I'm not sure when to build a city to have a large population. To do this requires focus on food, farms, buildings like the granary, watermill, hospital. If anyone has any thoughts on this left me know. The main benefits I see immediately are the ability to work extra tiles and the research bonus. But having a large population decreases happiness which forces you to take policy or buildings to compensate which is cost.
Whats the benefits of large populations?
- Thread starter MykC
- Start date
The benefit to having one large city instead of two small cities is that you need half the buildings. You only need one library instead of two, for example. You can also produce a single item much faster in the one city meaning you can get specialist buildings or wonders. If you build a national wonder, which can only ever be built in one city, you get most benefit if it is in a big city. Without policies, fewer cities consume less happiness for the same population. Fewer cities will mean faster policy development.
The are however a number of drawbacks in CIV5 for having fewer big cities. Big cities grow very slowly and the watermills etc provide marginal benefit for cost, especially if there are periods when you cannot grow because of a happiness limit. Many of the specialised buildings aren't that great for the cost so you don't get the rewards you should receive for specialised cities. Small cities with little infrastructure can be effective. More smaller cities will also eventually mean more population as you can build more coliseums and take social policies that reduce the number of cities penalty. More population can mean extra science, extra trade route income, extra tiles worked, etc.
The are however a number of drawbacks in CIV5 for having fewer big cities. Big cities grow very slowly and the watermills etc provide marginal benefit for cost, especially if there are periods when you cannot grow because of a happiness limit. Many of the specialised buildings aren't that great for the cost so you don't get the rewards you should receive for specialised cities. Small cities with little infrastructure can be effective. More smaller cities will also eventually mean more population as you can build more coliseums and take social policies that reduce the number of cities penalty. More population can mean extra science, extra trade route income, extra tiles worked, etc.
And you can say the same in reverse: the benefit to having two small cities instead of one large city is that you can have twice the buildings! Thus you can have two sets of buildings creating culture and happiness, and they quickly cancel out the extra unhappy faces you get from an extra city so (if you keep the total population the same) you're left with many more happy. They also potentially create more culture than the higher threshold an extra city puts on the next policy.
You work two sets of city tiles, so you can get access to more resources.
The tendency will be for the cities to grow to where their combined population is greater than one could get to = more science, and more cash from gold tiles.
You also get the opportunity to produce things simultaneously in two cities. For example, you can purchase two units a turn in two cities not just one. You can be building two wonders at the same time, not one after the other and risk missing one.
Hail
Satan's minion
you forgot an important point: while twice the buildings is valuable in itself (since some early buildings are more cost efficient then their more modern counterparts), it also means twice as many specialist slots
one size 15 city with lib and university fully stuffed will produce (15 * 1.5 + 9) * 1.5 = 47.25
while 3 size 5 cities under the same conditions will produce (5 * 1.5 + 9) * 1.5 * 3 = 74.25
DaveMcW
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 6,489
while 3 size 5 cities under the same conditions will produce (5 * 1.5 + 9) * 1.5 * 3 = 74.25
Don't stop there!
5 size 3 cities: (3 * 1.5 + 9) * 1.5 * 5 = 101.25
In fact, the 5 cities don't even need a university to beat the 1 super city.
grzybek
The Mad Sciencist
Yeah, that is kind of logic that more cities will always be better .... but.
Why not to have 5 big cities? 5*47.25 = ~250
My main problem with big cities in the game is that:
It is very hard to get BIG cities as they grow much slower than in previous versions of civ and cost you more and more money while growing which I find stupid because usually bigger cities should ern more, not less.
Building effects scale only for Library, while I think other science and culture building effects should scale also. Happiness shouldn't scale but that is obvious. And of course money should scale in favor of bigger cities, instead of smaller.
Why not to have 5 big cities? 5*47.25 = ~250
My main problem with big cities in the game is that:
It is very hard to get BIG cities as they grow much slower than in previous versions of civ and cost you more and more money while growing which I find stupid because usually bigger cities should ern more, not less.
Building effects scale only for Library, while I think other science and culture building effects should scale also. Happiness shouldn't scale but that is obvious. And of course money should scale in favor of bigger cities, instead of smaller.
Nunya
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 270
The problem with having large cities is that growing them to a large size is rather difficult. You need Hospitals before you can seriously grow cities beyond size 12 or so and you need Medical Labs to grow them beyond 18.
The second problem is happiness. Coliseum + Theatre + Stadium give 12 happiness. So cities of size 12 and below can cover their own hapiness cost, but larger cities will draw on your happiness reserves from luxuries and natural wonders.
Edit: And of course you need to first tech to those happiness buildings before you can build/buy them. Coliseums are early enough, but Stadiums aren't. So for much of the game a happiness neutral city will be limited to size 4-8.
The second problem is happiness. Coliseum + Theatre + Stadium give 12 happiness. So cities of size 12 and below can cover their own hapiness cost, but larger cities will draw on your happiness reserves from luxuries and natural wonders.
Edit: And of course you need to first tech to those happiness buildings before you can build/buy them. Coliseums are early enough, but Stadiums aren't. So for much of the game a happiness neutral city will be limited to size 4-8.
The main reason to have a high pop city, and currently one of the only reasons, since as its been shown science you are better off with more lower pop cities, is to have a concentrated source of high hammers for building high hammer cost buildings and units.
I find it useful to pick a few cities that will have access to a high number of hills or forests later in the game and to grow them up so they can be production power houses. You can use them to build wonders and or late game military units etc...
I find it useful to pick a few cities that will have access to a high number of hills or forests later in the game and to grow them up so they can be production power houses. You can use them to build wonders and or late game military units etc...
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes, but a single size 15 city will require massively more cumulative excess food than 5 size 3 cities.
budweiser
King of the Beers
How does a single size 15 city get any trade?
atteSmythe
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 243
Not quite, I think - IIRC, the formula per city is 1 * 1.25*pop
I'm going to assume you exclude the capital in the city counts above, since a single size-15 city won't produce any trade gold.
5 size 3 cities = 1*5 + 1.25 * 3 * 5 = 23.75
3 size 5 cities = 1*3 + 1.25 * 5 * 3 = 21.75
1 size 15 = 1 + 1.25 * 15 = 18.75
Many of the buildings you should be using all your specialist slots.. 2 libraries in 2 different cities is much better than 1 library in 1 city with double the population.
Pretty much everything is skewed against big cities:
(i) The method of gathering resources.. smaller cities work fewer mediocre tiles, most average tiles are food neutral or cost food since most citizens cost 2 food.
(ii) The method of increasing population.. bigger cities have to store up much more food.
(iii) Total number of tiles worked.. You get to work tiles equal to your population + your number of cities - your specialists.
(iv) Number of specialists available cheaply -> Need to build much more expensive buildings for same number of specialists, the more expensive buildings also have higher maintenance.
(v) Maritime city state bonuses - you get 2 food for the capital and 1 food per city so more cities is more total food. This food is also worth more in smaller cities as it contributes more to growth.
I think these are the five main factors that cause ICS to be so dominant. Funny how they are trying to do something about the least important one.
Advantages for big cities:
(i) A few specific building bonuses are based on population size so give a bigger payoff in big cities.
(ii) Can gain more social policies if you have fewer cities
Both (i) and (ii) are minor and (ii) is weaker with being forced to take policies straight away.. It might be a good play to expand so your inexpensive policies work on a good tree.
Pretty much everything is skewed against big cities:
(i) The method of gathering resources.. smaller cities work fewer mediocre tiles, most average tiles are food neutral or cost food since most citizens cost 2 food.
(ii) The method of increasing population.. bigger cities have to store up much more food.
(iii) Total number of tiles worked.. You get to work tiles equal to your population + your number of cities - your specialists.
(iv) Number of specialists available cheaply -> Need to build much more expensive buildings for same number of specialists, the more expensive buildings also have higher maintenance.
(v) Maritime city state bonuses - you get 2 food for the capital and 1 food per city so more cities is more total food. This food is also worth more in smaller cities as it contributes more to growth.
I think these are the five main factors that cause ICS to be so dominant. Funny how they are trying to do something about the least important one.
Advantages for big cities:
(i) A few specific building bonuses are based on population size so give a bigger payoff in big cities.
(ii) Can gain more social policies if you have fewer cities
Both (i) and (ii) are minor and (ii) is weaker with being forced to take policies straight away.. It might be a good play to expand so your inexpensive policies work on a good tree.
I actually find its worthwhile to avoid going for high population in production cities. Something like this works very well:
+2 food from Maritime Allies (2 of them)
+2 food from tile of city
Work 1 food resource
Work 3 hills
Typically gives you a food neutral size 4 production city. This city also has less impact on happiness.
Adding a bunch of population on say irrigated plains for 2 food 1 hammer isn't great. If you have the tiles to support doing more (say lumber mills or some such), then by all means throw in a granary and some more production tiles or something.
+2 food from Maritime Allies (2 of them)
+2 food from tile of city
Work 1 food resource
Work 3 hills
Typically gives you a food neutral size 4 production city. This city also has less impact on happiness.
Adding a bunch of population on say irrigated plains for 2 food 1 hammer isn't great. If you have the tiles to support doing more (say lumber mills or some such), then by all means throw in a granary and some more production tiles or something.
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
You forgot the most important advantage to small cities: Accessibility of happiness buildings. You can run a size 2 city with a colosseum at happiness neutral, without any SPs. If you have Meritocracy, the Forbidden Palace or Planned Economy, each of these will allow one additional population in the city.
There are two limits on your ability for growth: Happiness and Food production. Small cities are better on both counts, hence having more small cities is better than having few large cities. Not to mention you get to work those good tiles earlier than if you had to work food tiles to let your city grow.
A single size 15 city works 16 tiles, many of which are suboptimal as they are all in the same city radius, while 5 size 3 cities work 20 tiles (4 extra) and are often working far better tiles.
If you want to consider specialists, than a size 15 city with a university and a library can have 4 science specialists and work 12 tiles, while 5 size 3 cities can have say 4 libraries for similar production/maintenance costs, and those 4 libraries result in 8 specialists and the cities still end up working 12 tiles.
Point (iv) should be access to multiple copies of buildings in general, rather than just specialist buildings, it applies equally for happiness buildings, and its only a negative for things like barracks.
If your goal is high production you want to grow the city to the size that allows you to work ALL of the hills and or forests that are available to it. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to get granaries and what not, but you shouldn't inhibit growth if more citizens will allow you to work more production tiles.
If your goal is a high hammer city that is the way to go, if you are happy with less than maximum hammers in a production city, feel free to stop growth before then.
It depends also on how close you build your cities.. sometimes you want to spread the wealth around a bit so you can have two neighboring production cities. Extra population is expensive because it generally is a fairly big happiness hit.
Similar threads
