Why A Denser Build is Better

[Spoonwood]

Many new players (I've seen multiple saves elsewhere) often have their cities at something like CxxxxC spacing, if not wider! It's not as good as a denser build. Not only does your empire cities have less corruption in core cities, since they sit closer to your capital, but those cities get planted more quickly. Additionally, and more powerfully, your citizens end up using all tiles in your core instead of having tiles that don't get used. More cities also implies that growth happens earlier, and your empire has greater total commerce and shield output at an earlier date.

And you do NOT always need 13 used tiles for citizens to work. In truth, a denser build than 12 tiles per city can be better. As an example, this size 8 city produces 20 shields per turn:

It's not until 27 shields when 3 turn cavalry would apply. This city isn't mobilized, but if it were it likely would already have 27 shields per turn, or if it were just short due to corruption, then it could have either the hill or mountain railroaded. And though I don't plan on factories in this game, if I were building them, 27 shields per turn before a factory turns into 40 shields per turn with a factory, and over 50 shields per turn once the city has a power plant one way or another.

 

[justanick]

Not only does your empire cities have less corruption in core cities, since they sit closer to your capital,

This however matters mostly before you have courthouses and especially during despotism when distance corruption matters more than rank corruption.

In the later phases of the game rank corruption matters more, which favours fewer cities to cover the same amount of tiles. But even then the difference in corruption is outweighted by the difference in maintenance costs of buildings, also favouring fewer but larger metros.

Up to the middle of the middle age a denser settling pattern of slighty less than 13 tiles per city tends to be clearly superior.

Starting around the middle of the industrial age a wider settling pattern of slighty more than 16 tiles per metropolis tends to be clearly superior.

 

[Spoonwood]

This however matters mostly before you have courthouses and especially during despotism when distance corruption matters more than rank corruption.

I can't say I think that rank corruption matters that much.

064 in the following screenshot for a Large map makes 20 shields per turn!

But even then the difference in corruption is outweighted by the difference in maintenance costs of buildings, also favouring fewer but larger metros.

Yea, I don't think I agree here either. If you study the above build, you can see 7 cities in the first ring around the capital. Part of the reason for that was the hills, and well, having cities on hills produces more food and thus another citizen than using a hill. If we had a wider build, it probably would be like 3 cities around the capital.

Now, sure you might think that modern era commerce for the wider build would outdo the above. But, with the Pyramids/Bach's city above it produces over 27 shields per turn, and the other 6 all produces at least 20 shields per turn. Over 12 turns they could make 22 cavalry. A wider build with each city theoretically making 27 shields per turn but with 4 cities only MAYBE they could produce 16 cavalry over 12 turns. Note: mobilization is NOT active in the above screenshots! If it were, or each city had a factory, the 7 city setup instead of 4 ends up even more powerful comparatively!

But, the upshot of the denser build lies in that territory can get captured earlier, and that implies ICS specialist farms can get setup earlier. Those snowball and make up any difference if not outdo a wider core by the modern era commerce wise.

So, nope, I just don't agree that the wider build does better industrial era and later. But, thanks for the discussion.

 

[justanick]

I can't say I think that rank corruption matters that much.

Unless taken to the extreme it tends be over lower importance. At slightly less than 13 tiles per city it does indeed not matter that much and on larger maps it does take longer to reach a point at which rank corruption reaches say 50%.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

If a denser build is better (and it certainly would have been in my current game, which I have made a mess of & may restart to do differently), would one then abandon smaller towns so the larger ones can grow even bigger? Otherwise they'd be too close together later in the game even if it makes sense earlier on.

 

[justanick]

If a denser build is better (and it certainly would have been in my current game, which I have made a mess of & may restart to do differently), would one then abandon smaller towns so the larger ones can grow even bigger? Otherwise they'd be too close together later in the game even if it makes sense earlier on.

The simple approach is to go for slightly less then 13 tiles per city from the start and just keep it that way. That approachs works well if you achieve a domination victory using cavalry. If hospitals have no reasonable chance to make a difference, then simply plan on not using them from the start. That works quite well for probably more than 90% of cases.

Hospitals can have a real impact, but their impact is seldomly meaningful. They are far more useful then say temples, but in the end their subjective value (building up a civilization) is higher than their objective value. Does this make any sense?

Personally i prefer to plan with hospitals. And this implies to found some towns knowing well that they will be abandoned somewhen between the middle of the middle age and the middle of the industrial age. Jon Shafer coined the term "Camp" cities.

City placement is often the other great quandary of inexperienced players along with building too few Workers.[...]

Tight city-spacing is one of the most important things to ensure maximum power and growth.[...]

"Camp" cities can be set up with the express purpose of disbanding them in the future. Thus when you run out of tiles to work in your more important cities you can reduce and eventually disband the camps and allow the other cities to grow even more. In the meantime you gain all of the production and commerce from the camp cities while they exist. It's a win-win situation. You can later disband these cities to allow others to grow to size 12 and beyond when raw production from individual cities is more important in order to build the expensive ICBMs and spaceship parts. But in the early game closer city spacing is important in order to make the most of your land.

City placement also has something to do with the type of game you're playing and your game situation. If you're by yourself on a landmass or for some reason have no reason to fear a war, you can build your cities a bit further apart with long-term potential in-mind. Or when war is a constant threat a close city spacing for greater production in the short-term and the ability to transfer garrisons between cities in a single turn becomes more of an advantage. Terrain can also affect city spacing, with marsh, mountain and generally unproductive terrain needing special consideration.

 

[Spoonwood]

If a denser build is better (and it certainly would have been in my current game, which I have made a mess of & may restart to do differently), would one then abandon smaller towns so the larger ones can grow even bigger?

It's conceivable to do so and for it to make sense. But, rarely does it make sense to do so, since there's either a population loss or trying to race settlers or workers out of a city to go grow some other city. So, it's a bit awkward, and there might exist something lost in the transition.

Also, even with a denser build hospitals STILL can end up useful. In the above game, sure you see a size 8 city. But, if you notice in the screenshot, Sanitation gets researched. Well, the plan goes to go all the way to 2050 AD and go for high score (though it's only Monarch, so at best it will end up in the HoF once back up with I think over 22,000 points maybe?). So, the size 8 city with 6 mined grassland tiles can reach size 14 once a hospital gets built and all tiles grassland tiles gets irrigated. Or maybe those tiles get reassigned to some other city once some other nearby cities have hospitals.

Taking a look at the picture, it looks like 002 could get abandoned AND all of it's tiles get used by some other city, once say 001 no longer will produce workers and can use the wheat, and the surrounding cities have excess specialists. That would yield another happy citizen working a tile (a size 1 city uses it's city center but only has one citizen working a tile which is not the city center), and thus should work better for score in the long run, once it's population gets moved.

But, with coastal cities trying to use as many sea squares as possible, abandoning tight cities for a bigger spread doesn't tend to make sense if talking about land tiles (abandoning cities to get the corner tile as the city center DOES make sense in the vast majority of cases). Abandoning cities to take up more land tiles, on the other hand, can make sense. Except when talking about cities on a hill. Cities on a hill stay, as does a pattern to maximize sea square usage... so keeping a dense build tends to end up as a no-brainer.

 

[tjs282]

@WeirdoJoker, one of the things I've started doing (or trying to do, if the AI lets me!) in recent games -- DG, Standard size, otherwise all-random maps -- is to try and Settle my first ring of "permanent" towns at roughly corruption-distance 4(.5) from my capital -- that is, CxxxC diagonally to CxxC horizontally/ vertically. 1st-ring sites towards the AI get priority, so that I don't lose them.

The 1st-ringers will go roughly CxxC from each other (with some flexibility allowed for optimal planting adjacent to freshwater and/or projecting coastal tiles). If I've found a good potential 2nd-ring FP site, I'll put that one another 4(.5) beyond the nearest 1st-ring town(s); if not, the FP will likely go in the 1st-ringer with the greatest number of exclusive land-tiles. Ideally, this gets me 7-9 core towns, and also secures enough tiles that they can all reach Pop11-12 (freshwater and AI allowing), even before they've built any Culture -- with the capital (and future FP-town) working the best tiles in its BFC, and the (other) 1st-ringers working the leftovers.

But, crucially, and especially if I get boxed in too quickly -- e.g. because I've rolled an 80%-water Pan/Cont map, and/or I'm landlocked, and/or I have Agri or Exp neighbours who've planted towns right in my face -- the wider 1st-ring plant usually also leaves enough space for 4-6 "camps" to be planted in the gaps within that 1st ring, and all towns + camps should then be able to reach at least Pop7-8 (for the city-level free unit-support in early Republic).

If/when I ever want to shrink those camps down later -- e.g. to free up tiles for the permanent 1st-ringers, or to plant lower-corruption 2nd-ring towns after gov-switching -- they can be switched to building only Settlers/Workers, and MM'd for zero to negative FPT, allowing them to be abandoned when down to their last pop-point(s).

Any 2nd-ring plants I can make in the early game (again, AI permitting!) will go roughly CxxC beyond those 7-9 core towns, but 2nd-ringers will generally only be planted in guaranteed safe areas initially. I usually wouldn't start planting 2nd-ringers towards any AI-Civs until after I've won my first war.

(How do I decide if I won? Easy: if I'm still on the board, and I didn't lose any important towns, that's a win! If I also managed to conquer something, or got any concessions out of my enemy in exchange for peace, that's gravy!).