need help with city placement please

[zarfol]

hey guys, i'm new to the forums here, but not civ (or at least i think so )

Anyway, I play regeant because it's the most fun for me (i can play one lev higher, but takes work)

I am havin touble with the whole OCP way of setting up cities, i looked at the guide http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3acad_builders_dream.shtml#b (has OCP section) but I can't figure out any ways to reproduce that.

can anyone explain this to me better (actually, if someone has an OCP placement on a savegame - newest patch for C3C, that would be equally useful)

Thanks,
-Zarfol

 

[bingen]

OCP is just a decent way of minimizing overlap and yet still covering all the tiles with cities. It is easy to figure it out by oneself. Step by step:

1. Find a piece of graph paper(paper with grid pattern of squares) and a pencil.

2. A city consists of a 5x5 square of smaller squares minus the corner smaller squares. Make one of these on the piece of paper.

3. The next city in the pattern is placed so the center city squares are aligned, and with adjacent borders. Make a row(or column) of adjacent cities like this.

4. Notice how there is a two hex gap from the missing corners. Place the next rows of cities such that this gap is covered.

5. In Civilization turn on the grid with Ctrl-G. Then rotate the paper to align itself with the grid in the game.

6. Get annoyed as mountains, volcanos, and oceans mess up your plans for perfection.

 

[Raio]

Just a comment:

Remember this is the better way to maximum take advantage of city placement, without miss tiles. In my opinion it is not the better way, once if you become huge the corruption will be a serious problem.
I used to play with OCP in the past. Now I realize that the cxxcxxc method in all directions is better (for me), because you will reduce the distance between the core and the more distant cities (less corruption - more production power) and in other hand your cities could grow up until 22/25 size.

Just my opinion. RR

 

[zarfol]

actually, cxxcxxc is how i usually play, but I wanted to try something new. The problem with that method is that I keep building cities, lots, and never stop, sometimes cramming cities in.

Most of the cities are size 6, but when i have 75+ cities on a huge map, the corruption is so bad even under democracy, that most of the cities are complete crap...

I figure that maybe i can pull off a pop rush type strategy late in the game... stay in feudalism (so my capital city and fp's get good production with factories and such) and with size 6-8 cities, i can have all of them hurry a tank, which would be a lot of tanks, and them just let them grow back...

or is communism better? i think the corruption in commie is based on the number of cities, and that's isn't very good, but the extra unit support + extra FP might help a little.

Or is pop-rushing completely screwed over now in the conquests

 

[Yom]

Communism helps immensely. OCP really isn't that good. It doesn't take into account food bonuses/rivers/food/shields. It's really just following a formula, which isn't very fun. Now, which would you rather have? A 2-flood plain wheat city that overlaps 6 tiles with your capital that can pump out a worker a turn, or an optimally placed city that has to wait until a culture expansion (40 turns at least) to get those food bonuses and is off the river?

 

[tomart109]

Communism helps immensely.

I disagree. Maybe i'm not using it right, but I recently switched to Commie when i had way too many cities (my preferred method of play... and the corruption overall was WORSE. Even the best city was two-thirds corrupt. (Say goodbye to wonders.) And many large cities that i thought would start to pull their own weight, hardly improved at all. So i guess my real enemy is the (imo artificial) OCN. This penalizes players who like to grow huge empires and... Take Over The World! Come on, distance corruption is more than enough pain.

OCP doesn't let you use all your productive core tiles til most of my games are over, and i find adapting to terrain makes good sense (ignoring rivers for some scheme is bizarre and artificial, imo.)