What is optimal distance between cities?

[raxo2222]

When cities are 3 tiles far from each other, you'll be able to build more cities, and they will use up space faster, and some tiles (at least two to up to 8 - 10 tiles) will overlap.

When cities are 4 tiles far from each other, each city will be able to pull out more production/commerce/food from land (0 - 2 tiles overlap) + some land with third workable radius.

So what would be best strategy? Combination of two strategies: "4-tiles-far" in good terrain, and "3-tiles-far" in harsh terrain?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

You also have to take into consideration the vicinity buildings. They can only be built if a resource is on a plot in the work radius of a city but the plot does have to belong to that city.

 

[raxo2222]

I consider these, when placing cities for example I have marble on GEM, but its like at second end of lets say America (closer to pacific than Atlantic), so I slightly break line of 3 - 4 cities (I can handle my maintenance costs ) at end (like spacing it 3 - 5 tiles, where I use 4-tiles-far tactic).


Well, finding copper or iron or other Ancient or later resource just like this: (X - first and second workable radius, E - other tiles, C - cities, R - resource with equivalent vicinity building), after putting cities like below can be kinda annoying.
EDIT: Thats why I can't wait for Super Forts.

EXXXEEXXXE
XXXXXXXXXX
XXCXXXXCXX
XXXXXXXXXX
EXXXREXXXE
EXXXEEXXXE
XXXXXXXXXX
XXCXXXXCXX
XXXXXXXXXX
EXXXEEXXXE

 

[democedes]

I like to give my cities lots of space in the beginning. So that they will have no overlap after the metropolitan expansion (6 squares between cities). I primarily focus on choosing the best possible plots for my first cities, instead of trying to use all the space efficiently.

Here is why. The first few cities you create are going to be powerhouses pushing your empire forward later in the game. I use my two best cities, except for the capitol, as the designated army/navy builders that get all of my extra great generals. The rest of the cities will be used to snag wonders if they are on good plots. If you crowd out these cities, you will hurt their late game performance.

Also, maintenance can become a problem if you put cities too close together on big maps. The fewer cities you have, the less maintenance you have to pay. I usually don't start running into maintenance issues until I run out of good plots to settle anyway. So, in a way, I am intentionally spreading out so that I can get more land before rival civs do. After I have staked off my territory, and have the civics to handle more cities I will fill in some of the gaps with smaller cities. By the time I can handle a large number of cities, usually there is no new nearby land to settle. Then it is time to acquire new cities from my neighbors, which are far too close together for my taste.

 

[Koshling]

Depends on the map. If you're stuck on a relatively small island or small continent you might have to pack cities close together or else fall behind in growth before you can expand to a new continent

 

[Thunderbrd]

This is an interesting question I've had in mind for a long time actually. With all the +Food +Production +Gold buildings, I've been thinking that the more crowded cities MAY actually be a better method for an empire. But with the 3 tile city radius... I just can't bring myself to do it. I tend to plan out all cities to have at most 3 tiles overlapping - would rather lose plots to incompatible spacing between cities than to crowd them. One benefit here too is that if you command more territory with fewer cities, you demand more room and can more easily crowd out others. Mind... I tend to grow fairly slowly and methodically and once squeezed in go to war to take more.

I will likely modify this approach in the multi-player games though as human players must be given more respect for their strategic intelligence than the ai.

 

[raxo2222]

Hmm... 6 tiles far to allow Mega Cities sounds nice.
5 tiles far would make 3 - 6 Mega City tiles (third radius) overlap.
Is it possible to add option, while moving your settler unit, to show 3rd radius in different color?

EDIT: Fixed Mega-city layout.
xx333xx
x32223x
3211123
3210123
3211123
x32223x
xx333xx

 

[Snofru1]

You also have to take into consideration the vicinity buildings. They can only be built if a resource is on a plot in the work radius of a city but the plot does have to belong to that city.

I don´t think this is the case. If 2 cities overlap and there is a resource in that area then you can build the relevant buildings in both cities. Therefore I tend to plant resources with my Great Farmer in overlapping regions so I get all those nice buildings in both cities.

BTW: I also tend to have big distances (4 to 6 tiles) between my cities of the same reasons as stated above. But I am sure that for a strong empire smaller distances are better. Especially in the late game the hammers and food coming from your worked tiles are not really important anymore with all those buildings available. And the more cities you have the more buildings you can construct.

This is the mega-city layout:
xx333xx
x32223x
3211123
3210123
3211123
x32223x
xx333xx

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I don´t think this is the case. If 2 cities overlap and there is a resource in that area then you can build the relevant buildings in both cities. Therefore I tend to plant resources with my Great Farmer in overlapping regions so I get all those nice buildings in both cities.

That was what I was saying. You can build the vicinity buildings in both (or all three) cities even though the plot can only be worked by one of them.

 

[stachnie]

I like to give my cities lots of space in the beginning. So that they will have no overlap after the metropolitan expansion (6 squares between cities). I primarily focus on choosing the best possible plots for my first cities, instead of trying to use all the space efficiently.

I adopt a similar strategy. My first cities (and captured enemy capitals) need to have a lot of room, so I adopt a loose city placement with no or minimal overlap after the metropolitan expansion. Later I do "gap filling" with a bit more dense placement and settling bad terrain. Sometimes I may do it different if I desperately need some resource ASAP...


S.

 

[Koshling]

This is an interesting question I've had in mind for a long time actually. With all the +Food +Production +Gold buildings, I've been thinking that the more crowded cities MAY actually be a better method for an empire.

This is a very important point. Right now I often find my huge cities in the later game only work a few tiles, with the rest being specialists, and everything is supported by buildings and trade. If you win up like that you're MUCH better off with cities packed tightly together to minimize distance from palace costs and maximize your population per map area.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The way I usually go about it is:
0000000000000000000
0000000333000000000
0000003222300000000
0000032111230000000
00000321*1230000000
0033332111233330000
0322233222332223000
3211123333321112300
321*123000321*12300
3211123333321112300
0322233222332223000
0033332111233330000
00000321*1230000000
0000032111230000000
0000003222300000000
0000000333000000000
0000000000000000000

As the map allows anyhow.

 

[Taxman66]

I like to minimize overlap (at least for the 2 tile range, as the metro thing is so far off), but I place a stronger emphasis on other factors in placement. Specifically, maximizing map resources, river access, seaport access (bays are best unless multiple seaborne resources can be had).

 

[raxo2222]

Hmm.. so it looks like build 6 tiles far for earliest cities, and then gradually go to 5, then 4, and finally 3 tiles.
That would give a lot of space for early cities, while actually making use of third radius as soon as possible.
Farthest cities would be packed densely with 3-tiles-far, and they would be actually be easy to defend with groups of units so close to each other.
I'll will try that, when V33 comes out.

 

[Koshling]

Hmm.. so it looks like build 6 tiles far for earliest cities, and then gradually go to 5, then 4, and finally 3 tiles.
That would give a lot of space for early cities, while actually making use of third radius as soon as possible.
Farthest cities would be packed densely with 3-tiles-far, and they would be actually be easy to defend with groups of units so close to each other.
I'll will try that, when V33 comes out.

Personally I tend to go the opposite way, packing the first 3 or so cities more closely. Eventually its sub-optimal, but by then you tend to have lots of well developed cities anyway so the effect is more one of a slight delay (have to wait until your 4th and later cities reach 3rd tile radius to capitalize on it fully). However, early on it's a big win due to minimizing maintenance costs and stability, and ease of building road networks, moving units between when under attack, etc.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Personally I tend to go the opposite way, packing the first 3 or so cities more closely. Eventually its sub-optimal, but by then you tend to have lots of well developed cities anyway so the effect is more one of a slight delay (have to wait until your 4th and later cities reach 3rd tile radius to capitalize on it fully). However, early on it's a big win due to minimizing maintenance costs and stability, and ease of building road networks, moving units between when under attack, etc.

To me, I think we've exposed a perhaps unintentional brilliance of design we have here. Both strategies make equally rational sense but both have their downfalls. Makes for a perfect 'interesting choice' we all must make for ourselves as we play and I think there's a good balance between the +'s and -'s between both.

 

[raxo2222]

To me, I think we've exposed a perhaps unintentional brilliance of design we have here. Both strategies make equally rational sense but both have their downfalls. Makes for a perfect 'interesting choice' we all must make for ourselves as we play and I think there's a good balance between the +'s and -'s between both.

So what are all good and bad sides of "solid core (going (3)-4-5-6 tiles far)" and "solid shell (going 6-5-4-(3) tiles far)" strategy?

Distance from palace maintenance rises faster for "solid shell" on start, but it gets slower, as cities are built closer to each other. Also it gets easier to defend.
"Solid Core" slows down rising maintenance for distance, and its easier to build infrastructure/move units on beginning, but outside cities may be harder to defend and outside culture may push into our wmpire.
What is more efficient in long-term game?

 

[Thunderbrd]

The upside of tightly packing your cities would be less distance to palace maintenance and more +yield and +commerce buildings making up for losses in plots. The cities would be more defensible and would be a far more efficient use of space if you want as much population density as possible. Population being income, it's pretty powerful to overlap a lot.

However, if you want cities that can make full use of % modifiers to yields and commerces, then you'll want cities that have the full 3 tile radius all to themselves and thus capable of maximizing their output. They will have more access to farms and mines and such and thus more yields directed at those cities overall. So locally, its more powerful to have a wider spread for the city while nationally its more powerful to have more cities crowding in.

This local city strength is important in your strongest commerce and production centers, particularly the capital. However, Koshling makes an interesting strategic point, that crowding the capital can speed up productivity for the nation without economically hindering things from added upkeep early on. So I would hate to limit my capital in any way but his method might get a bit of a jump on mine.

To me, however, relying on only one or two cities for the military is critical to getting the most quality units - using multitudes of Great Military instructors focused on these centers along with anything I can to enhance production. This means I can pump out high quality units very quickly. There's more double-edged swords in this approach too but there's no other way to get the highest quality units.

It often so happens the capital becomes my financial and resource center as well. I do realize this means the capital becomes the highest priority target in any war - which the AI never comprehends the necessity of but human players on the other hand... (I should shut up now )

 

[raxo2222]

Well, I want to make full use of 3rd radius for earliest cities, go to 5-tiles-far (losing up to 6 tiles), and then go to standard 4-tiles-far (3, if necessary, losing up to 6 tiles wouldn't be too bad), so I can have gigantic cities near capital and tight defense at borders/ocean/far from capital.