Size and Number of Cities by 1 AD if at 70%

[thelibra]

I can't remember if I've posted this before, but I was trying to come up with a good guideline for the number of cities (and how large they should be) by 1 AD to know if the game is worth pursuing. Of course, we all (probably) know the 70% rule with regards to science/economy. I know some would disagree with that, but as a general guideline it seems pretty good.

So, at 70% Science (or higher), what's a good guideline on how many cities a civilization should have by 1 AD. My personal record is 6.

Further to it, I would ask what size should the cities be? Obviously newer cities will probably be smaller than older ones. If I have a size 15 city by 1AD, does that mean I probably ended up wasting too much potential building time, etc. If my largest city is only a 5, then does that mean I spent too much on expansion and not enough on development?

I figure leader traits also enter into it. Obviously a leader with Imperialistic, Financial, Organized, will have a distinct advantage over the others.

So, anyway, I reckon I'll hear a lot of varying opinions and analysis on this question. Please be honest with yourself and everyone else though, because I'm looking for an honest guideline. Saying I should have 20 cities by 1 AD, for instance, isn't going to be very realistic at 70%.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I play on Monarch.

 

[Polobo]

Instead of looking at # of cities and size of each city look at the total number of population points you have since, for the most part, that determines your ability to output hammers and commerce. I don't have a target in mind for #/Size since until I see the map and opponents I will have no idea what is a reasonable expectation.

 

[JujuLautre]

I wrote this post a few days ago, trying to get the same kind of informations; I'm sorry to tell it did not have lots of success ;(

 

[sydhe]

What size of map? I'll usually have 4-6 cities at that point, though 6 is stretching it a bit. EDIT: That's on huge. When I start running a money surplus of 5-7 a turn, I'll add another.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I usually have around 10 cities by 0AD, it could be 1 less or more, but that's a pretty standard number for me. It's just a coincidence that it's a nice round number. That's on a huge map at immortal level (or sometimes deity). But I don't adhere to a 70% rule. I just try to optimize net research (research at the break even level where you're not losing money) and production. The huge map size makes city upkeep a little lower than the upkeep on smaller map sizes (both the distance and the number of cities part), however immortal level makes it a bit higher than monarch. On a huge map at immortal level, there will be some AI civilizations with more cities and some with less at that point in the game, usually dependent on their starting position and also lightly dependent on their traits.

Your other question about city sizes is in my opinion strongly related to the number of cities question. The only way to support a fairly large amount of cities and research at a good rate before some of the better economic technologies have been invented is by working lots of cottages or hiring lots of scientists (and merchants) in each of your cities (or having lots of luck with gold, gems and silver mines). This can only happen when you have fairly sizeable cities.

Usually one of the main problems for creating large cities at the start of the game is making them happy. Health resources are usually available very early in the game and for some of them, the health effect can also be doubled early in the game (the granary resources). Many of the luxury resources only become available after calendar which already takes a while to research. A good way to still get sizeable cities before you have many luxury resources is using one of the civics that increases your happiness. That usually means hereditary rule for me, but it could also be representation when you can get the pyramids.

The map type can also influence the size of your cities. It is not that hard to get lots of resources through trade when you're playing a pangea type map. However, when you start isolated, then you're usually also limited to a very low number of luxury and health resources. I once even started on a island without any luxury resources. That was a hard game.

So anyhow, in my opinion, map size, difficulty level, map type and playing style all seriously influence the optimal number of cities at 0 AD. You could argue that playing style shouldn't be in that sentence as there exists an optimal playing style. But I don't think we want to start a discussion on what kind of game economy is optimal, so I'll just leave it as one of the influencing factors.

 

[spaztek]

I try to have 4 cities around 1AD.

This is when war begins

 

[PibbZ]

I always try to have founded all my core cities within 1AD. I look around and try to make up my mind regarding where to put cities very early, and try to aim for as much of that land as possible.

Usually that is somewhere between 6 and 9.

 

[Sueff]

I don't consider the actual percentage of the science slider to be significant at all. For example, if my great people city(ies) is/are my money machine (and it usually is, if I haven't conquered a shrine and after I popped some scientists out for academys) the slider can be pretty high on science. If they are more science oriented, the slider might be considerably lower but I might still create more research with the scientist specialists.

So it would actually be more interesting if we would post the actual science output at for example 1 AD while having money at about +/-0.

 

[pfo]

I go for at least 6, 9 if possible and I have religions (for 3 cathedrals). 6 is a good number, lets you use enough national wonders. As far as size is concerned, that is going to depend on how happy / healthy you can keep your cities. Obviously, if you don't have a religion or happiness resources then striving for size 20 cities is out.

I played one game with only 4 cities and dominated the map on Noble, I could not find any more suitable locations to settle and so my economy was based on warring and razing anyone that was amassing a powerful empire. Size and number of cities is not the sole indicator of potential.

 

[MarkM]

I don't consider the actual percentage of the science slider to be significant at all. For example, if my great people city(ies) is/are my money machine (and it usually is, if I haven't conquered a shrine and after I popped some scientists out for academys) the slider can be pretty high on science. If they are more science oriented, the slider might be considerably lower but I might still create more research with the scientist specialists.

If you've popped multiple great scientists by 1 AD, that probably means you've built multiple libraries, and built them early (or you are on a relatively low difficulty level perhaps???) I don't know how you can consistently get (or flat get at all) multiple GS in BC times unless you are running multiple science specialist that the library allows. I submit that if you've built librariries that early and you are generating must of your research from specialists, then you may not be optimally leveraging what you've built.

In answer to the original question: IMO it depends a LOT on circumstances, difficulty level, & your strategy for that game.

 

[LlamaCat]

Instead of looking at # of cities and size of each city look at the total number of population points you have since, for the most part, that determines your ability to output hammers and commerce. I don't have a target in mind for #/Size since until I see the map and opponents I will have no idea what is a reasonable expectation.

that's a great point - the number of tiles you are working is really the factor of your power. the more tiles you are working in fewer cities means you are being more efficient and therefore have less maintenance, which is another factor in your power. you really can't put general estimates on # of cities in this game I think. I could have one great city using Hereditary Rule civic so that I can grow to size 17 in the early game, and potentially be dominating other AIs who have vast spread-out lands. playing the one-city challenge game (OCC) is one way to look at how it's possible to do this.

of course, land is power as many on here say, so in general you want to control land. but if the land is crappy or you are in a dominant position otherwise, land outside your current borders can be irrelevant

 

[Roxlimn]

Personally, I think the "land is power" truism has largely outlived its usefulness. In Civ IV, population is power. If you have more people, you're more powerful. It's actually a more universally useful move to expand vertically whether or not you plan to expand horizontally. This was not as true in Civ3.

 

[Polobo]

Personally, I think the "land is power" truism has largely outlived its usefulness. In Civ IV, population is power. If you have more people, you're more powerful. It's actually a more universally useful move to expand vertically whether or not you plan to expand horizontally. This was not as true in Civ3.

Vertical expansion is "easier" since you only need surplus food to actually grow the city. However, as the city becomes larger it is more difficult to actual affect the increase (caps, increase surplus food requirements).

By expanding horizontally you start from scratch regarding the infrastructure of the city but you get the free 2 more tiles being worked for a fixed cost plus relatively rapid expansion into the next few population levels.

"Land is power" does not only mean quantity of land but also quality, and without good land vertical expansion is difficult or impossible to achieve.

Aside from the tactical benefits of having more tiles under cultural control land that is not being work is not really "land" as implied by the mantra "land is mantra". You could also extend the definition of land to include specialist slots available to a city and (ignoring caste system) those are finite depending on the buildings available at a given time. Thus, more and land and cities are necessary in order to increase those as well since you can only build one library (for example) per city.

 

[Nestorius]

I play Monarch/Marathon, and if I have more than 40% science by 0 AD its because I'm stuck on a tiny island. This current game, I was at 0% science until 1000 AD and I was teching ahead of everyone. Staying at 70% ensures you are not expanding fast enough.

 

[Roxlimn]

Polobo:

Actually, vertical expansion is both harder and more universal, as I said. You don't really require horizontal expansion to win. The OCCs are proof enough of that. You DO need vertical expansion to win most ways and most maps. It's a little hard to win the game with only size 5 cities to your name on the standard settings.

Significant vertical expansion is harder. Growing to your happy cap is a no-brainer. That isn't what I mean by "expansion," since to "expand," you need to usually be moving beyond your native limitations. Still, some newbies can have problems knowing when a Granary is and is not necessary and for what purpose.

The two "free tiles" you work with each new city is NOT free. More often than not, no amount of preparation or management is going to offset the new maintenance costs you put into it. You're going to have to eat the crappy return for investment until that city grows into a size that's actually worth the maintenance.

Specialist slots, likewise, are useless without pop points to work them - and it's not like it's fair to say that Scientists are land just to continue a byword that has ceased to be relevant.

No.

In Civ IV, population is what makes you powerful, not land. Even if you gave me crappy and relatively unworked small piece of land, as long as you give me a consistent and incredible edge in population, I will win.

 

[Polobo]

I agree that horizontal expansion is not required, and in fact I normally under-expand horizontally and instead focus on vertical expansion. That said, how would you define native limitations. You can't effectively expand above the happy cap since all new citizens produce nothing. You can expand above the health cap as the cost of additional food. Those caps ARE your native limitations unless you wouldn't consider buildings that provide happy faces native.

I never said the tiles where free, I said they come at a fixed cost (settler and a unit for defense). As for the specialists, I never said the scientist was land, I equated the SLOT itself to land, since without someone assigned it produces nothing but once a citizen is assigned it has outputs. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Except in Civ IV you can't have a consistent and incredible edge in population without good land. Plus, once you have the land pretty much any city can become size 15-20 in the long-run, significantly reducing you ability to maintain a consistent and incredible edge in population.

Population points are used to generate food/hammers/commerce(and derivatives). The easiest way to do that is do assign then to work the land since this can be done without any special civics or buildings. Plus, to grow into the first five population points requires significantly less food compared to growing a city from 15 to 20. If I work a corn tile in my size 15 city it is less effective than working the same tile in my size 1 city since I will gain the extra population point sooner. Maintenance costs are a transient issue that, unless you are founding really crappy cities to fill up space, is insignificant anywhere but the short term.

Population and land are not mutually exclusive and without at least some of one the other does you no good.

 

[Roxlimn]

Again, no.

You CAN win with just one city; so yes, population expansion vertically CAN do you some good even without horizontal expansion. It's easier to do it with a little land, but you should be able to win better land if you manage your people well even if you start out with a crappy base.

Land and population are not exclusive, but one is more fundamental, and that's population. Ergo, People Are Power, not land.