Where to build the second city?

[MAS]

I don't play vanilla or PTW, I don't place cities in rings. Normally, I simply make sure that each of my core and semi-core cities have 12 tiles to work on, preferably 12 land tiles. (plus whales or fish)

It is often quite possible to do that with a tight CxxC pattern in the core. Though if there are many coastal core cities, I'm often forced to to place them a bit loser. Unless I'm on an island or small continent, then I'll make shore fishing cities.

 

[Snarkhunter]

You can still get the tiles you need for pop 12 cities by a modified CxxC spacing. Just offset the cities around the core by a large knight's move (Go players--make ogeima shimaris ) You get something that looks like this:

xx6xxxx
xxxxx4x
xxxxxxx
1xxxxxx
xxxCxxx
xxxxxx2
xxxxxxx
x3xxxxx
xxxx5xx

1-4 are still basically at CxxC from the capital, but the offsets create a few extra tiles for the capital. 5-6 are further away from the capital, but basically CxxC-offset from 1-4. (Note that 1-6 are still 1 road move away from each other, in a ring.) It's reasonably compact, and just one of the first things that came to mind. There are surely other arrangements that do similarly, without wasting many tiles.

kk

 

[MAS]

And I'll repeat that I think we know to little of the map to know the best placement of the cities.
Both Theov's and ZzarkLinux' suggestions can be the one depending on what isn't yet properly shown to us.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

On your screenshot [Of the OP's map], you replaced 2 cities (of the 4 who matter) one tile further away. Proves my point that fresh water, lux and recources are a big part of the equation.

A good point !! This "3-tile spacing" is only an ideal.
There are so many map dependent factors, such as the original poster's picture of the Wines / river spot.
And my grid cities still have "wasted tiles".

It is often quite possible to do that with a tight CxxC pattern in the core.

You can still get the tiles you need for pop 12 cities by a modified CxxC spacing

I didn't know CXXC had this capacity as well !!
Screw "3-tile spacing", I'm moving to "2-tile spacing"

 

[MAS]

You can still get the tiles you need for pop 12 cities by a modified CxxC spacing. Just offset the cities around the core by a large knight's move.

What I was thinking about, was a citizen placement that represents a fan opening up outward from the capital.

This assumes that there will be space around the core where either the cities won't grow to size 12 or where cities are placed a bit further away. Or simply non-core coastal cities. Or fishing cities.

Of course, if you're on a huge map with a large OCN and low corruption, your core can be a bit too big for this to work, so then you'll be forced to create some more room between core cities here and there.
But I'm also assuming that your CxxC pattern won't be perfect due to terrain factors, so there is even more room.

 

[Snarkhunter]

What I was thinking about, was a citizen placement that represents a fan opening up outward from the capital. . . .

But I'm also assuming that your CxxC pattern won't be perfect due to terrain factors, so there is even more room.

Just so. I was simply laying out a geometric pattern that would do the job, in general. I find that terrain considerations usually create the same offsets automagically.

What this whole discussion has made me do is look consciously at how my initial placement is going to work 100 or so turns later, when I'll want maximal size & productive capability. I've been getting away with winging it up to now, but that won't work very well any more at higher levels.

kk

 

[Mursi lives]

The wide placement I used upthread represents the spacing I like having my core cities so during the industrial ages and beyond, they'll have 20 tiles or so to use each. Even during the early stages, having those additional tiles allows the pop to be switched around for different production, science, food, and commerce requirements better. Just lost out on a great wonder by 1 ******* turn because of lack of alternative pop placement strategies in the improving of the tiles in the city fat X. Should have left several tiles mined that I had irrigated so I could have switched pop back and forth as needed to get a couple more shields out per turn. Had that city been limited to a closer spacing to those around it, that option would not be possible. In fact, in that situation, I wouldn't even had stood a chance going for that wonder since the civ that got it was ahead in tech and had good head start. And that with me filling up a palace prebuild before I got the tech for the wonder.

I agree that micromanaging the production of the cities is important part of the game, but i find it much easier with tight city placement, because i dont have to improve extra tiles i will work only 30% of the time.
Just swapping worked tiles between cities is much more efficient, not to mention that tighter city placement means faster development and better start for any wonder race...

 

[MAS]

Just lost out on a great wonder by 1 ******* turn because of lack of alternative pop placement strategies in the improving of the tiles in the city fat X.

If I decide to build a wonder, I'll prepare the city(s) for it ahead of time.

 

[Snarkhunter]

The wide placement I used upthread represents the spacing I like having my core cities so during the industrial ages and beyond, they'll have 20 tiles or so to use each.

Yes. But my games generally don't last long enough for cities to become metros. And I seem to manage well enough without needing that much extra space to play with in the earlier stages. So I'm not likely to want to do that, especially given that expansion during the first part of the game is analogous to a compound interest situation. If I switched to different VCs or favored a different style of play, I might look at it differently.

Quite at odds with my style as a Go-player. Then I definitely favor a big moyo strategy

kk

 

[ThinkTank]

@ZzarkLinux:

I was going to say: Nice 12 tile pattern. But if you want 12 tiles per city, isn't CxxC in the x-direction and CxxxC in the y-direction most simple? This comes down to repeating this pattern:

XXXX
XCXX
XXXX

And then I saw that this pattern allows only 11 citizens.

So let's try again.

Nice 13 tile pattern. In fact it has so much symmetry it is almost Escher-like. In fact so much that it must be able to arrange it into a covering (non-wasteful) pattern, and it is:

 

[Pyrrhos]

I find the opposite in my games. The closer the cities are to each other, the more micromanaging I have to do. One example: when all the tiles are in use, like with close spacing, when I want to change what a pop works on in the city screen, I find the tile I want to move it to already in use by the neighbouring city. So I open that city's screen, move the pop, but now that pop has no place to work, and the city is in food minus. So I got to open up a third city, move a pop there, which then causes similar problems as in the previous city....

Much easier just to move the the guy to an empty tile in a city with a little extra room. The apparent alternative, setting the city to one working set-up and leaving it as that the rest of the game is too limiting for the way I play. I'm always switching what I want individual cities doing as need arrises. I prefer to have the flexability to do that.

How very true!

Or when pollution strikes and there's no room for the displaced citizen to go to and your city just increased in pop and you didn't yet have a granary (or just gone from pop 6 to 7 with a granary), you end up minus one pop.

Even with CXXXC, you will have some of these problems in certain towns.

 

[Mursi lives]

I find the opposite in my games. The closer the cities are to each other, the more micromanaging I have to do. One example: when all the tiles are in use, like with close spacing, when I want to change what a pop works on in the city screen, I find the tile I want to move it to already in use by the neighbouring city. So I open that city's screen, move the pop, but now that pop has no place to work, and the city is in food minus. So I got to open up a third city, move a pop there, which then causes similar problems as in the previous city....

Much easier just to move the the guy to an empty tile in a city with a little extra room. The apparent alternative, setting the city to one working set-up and leaving it as that the rest of the game is too limiting for the way I play. I'm always switching what I want individual cities doing as need arrises. I prefer to have the flexability to do that.

When I said "much easier", i wasnt counting the number of mouse-clicks, but rather the number of worker turns. I must admit, though, that migromanaging a large empire like that becomes heavy.
OTOH, when I got a large empire, that means that the game is won and i just start another game

How very true!

Or when pollution strikes and there's no room for the displaced citizen to go to and your city just increased in pop and you didn't yet have a granary (or just gone from pop 6 to 7 with a granary), you end up minus one pop.

Even with CXXXC, you will have some of these problems in certain towns.

When pollution strikes (IA and later), I hope that your OCP towns are turned into metros, but then you get the same problem, except that pollution strikes metros much more frequently
Anyway, just losing a worker should not be a problem in IA ...

Another thing with tight spacing with needing every tile filled in early game or mid game is when at war all your opponent needs to do is sit on a city's tile and that tile is unusable. That tactic could be devasting to a player using tight spacing if used en masse on many of his cities. Doubt the AI would use it, but they do send in spoilers to monkeywremch terrain improvements frequently. That is something that hurts the tight spacer more.

Thats why even a peaceful player should make more offensive units than defensive ones. That said, tight city placement actually minimize the effects of pillaging. Why? because when AI succeeds to pillage a tile, it is usually a 90% corrupt one! Okay, i may temporarily lose a scientist and some worker turns ...

 

[Mursi lives]

You do realise that you contradicted yourself there, don't you? If you're into the 90% corruption zone, it means you have a "large empire". Since, as you claim, at that point "the game is won", who would be pillaging your tiles?

I suspect you are just arguing to argue, but I'll post a reply in case you're not.

I suspect you missed the point: since tight city placement means about 3 times more cities than OCP, corrupt cities appear even before the end of the REX phase .


About your screenshot, you still miss the point: sitting on Lugdunum's food tiles certainly hurts Lugdunum. Does it also hurt Brennus? Yes since Lugdunum is his last city. OTOH pillaging an outer town of say a 30 cities empire (and that's not a large territory) will hurt the town, not the empire

 

[TheOverseer714]

Specialist farms an exploit? I don't think so. They are the rational players response to the ridiculous corruption model, much less an "exploit" than getting into the editor and tweaking everything in sight. Communism having lower corruption than Democracies or Republics has to be Firaxis' idea of a joke. I guess you OCP players must like lower scores, because waiting to go commie before your empires are worth a damn is a sure way to lower your score. Sure, scores aren't everything, but it's sure nice to see Ugh the Warrior hit the top rung, and being on top of the list is the reward for playing well. I'm still waiting to see an OCP player make the top 50 in the hall of fame on this site.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I'll bet you even mod the Infantry to have 3 movement and an attack of 20. Nah, that's not an exploit....

 

[TheOverseer714]

I'm just poking holes in your arguments, you seem to have a smug, condescending attitude as to the rightness of your opinions and how wrong everyone else is. Everything you do is okay, and everyone else exploits the game if they do it differently. Admittedly, you do bring out the worst in me, so I'll refrain from commenting any further after your posts.

 

[Pyrrhos]

Specialist farms an exploit? I don't think so. They are the rational players response to the ridiculous corruption model, much less an "exploit" than getting into the editor and tweaking everything in sight.

Really? I'm glad you brought it up but the rational person, upset by something fixes it if within his/her power. If it is not, he/she finds ways to circumvent it of which the specialist farm is but one (without resorrting to the editor). As to the Editor, what is wrong with the idea that a strong military presence (i.e. barracks) deters private "enterprise"? Or that God/the Gods strike down or punish in the Afterlife those who consider their own welfare above that of others and the Church (ie temples/cathedrals)?

Furthermore, the corruption model is not the only nor the most ridiculous feature of Civ. The combat system is far worse. All civs have to be "equal" which results in ridiculous situations such as the Iroquoise being the preferred civ of "Top players". That the peerless Roman legions are represented by a 3-3-1 stat line in order to give other civs a chance? If the people at Firaxis had been smart, they would not have had to resort to so many construed "difficulty levels". Playing the Militaristic, Industrious and Commercial Romans with their 4-4-1 +1hp + enslave & build road/fort legions or the Scientific, Religious and Militaristic Arabs with a 5-2-3 + blitz Arabic knight would have been the easy options. Playing the Religious Iroquoise with a 2-1-2 + ignore terrrain Mohikan or the Seafaring and Commercial Dutch with a 1-2-4 flute (Dutch merchantman) would be true challenges.

And where did the Age of Sail disappear to? 100-gun ships-of-the-line ruled the seas from 1637 (Pett's Sovereign of the Seas aka Royal Sovereign) to 1859 when the French ironclad frigate Gloire entered service. Europe and the world of today was shaped during these 222 years, by fleets of these ships. What does Civ give us and how many build fleets of frigates?

Sometimes, knowledge of history and military matters get in the way of appreciating what is essentially a brilliant game that could have been oh so much better...

Communism having lower corruption than Democracies or Republics has to be Firaxis' idea of a joke. I guess you OCP players must like lower scores, because waiting to go commie before your empires are worth a damn is a sure way to lower your score. Sure, scores aren't everything, but it's sure nice to see Ugh the Warrior hit the top rung, and being on top of the list is the reward for playing well. I'm still waiting to see an OCP player make the top 50 in the hall of fame on this site.

Who cares about scores or where they place on the HoF? I play for enjoyment and in the unlikely event that I would ever get a game that would make me eligible for the HoF, I would be unaware of it because I never look at the score once I end a game. To me, the reward for playing well is to know that I have played well, better than I did the previous game!

 

[Pyrrhos]

Why, thank you!

Mind you, I am NOT attacking TheOverseer714, I quite like the guy. It's just the of an who's gone too long without either or properly distilled beverages of Pictic origin.

 

[Snarkhunter]

That the peerless Roman legions are represented by a 3-3-1 stat line in order to give other civs a chance? . . .

And where did the Age of Sail disappear to? 100-gun ships-of-the-line ruled the seas from 1637 (Pett's Sovereign of the Seas aka Royal Sovereign) to 1859 when the French ironclad frigate Gloire entered service. Europe and the world of today was shaped during these 222 years, by fleets of these ships. What does Civ give us and how many build fleets of frigates?

Sometimes, knowledge of history and military matters get in the way of appreciating what is essentially a brilliant game that could have been oh so much better...

Peerless legions? I believe the victors of Cannae would beg to differ with you. And the Parthians would be snickering from their saddles.

As for sail, there never were enough first-rates to be decisive for any navy during the period; these were prestige vessels, more than useful ones. (There weren't all that many fleet actions for the time period to begin with, compared to the number of wars & navies, but that is a different matter.) the real power of a navy was in the 3rd-rates & frigates, as evidenced by some numbers: in 1794, the RN disposed of 5 1sts, 9 2nds, & 71 3rds, with 88 5th & 6th-rate frigates. 20 years later, the RN disposed of 87 3rds, 121 5ths--but only 5 2nds & 7 1sts. Looks to me like someone was busy building fleets of frigates during that time--and losing their 100-gunners. I agree that a 74 would be a nice historic addition, but the tech pace is so accelerated by then that I can understand why it was omitted.

And as it happens, in my current 'pelago I have built a fleet of frigates, & very useful vessels they have proven to be. But I prefer my Desron 1

kk

 

[Theov]

Can some moderator give these idiots a warning and delete all this offtopic bullcrap?
Overseer: don't try to be right all the time. Who cares.
Meisen: don't be an asswanker all the time.