City spacings

pa314 · December 29, 2002, 15:19

Usually when I play CTP2 I leave enough space between my cities so that they can grow to a reasonable size before they start nicking each others food etc.
I do this because by the time my cities get to this size the game is usually over (exception - Impossible difficulty level), however, looking around at the threads I see that many people build their cities much closer together. Obviously this saves time in the beginning but it prevents your cities from reaching their full potential.
In Civ 1&2 this wasn't a problem, but what should I do?
I would like take to a vote- How many people leave # spaces between their cities?
Oh and if you have a good reason for doing what you do, please reply.

Thanx

HuangShang · December 29, 2002, 15:46

3, but accutally, i dont place them according to spacing, does everone else?

anywany, they dont get closer to 2 so i pick 3 as an average

Maquiladora · December 30, 2002, 01:06

Hard to answer but i would say 4 spaces between each city, leaving each one to expand once.

In cradle id probably leave my earlier cities, like my capital to expand to 3 or 4 though. In apolyton pack id still go for 2 borders each.

If you can make out the terrible screenshot you can see where i veered off a perfect pattern to place cities on a river or by the sea instead. Im not saying its perfect, its just what i do. You can see the only city to expand twice has been my capital (circled in red) so far but the others are on the ready to burst too, but then again the game is almost won now so.

Probabaly not perfect, that big patch of fog of war between those cities on the coast is a bad idea in apolyton pack with barbarians all over, but you cant see a 12 stack of cavalry to the left.

Maquiladora · December 30, 2002, 01:09

forgot screenshot

Locutus · December 30, 2002, 09:55

I always want to control as much territory as possible (if only to minimize the territory my opponents can control), so due to the city limit I always try build build cities as far away from each other as possible. But of course, with cities far apart, it's necessary to have a good road network. So connecting borders is vital (as roads can only be built within borders), forcing me to keep most of my cities within 8 tiles of each other. To maximize resource collection in the early game and to reduce the barbarian threat, my inner cities are usually even closer together, which makes that I usually build cities 5-8 tiles apart. My rule of thumb is that at least every other city should be able to expand twice, so 5 tiles apart is normally the minimum. Because my games usually end before the modern age, expanding more than twice rarely happens, so strategic considerations aside, 6 would be the ideal distance to have between cities and because of that I voted for 6 in this poll.

Martin Gühmann · December 30, 2002, 13:46

One thing you have to consider is that cities in CTP2 have a maximum size of 60 in the standart game. Therefore even if the city covers the maximum number of tiles possible additional food is just a waste, so only additional commerce and production does make sense. But if the city is such big you don't need the additional ressources anymore, they will only add something to the pollution of this city. So you don't need cities that cover the maximum radius, smaller radii are also ok and you can found more cities in the early and the more cities you have in the early game the more powerfull you are in the early game.

-Martin

pa314 · December 30, 2002, 15:57

Everybody that views this thread please vote- there have been 39 viewings and only 4 votes, we'll get a mush better picture of the different types of stratergy if everybody votes.

Thanx.

Maquiladora · December 30, 2002, 16:03

Yeah but each of the posters have viewed this thread at least 2 or 3 times too, and then theres the lurker factor. Also i think the number is a little open to interpretation, you could count 5 spaces from one city to another, but thats 4 spaces in between, somewhat confusing poll too.

RunsWithDwarf · December 30, 2002, 16:29

Well, I tried to vote 4 but it keeps telling me my session is invalid.
But I was under the impression that the cities area of influence would not extend beyond 2 tiles out from the city anyhow.
Have I been somehow missinformed?

Martin Gühmann · December 30, 2002, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by RunsWithDwarf
Have I been somehow missinformed?

Yes. To make your city to expand beyond size 18 (or was it beyond size 17) in the original game you need an aqueduct. If the city expands beyond this size the city radius grow from two to three in the original game. There are more buildings that allows a city to grow beyond a certain size. Size 60 is the upper limit in the original game and will cover the area that is claimed by this city for your empire.

-Martin

Locutus · December 30, 2002, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by RunsWithDwarf
Well, I tried to vote 4 but it keeps telling me my session is invalid.

Log out and log back in. Then you should be able to vote again... in theory anyway

centrifuge · December 30, 2002, 17:58

I don't know my exact spacing, it sometimes will vary depending upon the terrain. In the early stages of the game I do kind of like Locutus pointed out and try to extend my border as much as possible as quickly as possible. Usually I just take my new settlers to a square or two outside of my Empire's border.

Tamerlin · December 30, 2002, 19:58

I usually try to let 8 tiles between my cities as I like them to grow, this can partly explain why I have some troubles to end the game before the time limit as I am loosing time in the earlier part of the game (I think I will create a thread in the future on this subject as I would like to win through the Science victory and end the game sooner, the advices of the veterans will greatly help...).

But I like to watch at my cities growing anyway, it's fun...

RunsWithDwarf · December 30, 2002, 20:43

Still no luck, Locutus.
It keeps telling me its an invalid session, then gives me an option to try a new session below that, bit when I click on it, I get the same results.
I don't know perhaps I'm doing something wrong, I tried your suggestion, of logging off then logging back on twice and recieved the same results. So I don't know what the problem may be.
I'm having no trouble posting however, which I guess is all that really counts in the end Ay!
At least I tried.

HuangShang · December 30, 2002, 23:32

uhoh, Locutus has a new pic

Oerdin · December 31, 2002, 03:39

I almost always have six spaces between cities.

Dauphin · December 31, 2002, 07:18

I get cities as far apart as I can without wasting land between them. Although this plan sometimes fails due to preferable city location and problem coastlines.

Most cities normally have space to expand at least twice.

Tamerlin · December 31, 2002, 08:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I almost always have six spaces between cities.

From your votes and comments I think 6 spaces is actually the best compromise between speed in the earlier part of the game and growth in the later part.

HuangShang · December 31, 2002, 14:07

so all u people do base city location on spacing, i do solely on geo and goods

Tamerlin · December 31, 2002, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by HuangShang
so all u people do base city location on spacing, i do solely on geo and goods

As far as I am concerned I try to leave the maximum space between my cities (but I think I will now opt for 6 tiles) but I build a city a bit closer (though I don't like it) or move a settler further away if there is a better location.

Maquiladora · December 31, 2002, 14:36

Actually every city i place is relative to the tile its on, then the tiles surrounding it and then how long the city is going to be there. Obviously if i base my capital on swampland its safer to only give it the chance to expand twice. I *always* make sure my city is on top of the most food productive tile in the neighbourhood, so it collects 100% from that tile every turn. Theres alot to be said to fitting each city into a jigsaw too(terrain permitting). I ignore goods for city placement, unless its goodmod, especially poppies and potatoes etc.

Happy New Year

almost

Oerdin · December 31, 2002, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by HuangShang
so all u people do base city location on spacing, i do solely on geo and goods

Spacing is very important but making sure you city is built on a river and next to the ocean is even more important. By and large I ignore the trade goods since they are mostly a waste of time and money; you almost never make enough profit from them to recoupe your intial investment so why bother?

Dauphin · December 31, 2002, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by HuangShang
so all u people do base city location on spacing, i do solely on geo and goods

Spacing and tesselation were possible. I'll sometimes even leave a space for a city and wait until I can terraform the land the city square will be on (such as if mountains or desert).

HuangShang · December 31, 2002, 17:30

good to see the relies

Immortal Wombat · January 1, 2003, 10:00

4 or 5 I think. Depends on the terrain.

hexagonian · January 1, 2003, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
By and large I ignore the trade goods since they are mostly a waste of time and money; you almost never make enough profit from them to recoupe your intial investment so why bother?

Depends on whether you have the Unit Updater code on your setup. That makes trade a lot more important.

Generally, I go with approx. 4, but I do not obsess with it either - whatever seems right at the moment.

Tamerlin · January 1, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by hexagonian
Depends on whether you have the Unit Updater code on your setup. That makes trade a lot more important.

I have already heard about the unit updater code Hexagonian, can it work for the SAP2? Is it possible to implement it into this mod? I haven't tested the cradle mod yet, I have installed it but I really like to play a game which is as close as possible to the original one, and the possibility to update units would be a major improvement of CtP2 as it would ease what is currently a burden (producing new units, moving them to garrison cities and removing older ones is a real pain when you are close to the end of a game when you have many cities and units).

HuangShang · January 2, 2003, 03:12

WaW might have it...

Dauphin · January 2, 2003, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin
(producing new units, moving them to garrison cities and removing older ones is a real pain when you are close to the end of a game when you have many cities and units).

Why bother removing old units. They hardly eat into your production, plus I find them useful for probing enemy defences.

Tamerlin · January 2, 2003, 08:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Why bother removing old units. They hardly eat into your production, plus I find them useful for probing enemy defences.

Around 1000 AD I generally don't have ennemies on the same continent as my empire, if I had to use older units to probe into ennemy territory I would have to use my transports for them instead of carrying the units needed to invade my ennemie's country. A loss of place and time which is not worth the deal when you have spies that can be used several times to study the defense of the targetted cities. Before I have conquered my continent, I actually use the older units to probe the territory of my ennemies and weaken them a bit before attacking with my "real" army.

Later, as those units are useless I prefer to remove them from the game even if the production cost is not really worth bothering, it makes more room for the modern units.