OCN vs square control

[kaskavel]

This senario occurs again and again. I have a (non-agric) civilization and I am conquering/expanding/border squeezing big regions with no food. Typically they are a mix of tundra/sea or a mixture of desert/hills/mountains. I will eventualy drain all coast/sea squares with harbors and all desert squares with railroads/irrigation for sure, but often that is not sufficient in order to exploit all tundra/hills/mountain squares. And sometimes it is a lot of them. In my current game I have a big region of desert/hills/mountains, a LOT of hills and mountains and no sigle grassland or even plain square in sight. In my early days I just built my cities in my pre-determined OCP-like formation and didnt care. I later started to do the exact opposite, build as many cities of population 2-3 as possible, trying to farm every map resource. You know...city square-tundra-tundra. City square-hill-hill, etc. Now I am thinking if this strategy gets in conflict with civilization corruption through the increase in city number.
I know the question involves many parameters (please do not expand into things like level, government, border pushing, troop communication, resources needed to found the cities etc unless you consider it critical) but IN GENERAL, what is considered best in most occasions? Found as many cities as possible or as less cities as possible?

 

[justanick]

I know the question involves many parameters (please do not expand into things like level, government, border pushing, troop communication, resources needed to found the cities etc unless you consider it critical) but IN GENERAL, what is considered best in most occasions? Found as many cities as possible or as less cities as possible?

Unfortunately those aspects may matter significantly. If your government is communist, then taking as much territory as possible will likely be in your favour. In the other cases it is less clear. Taking the good territory first is probably sensible. Letting the bad territory be settled by AI can make sense.

 

[kaskavel]

OK, more specific then. This is small map I think (6 civs started the game), republic, regent (but with very heavy self-restrictions as my loose city placement and my warriors probably indicate), 16cities, FP built, no specific VC intended. Hovd has waste exactly 25% without a factory. I am about to attack red,the leading civ who just got engaged in another war (that purple area in the map...not sure how it happened, but it is two different civilizations, one of them just declared war to red, forcing my hand). I need a few rounds to prepare the invasion. I really need that saltpeter (I have restricted myself to mounted units only-plus my starting warriors)-not to mention weakening red-and I need to decide beforehand if I will fill the region with 3 cities or 10 cities, because in the latter case, I am ready to build at least two of them (one where my settler is and one next to the enemy med infandries or below) which will help the invasion. I can then fill the area wih multiple similar cities. Most of them will stay at size 3 forever. And the same situation keeps going western of the snapshot (it is just not red there). Endless desert-hills-mountain combos. Or I can just take the two red cities (conversions are off) abandoning a lot of hill squares permanently. And 4 of them have a river...What would you do?

 

[justanick]

OK, more specific then.[...]What would you do?

There is a lot of desert that can be irrigated. In roughly 20 turns you can lay railroads. Railroads turn irrigated desert into productive terrain. In this specific instance using as many tiles as reasonable possible trumps corruption concerns. Try to use as many tiles as possible with as few cities as possible.

As a general rule using more tiles is better. There are exceptions to this rule and some of those exceptions are signficant. But the significant exceptions are somewhat rare.

 

[templar_x]

I usually go quite into detail with maps like that in my own games... so yes, I think I may be able to say something on this topic. However, I would need a) a bigger part of your map and b) the information, which government you will play in. Will you stay a Republic? I think, some advice is possible then (like, with the 2 positions you mentioned: i see 2 size-12 cities there!!!).
t_x

 

[kaskavel]

I will stay in republic Templar. There are may headache areas in the map. There is more combo of mountain-hill-desert in the west for example. The game is won now I think, but discussion is interesting

Not sure if I understand both of you. I advanced the game since yesterday, I now do have indeed two cities in the screenshoted area (plus Sabratha which is not relevant to our topic since it can support the hills and the other one in the coast-well, not sure why I founded that one, something about securing the gunpowder during the war with red, ignore that one for the discussion). They can and will of course going to eventualy cover all desert squares, which is a neutral food advance. Same as all sea squares can be exploited in a coastal tundra city. They will become metropolis, although very slowly with a fixed +2 food progress. There still remain 13 hill squares in the region that my current cities cannot work upon. Make them 11 for building the two cities onto hill squares (*). Each city can then only eventualy support two extra hill squares, although that will take forever. Even then, 7 hill and 7 mountain squares remain completely unexploited and would require more cities in order to be used. There is no escaping the fact that in order to exploit all hill squares three more cities will be needed (ten more cities if we want to farm the mountains too, higly unlikely if they fit). It doesnt matter how many desert squares exists. I need 5 cities for all hills regardless, which means two metropolis and three cities at size 3. Of course, one could make 5 cities at size 9 or something instead, but technicaly it is the same. The question remains, is it better to plan ahead the founding of two cities, five cities or as many cities as possible (to cover perhaps a few mountain squares)? And yes, if you have the opinion that the possibility of building five cities at size 9 instead of 18-18-3-3-3 makes a significant difference, explain it a bit. In fact on second thought, it makes sense, I exploit the land faster, is that what you mean? That you would build 4 medium cities in order to exploit 12 hills and 30 deserts, but you would not do something similar in a pure tundra situation (or a pure hills situation) because it involves cities sized at 3 "at the back side of the coast" that do not maintain a growing rate?
At least in the desert case the city can be productive while growing. In the case of sea/tundra cities, you never get to build of lot while the city grows. You do get a lot of commerce instead.
Oh man, I hate it when I get a non-agr tribe. They would build huge productive metros in no time in such places where others struggle...
(*)I've never seen it stated somewhere in the site but I guess it is a universal rule. You are in lack of food? For example 4 grasslands, 2 plains and 13 hills for one city to expolit? Build on a hill. That is 36 food, supporting a city with population 18 and 19 squares exactly. You cheat a lot and cover everything. Building on a plain square loses a square and building on a grassland loses 1.5 square. In all other cases,I avoid building on a hill, a food-supported hill square is more productive than a plain or normal grassland square.

 

[templar_x]

going with your first picture, i show you how i meant it by drawing the 12/13 tiles for the two cities I mentioned:

they are close enough to your core to definitely still matter. they assume every tile is optimized + railed. they allow for two size-12 cities, without taking away any relevant tiles from other cities (if Mandalgovi wants these desert tiles, black can only reach size 10, or size 6 if not to take away ANY tiles from other settlements).

creating additional size 12+ cities does not at all appear economical in this stage of the game, so far down the timeline. many players, including myself, hardly build hospitals at all, as their victories are going to come too fast in order to ever get the revenue from them (if even researching the tech, or so far up the tech tree, anyway...).

however, either with the hospital-yes-strategy or the hospital-no-strategy, in most circumstances size-6 or size>6 towns or even size-12 or -12+ cities are easily possible even in such apparent waste-lands, if you look at the tiles as if all of them were optimized and railed. just like with the 2 cities that I used as an example above. and to the west of black dot, you could easily add two or three size-6 towns the very same way, making use of all the desert and hill tiles there.

t_x

 

[justanick]

They will become metropolis, although very slowly with a fixed +2 food progress.

Joining workers can make sense at some point.

There is no escaping the fact that in order to exploit all hill squares three more cities will be needed (ten more cities if we want to farm the mountains too, higly unlikely if they fit).

Going for Mountains is a low priority. In the long run fewer but larger cities are preferable. In the short run rank corruption(It depends on OCN) matters, but in the long run simply the maintenance of buildings can amount to about -30 gtp per metro. Despite that a true metro is usually worth it, altough it may very well not pay off prior to winning the game.

It doesnt matter how many desert squares exists. I need 5 cities for all hills regardless, which means two metropolis and three cities at size 3. Of course, one could make 5 cities at size 9 or something instead, but technicaly it is the same. The question remains, is it better to plan ahead the founding of two cities, five cities or as many cities as possible (to cover perhaps a few mountain squares)? And yes, if you have the opinion that the possibility of building five cities at size 9 instead of 18-18-3-3-3 makes a significant difference, explain it a bit.

During the growth phase it is often sensible to found more towns than you need in the long run as it speeds it the gaining of population points. Temperory towns can recruits workers that join permanent cities. Then the temporary towns are removed.

but you would not do something similar in a pure tundra situation (or a pure hills situation) because it involves cities sized at 3 "at the back side of the coast" that do not maintain a growing rate?
At least in the desert case the city can be productive while growing. In the case of sea/tundra cities, you never get to build of lot while the city grows. You do get a lot of commerce instead.

Commerce is worth it. But towns that cannot grow into cities are not that lucrative. Luckily such places are rare. Usually the are floodplains or other tiles with a food surplus. With proper placing of cities you can pass that food surplus along to exploit many tiles. In fact that may make founding on hills unnecessary. City on hill + irrigated desert = 4 food + 3 shields. City in desert + mined hill = 3 food + 6 shields. Which of those 2 options is better, depends on corruption, but mined hills are rather profitable.

 

[kaskavel]

Many interesting stuff here. Thank you both. One extra question now that it is rolling. How do you handle production in those tundra-sea squares if you get the city early? Usually in practice you have a food bonus for a total of food +3 or +4, but it may be a +2 only sometimes. Do you leave the governor to assign max food and play with max food and 1 shield or you force the citizens to pick a mined tundra/forest/hill dropping the growth rate in order to build stuff? Lately I tend to let the city exhaust the coast squares and afterwards remove a sea square in order to get some production going. What buildings do you build? Granary, aqueduct, library, university, courthouse? Less? Do you accelerate production?

 

[templar_x]

a harbour is a must in such towns/cities usually. if there is fish or whale, i usually let them work 1 or 2, like, mined plains together with the sea tiles. other buildings - depending on how central the town is mainly!

as for shields, all ways of rushing can be feasible, but i try to strictly stick to the idea, that the investment has to really pay off in my planned timeframe till victory. all this optimization of cities beyond a return... i tried hard to leave behind what i call my romantic builder heart (which i buried next to many warmonger graves, so that it learns to get away from this addiction ;D). but my preferred way to rush things in towns like these is by disbanding unneeded / captured / aged units in them.

t_x