1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Tight or Wide Spacing Around The Capital?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by megistatos, Mar 12, 2008.

?

CxxC or CxxxxC for the core.

  1. CxxC(RCP 3)

    26 vote(s)
    72.2%
  2. CxxxxC(RCP5)

    10 vote(s)
    27.8%
  1. megistatos

    megistatos Warlord of Mars

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    Hull, UK
    Having read Pyrrhos' interesting thread dicussing CxxC versus CxxxxC (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=267177) , I thought a poll might be useful, to get the opinions of the wider community.

    Go there to get involved in the heated discussion, but please use this thread only to list specific advantages/disadvantages of the two strategies.

    Personally, I use tight spacing(and I don't play much other than GOTMs).
     
  2. megistatos

    megistatos Warlord of Mars

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    Hull, UK
    I'll keep all points summarised here.

    For CxxC:
    Fewer unused tiles early on, and less time spent wasting worker moves.
    Units can move between towns in one turn.
    Towns don't need culture to connect borders.
    Each city can be spaced to have exactly 12 tiles available to each(no hospitals needed).
    Settlers settle faster.
    Less distance corruption.
    An advantage in the early game, which can then be turned into an advantage later.

    For CxxxxC
    :
    Less micromanagement.
    More choice of tiles.
    More territory early on.
    Easier to build wonders in strong cities.
    Less rank corruption.
    Fewer city improvements required.
     
  3. Chamnix

    Chamnix Chasing Time

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    8,941
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I voted CxxC (RCP 3) because it is closer to the way I play. I almost always use RCP 3 in PTW. In C3C, I use a mixture of CxxC and CxxxC so that every city has 12 workable tiles.
     
  4. TheOverseer714

    TheOverseer714 Overseer

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,077
    Location:
    Ohio
    Same as Chamnix. I use CxxC on tighter maps and CxxxC for my first ring if theres more room, or I am going for a 20k win. Second ring is always CxxC.
     
  5. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,951
    Location:
    On a shipchain
    As a Vanilla player, my optimal city placement are two rings around the capital with the first ring at distance 4 with 8 cities. The second ring, preferably, comes at distance 8, or alternatively distance 7. In terms of the C's and the X's this is a mix between CxxC and CxxxC:

    C
    x
    x
    CxxxC
    so to speak.

    Here is a shot from an emperor game with Persia that uses this kind of spacing:
    Spoiler :



    An alternative pattern is to go for 5 cities at distance 3 and then place the second ring at distance 6. (And maybe even a third ring at distance 10 if map size and difficutly permit). Normally I would use this for something like deity, but the following shot is only from a regent game:
    Spoiler :



    Both patterns are however geared towards an empire with size 12 cities and intesive use of the land within the city radiuses.

    And my vote I think will have to fall for CxxC.
     

    Attached Files:

    • RCP4.jpg
      RCP4.jpg
      File size:
      151.3 KB
      Views:
      350
    • RCP3.jpg
      RCP3.jpg
      File size:
      145.4 KB
      Views:
      324
  6. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    First ring. RCP 5.5

    Brennan - daring to be different :lol::p
     
  7. bambam190

    bambam190 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Minnesota
    that is what I do as well.
     
  8. Hasdrubal Barca

    Hasdrubal Barca Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,441
    13 CxxC vs 3 CxxxxC, the results speak for themselves.
     
  9. DWetzel

    DWetzel Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,262
    If CxxxC isn't one of my choices, I'll vote for the tighter formation.
     
  10. Flak509

    Flak509 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Denmark
    i like my capital to have room maybe im just oldfashioned so CxxxxC(RCP5), but other cities can be closer togeather
     
  11. Xethorsiph

    Xethorsiph Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    N.J. U.S.A.
    My first set around my capitol always is in such a way that there is no overlap between my capitol and another city. the rest usually go CxxC
     
  12. ecuwins

    ecuwins Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,288
    This seems to be quite the debate around here lately. I have read some good discussion on the topic. :goodjob: I am still convinced that tight placement is superior in most cases. It does not have to be strict CxxC, you know. My capital may have 3 CxxC cites around it with 2 CxxxC's or 1 CxxxC and a CxxxxC. It has a lot to do with terrain - mountains, rivers, and coast. The idea is to get as close to CxxC as possible while taking terrain into consideration. I can just about always get 12 tiles working in all my core cities and not choke any one city. Hospitals are just "eye candy", so I never plan on building them. I plan on having 12 tiles max in productive cities and 6 tiles in most non-productive cities.
     
  13. MAS

    MAS Deity

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,080
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    @ecuwins

    But keep in mind that RCP doesn't apply to C3C, only to vanilla and PTW. And the way you settle in C3C would make your core in PTW and vanilla a lot weaker. In vanilla and PTW, you'll want more cities in less rings.

    In Vanilla and PTW, you'd also rely more on a strong core, and less on specialist farms.
     
  14. ecuwins

    ecuwins Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,288
    I know :) I had Vanilla for a year before I got C3C. I should have added that my comment pertained to C3C exclusively.
     
  15. megistatos

    megistatos Warlord of Mars

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    Hull, UK
    In Conquests the whole ring city placement trick was stopped, so there isn't really any advantage to using full rings, as in PTW. What should be decisive is the terrain itself. CxxC and CxxxxC therefore just mean tight and loose city locations.
     
  16. Virtual Alex

    Virtual Alex King

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    CxxC allows you to "work" more tiles quicker, and for a longer period of time than looser placements.

    Early game is much more important than late game, and so this advantage is extreme.
     
  17. Tone

    Tone Deity Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Location:
    Singapore
    Am I allowed to reply "it depends"?

    If it's a tight start on a high level its got to be a close placement. Lower level and/or more space and I'll go wider, with maybe some temporary towns to utalise the unused towns until my towns grow into cities.

    I'm quite tempted to play a PtW game with CXC spacing around my capital and then doing a palace jump to give the old core (with FP) greater space.

    Variety is the spice of life (and civ). I've voted for close placement though because that what I do most often.
     
  18. Pyrrhos

    Pyrrhos Vae Victis

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    712
    This is not quite true. Take a piece of paper and draw the cultural boundaries of three rings of towns with 0 culture. Count the number of tiles, a square with the sides 21 tiles. This comes to 441 tiles. Subtract the 49 tiles occupied by towns and divide by the number of towns. The number of tiles available per town comes to no more than eight (8).

    Furthermore, no matter which level you play at, your chances to build any wonder are seriously compromised.

    Other than that, a good summary! :)
     
  19. Chamnix

    Chamnix Chasing Time

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    8,941
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    You only need 1 town of size 12 to build a wonder.
     
  20. NickyH

    NickyH Bismarck with lipstick…

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    A Goody Hut in Sweden
    CxxxC, and occasionally tighter or wider in the first ring around my capitol. It depends on difficulty, the terrain, and what kind of game I like to try for the moment.

    I usually use tighter placement further out in my empire. Beyond the second ring, it's usually CxxC and sometimes CxC, though I sometimes use a looser placement even beyond the second ring, depending on the terrain. I rarely use CxC on the diagonal axis (SW-NE) and use it more frequently in the cardinal directions. ( Straight South And North.)

    The only thing that is certain, is that I never strictly adhere to a symmetrical pattern, but adapt my placement according to terrain.
     

Share This Page