Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ideal city to city distance in Civ V?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ideal city to city distance in Civ V?

    In the past Civ games, the ideal city to city distance was pretty straight forward to determine based on the city screen/resource view. But I am a bit at a loss of whether this holds true in Civ V.

    Any thoughts from the more perceptive community out there?
    "Laughter is the most powerful weapon ever created. Against laughter, nothing stands!"

  • #2
    Originally posted by hroman21 View Post
    In the past Civ games, the ideal city to city distance was pretty straight forward to determine based on the city screen/resource view. But I am a bit at a loss of whether this holds true in Civ V.

    Any thoughts from the more perceptive community out there?
    in Civ5 there is no longer any distance-to-palace(s) penalty. in other words, you're free to settle wherever you like.

    beyond that, i tend to settle around good locations rather than on a fixed-distance basis. the reason is that whilst you have potential access to 3 tiles in every direction, in practice you'll rarely field more than 10 citizens per city, even if you have more.

    as such, there's no reason why you should settle city-to-city in a territory. instead, aim for the resources. mix this resource strategy with the occasional 'filler' city.

    "organic", n'est-ce pas?

    Comment


    • #3
      I just won a huge immortal space race, by a long way, by placing my cities the minimum distance apart. I restricted their growth and built colleseums early to keep the hapiness in check. My science rate was +600 by the time I hit the modern age and my production was formidable. Im going to try another optimum placing/few cities strat next and see if I can even come close to that level of efficiency.
      Safer worlds through superior firepower

      Comment


      • #4
        The answer, of course, is "It Depends." In this case it depends on strategy and personal preference. It appears that ICS is overwhelming in SP, so in theory you would only leave two hexes in between. Grabbing resources is an important reason to stretch out, as is grabbing lebensraum in which to set up the tight ICS distribution. Personally, I prefer a more REX-like approach and leaving room to develop BIG cities, but that is probably less than optimal unless you're trying for a culture win with India, or similar strat.
        "...your Caravel has killed a Spanish Man-o-War."

        Comment


        • #5
          Depends on the map. But for me the biggest issue is in my homeland not leaving area for the AI to come in and build a dumb city for the AI but disrupting for me by screwing up road based trade routes.
          One example is I had the land totally covered except for 2 squares the reached into the mountains. One of the squares had iron so of course the AI swooped in and built a city on a spot that would never ever use more than two hexes. Annoying as hell.
          It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
          RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

          Comment


          • #6
            Yeah... and after they do that, that start whining about you have too many units near their borders, and how you are building too close to them...
            Keep on Civin'
            RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rah View Post
              Depends on the map. But for me the biggest issue is in my homeland not leaving area for the AI to come in and build a dumb city for the AI but disrupting for me by screwing up road based trade routes.
              One example is I had the land totally covered except for 2 squares the reached into the mountains. One of the squares had iron so of course the AI swooped in and built a city on a spot that would never ever use more than two hexes. Annoying as hell.
              Yep, I once started a war against Siam, because they planted 2 cities in a few worthless desert tiles, thereby dirsupting my trade network and splitting my realm in 2 (unfortunately in this war, the Persians, then my allies, conquered these 2 cities, because I first concentrated on taking some other cities, laying the foundations for my laterr war(s) against them).

              I have to say that with its eagerness to colonize, the Civ V AI somehow reminds me of the AI in Civ 3
              Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
              Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

              Comment


              • #8
                It's no different than the AI in Civ IV. In Civ IV, the AI builds cities in the most worthless places just to build cities. And they were well known for building a city in the middle of your territory if the area wasn't covered by your culture.
                Keep on Civin'
                RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                Comment


                • #9
                  I for my part had the experience that in Civ IV the AI would try to have its cities stick closer together and would be much less inclined to settle deep within your territory if it had still free room to settle next to its cities
                  Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
                  Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I will grant you that if they had land available next to their civ, that was their first choice... but once land nextto them ran out, they would look for land available near them, or just go on the warpath

                    I saw many split empires... and plenty of cities in other civs "territory".
                    Keep on Civin'
                    RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ming View Post
                      I will grant you that if they had land available next to their civ, that was their first choice... but once land nextto them ran out, they would look for land available near them, or just go on the warpath

                      I saw many split empires... and plenty of cities in other civs "territory".
                      Yes, I agree with you there.
                      The AI in Civ V on the other hand, seems to be much less reluctant to settle far away from their "main territory" and will often send settlers far away, next to "enemy territory" even while there is still plenty of good settlement space next to them.
                      Similar to the Civ III AI (which however seemed to do it for other reasons...mainly because it was able to see strategic resources, before it discovered the necessary technology to see them and therefore, for example, would settle far away in the midst of a desert because it knew that, in 1000-2000 years, a source of oil or saltpeter would appear there)
                      Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
                      Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        IF there's a resource the AI doesn't have, it will settle to get it regardless of where the resource is. Without a distance penalty it's actually easier to program the ai to go for it.
                        It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                        RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X