OCP really bad?

[Ansar]

I use OCP in all of my games, but I see pro's using CxxC placement. Can I keep using OCP or is it necessary that I switch to CxxC placement from now on?

 

[madviking]

OCP's really only useful for huge maps/fast expansion

CxxC (one i prefer) lets you shuffle units from one city to another, and is a good land:cities ratio... meaing, more cities, equaling, more score

 

[Yaype]

OCP's really only useful for huge maps/fast expansion

CxxC (one i prefer) lets you shuffle units from one city to another, and is a good land:cities ratio... meaing, more cities, equaling, more score

In addition to good movement between cities, closer city placement means you are using more tiles for a longer period in the game. One city cannot use all 21 tiles until Hospitals are around, and at that point, the game has often been won or lost.

 

[nullspace]

OCP is fine if you have a lot of room to expand in all directions from your capital. In this situation, rank corruption is the limiting factor on your cities' effectiveness no matter what city placement style you use. So you might as well claim as much land as possible with each city and work only the very best tiles.

But if you have a long, narrow area to settle, you'll want to squeeze in more cities near the capital so they have low distance corruption. And if you simply don't have much space availible, you'll want to use every tile you've got. Closer spacing is also easier to defend.

 

[Gato Loco]

I use OCP in all of my games, but I see pro's using CxxC placement. Can I keep using OCP or is it necessary that I switch to CxxC placement from now on?

Well, you can keep using it, noone's stoping you, but it'll help your game a lot if you go to cxxc, or even cxc for coastal cities that'll have lots of ocean tiles. There are several benefits to cxxc. In addition to working more tiles, you get more cities, and thus a higher support limit. This is very important when you're a republic, and you want to have as many size 7-8 cities as possible. Of course, there are always exceptions, and i never pass up a good city spot (river, luxury) just becasue it isn't in a cxxc position.

p.s. Which version are you playing. It gets worse if you're playing vanilla due to RCP.

 

[cleverhandle]

Well, a lot of it is going to depend on game-specific details and some of it on personal style. But I see the big advantage to CxxC in the late Ancient and Early Medieval Eras. If you've done a good job expanding and used CxxC, you've probably kept pace with the AI in terms of map space but you should have an advantage in number of cities. And those cities, since they're not going to use all 21 tiles anyway, should be at least equal in productivity to the AI's cities. So you have a big advantage when it comes to pumping out knights/horsemen/swordsmen/UU's/whatever to start a war during that time. In higher levels, you're probably still behind in map space, but then you at least get more out of it, so the same idea applies.

After that time period, I space further out. Even though it will be a long time before those cities reach size 15+ (which is about what you get with CxxC), sheer number of cities does less for you once you have more contacts and more diplomatic/trading options. And fewer cities means easier management, smaller required military, and less rank corruption.

 

[SimpleMonkey]

Count me as a recent convert to tighter city placement. I used to use OCP obsessively every game, and found myself consistantly behind as soon as I moved up to Monarch. My current game as Aztecs I went for CxxC and focused on nothing but pumping out settlers, workers and military. The result is a massive swoop of Aztec green across the pangaea map. It's now the beginning of the industrial age. Half the starting civs are gone. Even with rampant corruption I'm still pumping out more units and more science than the other two major civs (Iriquois and Vikings). I may have the whole map under control before I even get to the civil engineers to help make my 1 shield cities produce infrastructure.

Lesson learned: tighter city placement means more cities built faster and an almost breathtaking ability to dominate the map early on.

 

[Twonky]

Several advanced players adovate the 12-tiles-per-city rule of the thumb, which I second. The reason is you don´t need more tiles until hospitals, as was mentioned before. When those are out you have railroads, which allow metros even with only 12 worked tiles.
Personally, I place my cities CxxxC most of the time. Of course, the available lands play a major role in the decision. I always try to have as many cities with access to freshwater as possible, try to build harbor-towns and so on.

 

[onomastikon]

I sometimes go for a mix.
I think it may be a suboptimal idea to have one global strategy for all parameters, such as "use CxxC [always]". A lot will depend on your map settings, difficulty, barbarians, as well as your starting location and its terrain as well as your location in relation to other civs nearby as well as its position on the map.
As to the mix, if I have room at the beginning or if I am rushing out to a particular place to secure resources, I sometimes do this: Place a first ring of cities in OCP, and most cities after that CxxC or CxxxC, depending on terrain and how much I need to hurry or fight wars.

 

[Aardvark]

Closer than OCP is faster - allowing more cities quicker. By the time I get to have metropolis, the extra population can be put to specialists. By having more cities working the tiles, I get the same production - just spread over more cities. But I get more unit support.

 

[vmxa]

I disagree that OCP is good for anything but cake walks. Now for some that is up Monarch and some Emperor games. Practically speaking anything after Warlord is the time to stop it.

It is mentioned that rank corruption is better with the wider placement, but I think that is not as important as other things.

IOW a bit less corruption for having to deal with more tiles to improve and road and not being able to use? Less ablitiy to defend? Fewer cities to pay for support and research?

I do not value OCP after PTW, even if I was to play on Chief, I would not use it. I may take some slack for two or three cities (including the capitol).

I would expect to be in spot where I need tigher spacing before I was in one where I needed or wanted OCP.

 

[TruePurple]

lace a first ring of cities in OCP, and most cities after that CxxC or CxxxC, depending on terrain and how much I need to hurry or fight wars.

Well I can see giving your cap a decent birth since its the corruption free city. Another city to give a decent amount of tiles is a planned super city. Super city is for putting all your commerce/science wonder stuff in not to mention your FP.

For me, its a mix of 2, 3, & 4 spacing depending on terrain a bit like onomastikon, making sure each city at least a few overlapping tiles but also has enough tiles all its own, is by fresh water/on river, on commerce resources(love those cities on gold hills)/not on food resources, I try to get those whale & fish resources, almost no wasted tiles (except I don't mind wasting plain mountains and tundra and desert tiles, though I try not to anyways, never know when one of those has a strat resource like oil)

If too crowded you get corruption and alot of maintenances latter game. If too lose you get forced to use alot of workers improving city tiles earlier game which becomes a population and gold resource drain,(and less cities to support them) since by working overlapping tiles your improving for two cities

Plus with some overlap its easier to prevent land (and sea, those tiles give nice commerce)from going to waste. And domain tends to merge if CxxxC

 

[cleverhandle]

I disagree that OCP is good for anything but cake walks...

It is mentioned that rank corruption is better with the wider placement, but I think that is not as important as other things.

IOW a bit less corruption for having to deal with more tiles to improve and road and not being able to use? Less ablitiy to defend? Fewer cities to pay for support and research?

I believe you're responding to my comment about rank corruption. Let me expand a bit on what I'm saying and provide some context. I'm not certain this is a correct analysis, but I've been thinking a lot about the economics of supporting a larger, more far-flung empire lately and I'd be curious to hear your take on it.

First off, I agree that rank corruption is not a major factor. Less corruption is perhaps a little bonus, but not a deal-maker. To me, it's the maintenance and military support (which may be counterintuitive). Here's the typical situation: continents game, I'm at the end of a cavalry era war to grab a strategic resource and/or gut a powerful neighbor. The area I'm settling is disconnected from my core, usually in an area where I've razed surrounding enemy cities. In order to keep that settlement safe, I'm going to need a substantial military presence, at least until those cities grow into Metros and/or I have Flight. So we're talking at least 5+ ground units per city plus maybe half a dozen artillery for the area. From what I've seen, it takes a long time for those cities to become anywhere near self-sustaining. Once they hit pop 7+ and have a Courthouse and Police Station *maybe* they just break even against improvement maintenance and military support. But until then, they bleed money. Rushing those improvements just means that you're taking the economic hit up front, and usually there's not enough significant time left in the game for the investment to pay for itself. Essentially, those cities are me paying for land - land that provides resources and denies a neighbor his power. Having tighter city spacing in this case seems to me to be counterproductive - it means I have to pay for even more military, more rushing of basic military improvements like walls and barracks, and more improvement maintenance. So that's where I go OCP - it gives me the most strategic land for the least investment, because I'm not expecting a significant economic or research return on the area regardless of the number of cities.

Comments encouraged.

 

[TruePurple]

Well if its so far away that corruption becomes too significant, ignore most improvements and irrigate everything for as many science specialists as you can manage. Since its all about the pop that aren't working tiles, working the tiles is all about supporting the specialists (so you dont need alot of tiles). Latter you can use the production specialists to build a couple structures.

 

[Bans]

I'd only ever build cites more than cxxc IF I am playing a xCC game or the squares doesn't allow it...

 

[vmxa]

Hi cleverhandle.

First I do not see any need for metros at all, maybe a few core cities, unless I am going for conquest only game and will have to play a lot longer.

Second I am never going to build police station in a game.

Now if the cities are what I call totally corrupt, then I do not want to put much into them. So I will look to see if an aqua can be gotten down the road with an extra leader. If so fine, if not I put in nothing.

I will have irrigated to feed with as few citizens as I can and the rest will be either taxmen or scientist. Tax is no research, sci otherwise. Often that leads to 3 farmers and three specialist.

If on a river or has an aqua, I can have more specialist. Once in awhile I am trapped into putting in a structure, mostly in AW games where I have so many leaders that are not able to make an army.

The way I protect my fronline cities to to annex more towns from my neighbors, Now they are no longer frontline and do not need much to defend them. IOW I keep pushing the AI back, so they have no ability to hit those towns and only border towns are at risk.

Flight does not enter the picture, at least in terms of my securing my land. It does for how I defend or attack and from what.

Courthouse are a tricky subject. I will put them in at times, but I will not build them by hand at 1 shield per turn. I am dubious of the return.

So putting in those structures is going to make those unprofitable towns, that is why I do not build them in the main. You are getting one gold in that case and paying 4 or more maint, not good.

I am not putting barracks in or walls, unless it is embattled. Why have a barracks, it is not building any troops. Why have a wall, if it is not under attack and that attack is dangerous?

Now I do not have a problem with wider spacing under later game conditions as you now have enough workers to deal with the land. You do have to watch out for culture gaps.

 

[Tesuji]

People simplify things when they're talking about OCP, CxxxC or CxxC. Terrain almost always dictates city placement, more than your placement rule.

I think anyone would agree your capital and first city ring need 12 workable tiles each. Unless you expect the game not to last very long. For this, strict CxxC is too tight already as it only provides 8 tiles. Even fewer if there's some bad terrain in it. Sometimes it might just fit if 2 out of those cities in the first ring remain capped at pop 6, not unreasonable if you have a settler-pump and a worker-factory. But even then you'll need to place the second ring one space further away to allow for pop 12 in all of thecities of the first ring. And that is assuming ALL tiles in the first ring are useful.

Cities further away are perfect for CxxC, as they usually don't need more than 6 workable tiles.

But that doesn't rule out OCP completely. Especially with the Temple of Artemis, doing a land-grab first is not a bad strategy. After a while you'll find out that some areas with good tiles don't get worked and you can always fill in another settler here and there to produce a town of pop 6 to make use of the tiles left-over.

 

[azzaman333]

In general, OCP shouldnt be used. Of course, that doesnt stop me

 

[TruePurple]

I think CxxxC Is the average to go for, most of your cities should have at least 12 workable tiles.(except for the really corrupt far flung ones) But you should also have some overlap.(unless later game, but not too far out) Remember, if three spaces apart the middle squares get free domain. Strict CxxC is only for games where you plan a early win (and succeed to boot) otherwise your handicapped latter on. IMO

Go by the terrain mostly like tusji said with all the stuff I mentioned before. BTW I believe tighter city placement near border can help with flip. (both ways)

I've been experimenting with temp cities where you don't build much besides maybe a granary. These become settler/worker pumpers that you can disband latter on that also help fill in domain till libraries.

And finally, I think vmxa is crazy to never build police stations, unless your empire/map is very small, nonrush builds of them (in cities not too corrupt)most always pay themselves back, plus it helps with the sometimes very painful and expensive war weariness.

 

[tR1cKy]

I use OCP in all of my games, but I see pro's using CxxC placement. Can I keep using OCP or is it necessary that I switch to CxxC placement from now on?

The problem with OCP is that you have a good half of your (almost) uncorrupted tiles wasted until early/mid industrial age. Depending on your playstyle, it could mean that those tiles are wasted forever.