The size of your cities

V.O.C.'02 · May 8, 2002, 05:10

maybe this is a very dumb question, but what are the exact benifits of bigger cities (next to higher score, better defence)
what are the benefits in term of production and commerce, should I see this cittizen-wise or citie-tile-wise?

please be gentle on me, for I's unworthy of your wrath

spy14 · May 8, 2002, 06:31

The more citizens you have the larger the available workforce. So you'll see more shields and commerce being produced on the city screen, but remember city improvements such as factorys and banks will also increase production. But if you dont like cities getting big just starve them....

Inverse Icarus · May 8, 2002, 06:37

aside from working more tiles, meaning more shields and production, larger cities have benefits if you are certain civs.

industrial civs get extra shields, commercial get extra trade arrows.

i dont remember if u need 6 or 12 to get the benefits.

also, for defense.

a city of size 6 no longer needs city walls, it gets the defensive bonus (50% i think?) on its own. a city 12+ gets a higher bonus (100%?)

thats why its harder to take a larger AI city with a small force.

Harovan · May 8, 2002, 07:31

If you don't want to milk a game for high score, growing a city over size 20 is plain useless, as taxmen+sicentists are ineffective (with standard rules). On the countrary, such cities are a pain until recycling, because they produce an awful pollution. I try to build my cities dense, so that only 10-12 citizens have food. That saves a lot of money for hospitals, mass transports and recycling centers. Plus, less citizens are happier and most time in the WLT*D, what additionally reduces corruption. Usually I build only 5 hospitals needed for battlefield medicine.

Cookie Monster · May 8, 2002, 07:49

Right, I usually build my cities >12 simply to milk the score. Plus the extra entertainers help out during times of war!

Jethro83 · May 8, 2002, 08:06

Since I am an aggressive expansionist and burn all enemy cities (or abandon them), I continually send settlers into the vacuum left by my forces. Since settlers take 2 citizens, my cities don't have the problem of getting too big.

I will have metros, but I won't be going any further in population than the amount of people it takes to work every square around the city, plus about two entertainers.

Zachriel · May 8, 2002, 08:44

I usually let my cities grow "naturally" to 20 in size where practical. I still maintain WLTKD in most cities and usually have very high production. This strategy leverages the buildings. For instance, instead of two cities with 10 citizens each working 20 tiles with two marketplaces and two factories, I have one city working 20 tiles with only one marketplace, and only one factory.

nato · May 8, 2002, 09:02

Quote:

This strategy leverages the buildings. For instance, instead of two cities with 10 citizens each working 20 tiles with two marketplaces and two factories, I have one city working 20 tiles with only one marketplace, and only one factory.

Ah lower upkeep costs! I have always been attracted to fewer cities because of this ... also with fewer cities you might have lower corruption.

I wonder if late in the game, when your cities have many buildings, if the lower upkeep costs ever catches up to the powerful bonuses of having many cities. Sort of a late game inverse ICS.

I kind of doubt it though. If you have lots of cities, most of them are corrupt and don't have buildings to pay upkeep anyway.

Still, having fewer cities is attractive, and not just because of the lower upkeep. You also have less management headache and each city might actually be special instead of one of hundreds.