1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

More cities = better?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by diablodelmar, Apr 18, 2006.

  1. diablodelmar

    diablodelmar no comment

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    Does the more cities you have=the better you are likely to do? I know this was the case in Civ3 but is it still the same?

    I read in the manual that they tried to get rid of ICS (infinite city sprawl) by increasing the maintenence of all cities. Also, doesthe effect of a cities distance from the capital still make cities only able to produce one hammer every turn - and so on?

    What effect does versailles, the capital, and the forbidden palace do? How far does the effects reach?

    In my current game, the map is Terra and I have discovered the new world. Should I try to settle the entire thing or would the maintenence of all those extra cities actually make me lose economic advantage? I plan to construct the forbidden palace once I have a few cities up and running and I have conquered the massive barbarian empire with my Russian Cossacks. Note that I have an expensive and difficult war in the old world, in which I am very much on the defensive against two bigger Civs.

    If someone could explain what I must do here/the physics of expanding in Civ4 I would be very grateful.

    If there has already been a thread about this exact topic then post a link: I couldn't find one.

    Edit: I forgot to mention that the level of difficulty I am playing in this particular game as the Russians on Terra is Noble, and that some bastard built Versailles before me.
     
  2. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    More cities is always better HOWEVER do not expand to rapidly, slow and steady is the best.
    Corruption has been removed, distant cities will build stuff just as fast as your capitol, BUT distant cities will cost x gold per urn. As you have more cities x rises very rapidly and this huge cost can force you to lower your science to avoid going bankrupt.

    Versaille and Forbiden Palace both act like a secon (and third) palace. The 'distance to palace' part of the city maintenace will be calculated from the closest palace.

    Don't forget courthouses! They reduce city maintenance by half which, when you have lots of cities, can save you as much as 8 gold per turn per city!!

    For more info look at the strategy section of this forum.
    Build loads of cottages, they provide a lot of money, which you will need to support all of those cities. As a rule of thumb, build 4 commercial cities (full of cottages) for every production city (full of mines and workshops)
     
  3. diablodelmar

    diablodelmar no comment

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    Ok thanks this is more or less the answer I was looking for.
     
  4. Colossian

    Colossian Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    576
    I dont think so. ASAP more cities.
     
  5. Commander Bello

    Commander Bello Say No 2 Net Validations

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,858
    Location:
    near Koblenz, Germany
    I agree with Lord Olleus.
    The more cities the better. Nevertheless, but too fast expansion you can easily make your effective income to go to nil, pinning you down and loosing the tech race.
     
  6. Volum

    Volum The Zapper

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,885
    Location:
    Norwegen

    To many cities to fast results in to much maintance for your pretty fragile starting economy, then you have to lower science and you fall behind in the tech race wich is very important in the start to find and use recourses and to give your workers the option to improve your city.
     
  7. Older than Dirt

    Older than Dirt King

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Swamps of Houston
    More "Quality" cities, preferably near your core area is better than marginal location cities spread out. A compact civ connected by road/rails is much easier to defend or to attack from with less warning to the AI.
     
  8. Ceritoglu

    Ceritoglu Janissary

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    216
    Location:
    London
    On my first game of cIV, I spammed my peninsula with cities very rapidly since that strategy had been the staple of my cIII games. Upon completing my early settling frenzy, I had 10 cities but an economy that was spiralling out of control. I actually ended up going on 0% science, yet still running into deficit. This meant that all my units - including my workers with which I was trying to construct a stable economy - were being disbanded turn by turn (this also meant I couldn't pillage my way to safety). As you can imagine, everyone established a tech lead, and I was left trailing behind struggling to get onto 10% science. I abandoned this game since I was obviously going to be obliterated by one of my neighbours, but it was a crucial lesson.

    NEVER SPAM CITIES! The trick is to have self sufficient cities, before expanding. Once that city is self-sufficient, build your next one, etc.

    Thats enough of my ranting, but had someone told me that before my first game I wouldn't have wasted 5 hours of my life.

    In relation to your actual question, if you have a booming economy (in other words plenty of gold per turn coming in while maintaining a decent research rate) then go ahead and build a few cities. However if you've only got a few gold per turn to spare, then build one city, wait for self sufficiency to kick in, and then continue onwards. Building plenty of cottages will help kickstart your colonial economy. Good luck
     
  9. zeeter

    zeeter Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,251
    Spamming cities is both fun and healthy. You just need to know your limitations. If you're running close to the red - don't build a new city. If you're in the red and need to get out before units start disbanding - by all means go attack somebody. Get those cities and the gold that you get by capturing them.

    I had this problem at first, too. Playing as Ghandi I'd always hear that unit was disbanded sound. Could they make that sound any more annoying? You just need to get the right advances at the right time. A religion helps, too.

    Usually I play as Caesar now. So if everything works out, I have Mysticism, Polywhateverism (or Meditation), Hunting, Archery, Bronze Working, Iron Working, Wheel, Pottery, then shoot for Currency, then Code of Laws.

    Using that tech tree as Caesar, one should not be losing money. Typically by the time I've founded Currency I'm at war. This way I can attack a neighbor and when the war is over I have a nice little nest egg to get me through until my workers build enough cottages and my cities have enough markets to put me back in the green.

    Yes, I usually fall behind a bit tech-wise. That is one of the benefits of choosing the Romans; the Praes don't need to be replaced by Macemen.

    You will fall behind early using this method, however you will catch up soon, and eventually blow right past the oposition.
     
  10. TrailblazingScot

    TrailblazingScot I was kittenOFchaos

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    6,872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighouse, England
    More cities is better?

    Nope. It is a balancing act of added value versus the additional maintainence costs and if it is multiplayer (especially on 1-2-3 city elimination) whether your defence can spread to cover the additional city.

    Unlike previous civ games, it is important not to have loads of cities, but to have good quality ones that will justify their cost. The result is that you will increase the number of cities you get and that will be "better", but you have to do it at a pace your empire can substain. So no more reckless, fill every square with cities approach a la civ2.
     
  11. migthegreek

    migthegreek Back In Black

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    459
    I tried just concentrating on explanding as fast as possible and had loads of cities really early on but was losing 7g/turn with 0% research. You have to expand at a rate that can be compensated by building courthouses, growth of cottages, market, grocer, etc.
     
  12. Reignking

    Reignking Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    If that means "As Soon As Practical", sure...
     
  13. diablodelmar

    diablodelmar no comment

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    ok im really confused now...:crazyeye:

    though it seems that kittenOFkaos seems to be pointing in the right direction.
     
  14. Black Waltz

    Black Waltz Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    569
    It is hard to explain the game mechanics of city building in Civ IV. Every city you build will start off by losing money. The further away from your capital you build it the more money it will cost you. Of course, as your city developes and produces more commerce the city starts to pay for itself. Thus, if you expand without settings up infostructure you will lose money and have to lower your science rate. If you expand while making sure you build an effective infostructure and do not expand too fast so your infostructure will fall behind you should be able to expand further without hurting your pocket or science rates.
     
  15. Colossian

    Colossian Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    576
    Both are right. Only one thing is wrong; Over cities.
     
  16. sens1942

    sens1942 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6
    what difficulty do you play @?

    and also whats ur play style?

    I used to to play avoiding wars all the time and i found that wars are good if played well. I ll always try to settle 5 cities and go to war for the rest. I too am usually at war by the time currency comes around.

    A good vision i find is that always start the game knowing you are going to wipe out at least one civ early.you will need to call some peace treatys or cease fire during that war to get your economy back up. but if you expand to 4-5 cities and start getting ready for war.. by the time you're ready your economy should be doing ok for you to start expanding 2-3 cities at the time(war captures)

    A good tactic to get alot of techs at first is to beeline important techs. like writing alphabet and mathematics. with those 3 i usually get every other tech i didnt need at the start and its usually around that time i declare war.

    The more cities is better but not at the start. one should be able to expand with settlers early on and establish your empire. One thing to keep in mind too is that even if you're at war expanding and only running 60% research (ive even gone down to 50 and sometimes 40% .. it's ok as along as your making good progress. Cause once the war is over you'll have so many cities that you will catch up on research VERY QUICKLY.

    Ive put this as basic as i could, but theres alot of work into this. Dont keep bad cities raze them , make sure AI doesnt go rebuild there.. and if you're going to war for expansion its usually a good idea to build alot of cottages first.. no farms so you can sponsor your early war without losing to much research. Once your done expanding for a while then focus on growth and act appropriatly.

    Hope this helps
     
  17. Sisiutil

    Sisiutil All Leader Challenger

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    6,899
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I find in the early game you have to go for quality over quantity, otherwise the maintenance costs will cripple your economy. Try the 60% rule: build or capture cities until research falls to 60% to avoid a deficit. When you can push the research slider above 60% again, it's time to expand.

    By mid or late-game, if you've done everything right, you should be able to spam/capture cities just like in previous versions of Civ.

    By "done everything right", I mean you've developed your economy by (a) spamming cottages, (b) building commerce multipliers like banks and grocers, (c) developing and trading resources, and (d) spreading and developing your state religion, among other things. Having the Financial trait helps, but is not essential.

    You've also managed maintenance by (a) building the Forbidden Palace in a strategic location (and maybe Versailles, but I prefer to capture it), (b) if necessary, moving your Palace to a strategic location, and (e) choosing appropriate civics (if you're developing a big empire, bee-line to Communism and change to State Property). Having the Organized trait helps, but is not essential.
     
  18. diablodelmar

    diablodelmar no comment

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    I play at difficulty noble currently.

    Play style is not defined but depends on the situation.
     
  19. jar2574

    jar2574 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    590
    I spam cities in quality locations until I'm down to 20%-30% research. Then I recover for a while. Then I build a few on less than optimum ground.

    15 cities at 50% research can produce a lot more science than 5 cities at 100%. So if you can afford them, build them.
     
  20. Zombie69

    Zombie69 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    The best thing to do, if at all possible, is to expand until you're down to 0% research, then enter a peaceful build period until you can start expanding again. More cities is always better, as long as you can afford them.
     

Share This Page