ 4. I think as more and more games are played you will get a better idea for how many cities to produce etc. I find 10-12 to be ideal on a standard size map. You also have to worry about expanding to fast to early as well. Early game maybe 5-6 cities then as you can afford it add more and more on. There is a great post on this forum about the exact cost in maintenance per city, you should take a look.

I do find that I often overlap city radius (more difficult in Civ 4 due to the 2 tiles away restriction). This is purely dependant upon resources and other strategic elements and is not a firm rule. I do believe that each city does not need exclusive sway to a particular tile so if it fits well and grow to a decent size I always build.

The only tip I can generally give is to try blocking off your borders with some early culture leaving some room to settle when you can afford to later in the game. 2-3 cities in a line at the very beginning can cut off the expansion from one side of your empire pretty quickly.

If you find yourself behind tech wise and can not catch up by agressively trading then military domination is probably your best bet.

 

[jeannie]

One thing I noticed as I was learning the game, since earlier versions of Civ encouraged many cities. The first few times I played and created a settler that had no place to settle except on the border of one of the AI civs, I was very apprehensive. I tend to play a peaceful game rather than a war-mongering game. As long as I had sufficient weapons to defind those 'border' cities, if I built improvements that added culture, especially 'cheap' ones like temples, eventually my city grew into the AI territory, and sometimes the nearest AI city would 'culture flip' to me. In my last game, three AI cities flipped to me. I even had London, a capital city, flip to me (the capital moved to another city, just as if I had captured London in a war).

So, I agree with Finite Monkey that building a 'line' of cities (probably north-south) widely enough spaced to require the least number of cities, and then expand east or west, again with relatively widely spaced cities, I can 'grab' a lot of land and be pretty sure I'll be able to access all the resources I need.

 

[weasel77066]

Thanks I'll dig that thread out.. This is really a test game. Im prodding the different approaches possible. I seen the abundance of cities more as the ability to work as many tiles as possible in a shorter period of time.. whereas my neighbors must wait for culture expansion in order to work more tiles, I have physically grasped them, and have to pay a percentage of the extra in the form of maint. costs. Now that courthouses have upset that, Im EXPECTING an "unofficial golden age" A massive influx of gold and production, compared to their expansion. Hopefully it will be enough to catch up tech while remaining militarily dominant.
One other difference is that Im able to apply more specialists in the nation as a whole. I havent seen much of an effect yet, but Im foreseeing a large effect towards the latter middle game. I'll use them to catch tech as well.
Im expecting a devestating early game, VERY strong middle ages, and an evened out End game. Only problem is in this particular game, I have NO horses. Ive had to watch diplomacy very carefull not to upset my trade. Im importing persian horses, and If I lose them, the game may be shot anyways.

EDIT- this game Im on a a large island to myself

 

[Colossian]

good cities(30%) vs many cities(70%)

because.....

good cities are for the great wonders.
many cities are for a war.

 

[Paradigne]

I am by NO means an expert, but I believe that city placement is MUCH more important than the CIV3 sprawl. I will frequently have cities with 2 or 3 EXTRA spaces between them just so I can get more/good resources in a city area. In C3 the big debate was CXC, CXXC or CXXXC. That, to me is a moot point and I ALWAYS go after resources over distance.

 

[Colossian]

good cities(30%) vs many cities(70%)

because.....

good cities are for the great wonders.
many cities are for a war.

 

[weasel77066]

Collosium- You are right, and that is a definite concern. I left two cities in very good shape for wonders. Hope that will be enough. Im playing this game through then next I'll try to come up with another avenue. Then after a while I boost the level way the hell up and play a real game with whatever stategic combination seems to work. I dont want to have to rely on permanent alliances, as Ive had to do in the past.

 

[picus]

I am by NO means an expert, but I believe that city placement is MUCH more important than the CIV3 sprawl. I will frequently have cities with 2 or 3 EXTRA spaces between them just so I can get more/good resources in a city area. In C3 the big debate was CXC, CXXC or CXXXC. That, to me is a moot point and I ALWAYS go after resources over distance.

Agree. I am having a difficult time breaking the CIVIII sprawl habit, but it does seem more advantageous to carefully plan and prune each city rather than just spitting out settlers for the first 4000 years. I'm playing a game right now where I'm trying to win without producing a single settler and it's actually going ok (only on monarch, mind you). I don't think that's really a realistic "strategy" but it underscores that better cities are more important than in CIVIII where it was just sprawl, sprawl, sprawl.

 

[Azragaul]

I have found on Civ4 that my better games are the ones where I really scout a ton and find THE best placement for cities, and there is nothing the AI can do to incur more wrath from me than if it takes one of those spots.

They seem to grow bette/fasterr and support themselves sooner that way.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

It depends on individual playing style.

I prefer warmongering, so many cities is my choice.

 

[dh_epic]

I build anywhere from 3 to 5 cities in the ancient age, and end up with anywhere between 5 and 8 cities before I discover Astronomy. I find fewer good cities to be invaluable. But only if you have some real money makers -- be that a key wonder, a popular religion with the relevent temple, lots of mature cottages, or heaps of food to feed specialists.

I'm often slightly behind the AI in terms of the number of cities. Unless my strategy is to conquest

 

[Amenhotep IV]

I played several games on Emperor before I won my desired peaceful SS victory. All the time I tried to expand, building 8-10 (sometimes with small conquests) cities and all these attempts failed in the end -> I couldn't catch up with research, staying too much time in middle ages on below 60% on science. The won game came up with only 5, but huge and well developed cities. And I had no problem outresearching 7 AIs on standard map since I discovered Liberalism as the first - I stayed on the lead until the end of game (I then captured with culture 4 neighbor cities, but they were poorely located).

 

[André Alfenaar]

I prefer few but powerful cities. In general I place cities in such a way that with a cultural radius of 4 (5 when you include the city square itself) the continent is covered. But the world isn't always perfect. Sometimes I need to place cities with one square overlap (which in fact is the same as an infertile desert or mountain square). It is the city placement that gives a lead against the AI. AND(!) don't hesitate to move your initial settler. In general I build my first city only after I know where my second one will be.

 

[Dairuka]

I go for good cities.

Sprawling cities early on will get you slaughtered. Even if you manage to cheat distance costs, you'll still find yourself in the inevitable lack of production and/or research pinch if you make it all the way to the renessaince era.

 

[LeSphinx]

Finite Monkey , Where is the great post on this forum about the exact cost in maintenance per city ? thanks in advance.

I tring to figure out while strategy and anwser to the question : What is the best strategy : to good cities or many cities !

Yesterday, I started a game as Roman and I play in order to expand quickly as the Civ3 way (Around 1000BC I had around 8 cities).
I 've check all the number around 200 AD (Food, Commerce, Production, Units, Buildings, Wonders, Great Persons, score, Technologies, ...).

Tonight I will start the same game and my gold will be to develop the first city quite good before building a settler. And I will check the number around the same date.

I will tell you the differences.

LeSphinx

 

[Astax]

Weasel you are the scum fo the earth and I hope you die under horrid circumstances.

I think that as a warmongerer many smaller cities is better thna a few big ones. Big cities require lots mroe buildings to keep em happy. All the building keeps you from making troops. My early small cities have pop between 7-9, sometiems 10. And very few buildings, maybe one temple, baracks, granary, soemtiems aqueduct, walls and a forge. I throw in libraries and court houses here and there.But usualy after my first war.

 

[Gargoyle]

Well this is enlightening. I won my 3rd game (SS). I had only 7 cities. The Indian AI was the only player to have an entire continent to himself and had like 12 cities. He was ahead of me in score only because of his population.

Now that game I was very careful, so I played each turn slowly and did not consider aggressive expansion.

Since then I've started a few more games. I've attempted to expand more aggressively. Its not working. I find I get cities that are are capable of growth, but but not of prosperity. Its like urban blight.

I am going to start another game tonight, and I swear I'll build UP more and OUT less.

 

[weasel77066]

Yea thanks guys. Im finding out that it is far better to concentrate on stable cities. This current game, I was doing really well, then things crumbled. I can probably pull off a second place tag. I lost the important later game wonders.
Oh well, live and learn.. Next game I'll pay much more attention to city placement, and less attention to the attrition theory. That seems to be the winning strategy.
Asfaz (or whatever) I dont know who you are, but its nice to see that Ive had such an astounding effect on someone. Oh I remember you. Youre the one who can't play without horses.

 

[Finite Monkey]

Here is the link you asked about as far as upkeep etc.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=138473

Cheers