query: City spacing

[Blackfish]

I know... I am opening up a horrible can of worms... But I really have to ask which people have been finding most effective when dealing with the grow-like-the-plague AI.

Alas, I am at a loss and supplicate myself before the wisdom of the grizzled and knowing sages of Civ3...

Query:

[1] spacing grid as proposed by Velociryx:
Under the following grid layout, you'll find your empire to be VERY productive!!!

Key:
F = Forbidden Palace
P = Palace
_ = Nothing (space marker)
0 = City

0____0____0____0____0
0____0____0____0____0
0____F____0____P____0
0____0____0____0____0
0____0____0____0____0

[2] DeafHawk’s Triple-Ring Plan
Cities spaced rings around the capital.

-----

The first seems to be the most effective use of land in terms of space, and would allow one to churn our truly repulsive numbers of those cheap ancient era troops... but would take forever in building modern units or wonders.

The second is the type I generally favour, but has the problem as a player of being incredibly spread out in comparison to the AI - which leads me to wonder if DeafHawk's plan only bears fruit REALLY late in the game (when cities start hitting 20's and 30's) and is a detriment for the rest of the game (usage and increased corruption caused by bloated distances between cities.

Advice from the sages of Civ3? Perhaps a screen cap or two with accompanying explanation?

Note:
Sacrificial chicken escaped during initial attempt to scan. Subsequent beheding caused electrical fire in. Apologies. Will upgrade to the blood-proof "Electronic Gods Sacrificial Altar - Enterprise v1.54" as soon as it is released by high priest, "QA".

[CB2034]

Originally posted by Blackfish

Note:
Sacrificial chicken escaped during initial attempt to scan. Subsequent beheding caused electrical fire in. Apologies. Will upgrade to the blood-proof "Electronic Gods Sacrificial Altar - Enterprise v1.54" as soon as it is released by high priest, "QA".

Uhh... Yeah... What you said...

Am I the only one who didnt get this?

[Grim Legacy]

I find that a lot simply depends on the shape of the land. Capitols have a habit of not lying in the middle.

Having said that, I admit I'm a perfectionist and build cities as close as possible, *without* a single square of overlap. Corruption logic dictates a general 'blob-like' city grid... but preventive terrain-snatching may come into play too.

*shuffles foot* I admit razing enemy cities for 'square violations'.

[Blackfish]

Originally posted by CB2034


Uhh... Yeah... What you said...

Am I the only one who didnt get this?

Er... when you ask questions of the ancient wise men, you usually have to offer a sacrifice of some sort - chickens being the most common in carribean voodoo, it seems... Though the only religion I am familiar with is quimbanda - which is a little obscure for most readers...

[Blackfish]

Originally posted by CB2034


Uhh... Yeah... What you said...

Am I the only one who didnt get this?

Er... when you ask questions of the ancient wise men, you usually have to offer a sacrifice of some sort - chickens being the most common in carribean voodoo, it seems... Though the only religion I am familiar with is quimbanda - which is a little obscure for most readers...

[eMarkM]

Building an empire in concentric circles around your capital sounds nice in theory, but I find it's impractical. (I play Monarch and up) One, your palace is generally very close to a coast so it's impossible to do this from the start. Two, building a little perfectionist empire like this does not take into consideration resources and the AIs building. Now always build a good core of 2-3 cities around your capital, that's usually enough in the early game. But for further expansion consider the following as I think it's more important than the ring theory.

When you see the patch of available--but far off--ivory and it doesn't fit into your little circle around your capital, you're making a huge mistake ignoring it while trying to make your empire aesthetically pleasing and corruption free. Get your settler out there and claim it! Who cares if it produces little from corruption, getting that extra incense or iron or whatever is more important. Claiming as much of these as you can is priority one and it doesn't matter what kind of patch work quilt your empire looks like at first.

When you discover the first couple of AIs around you, you have to rush your settlers toward them and block them off. Again, no consideration for corruption and distance from capital. Your hope is to squeeze at least one of them into a small space to restrict their expansion.

So I usually start out w/ a core 3-4 cities around capital producing nicely, everything else is spread to the Four Winds. I'll have lots of gaps and non contiguous borders. At this point I'll try to consolidate and fill in behind my resource/AI stopper cities to flesh out my eventual borders.

As far as Faux Palace goes, yeah, do it as Vel says, if you can. Far and away the best thing to do is dominate one of the neighbors you cordoned off and take over their empire completely. All of their cities will generally be completely corrupt as they'll be far from your core. Put your Faux Palace (hopefully rushable w/ Leader) right in the middle of your conquests and it should approximate the diagram you posted. This should give you a 25-35 city empire that will have approx 20-25% corruption, which is very reasonable for that size of an empire. I have lost very few games that I've been able to do this in because you have a monster capable of keeping up w/ AI in production, growth, science & military.

e

[rutiger53]

As far as I can see there's no benefit to spacing your cities to give them the maximum workable number of terrain squares. Which means, don't buy into picking your city site by following a fixed pattern.

I expand into the best open terrain and although I don't squeeze in as many cities in Civ 3 as I did in Civ 2 or A.C., I always try to ensure my cities will make use of as much land as I can, without worrying if there is some overlap.

Of course in the early stages, you have to rush to certain spots to ensure you get the resource tiles or choke points before the AI but once you have set your initial borders you backfill trying to fill all the gaps between your cities.

I do it this way because Corruption is a factor of distance and several smaller cities can be more productive than a couple large ones especially if they're closer to your Capital. In addition filling the gaps stops the other civ's from wandering around in your empire. It drives me nuts to have another civ build a city inside my empire and grab the strategic resource I didn't even know was there. (I know I can convert the city with Culture but I hate having to stare at that city for turn after turn while I wait for it to "see the light".

[Velociryx]

In the end, unless you're a diehard purist, it all depends on the map and the number of strategic sacrifices you are willing to make.

For me, my A#1 Priority is blocking the AI's expansion. Don't care how....don't care what it does to my production or corruption. This means early game cities cast out (generally in a line) 4 tiles apart (city....space....space....space....city). This gives me an ever-growing, enforcable border that I can bully the AI away from, with plans to backfill later on. If they don't like it....if they insist on border violations, then war is declared (and prolly would have been anyway). For me, it really is that important!

Once I've established the outer periphery of my early empire, it is as has been said before....time to start plinking away at your neighbors (though these days, rather than focusing on killing one off entire, I'm more inclined to bruise ALL of them, and THEN kill one off, with the FP going in the midst of the biggest cluster of cities I can find)....all the while, of course, I'm also busy backfilling into whatever territory I initially laid claim to with my early game blocking, and in this case, it's about maximization of land use for me. If I can grow two decent cities close together cos there just happens to be four cows in a group....I'll plop the cities down close together. If the terrain is such that I'd be better off with a no-overlap spacing, and I feel the city can be adequately defended despite the lag in time to march reinforcements to it, I'll space as widely as I can get away with....also, if I'm jumping across a desert, but still wanna claim it....wide spacing.

The no-overlap rule would be much more important, IMO, if specialists actually DID something. As it stands now, I can plant all cities an average of 4 tiles apart, deal with some overlap, and have my core cities be as productive as a purist's for the vast majority of the game (until the cities grow past size 20)

Assuming you don't always have roads finished to every new city you build, for the speed advantage in setting up, I can live with that....

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

I think the path to victory you choose to follow should dictate city planning.

From a despotic military point of view, build all your cities, regardless of spacing, next to at least 1 bonus food square. Also build cities on the resource they are built to claim if at all possible.

In a peaceful expansionist strategy (non culture oriented), remember that the AI won't try to build a city with only 1 space between it and one of your cities. This allows 4 tile spacing between your cities. When playing this way, I find that building each city so that there are 2 overlap tiles (one from each of 2 cities) is most effective in claiming territory and unseen resources. I have yet to have the AI build cities inbetween the gaps in this spacing pattern. This is my favorite expansion pattern, as it can be easily switched to either the military or cultural mindset later on in the game.

In a cultural strategy, it is best to leave gaps near your center, and let the AI build where they will be assimilated.

As far as the palace is concerned, it usually is in an area where it only offers 1 sided benefits to start. I try to build the FP in a central location, with at least 2 rings of cities around it. Depending on my leader situation, I can then reposition my palace to another area where 2 rings of cities will be effected. Overlapping the ranges of the FP and Palace don't seem to give much of a bonus to those cities in the overlapping areas, though I haven't tested this much. Making sure that they don't overlap, as much as possible, makes for the most number of productive cities.

I find that using an expansion pattern actually increases the number of resources I can claim. During the expansion phase, other than claiming at least 1 horse, or 1 iron, most of the resources you will need in the game won't be visible. Following a pattern means that any later resources that show up in your territory won't fall between the cracks, or have been claimed by the AI (especially important at higher difficulties, as the AI will usually "see" resources first).

Here is a rough sketch of my favorite expansion pattern. (rotated 45 degrees)

00000000800000000
00000000000000008
00008000000000000
00000000000080000
80000000000000000
00000000800000000
00000000000000008
00008000000000000
00000000000080000
80000000000000000

0 Overlapped Tile
8 City
0 Claimed Tile
0 Unclaimed Tile

edit: row 9 column 10 is unclaimed like it should be now.
re-edit: this italics tag is now closed as it should be

When the cities are first founded, the overlapped tiles created a cultural link to each new city, even if the old cities borders haven't expanded yet. Also, between cities in a N and S direction when just founded, there will be a culture gap of 2 tiles, this is the maximum you can have and still ensure that the AI will not build in the gaps, as building in either of the spaces would put the AI city with only 1 space between it and your city. The overlap actually helps a lot, as inner cities don't have to have strong garisons (warriors do just fine in there). This is because the fast units of the AI will have to cross at least 1 space of your culture border, or take the long route of the diagonal gaps that run through your territory. Because of this I usually connect the cities with roads that follow through the overlapped space, so the AI cannot use my roads to quickly move throughout my culturally unclaimed territory. This gives my forces 2 or 3 rounds of "free" shots on the attackers, as they usually beeline for the less defended inner cities. I find that building a civ incrementally out from my center, that I expand faster. This is due to the fact that settlers reach their city sites in the shortest possible time, themselves then adding settlers to the expansion faster. Also this adds 1 extra space of road(city square) to your network for the next settler to use on their way. Overall I have the fastest territory expansion with this pattern, if not the largest cultural bounderies. This is because the cultural borders are assumed for later in the game when individual cities borders expand, as the AI has never chosen to build between my cities. This gives me a better chance at claiming "unseen" resources. If an important early resource is found in the gaps, I can always build a "safe" colony, as the AI borders cannot touch it.

[Trash]

Wow thats an awesome spacing strategy Aeson, I was trying to figure one out at work yesterday and gave up

thanks

[Aeson]

I played a game (Monarch) through most of the expansion period to show the strengths and weakness's of this type of planned expansion. I'm attaching the save file for anyone interested in checking it out.

Some of the interesting things..

The pattern made me miss 4 ivory. Because of the way the AI avoids settling in the culture gaps, my ivory colony is safe for as long as you need it and aren't at war with the Romans.

Also, I was able to actually outpace the Roman expansion, even though my capitol was on somewhat of a peninsula. My expansion for the most part had to be limited to South and West, and thus longer transition times between when a settler is built, and when they can found a new productive city. (13 Greek cities, 12 Roman)

My "inner" cities need little to no fortifications, partly because of the luxury that makes garrison units unessesary, and partly because there is at least a 3 to 5 turn buffer area that the AI has to cross before they can get to those cities.

A large worker population was able to make roads to future city sites well in advance, and bring irrigation to the mid-continental plains. These workers also are part of the numbers deterent that keeps Caesar from feeling I'm weak (even though I am, but a few pop-rushed horsemen would mean the end of the Roman existance).

The AI tends to avoid crossing culture boundaries when other routes are available to them. This means the diagonal culture gaps cause the Romans take round about routes to their destinations in many cases. If you play on farther, the Romans will settle the area on the coast that I have positioned a hoplite, as it has a 2 tile area not adjacent to my cities cultural borders.

This was from the Civfanatics GOTM2, so I was familiar with the layout of the land already. I disregarded tech, as I just wanted to show the expansion pattern. I highly recommend trying the GOTM feature, its quite enjoyable, and a well run contest.

One other thing about the roads.. For the most part, I tried to keep them within cultural boundaries. Where crossings of the diagonal culture gaps made sense (for settler and troop movement), I tried to keep each road to 1 space outside of my cultural borders. This makes the roads useless to the Romans.

I would have just attached a .jpg, but I currently don't have any image editing software on this computer, and doubt that anyone would appreciate a large .bmp to have to load up

[MisterMuppet]

This really depends on the situation you find yourself in. The first thing to do is scout out the immediate area. Without adequate terrain information mistakes can easily be made. For example if you find yourself on an island by yourself you would want your cities spaced differently than if you were on a continent and trying to cut off an opponent.
The ultimate test for any strategies found on this forum is multiplayer, but at the moment we can only wait and hope.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by rutiger53
As far as I can see there's no benefit to spacing your cities to give them the maximum workable number of terrain squares. Which means, don't buy into picking your city site by following a fixed pattern.

I expand into the best open terrain and although I don't squeeze in as many cities in Civ 3 as I did in Civ 2 or A.C., I always try to ensure my cities will make use of as much land as I can, without worrying if there is some overlap.

Of course in the early stages, you have to rush to certain spots to ensure you get the resource tiles or choke points before the AI but once you have set your initial borders you backfill trying to fill all the gaps between your cities.

I do it this way because Corruption is a factor of distance and several smaller cities can be more productive than a couple large ones especially if they're closer to your Capital. In addition filling the gaps stops the other civ's from wandering around in your empire. It drives me nuts to have another civ build a city inside my empire and grab the strategic resource I didn't even know was there. (I know I can convert the city with Culture but I hate having to stare at that city for turn after turn while I wait for it to "see the light".

Sadly, many small cities DO carry the penalty of having too many cities in Civ3: an empire-wide increase in corruption.

[MarshalN]

I think any city should not have more than 6 or 7 squares that overlap another city. To have that many will seriously hinder growth and long term production, especially if they're part of your core group. I usually have 2 or 3 overlap with each city, so maybe 4 or 5 total per city. I keep 3 spaces between cities, with an offset of usually 1 or maybe 2, so I maximize the space I have by putting in as many cities as possible without overlapping too much.

But it totally depends on the map. If it's on grassland, I might allow for more overlaps. If it's on bad lands.... like plains or deserts and such, I'll give them more space for obvious reasons.

[shyaway]

first time posting, but here goes =)

anyways, this is what my preference on building cities around palace... (of course, may have to alter here and there a bit due to terrain)

C - Cities
P - Palace
= - empty
hint: tilt your head 45 degrees

==========C==========
=====================
======C=========C====
=====================
==C==================
==========C==========
=============C====C==
======C==============
=====================
=====================
C====C====P====C====C
=====================
=====================
==============C======
==C====C=============
==========C==========
==================C==
=====================
====C=========C======
=====================
==========C==========

chances are you'll be able to maket he inner circle
this design makes 8 "perfectly" distanced from the palace
you'll have total of 9 cities having lil' to no corruption =)

of course, u can use the same strat. for forbidden palace, totalling 16 non-corrupt cities!!

[Aeson]

Just a little tidbit when considering city placement.

Corruption due to distance doesn't treat all tiles equally. The tiles that share a side count as 1 space. Tiles that only share a corner (diagonals, even though they are the N,S,E,W tiles from a game screen standpoint) count as more. The first diagonal counts for 2 spaces, as does the second. The third diagonal counts for 1 space. 4th,5th, and 6th diagonals follow the same pattern, and I am assuming that all others do as well.

[Skanky Burns]

And heres for the lazy people... a jpg Aeson's mighty empire



If this messes ppls browsers up, just let me know and ill shrink the pic a bit more