NihilZero
WHEOOHRNY
The question I'm asking here is a rather abstract one, but I'm pretty sure I have a distinct weakness in my game when it comes to pacing my expansion. This is not something you always have the luxury of worrying about - on a lot of maps, you need to grab land fast before it's gone. However, on other maps, either due to easily blocked off land or isolation, you can expand at your leisure, sometimes with space for double-digit numbers of cities.
This is where I seem to get lost, and lose focus. The balancing act between developing and maturing the cities I have and expanding into new sites is difficult and complex. Firstly, how fast can I afford to expand? Should I fill up all available space as fast as possible and fall hopelessly behind in tech, trusting that the sheer quantity of land and number of cities will enable me to catch up later when the cities mature? Or at the other extreme, do I develop a few core cities to maturity, build infrastructure and only expand when my economy is robust enough to shoulder the burden of new cities without significant impact? The former approach means more mature cities at an earlier date, but risks the possibility of falling into a nasty tech hole that can be hard to get out of. The latter strategy means that we'll still be settling new cities well into the renaissance, possibly even later, by which stage the AI has empires of fully-grown cities.
How should sites be prioritised? Commerce, allowing the treasury to ultimately afford more cities sooner? Should we settle spots that are nearest sooner, trying to keep distance maintanance down, or do we get the best spots settled first without worrying about how far they are?
Usually a vague question like this can only really be answered with an example, so I've included a save of an interesting map where there is vast land to expand into. I'd be very interested to see how people approach filling up the space as efficiently as possible, the number of cities at checkpoints like1AD and 1000AD, and dates for key milestones like Civil Service and Lib. The capital site is pretty damned good with copious riverside, and we have JC, a pretty good empire builder.
This is where I seem to get lost, and lose focus. The balancing act between developing and maturing the cities I have and expanding into new sites is difficult and complex. Firstly, how fast can I afford to expand? Should I fill up all available space as fast as possible and fall hopelessly behind in tech, trusting that the sheer quantity of land and number of cities will enable me to catch up later when the cities mature? Or at the other extreme, do I develop a few core cities to maturity, build infrastructure and only expand when my economy is robust enough to shoulder the burden of new cities without significant impact? The former approach means more mature cities at an earlier date, but risks the possibility of falling into a nasty tech hole that can be hard to get out of. The latter strategy means that we'll still be settling new cities well into the renaissance, possibly even later, by which stage the AI has empires of fully-grown cities.
How should sites be prioritised? Commerce, allowing the treasury to ultimately afford more cities sooner? Should we settle spots that are nearest sooner, trying to keep distance maintanance down, or do we get the best spots settled first without worrying about how far they are?
Usually a vague question like this can only really be answered with an example, so I've included a save of an interesting map where there is vast land to expand into. I'd be very interested to see how people approach filling up the space as efficiently as possible, the number of cities at checkpoints like1AD and 1000AD, and dates for key milestones like Civil Service and Lib. The capital site is pretty damned good with copious riverside, and we have JC, a pretty good empire builder.
. No wars , just play better than them 
