Wow, where to begin.
Ok, so cities don't cost gold anymore; they cost happiness. But they don't really, because even though 2 cities with 6 population cost 14 unhappiness and 1 city with 12 pop cost 13, that one city with 12 pop only works 13 tiles whereas the two cities work 14. So basically, 1 happiness == one worked field.
So, why does it ruin your happiness and economy to have a lot of cities?
Mainly because you have a lot of buildings and you're working a lot of bad fields.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
Think on the following example, and see if it helps you devine the mechanics of few vs. many cities:
Say you land in a location overflowing with milk and honey. You could put down one settler, build a city, and let it grow till it's size 33 and work every field in a 3 field radius.
That would take a long time, however. You could also settle the same area with _7_ settlers - since we want to get to work all 33 fields as fast as possible, and we start out working _14_ of those 33 fields right off the bat, this will be a lot faster. Each city only has to grow to a lilliputian size 4, and you're full up.
So if you have the happiness right off the bat, you can take advantage of _all_ the fields much, much faster.
But there's a downside; any buildings you'd like to effect those tiles will cost 7 times the maintenence if you want all those buildings affecting all those tiles. This isn't a problem with wealth boosters since they're maintenence free, but even libraries, which simply boosts research, cost 7 maintenence. And the buildings obviously cost 7 times as much production because there's 7 of them.
There's loads of other intricacies to building small cities close together to maximize the utility of terrain... but here's what the above example proves, at least in my mind: the unified happiness system means you really need to think hard about how you want to take advantage of your fields. Rapid expansion to close-by fields means you get them much sooner in a very affordable fashion, but you won't be able to squeeze as much utility out of the fields by the end. The question then becomes, how long do you expect the game to last? if you expect a short game, you should go for the fields here and now with a settler, shouldnt you?
Ok, so cities don't cost gold anymore; they cost happiness. But they don't really, because even though 2 cities with 6 population cost 14 unhappiness and 1 city with 12 pop cost 13, that one city with 12 pop only works 13 tiles whereas the two cities work 14. So basically, 1 happiness == one worked field.
So, why does it ruin your happiness and economy to have a lot of cities?
Mainly because you have a lot of buildings and you're working a lot of bad fields.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
Think on the following example, and see if it helps you devine the mechanics of few vs. many cities:
Say you land in a location overflowing with milk and honey. You could put down one settler, build a city, and let it grow till it's size 33 and work every field in a 3 field radius.
That would take a long time, however. You could also settle the same area with _7_ settlers - since we want to get to work all 33 fields as fast as possible, and we start out working _14_ of those 33 fields right off the bat, this will be a lot faster. Each city only has to grow to a lilliputian size 4, and you're full up.
So if you have the happiness right off the bat, you can take advantage of _all_ the fields much, much faster.
But there's a downside; any buildings you'd like to effect those tiles will cost 7 times the maintenence if you want all those buildings affecting all those tiles. This isn't a problem with wealth boosters since they're maintenence free, but even libraries, which simply boosts research, cost 7 maintenence. And the buildings obviously cost 7 times as much production because there's 7 of them.
There's loads of other intricacies to building small cities close together to maximize the utility of terrain... but here's what the above example proves, at least in my mind: the unified happiness system means you really need to think hard about how you want to take advantage of your fields. Rapid expansion to close-by fields means you get them much sooner in a very affordable fashion, but you won't be able to squeeze as much utility out of the fields by the end. The question then becomes, how long do you expect the game to last? if you expect a short game, you should go for the fields here and now with a settler, shouldnt you?
