When to stop building new cities?

[DreamSlave2112]

Is there a point when you just stop building new cities, not just for lack of room, but just because time and money is better spent on things other than settlers? I generally stop somewhere around industrial age, just because by then I've run out of room and gettign another city off the ground just seems tedious unless I find a strategically good spot (near lots of resources, an island, near a ctubborn opponent city that just won't flip, {but never inside enemy territory, too risky}). Just wondering if I'm missign a good reason to still build cities when you're heading into the modern age

[Modo44]

In an epic game, I stop only when I run out of room for expansion. Even corrupt cities usually provide at least some cash and unit support (Yes, it is tedious.). Might stop earlier if it is a very low difficulty level. Might not be making Settlers in short scenarios, because then there is not enought time for the new city to grow and actualyl build useful things.

[joncnunn]

I assume your only refering to epic game? [Because in many of the Conquests there are easier ways to win than take over land]

In that case, if you are planning a rush against a nearby AI with better land, then there are usually city sites that should wait for the rush to be done.

In the epic game, I've never seen large empty holes by the time the Industrial age comes along. Just a few islands.

I will usually not bother to build cities on empty islands discovered post Navigation that are too far from my core area unless there is a luxary present.

[Elda king]

I stop building cities on the later Middle Ages, if you build cities after that they won't have improvments, will riot most of time and won't produce much because of corruption and waste; than I use my cavalries to get the enemy cities.

[Donegeal]

I stop once I decide to gear up for war. Once I gear up for war, I don't stop fighting until I win. Let the AI build the cities, you capture them.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Donegeal
I stop once I decide to gear up for war. Once I gear up for war, I don't stop fighting until I win. Let the AI build the cities, you capture them.

Exactly...So I guess that makes it early ancient age for me...

(ok, ok...going to war that early, I do need to fill in holes...)

[Dominae]

Re: When to stop building new cities?

Originally posted by DreamSlave2112
Is there a point when you just stop building new cities, not just for lack of room, but just because time and money is better spent on things other than settlers?

No. In the epic game, if you have room and are not being immediately threatened, keep expanding. Your return on additional cities is always worth the cost.

If playing on a Huge map with few opponents, Corruption might eventually lock down your cities completely. In that particular case you can stop expanding for a bit, but remember that given enough time to grow, build Courthouses, etc. additional cities will always end up being profitable.

A good sign that you are playing on the difficulty level that is appropriate to you is when your REX is stopped by your neighbors' borders, and not your own decision. If you find yourself with 1.5x the best AI civ's land area before your first war of conquest (or culture!), you should probably move up.

[joncnunn]

In Conquess 1.22, Corruption won't ever completly ruin a city.

Your cities can always be at least 30% productive.
(With a Courthouse + Police Station)

There are some tactics that can be used to to extend the range of productive cities, the #1 is disband your camps, closest to palace first. Under a non-commie govt, a city can only increase the corruption of cities that have a higher city rank that it does.

Court Houses are extremely important in Civ III. On a standard size map, they are usually a high priority option (after Religious Temples & Scientific Libararies) for the cities only three rows out.

[corruption nearly 50% is a sign that a CH is needed right away.]

Now there is a feature with Communism that every single city founded is increasing corruption everywhere, but the cure for this is to achive domination victory ASAP.

[joncnunn]

And yes, the conquests call for different tactics.

Mesopotaina: Wonders are really important in this one, so it's a good idea to stop founding new cities much earlier than normal. (Or at the very least allow two or three cities along a natural aqauaduct to grow)

Rise of Rome: Owning land is extremely important in this one to win. Any land you settle into peacefully is that much less that you don't have to conquer.

Fall of Rome: This has more of an eliminate civs feel than a land grab. Stop expanion very early to concentrate on military units. On Monarch level, it is not needed to build a single Nomad if playing the Huns. (With proper placement of the starting ones) Probably not needed to found new cities as the Sassidens either. The others should probably build a few cities, just stop early and be very choosy about the ones you build.

Middle Ages: REXing is very much like a normal game, except that some civs don't have much left to do.

Meso America: Very much like normal.

Age of Discovery:

A. As any of the Native American civs: Since your planning on winning culturally single city, the capital needs to get out of the business of forming new cities so it can grow ASAP.

B. As the European ones. Tight city spacing plans near resources rewarded. (Multiple cities able to build the same improvement from the same tile)

Japan: Similar to normal.

Napolonic: The only nearby productive land at start outside your starting location is your neighbors.

WW II Pacific: No settler type units. Avoid raiziing cities.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Elda king
I stop building cities on the later Middle Ages, if you build cities after that they won't have improvments, will riot most of time and won't produce much because of corruption and waste; than I use my cavalries to get the enemy cities.

Under most governments, it's hard to make distant cities worth much, especially if there isn't much irrigable land to support specialists. But if you plan to switch to Communism at some point, distance won't matter from an economic perspective once you do. Thus, if I'm planning to switch to Communism at some point (which often makes sense in C3C, but not in earlier versions), distant islands can look pretty attractive. Also note that islands in strategic locations can sometimes be excellent staging areas for intercontinental invasions.

[joncnunn]

If your planning on staying peaceful, those distant cities without much irrigatable lands will negatively impact your own good cities under communism.

Under other govts, while those distant city sites won't be particularly good [at might not pull their own weight], at least they don't negatively impact your existing ones.

Originally posted by nbarclay

Under most governments, it's hard to make distant cities worth much, especially if there isn't much irrigable land to support specialists. But if you plan to switch to Communism at some point, distance won't matter from an economic perspective once you do. Thus, if I'm planning to switch to Communism at some point (which often makes sense in C3C, but not in earlier versions), distant islands can look pretty attractive. Also note that islands in strategic locations can sometimes be excellent staging areas for intercontinental invasions.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Elda king
I stop building cities on the later Middle Ages, if you build cities after that they won't have improvments, will riot most of time and won't produce much because of corruption and waste.

I have never had this kind of problem

My problem has always been installing a new gov'nor in a size 6 or larger and it takes a while to put down the ressistance

So I raze those, build my own...piece of cake
seven layered chocolate...with milk

[Brent]

Hello, my username is Brent, and I am an ICS addict. I can't stop. My cities keep building settlers, and I must use those settlers to build more cities as long as humanly possible. I normally play on the largest sized map with only one opponent. I overlap city radii when necessary. If I'm playing Germans, Scandinavians, or Americans, I must plug in as many city names as I can that have meaning for me. I cannot resist unclaimed islands. I need to seek out new landmasses to boldly have an easy way to specialize governors by region. My fix is worth the corruption. My fix is worth being broke most of the time. I kill innocent new civilizations for cities.

[DreamSlave2112]

Mein Bruder! At last, we are reunited! I used to play that way as well, just churning out settler after settler after settler and expanding out and out and out.
But there are two problems with just playing one civ.
One, the Great Library is totally useless (not that it has been of any great help anyway, since I'm running tanks over their pikemen) since it only works when TWO other civs have an advance you don't have (and if I don't have what they have, I don't need it).
Two, usually, by the time you do find that other civ, they've already expanded as much as you have and it takes forever to finally assimilate them. It makes for a long and bloody landwar and if they're on another continent or idsland, aarrgghhh!!! 4get it!

...and they found his boots and they found his hat, but they didn't find anything else...
...'cept a big fat alligator sitt'n' on a log look'n' mighty proud of his self - CDB

[Brent]

I never worry about the Great Library. The way my games turn out, I expand more than my rival. I tell my governors to stress settlers. The time it takes to conquer or dominate them is the fun part. Beats playing with no rival at all (whether or not you're meant to be able to), that's what's really boring. I almost always play on a pangaea, if I chose a continent or island setting it would indeed be bad. Random small islands when you chose pangaea are all right, I don't think my rivals ever settle the islands anyway, but I go for them if at all possible.