the distance between two cities?

[simke]

I've read somewhere (I think it's in the manual) that the distance between two cities should be at least 4-5 horizontal or vertical tiles. Why 5? If a distance is 5 tiles then 3 tiles that are in the middle are never worked on?
Is there a reason the distance should be more then 4 tiles?

 

[Roland Johansen]

It is probably a counting thing. Do you only count the tiles inbetween the cities or also add the city tiles themselves in the counting? The only reason not to use certain tiles would be because they are unproductive ones (desert, mountains) or because it is actually impossible to use them (seldom happens).

 

[la cosa nostra]

I've read somewhere (I think it's in the manual) that the distance between two cities should be at least 4-5 horizontal or vertical tiles. Why 5? If a distance is 5 tiles then 3 tiles that are in the middle are never worked on?
Is there a reason the distance should be more then 4 tiles?

Ok the * are the two cities, the - are the tiles in between

*----* (4 spaces)

*-----* (5 spaces)

the fat cross extends 2 tiles horizontaly and 2 tiles vertically, therefore ( & is a worked tile)

*&&&&*
*&&-&&*

...

 

[Bushface]

Draw a rectangle 5 tiles high and 4 wide. Put a city (call it A) in the bottom left corner and another (B) at top right: draw in their 'fat crosses'. They notch nicely together. Now put another one (C) to the right of (A) with four empty tiles between: one tile at its cross's top left overlaps with B's bottom right, let them squabble over it later. Next put (D) left of (B), also with four clear tiles between, its cross overlapping A's by one tile. If you are lucky enough to have a vast plain to work on, you can extend this pattern to cover the whole area with tiles which all fall within the radius of a city. The ideal relative position of two cities is thus, I believe, in the diagonal corners of a grid of 5x4 or 5x3 tiles
Five empty tiles between two cities leaves, as has been said, an intervening strip out of reach. It does, however, permit the later placing of yet another city on that strip, if the effort is worth it.
All such planning is, naturally, useless if you are busy capturing enemy cities. They have to stay where they were put unless you raze them, which leaves a tile on which nothing can be built except another city: seems pointless to me to do this unless you really need the cash from razing. Not to mention such factors as peaks, bays, and resource locations.

 

[Meffy]

Pardon me if this is too obvious to mention, but there might be a little confusion of terms. When counting tiles and figuring distances, remember that for an inter-city distance of n tiles, there will be n-1 tiles between the two cities (considering the case of more or less side-by-side cities).

A - - - - B

In this example a unit travelling from Alexandria to Bubastis over non-roaded plains or grassland must expend five (n=5) movement points, one per inter-city tile plus one to move into B; that's the distance between the cities. But just four (n-1=4) tiles lie between the cities. Of the four tiles between A and B, two are within A's expanded radius and two are within B's.

So: if the distance between two cities is five tiles, no space will be wasted except at the corners of the fat cross -- and by staggering the city positions as Bushface describes, you can minimize even that.

If the distance between cities is four tiles their fat crosses will overlap and they'll have to contend for any resources, food, commerce, and production on the overlap, limiting growth and so forth. But it might be the right thing to do given the realities of terrain and where other cities have already been placed.

And if the distance between cities is greater than five, there will be tiles between that neither city can access. In some circumstances this can lead to a good deal of frustration later in the game. (Oy, don't I know it!)

 

[Honorable_Pawn]

I've read somewhere (I think it's in the manual) that the distance between two cities should be at least 4-5 horizontal or vertical tiles. Why 5? If a distance is 5 tiles then 3 tiles that are in the middle are never worked on?
Is there a reason the distance should be more then 4 tiles?

I don't think that the distance between cities should be a standardized decision. The primary decision-making tool that you should employ when founding new cities is:

1. Maximize resources per city.
2. Minimize useless squares such as desert or moubntains etc.
3. Build on a river or coastal square if possible.

The first one is obvious but what may not be so obvious is that you should not build your city directly on top of a resource unless you are playing a multi-player game with the Aztecs as one of your neighbors. In this case it is ok to found your city on Iron.

The second is also obvious and doesn't need explanation.

The third consideration is to build on a river or coastal tile. This is important because this will benefit your trade network generating additionaql sources of cash. The rivers can also possibly connect your cities resource. Also, it is important to consider the defensive bonus of building a city on a river. If a unit (Including Modern Armour) has to cross a river to attack your city there is an additional 25% bonus for the defender. I think a coastal city gets 10%.

I find that is helpful to put my 2nd and 3rd cities Waaaaay out there and squeeze the borders of my opponent. I use my 4th and 5th cities to fill in the space between my 1st city and the 2nd and 3rd cities. Always trying to maximize resources. In the end your cultural borders will expand connecting your empire. If you try to interlock every city like mentioned by other posters you will end up maximizing useless squares. Yes, your empire will be interlocked but it will not maximize the resource to useless square ratio (R/U).

Also, by interlocking your cities you are actually depressing the maximum land area that your empire can achieve. This is important because one of the factors determining your final score is total land area. By having tightly constrcited and interlocking cities, your total land-area will be diminished.

Give your cities room to breathe and let your first rule of thumb be to maximize resources.

 

[Polopapolo]

Check out this thread for more info:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144814&highlight=optimal+city+placement

 

[Bushface]

Building cities far apart at the outset is OK unless your opponent does the same and shoves one of his blots into the middle of what ought to be your landscape. Also it will take time to connect your cities so that they can share resources - which I agree have a great influence on city positioning. Anyway, there is no real reason to build cities where my master plan advises in the order I used as an example; if the first is in location (C) then the second could be at (D), the corners of a 7x5 tile grid, or even further away. I accept that the chances of being able to follow the grid exactly are slim, for the reasons stated by Honourable Pawn. However, if it can be followed then eventually you will have a map on which every tile is within the radius of at least one city, no useless tiles (except the inevitable Peak or Desert), and hence a R/U ratio of infinity. Nor will the size of your final empire be compromised, because that will depend on the cultural spread of your border cities: true, there will be much overlap of the cultural influence of your internal cities, but when does that not happen anyway ? Pawn's argument holds good only if the number of cities is limited and/or the map has many small land areas on which you do not have inland cities
Then if you allow city spacing to suit any development beyond "developing" status it is not possible to interlock them so efficiently and there will be wasted tiles, not forgetting that however powerful the city it cannot work areas beyond the 5x5-less-the-corners of the fat cross. A "legendary" city's influence covers 89 tiles, if my count is correct, whereas four smaller ones of "developing" size cover 84 less any overlap and are much easier and faster to build.
Ah well, different players, different strategies. And who would have it any other way?

 

[Meffy]

Yup, it's a calculated risk to settle lightly at first. Calculate right and you can backfill (or "settle around" less useful tiles). Reckon wrong and hello, Alexander! Or Montezuma, or...

I usually expand fast and hope to consolidate before the neighbors have a chance to crank out settlers.

 

[Bushface]

Polopapolo - good link, and it covers everything in this thread. I tried a search, but didn't think of using "placement" as a key and found nothing useful. Probably like looking through the index in a computer manual, where you can't find 'delete' or 'remove' because the info you want is indexed under 'erase' or 'scrub'.