whats the latest its worth settling new cities?

[madeirabhoy]

found myself on one large land mass, sharing it between my russia and england next door. took advantage of a short spat to conquer london, but I've spent so much time expanding on this big land mass that I've not spread out across the water, and indeed most of the time i thought about this it wasnt possible for me to cross across the oceans. now its 1800 and I'm discovering some big islands just off of here.

now my plan is to stay decently ahead and with a good army pop over and conquer each of the capitals but is there any benefit /drawback of settling 3 or 4 cities on the uninhabited islands? I've gone for a really wide strategy because of the amount of space on this land mass and I've got 18 cities at the minute, only london being a captured one.

 

[Jarhead60]

If a new city gets you one or two new amenities then they are definitely worth it even if you don't develop them beyond getting the amenity tiles up and running. If it can turn in to a staging area for further attacks that doesn't hurt either.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

You can develop them to be some kind of refueling outposts for your troops. Your main cities can also send it some Builders and Traders to help.

Personally, I feel that 1800s may be somewhat late, but I'm used to faster games. They will develop a bit if you let the game go on to the 1900s, but beware of rising district costs.

 

[joncnunn]

If a new city gets you one or two new amenities then they are definitely worth it even if you don't develop them beyond getting the amenity tiles up and running. If it can turn in to a staging area for further attacks that doesn't hurt either.

Unless housing capacity is left low enough if you already have more than a certain number of cities it will when the new city grows too big cause the department of luxury resource management to transfer luxuries over to it to "balance out" the overall amenities, which would hurt the core empire when it occurs. A city providing 2 brand new amenity types isn't likely to see this happen, but one only providing one new type can.

Personally, I feel that 1800s may be somewhat late, but I'm used to faster games. They will develop a bit if you let the game go on to the 1900s, but beware of rising district costs.

I'm not sure how a city founded after you have either 50%+ of all techs / 50% of all civics (whichever you reach first) is going to worth the effort for districts; any trader unit sent there is one that could have been supporting the core empire. Any cash spent there buying builders there to make those chops could also have gone to the core empire.

 

[Victoria]

Those lands are great for amenities, seaside resorts and national parks. Unless you have aout 5-10 trade routes you can redirect and/or cash its probsbly not worth the growth unless you are intending a longer game. .. And 18 cities is plenty for any victory.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I'm not sure how a city founded after you have either 50%+ of all techs / 50% of all civics (whichever you reach first) is going to worth the effort for districts; any trader unit sent there is one that could have been supporting the core empire. Any cash spent there buying builders there to make those chops could also have gone to the core empire.

Maybe if he needs some late-game strategic resource like Aluminum or Uranium. But I also find it hardly justifiable, especially since he already has 18 cities (had missed that point).

 

[Bro]

Any time is good. There are strategic locations for example army bases or for amenities. Or you can settle crap cities on tundra and trade or gift them to the AI. Usually however I stop colonizing around turn 100 - 150. The cost of districts at this point is getting out of hand at it just takes too long to build an operating city. And of course there are exceptions for example making a Great Wall / Seaside Resort money/tourism bomb city.

 

[hongyu20]

For a religious victory you could always settle crap cities and give them to the AI to get a majority

 

[Japper007]

I settle until i run out of space, but then I do prefer smaller maps so that's usually around the late antiquity/early medieval period

Of course later in the game there is a point were the settler is such a huge production sink that the meager culture/science gain from the extra pop (since a young city can't really finish a district before the end of the game probably) could have been gained way easier by converting production into projects. I just usually don't hit that point in a normal game.

 

[Victoria]

since a young city can't really finish a district before the end of the game probably

Push a few internal trade routes to it and buy a builder there and you will be surprised how fast it becomes productive as mines make so much more production and chopping produces huge amounts of production and food because chopping scales with discoveries.

In essence a raw new city is useless but any improvements scale with the game (your best internal trade routes should be making +4/+5 by then too.

 

[Japper007]

Push a few internal trade routes to it and buy a builder there and you will be surprised how fast it becomes productive as mines make so much more production and chopping produces huge amounts of production and food because chopping scales with discoveries.

I know, but aren't you better off using those builder charges and trade routes in your core?

 

[Victoria]

I know, but aren't you better off using those builder charges and trade routes in your core?

If you have not finished building your core by then you should have, certainly the worthwhile tiles.... a 5 shot builder should not be able to use all charges on the core. Also you should have finished chopping your core as chopping is just so great and when you chop at your new city you just start drooling at the results.

Your core produces around 50-60 prod if you are doing well ... on a long game with lots of hills more. A +5 trade route provides little value when building a late game unit and less than 10% of the cities output... a +3 trade route is pretty useless by itself there but huge in a new city building some things that do not increase in cost with age.

Do not get me wrong... do not go out an build 50 cities... but do not think for minute they cannot be improved and quite fast if you have cash... which you should have plenty of by then.

 

[Japper007]

Your core produces around 50-60 prod if you are doing well ... on a long game with lots of hills more. A +5 trade route provides little value when building a late game unit and less than 10% of the cities output... a +3 trade route is pretty useless by itself there but huge in a new city building some things that do not increase in cost with age.

I disagree, I find it much more valuable to centralise production on one monster city (usually the cap and usually with an encampment, IZ and harbor+Venetian Arsanale). If you let that city get every internal trade route it can make, you get silly stuff like one-turning 3-star units and the game becomes a total rout. Not to mention spaceship parts ofc.

 

[Victoria]

Sure when building the spaceport and your view is a preference. My preference lies in variety. When I need Uber production, to squeeze every last ounce then that way is great... are you saying you cannot do without one +3 trade route when your uber city is producing I imagine 80+?

Anyway buying a builder is much better than the trade route anyway6-7 turns later you have a commercial district or harbour with an extra trade route for your uber city

 

[Japper007]

Sure when building the spaceport and your view is a preference. My preference lies in variety. When I need Uber production, to squeeze every last ounce then that way is great... are you saying you cannot do without one +3 trade route when your uber city is producing I imagine 80+?

hah 80! maybe without the trade routes! I've run over 250 once and regularly break 150. (the 250 was before the IZ-nerf)

 

[Bro]

If you have the 30% builder prod card you can instantly chop-build a builder.

 

[Victoria]

So a +3 trade route is only 2% of the city production and you would not sacrifice for a few turns to get yourself another trade route?
I call that missing a trick

 

[Japper007]

So a +3 trade route is only 2% of the city production and you would not sacrifice for a few turns to get yourself another trade route?
I call that missing a trick

I think we are arguing out of different base assumptions here...

My example case implies I've already done what you described to a lot of cities and am close to winning the game. At that point a district can cost over 500 prod, not something you can easily built with a few trade routes, even if I sent every. single. trade. route. there (getting about 100 prod ex nihilo) it would still take a few turns just to build a commercial hub. So, in order to get one trade route (which you admitted adds only 3 or so production) I've sacrificed 100's of hammers that could've gone into something useful over all those turns. That's not "missing a trick", it's sheer idiocy.

Obviously I do send Trade routes to boost starting cities in the early and mid game, but later I'd prefer them all at a super-city. If it shaves even one turn of a submarine fleet or a tank army I consider it worth it.

 

[Victoria]

Fair enough, and buying a builder to chop? You were saying its a huge production sink but a builder chopping is just like it was early game.. I was just pointing out to snyone reading this thread that you canndo it late game. It may not be your preference but it can be done and I sometimes do.

 

[Japper007]

No problem buying builders. Around the endgame i buy them every turn to turn every tile into a forest+lumbermill (shame Conservation civic comes so late...) If there is a "natural growth" forest I'll even chop it, then turn it into a forest again.