Optimal City Placement

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Hi all,

What is the optimal distance between cities?

I've always played it so that there's 4 spaces between each city, so that
my cities aren't stepping on each others' borders and stealing resources
from each other. However I read an article last night on CivFanatics that
talks about placing them 2 or 3 spaces apart, at least during the early
game, and then disbanding them once resources begin to get tight.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <Xns952F7A982260Dqwertyuiop@129.250.170.86>, Don Quixote <donquixote235@hotmail.[takethispartout].com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>What is the optimal distance between cities?

The standard answer is "that depends."

>I've always played it so that there's 4 spaces between each city, so that
>my cities aren't stepping on each others' borders and stealing resources
>from each other. However I read an article last night on CivFanatics that
>talks about placing them 2 or 3 spaces apart, at least during the early
>game, and then disbanding them once resources begin to get tight.

The question is what are you optimizing?

If you want to be able to work any and all the tiles while placing the fewest
number of cities then the optimum city arrangement is 4 empty tiles between
city centers in one direction and the third city centered between them offset
by 4 tiles. I think of it as 5x4 spacing. Each city can have exclusive
access to 20 tiles.

The problem is that a city without a Hospital can only work 13 tiles, the city
center and 12 more, if you have enough happiness. So the 5x4 spacing is only
optimal in the Industrial Era after you get Sanitation. Prior to that you
want your cities to be more tightly packed.

A guy calling himself Sir Ralph came up with a system where you build the
cities in a 2x2 grid. Some (like half!) of the early cities don't get _any_
improvements and they just produce Settlers and Workers. He called these
cities worker camps. Once you can build Aqueducts you can disband these
worker camps so your remaining cities can grow. But only a half of the
remaining cities get Aqueducts, the other half (a quarter of the original
cities) get a barracks only and produce only military units. He called the
barracks only cities military camps. Under this plan you enter the Middle
Ages with half your cities able to grow to size 12 and the rest military camps
that slowly produce veteran units. The last stage is when you build Hospitals
and disband the military camps.

Seems like a lot of micro management to me buy it might work.

If you want to produce the maximum amount of culture then build the cities as
close together as you can. If you build cities (well slums) on a 2x2 grid and
build (or pop rush) a Temple and Library in each, you can produces 25 points
of culture from 20 tiles in Ancient Times. Of course corruption is going to
eat you alive.


Mike G

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 23 Jul 2004 17:03:11 GMT, Don Quixote
<donquixote235@hotmail.[takethispartout].com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>What is the optimal distance between cities?
>
>I've always played it so that there's 4 spaces between each city, so that
>my cities aren't stepping on each others' borders and stealing resources
>from each other. However I read an article last night on CivFanatics that
>talks about placing them 2 or 3 spaces apart, at least during the early
>game, and then disbanding them once resources begin to get tight.

I used to try an get the maximum city sizes with no overlap. The
trouble is in a highly competitive game there isn't time to build
hospital later so most of the squares go wasted. Therefore it is
often a good idea to overlap the cities. This provides lower
corruption because they are closer to the capital.

I guess the answer depends on how much space you have and what type of
win you are going for. If you want land domination and there is lots
of space then you need to spread out. If your room to grow is small
then you got a pack em in tight. Always leave enough room for 12
citizens though.

 

[daran]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 23 Jul 2004 17:03:11 GMT Don Quixote
<donquixote235@hotmail.[takethispartout].com> wrote in message
<Xns952F7A982260Dqwertyuiop@129.250.170.86>...

> Hi all,
>
> What is the optimal distance between cities?
>
> I've always played it so that there's 4 spaces between each city, so that
> my cities aren't stepping on each others' borders and stealing resources
> from each other. However I read an article last night on CivFanatics that
> talks about placing them 2 or 3 spaces apart, at least during the early
> game, and then disbanding them once resources begin to get tight.

I certainly wouldn't disband them. Improvements generate double culture
once they've been in existence for 1000 years, which makes those early
temples irreplaceable.

The criterion I use is simple. Use the maximum spacing that avoids letting
high value squares go to waste. In practice that tends to be 3-4 spaces
apart. When the map is completely uncovered my city spacing seems
indistinguishable from the AI's, judging from the map overview box at the
bottom left of the screen.

--
Daran

We found another: 2^24036583-1 is prime <http://www.mersenne.org>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In alt.games.civ3 on Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Don Quixote wrote :

>Hi all,
>
>What is the optimal distance between cities?

Totally depends on terrain & type of play, I'm afraid.
>
>I've always played it so that there's 4 spaces between each city, so that
>my cities aren't stepping on each others' borders and stealing resources
>from each other.

I normally go for minimum overlap too - but I think in terms of three
squares diagonally apart, perhaps with a 1 square side offset too, like
this :

1
X
X
X2

That way, they are still relatively close, but with minimal overlap.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 23 Jul 2004 17:03:11 GMT, Don Quixote
<donquixote235@hotmail.[takethispartout].com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>What is the optimal distance between cities?
>
>I've always played it so that there's 4 spaces between each city, so that
>my cities aren't stepping on each others' borders and stealing resources
>from each other. However I read an article last night on CivFanatics that
>talks about placing them 2 or 3 spaces apart, at least during the early
>game, and then disbanding them once resources begin to get tight.

There are many ways to do it. Tighter placement pays off in the
early game because the cities can't use more than 12 squares for a
very long time. By keeping the core area tight, you get less
corruption due to distance and have a smaller area to defend.

I don't like disbanding cities because of the value of culture
buildings, which goes up with time. But I do starve certain cities to
favor others, once I need the growth. Simply take workers off squares
and give them to the other cities (requires disabling the governor at
least temporarily).

How much expansion space you have also makes a difference. On
smaller maps or smaller continents, you can pack the cities tighter
without going above the optimum number of cities. Cities on the next
continent will suffer corruption from distance, which means that you
get more net production out of smaller closer cities.

Again, in the long run you can starve less than ideally placed
cities.

In the early game, city placement has two goals. First, growth --
you want to get as many cities out as fast as possible on productive
terrain, so you can make more settlers and thus, grab more terrain
(and more overall production). Second, resources, and also, strategic
position. The second class makes the goal of placement not distance,
but proximity to what you want to control. Even if the cities are
only two squares apart it can be worth it in order to secure a
resource. Another key goal is any one-square wide isthmus -- a city
there creates a "canal" as well as blocking movement across that
point.

Four squares apart (someone posted nice diagrams of this) is optimal
for minimal overlap. But I tend to draw some cities closer rather
than do that. Also, on bad terrain or distant continents, all I want
to do is claim territory, and for that, a 3 square radius (roughly 5
squares apart on average) is good enough *if* I have no competitors
dropping in between. But in practice, the AI *will* fill in any gaps
if it can get settlers.

I do the same thing. I'll drop a city two squares from an AI city,
intending to gain some space with culture, secure a resource, and flip
it. If I'm ready to go to war, I can just take the city, but if not,
"stealing" squares by overly close city placement is quite effective.
I find this to be especially effective when there are key resources on
a border edge square, so the new city can grab them right away.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

>
> What is the optimal distance between cities?
>

Terrain influences my placement a great deal. In grassland and\or plains I
use your strategy, as later in the game, I want those cities to grow to the
maximum, and these terrains will allow for this. However, in hilly and/or
mountainous terrain, it is rare for a city to be able to grow larger than,
say, 12 at best. I pack my cities closer together in such terrain so as to
get the most benefit from the settled territory. Basically, later in the
game, I want to make sure that every tile in my possession is being worked
so as to get the most production and income from my territory as possible.
in poor terrain, the only way this is possible is to pack your cities closer
together.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 08:01:20 +0100, Paul Hyett <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk>
wrote:

>I normally go for minimum overlap too - but I think in terms of three
>squares diagonally apart, perhaps with a 1 square side offset too, like
>this :
>
>1
> X
> X
> X2
>
>That way, they are still relatively close, but with minimal overlap.

In terms of best utilization with no overlap, the best layout is what I have
drawn here: http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/1.png - only 3 squares per city are
wasted (ie. outside of city radius). A more symmetrical layout:
http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/2.png is worse, because 4 squares per city are
wasted.

If you don't care for overlap, but want no wasted squares, the best is
http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/3.png - each city has two squares common with its
neighbours, and no squares are wasted. This is as good as it can get - a
layout with no waste *and* no overlap is mathematically impossible with this
shape of the city radius.

You can also modify this layout by rotating it 90 degrees.

Of course, this ideal layout isn't always possible, as you cannot build cities
on water nor on mountains.
--
Szymon Sokó³ (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested. -- Heinlein H

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:25:22 +0200, Szymon Sokó³
<szymon@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote:

>In terms of best utilization with no overlap, the best layout is what I have
>drawn here: http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/1.png - only 3 squares per city are
>wasted (ie. outside of city radius). A more symmetrical layout:
>http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/2.png is worse, because 4 squares per city are
>wasted.
....and so is http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/4.png - 4 wasted squares.
--
Szymon Sokó³ (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested. -- Heinlein H

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Szymon Sokó³" <szymon@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote in message
news:cdtnvi.3vv9nq9.1@sloth.hell.pl...

> In terms of best utilization with no overlap, the best layout is what
I have
> drawn here: http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/1.png - only 3 squares per city
are
> wasted (ie. outside of city radius). A more symmetrical layout:
> http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/2.png is worse, because 4 squares per city
are
> wasted.
>
> If you don't care for overlap, but want no wasted squares, the best is
> http://hell.pl/szymon/civ/3.png - each city has two squares common
with its
> neighbours, and no squares are wasted. This is as good as it can get -
a
> layout with no waste *and* no overlap is mathematically impossible
with this
> shape of the city radius.
>
> You can also modify this layout by rotating it 90 degrees.
>
> Of course, this ideal layout isn't always possible, as you cannot
build cities
> on water nor on mountains.
> --

I would not bother with wide spacing. I used to use patern 3. I now
pack the towns closer.

Frequently it may be how you wish to use the coastal squares that
influences sites. Capturing as much of the sea as possible can be vital
for domination.
For cash generation, the sea is fantastic.

I can't keep enough people happy for long enough without paying for
entertainment. Above 12, spending cash on entertainment seems such a
waste. There are no cash multipliers for entertainment. It looks
cheap, but the cost is huge when you consider that library, university,
research lab would have multiplied up that sum +50%, +50% and +50% etc.

I am a GOTM player with civfanatics. From the site you can download
everyone's submitted sav file. Some games have the towns very tightly
packed. It can be seen that in a defeated nation, the attacker places
new towns in the gaps between the basic 9 square cities. This makes it
difficult if a city flips for it to fully expand, and as the cities may
never be up to much because of corruption allows high culture growth
across the patch from a rushed temple/library combo.