REX vs Cityplacement

[Lord Katana]

Hey ppl,

recently rediscovered CivIII. It still rocks!

I've been reading a lot of the posts, war academy lessons and other stuff. There is just one thing i don't get....


It stands to reason that grabbing a lot of territory is good. More chance to get "hidden" resources, more room to grow, blocking off competators, you name it. But i also see a lot of strategies with go into ICS, tight and loose placement. These things seem to be mutually exclusive... If you go for a lot of territory then ICS (in the extreme case) would mean more settlers then humanly possible, right????

As an example. The first 4 or 5 cities you build. What do i do with them?
a. Build them close to the capital (loose placement for example),
b. build them 7 hexes from the capital (start working on a second ring before the first),
c. place them at the optimal places (floodplains, rivers, bonustiles),
d. place them in choke points / near border enemy to grab luxery resource?

thz in advance!

 

[Decebalus]

Weather you use close city spacing or loose spacing you can probably grab just as much territory.

If you place cities far apart you grab more land with each city. But the rate at which you produce settlers and workers is slower because you won't have many cities to do it in.

If you pack cities closer together however you grab less land with each city, but the rate of producing settlers and workers can be higher because you have more cities to produce them in. So you will probably expand faster grabbing same amount of land with more cities placed.

The very very very important thing in CIV however isn't how much land you've grabbed, but how many cities you have with citizens working in them and producing shields and gold. It's all about producing more then your rivals. You can do that even if you're 1/2 their size in territory, but have twice the number of cities.

This is usually my strategy....

Since I know the capital and first ring cities will be around for a while and will makeup my core I try to place them a bit looser. Using a CxxxHxxxC (H-capital, C-city) placement. This way there is some overlap, but later on there are enough tiles to be worked when those cities grow big.

After that I move to a more CxxC placement. And deviate from that only if:
- arrangement lends me one tile away from a river. In that case I'd move to be on the river.
- I find a very good spot where I know a city will do well in the future. Some wheat/cows/hills/etc.
- I need to grab some choke-point or luxury or resource. But I don't go out of my way to build a city halfway off the map way outside my borders for any such reasons.

Basically just expand fast but with consistent uninterrupted defensible borders.

 

[Aabraxan]

Welcome to CFC, Lord Katana!

There's been a lot of debate in the past few months over city spacing and I'll be the first to admit that I'm one of the ones that falls into the "tight city spacing" crowd. With that said, though, you've got to take terrain into account when deciding where to set your cities, as well as your victory condition. For a military victory, you'll usually want CxxC spacing, leaving 12 tiles for each city to work, at least in the core. It may make sense to push a city further out if doing so, for example, puts in on a hill and a river and brings an extra resource within your borders. Looser spacing may grab more tiles for your territory, but that does not necessarily amount to more worked tiles.

The first 4-5 cities that you build . . . well it will depend on terrain and your victory condition. I space my core cities more loosely than my outlying areas, because they're going to be my biggest producers. Ideally, I try to leave enough room for my capital to work the full "fat cross" of tiles. Sometimes, terrain won't let me do that, though. If you're just dying to have tons and tons of metros and use Communism as a government, you'll need to space cities accordingly (looser). Of your "a, b, c, and d" options, most of them are viable under the right circumstances. The one option that you've given that I would really steer clear of is "b. build them 7 hexes from the capital (start working on a second ring before the first)[.]" I can't think of any reason to do that.

As for "more settlers than humanly possible," not really. Settler and worker pumps go a long way towards keeping a steady stream of settlers pointed to the frontiers of the empire.

 

[Spoonwood]

I really prefer the C city spacing scheme. The game's much simpler that way.

 

[vmxa]

Seven spaces between towns, ouch. That is a lot of dead tiles for a very long time and some forever. As to land, it is all mine anyway. It is just a matter of how soon I take. Look at it like a loan, it has to be paid off eventually.

Corruption is different in C3 and PTW than it is in C3C. You do not have rings with a given level of corruption.

The other aspect is worker turns. The wider the spacing the more tiles they have to travel and make roads on, again many will be useless for quite a time.

 

[PaperBeetle]

As to land, it is all mine anyway. It is just a matter of how soon I take. Look at it like a loan, it has to be paid off eventually.

And even when the AI is looking after the land for you, it is using it to produce things for your benefit: wonders and buildings you will use, citizens you can enslave, gold for your coffers, techs you don't have to research, and units against which you spawn your leaders.

 

[Optional]

My answer would be, for the first 4 or 5 cities:
C: place them at the optimal places (floodplains, rivers, bonustiles),
D: place them in choke points / near border enemy to grab luxury resource.

Both of those. I think most players start like this. Go for the best spots, with the best strategic advantage, as long as they're sort of in the wide first core area. Seven tiles away is already quite far, although if it's a lux or strategic resource and there's nothing closer to home, then yes.
The spacing you have in mind should be a second concern, in my opinion.

 

[Spoonwood]

To get more honest I think it better to see a particular save and discuss city spacing for that map (with the desired victory condition in mind, of course), instead of talking about general schemes. This largely coheres with what Optional wrote.

 

[Lord Katana]

Thz for the replies all!

I don't have a particular save in mind.. Just a general guideline. I did start a game with the dutch and placed the cities rigoresly CxxxxCxxxxC in an ever widening grid. Kinda the way i used to play the old Civ (believe it was CivI with the russians on a earthmap). I did find this too rigid and not too much fun... "real civilizations" didnt build that way either

I'll give the CxxxCxxxC placement a go, and varying for worthless terrain and rivers. I always place cities near rivers btw, even if it means skipping some tilesm just for the growth and the not-needed aquaduct. Is this always wise or are there times when i just have to let the river be and build the aquaduct later? I currenty am playing on regent level and i'm kinda worried about the more unhappy cit's on later difficulty levels. Do they change the that (i.e. stunt the growth to 6 so not too many unhappy cit's are born?

thz in advance for your futher comment

 

[Elear]

The best CXXXCXXXC placement will offset the cities, remember that.

So,

CXXXCXXXCX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XCXXXCXXXC

With ordinary CXXXCXXXC:

CXXXCXXXC
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
CXXXCXXXC

Two tiles, emboldened above, are clearly wasted. The offset pattern makes sure all tiles are used to their fullest potential with some, but not a lot of overlap. It's really a compromise, and I prefer to use it mainly on my first two rings of cities; after that, I fall into the CXXC category.