How far cities should be from each other?

[Wardog]

What is better: to have 10 big cities far from each other or to have 16 or 17 very close?

I ask because I always thought that close cities would not grow fast and have high productions, but I see some high score players don't follow this.

Is there a standard distance a city should be far from another, or it really does not matter?

Thanks.

 

[Civrules]

They should be about 4-5 tiles away.

 

[DaveMcW]

It depends on how long you expect the game to last.

Ancient Age win: 2 tiles
Middle Age win: 3 tiles
Industrial Age win: 4 tiles
Modern Age win: 5 tiles

 

[Greebley]

It has been pointed out that until you get Sanitation, then cities that are placed 4 apart are wasting 1/2 their tiles, since they can only work 12 of them.

Three squares apart also has the advantage that the city radii will merge together if you don't have culture. For both reasons 3 apart is common for me though this is often 2 + 1 diagonal apart. I will also use 4 apart if I want the cities to grow to full potential.

If land is very limited then having a higher city density is a win. For an example of this, there is a Game of the Month site. #17 started on an island. The Quick Start Challenge for that game shows city density in 1000 bc of the better players - the results have maps of the players starts. The QSC17 results Pick one of the grouping links below to see the maps.

There is also a strategy called ICS or infinite city sprawl, where you build a bajillion cities. I have seen arguments on whether this strategy is an exploit, so it must be effective. Searching for infinite city sprawl will probably give more info on this.

 

[Wardog]

Thanks a lot for the replies.

 

[alpha one]

I always place four tiles away from eachother.

 

[superslug]

On huge maps, I place my first ring and second core rings at four squares, then I drop them every one or two. I've successfully completed ICS before, and it's just too funny to see the AI unable to build more cities because there's already 512.

 

[DariusInSusa]

I place them far away enough so when they become large they have their full 2 rings for them only.
Unless there is some sort of strategic resource that I need...

 

[Greyhawk1]

You can always abandon a city thats getting in the way of a better city.

I've done this quite often to make an average city into a Metro much quicker. I do this a lot when I've been making parasite colonies just to get tile counts on my histograph score and the city has outlived its usefulness.

Another reason to abandon is if you placed a city to attempt a culture flip, when the other city flips and its better placed I abandon the other city.

 

[RussiaWarMachin]

I usually put them 4 spaces apart, but latley that has been failing me.

 

[anarres]

Dense build. 3 tiles normally, although I am tempted to try even closer.

A dense build is essential for decent early warmongering.

 

[Anti-EUA]

Guess 4 is the best, not too far away, you workers will connect them pretty easily, altough no good for war until u have all your cities connected by railroads.

 

[wilbill]

3 tiles, sometimes 2. A dense build gets you a solid core of cities going sooner with less corruption.

 

[Sirp]

Four spaces apart by default, closer if necessary to exploit fresh water, and other factors.

A denser build can be better if one intends to do lots of early warmongering, but that feels far too much like manipulating a heap of little mathematical entities than building a civilization to me....

-Sirp.

 

[Civrules]

...first started playing civ I put All of my cities two tiles apart and in the modern age I wondered why they did not grow.

 

[farting bob]

in my core cities they are normally 4 squares apart, especially if they are on grassland and can grow to full size. my outer cities or those on desert / tundra they are 2 or 3 tiles apart.

 

[amirsan]

That has been a confusion to me also.

 

[inudog]

Question: Does three tiles apart mean City - land - land - City or City- land - land - land - City?

1. CxxC
2. CxxxC

 

[Renata]

The first of those.

All else being equal, I like to average between three and four. Gives me some flexibility in which tiles to work at size 12, without wasting too much space (which I dislike).

Renata

 

[newbiebad]

EH!? I always thought 3 spaces apart was the second one. The first one really doesn't give your cities much space to grow at all. If most of your cities were like that you would get 6 tiles + city base for each city. I define spaces apart as # of spaces inbetween. I tend to place cities either 3-4 apart depending on game conditions. I would never do five unless the terrain forces me to do so.

City spacing also depends on map size as well and amount of land vs water. I find that on maps with relatively little land you need to use all the space you have as soon as possible. Anything beyond a certain radius suffers heavily from distance (even with courthouse/police station). On a tiny island I'm more than happy to put cities 3 spaces apart. Sometimes I'm even willing to put them 2 spaces apart to exploit good land or a riverbank. If I'm playing a larger map or one with lots of land I tend to space them at 4 each. I find that if more core is closer to begin with I have a very strong start with good unit production. However it has come back to hurt me occasionally late game when I need spaceship parts or wonders. However, you will NEVER have real problems with 3 space builds until well after you get hospitals. If you decide that most of the game will be over by then... a 3 city spacing build works wonders.