Abaddon
Deity
ah get commie and go
cxcxcxcxcxcxc
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xcxcxcxcxcxcxc
cxcxcxcxcxcxc
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xcxcxcxcxcxcxc
How close do you build your cities to each other?
- Thread starter Hokie13
- Start date
irishlamma
Chieftain
i go for a really losse spread, but I also only bild culutre until industrial age.
Which means no wars, and lots of land
Which means no wars, and lots of land
Chris Withers
Chieftain
gunkulator said:
So do intervening cities not increase corruption of outer cities if distance from the capitol is constant?
For example, say I have a CxxxxC situation where the left C is the capitol. Then I put an intervening suburb in so it is CxCxxC (the middle city takes one of the "x" spots). Does the outer city on the right get more corruption since there is now an intervening city even though it is the same distance away from the Capitol or is corruption the same?
SJ Frank
Spamalot Co-court
So do intervening cities not increase corruption of outer cities if distance from the capitol is constant?
No, the outer city does gain more corruption, because its "rank" is increased by one.
There are two types of corruption: rank-based and distance-based. The percentage of corruption that you see in each city is the sum of the two. When a city increases in rank, its distance-based corruption does not change. Its rank-based corruption will increase slightly.
The amount of increase in rank-based corruption depends mostly on map size and difficulty level. On standard map, you can expect about 5% increase in corruption for each increase in rank. If a city produces 20 total shield, for instance, it will lose one more shield to corruption.
Therefore, building that extra city in the middle is still the stronger move, because the shields and gold that the new city gathers is much, much more than what the old city loses to corruption.
No, the outer city does gain more corruption, because its "rank" is increased by one.
There are two types of corruption: rank-based and distance-based. The percentage of corruption that you see in each city is the sum of the two. When a city increases in rank, its distance-based corruption does not change. Its rank-based corruption will increase slightly.
The amount of increase in rank-based corruption depends mostly on map size and difficulty level. On standard map, you can expect about 5% increase in corruption for each increase in rank. If a city produces 20 total shield, for instance, it will lose one more shield to corruption.
Therefore, building that extra city in the middle is still the stronger move, because the shields and gold that the new city gathers is much, much more than what the old city loses to corruption.
azzaman333
meh
i use CxxxxC as much as possible.
that could explain why im so bad
that could explain why im so bad
Chris Withers
Chieftain
Thanks, great explanation SJ Frank and good tips overall y'all. My average has probably been CxxxxC, clearly a bad habit leftover from lower levels. Looks like I need to decrease the spacing by 1-2 on average, depending on the map situation of course. Can't wait to try this.
Also looking forward to Civ4 where I hear they have a fast play of some sort. That might be nice to move a game along faster. I already think I'm doing that with Small World (but Pangea, max landmass %), at least it's less to have to bother managing.
Also looking forward to Civ4 where I hear they have a fast play of some sort. That might be nice to move a game along faster. I already think I'm doing that with Small World (but Pangea, max landmass %), at least it's less to have to bother managing.
I would urge those of you that have never tried xoox to do so in one game.
I've played Civilization since the original was released back in the ancient ages and until very recently I always built OCP. In fact, it was so bad that I would not even allow a single overlapping square anywhere.
After reading for years, mostly on this forum, how many people seemed to build xoox and even xox I decided less than 6 months ago that I would give it a try to see why it seemed so popular. The first game I had to give up after a while because I was really annoyed with the overlap everywhere. A day or two later I decided I had to play a game through no matter what.
At this point I was almost always winning at Regent and 50-60% winning at Monarch with my usual style. I had never tried Emperor. I would typically build a Temple first thing in a new city and then continue with almost every single improvement. I was definately a builder even if conquest was my preferred type of win. Problem was I never had time to build any military. I usually had a Spearman per city and a handful of offensive units. Sometimes I managed to build a few Knights but usually the first time I got more than a dozen units would be around Cavalry where I decided I just had to build a few units even if it meant a few turns off the University... Need I say I had no chance those times the computer decided to sneak-attack me?
Anyway, in my second xoox game I was the Iroquois on Monarch and large continents map, all random opponents. I must say I lucked out in regards to my starting position, I had two food sources and was able to get both my capital and second city to be 4-turn Settler factories. As it turned out I started on a HUGE continent with plenty of opposition.I decided to go all out following the advice I had picked up here and there. I built nothing but Settlers, Workers, Warriors, and best available offensive troops. No buildings except two Granaries and Courthouses where very corrupt. Not even Barracks which I had a hard time with at first. (After securing the continent or after some time obviously I start building a few buildings such as Marketplaces of course. But only after 100's of turns.)
Long story short: In notime I had 100 Mounted Warriors rushing through the continent and I don't even think it took 100 turns to get them. I had to stop because it was simply no fun to continue.
True, I had a good starting location but this game really got me hooked. I have played many games since and regardless of starting position I could hardly believe the difference . I did not in my wildest dreams believe it would be such a drastic difference:
- I have plenty of units very early. No longer am I afraid of a sneak-attack.
- With next to no maintenance and lots of worked tiles my tech pace is actually much higher through the first two eras despite no buildings.
There are also several minor upsides many of which I probably cannot remember right now but a few are:
- The ability to slide a defender (usually a Warrior) to the next city, that defender to the next, and so on to get a unit all the way to the other side of the empire on a single turn.
- Getting all squares without waiting for culture. I cannot count the times I had to wait to get a desired luxery or bonus resource inside my border before.
- No disaster if the RNG placed a mountain on the desired city square. Just place the city a square to the side, nothing lost.
- Suddenly the completely useless "Feudalism" government becomes very nice indeed. (this will usually be my one and only government change.)
Your milage may vary but I know I cannot go back to OCP, no matter how nice that 20 city is. For me the change meant going from 50-60% wins on Monarch to at least 90% wins on Emperor immediately (Haven't lost yet).
Anyway, don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Try it once for yourself.
I've played Civilization since the original was released back in the ancient ages and until very recently I always built OCP. In fact, it was so bad that I would not even allow a single overlapping square anywhere.
After reading for years, mostly on this forum, how many people seemed to build xoox and even xox I decided less than 6 months ago that I would give it a try to see why it seemed so popular. The first game I had to give up after a while because I was really annoyed with the overlap everywhere. A day or two later I decided I had to play a game through no matter what.
At this point I was almost always winning at Regent and 50-60% winning at Monarch with my usual style. I had never tried Emperor. I would typically build a Temple first thing in a new city and then continue with almost every single improvement. I was definately a builder even if conquest was my preferred type of win. Problem was I never had time to build any military. I usually had a Spearman per city and a handful of offensive units. Sometimes I managed to build a few Knights but usually the first time I got more than a dozen units would be around Cavalry where I decided I just had to build a few units even if it meant a few turns off the University... Need I say I had no chance those times the computer decided to sneak-attack me?
Anyway, in my second xoox game I was the Iroquois on Monarch and large continents map, all random opponents. I must say I lucked out in regards to my starting position, I had two food sources and was able to get both my capital and second city to be 4-turn Settler factories. As it turned out I started on a HUGE continent with plenty of opposition.I decided to go all out following the advice I had picked up here and there. I built nothing but Settlers, Workers, Warriors, and best available offensive troops. No buildings except two Granaries and Courthouses where very corrupt. Not even Barracks which I had a hard time with at first. (After securing the continent or after some time obviously I start building a few buildings such as Marketplaces of course. But only after 100's of turns.)
Long story short: In notime I had 100 Mounted Warriors rushing through the continent and I don't even think it took 100 turns to get them. I had to stop because it was simply no fun to continue.
True, I had a good starting location but this game really got me hooked. I have played many games since and regardless of starting position I could hardly believe the difference . I did not in my wildest dreams believe it would be such a drastic difference:
- I have plenty of units very early. No longer am I afraid of a sneak-attack.
- With next to no maintenance and lots of worked tiles my tech pace is actually much higher through the first two eras despite no buildings.
There are also several minor upsides many of which I probably cannot remember right now but a few are:
- The ability to slide a defender (usually a Warrior) to the next city, that defender to the next, and so on to get a unit all the way to the other side of the empire on a single turn.
- Getting all squares without waiting for culture. I cannot count the times I had to wait to get a desired luxery or bonus resource inside my border before.
- No disaster if the RNG placed a mountain on the desired city square. Just place the city a square to the side, nothing lost.
- Suddenly the completely useless "Feudalism" government becomes very nice indeed. (this will usually be my one and only government change.)
Your milage may vary but I know I cannot go back to OCP, no matter how nice that 20 city is. For me the change meant going from 50-60% wins on Monarch to at least 90% wins on Emperor immediately (Haven't lost yet).
Anyway, don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Try it once for yourself.
Hmm.... I like OCP. Somehow I feel that overlapping cities is a waste of tiles. I think the most important thing for builders to get out of is the "building buildings" trap. Instead, you need to build units. Set a quota like 3 defenders and 4 offensive units PER CITY. That should keep you busy. Then build extra workers etc....
IMO, XoX is serious too close... XooX seems to be more optimal, considering the immediate 8 tiles that a city has. But then again, the game is about utilising every square and squeezing out every single commerce right? So maybe it might work. One day I will try......
IMO, XoX is serious too close... XooX seems to be more optimal, considering the immediate 8 tiles that a city has. But then again, the game is about utilising every square and squeezing out every single commerce right? So maybe it might work. One day I will try......
I agree that xox is too tight. I only advocate xoox.
Seriously, I used to think just like you. And I used to think that even if the xoox pattern was more successful it would be less fun.
In my experience it is less fun. In a way. But with the results I've had I simply couldn't go back. There's fun in winning too.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my experience and perhaps help someone like me to try something they hadn't considered before. I'm sure not everyone will find it fun to play this way.
To address your concern I can guarantee it's not a waste of tiles. It's quite the opposite actually. You will use many more tiles for longer periods of time than if you go OCP. While it's true that the 20-cities eventually would use all of them (except a few wasted shields inbetween) by the time of Hospitals (which I get to faster with this build pattern) I have already pretty much decided the game and the issue of possible wasted tiles don't seem so important by then.
Also, there is less wasted shields with more small cities. No more 87 shield cities building 2-turn 90 shield units. While every city takes a turn or two longer to build something you get many more of them in time and with less overruns on the last turn.
I also find no truth to the claim I see sometimes that you get less territory with xoox. I can claim more territory by virtue of having more cities building Settlers and if by chance I were to get less then I simply build the units to take more. And in any case, the land I DO have is more productive by virtue of working most of it sooner. This is on large maps, I know nothing about smaller ones.
Anyway, I hope my enthusiasm has persuaded you to try it once. I wasn't kidding when I said I couldn't believe what a difference it made. For me, it was a jump of two levels of difficulty. But as usual, your milage may vary.
Seriously, I used to think just like you. And I used to think that even if the xoox pattern was more successful it would be less fun.
In my experience it is less fun. In a way. But with the results I've had I simply couldn't go back. There's fun in winning too.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my experience and perhaps help someone like me to try something they hadn't considered before. I'm sure not everyone will find it fun to play this way.
To address your concern I can guarantee it's not a waste of tiles. It's quite the opposite actually. You will use many more tiles for longer periods of time than if you go OCP. While it's true that the 20-cities eventually would use all of them (except a few wasted shields inbetween) by the time of Hospitals (which I get to faster with this build pattern) I have already pretty much decided the game and the issue of possible wasted tiles don't seem so important by then.
Also, there is less wasted shields with more small cities. No more 87 shield cities building 2-turn 90 shield units. While every city takes a turn or two longer to build something you get many more of them in time and with less overruns on the last turn.
I also find no truth to the claim I see sometimes that you get less territory with xoox. I can claim more territory by virtue of having more cities building Settlers and if by chance I were to get less then I simply build the units to take more. And in any case, the land I DO have is more productive by virtue of working most of it sooner. This is on large maps, I know nothing about smaller ones.
Anyway, I hope my enthusiasm has persuaded you to try it once. I wasn't kidding when I said I couldn't believe what a difference it made. For me, it was a jump of two levels of difficulty. But as usual, your milage may vary.
Twonky
King
I must say I fully agree with Panzar. Funny coincidence - I went through the same learning process in about the same time!
Concerning the city pattern, cxcxc is probably most useful if you´re going for a 100k-victory, because you can simply build more cheap culture buildings. Otherwise I think it´s better to have cxxc (only my opinion). The advantages of that are as Panzar described, and they really do pay off!
The earlier you build your army, the more valuable it is. If you delay for whatever reason (i.e. having too few cities and so less overall shields), the larger your army must be to achieve the same goal later, as your enemies improve equally. I think that´s the whole "secret" about dominating your neighbours.
Concerning the city pattern, cxcxc is probably most useful if you´re going for a 100k-victory, because you can simply build more cheap culture buildings. Otherwise I think it´s better to have cxxc (only my opinion). The advantages of that are as Panzar described, and they really do pay off!
The earlier you build your army, the more valuable it is. If you delay for whatever reason (i.e. having too few cities and so less overall shields), the larger your army must be to achieve the same goal later, as your enemies improve equally. I think that´s the whole "secret" about dominating your neighbours.
WackenOpenAir
Deity
no patern, just the best spots for the cities.
12 tiles per city.
In practice that means something between CxxC and CxxxC
12 tiles per city.
In practice that means something between CxxC and CxxxC
Apart from building on resources and one tile from the sea, how do you determine if one tile is better than the other for your new city?
I can see how 12 squares per city could be useful but the way I play, going Feudalism, I want most of my cities to be size 6 for some time because of the unit support.
I can see how 12 squares per city could be useful but the way I play, going Feudalism, I want most of my cities to be size 6 for some time because of the unit support.
Evil Emperor
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 4
I prefer to build my cities as close as possible to each other in the easiest positon to defend so incase i get attacked i can easily get my men to take the other city back again and i also like small countries better than large ones because they are easier to control
