Appropriate City Placement

[Grim Legacy]

While I am aware that packing cities densely is a stronger strategy, I never do it. I regard it a self-imposed limit to play the game with some consideration of my perceived developer's intention, which is not compatible with this packing.

Many similar 'power' methods present themselves throughout the game, such as maniacal horsemen/jaguar warrior pumping to overrun all opponents before 1 AD etc. I don't do this either.

[Shogun Gunner]

There's a diverse set of approaches to the game. I think it's interesting that some players give up known "play style" advantages to preserve their perception and experience of the game.

I have grown more open to packing cities together, but I hate doing math in order to make the most efficient set of decisions every turn. I guess I believe the game should display those trade-offs to you and not force you to keep notes, use a calculator, and track things in Excel. Just my .02

[eris]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
There's a diverse set of approaches to the game. I think it's interesting that some players give up known "play style" advantages to preserve their perception and experience of the game.

I have grown more open to packing cities together, but I hate doing math in order to make the most efficient set of decisions every turn. I guess I believe the game should display those trade-offs to you and not force you to keep notes, use a calculator, and track things in Excel. Just my .02

It is definitely interesting that different approaches to the game are not only strategy based, but play-value based. On this particular subject, I too, have modified my play. (This shows the value that the high level strategists offer to those of us who play a little less deeply. We may not follow their strategems to painful exactitude, but can adopt some of the principles and improve our games without losing "fun".) Now, I always make sure each city overlaps at least one tile with neighboring cities, even if it is a future city that will go into place as a backfill after initial expansion. Along with other considerations, I find it also helps keep a culture lock on my territory. One principle I use in the consideration of city overlap is not to overlap too much. It is less important to me that each and every tile gets worked then it is that my size 12 cities are working the best available combination of 12 tiles in their radius.

And you don't absolutely have to keep spreadsheets and notes, etc, only if you want to play beyond play value and into micro management and meeting the upper level challenges. The programmers don't force people into controlling these exquisite details, the obsessive challenge-meeting nature of these people is what forces them into this behavior. The programmers just put the temptation there. The rest is up to each one of us Civ-addicted individuals.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by eris

And you don't absolutely have to keep spreadsheets and notes, etc, only if you want to play beyond play value and into micro management and meeting the upper level challenges. The programmers don't force people into controlling these exquisite details, the obsessive challenge-meeting nature of these people is what forces them into this behavior. The programmers just put the temptation there. The rest is up to each one of us Civ-addicted individuals.

To an extent, the above is true. Yet, I agree with Shogun Gunner that the game could include more specific descriptions of its mechanics. For example, I find it strange that the effects of corruption for each government are described with one word in the Pedia. A more extensive explanation would have been welcome (as found on forums like this one on the net, but that is beside the point).
Another example is the lack of an indication for units that have a zone of control and those who do not, unless I overlooked it.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
To an extent, the above is true. Yet, I agree with Shogun Gunner that the game could include more specific descriptions of its mechanics. ...

No, No, NO! If you are playing from a Role-Playing perspective at all, then knowing too much detracts from the game experience. Mystery and some randomness are important here. I LIKE strong plagues and wish they didn't stop with medicine.

If, on the other hand, you are playing the game as a pure contest, then sure, knowing the mechanics of everything is preferable.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Jaybe

No, No, NO! If you are playing from a Role-Playing perspective at all, then knowing too much detracts from the game experience. Mystery and some randomness are important here. I LIKE strong plagues and wish they didn't stop with medicine.

If, on the other hand, you are playing the game as a pure contest, then sure, knowing the mechanics of everything is preferable.

Actually role-playing is one of the most numerical things one can do. In the vast majority of RPG's, every relevant bit has an exact value that may be related to a chance (=dice roll), but is clearly specified. A sword does 1d10 damage (1 to 10), modified by your character's strength, perhaps 18, providing an extra +3 damage etc etc.
Note that I do not object to a degree of chance, although I'm not charmed by the "sudden inescapable doom" events in Civ (disease, volcano in C3C). I do stand by the opinion that more specification would have been better.

[risingstaruk]

I usually employ both methods... i will have a few core cities, 2 or 3 which have lots of room and then rest are usually really close together. I usually build the cities so they have a lot of space to begin with, just to claim the land and then fill in the gaps later. I also like leaving 3 or 4 *pockets* of land for ai civs to build cities in, which i will get later culturally . just allows me to expand that little bit extra.

[joncnunn]

Exact placement of my cities depend upon terraign.

I also occansionly place camps, not often. In my current game, the distortions of my city placement resulting from AI city placement resulting in my relabeling 1 or my two planned temp cities as a perm one. (Next city over shifted from 2 tiles away to 3.) And later on the AI landed a unit pair on the tile I was planning to form a city when the settler was in route so the settler had to form a city immedately, which in turn killed a planned infill city spot. That in turn resulted in the last settler build being switched to an improvement.

My remaining temp city has been pumping out Vetran Horses and lately some workers as the neighboring permenant cities are growing into it. It's set to be disbanded shortly after the west neighboring city that needs an Aquaduct gets it built. (The eastern neighboring city is on a river) The most recent worker from it joined a neighboring city since I'm industrious and don't need additional workers given current size of workforce + tile improvements already in place.

[Stylesjl]

i always use optimal placement unless im at the AI's border or near a body of water or any other inhibiting obstacle

[Switch]

I used to always leave my cities with enough room to work all 21 tiles, but recently I've been trying the CxxC strategy. I like it. I don't think it really looks ugly, but rather it gives the appearance of efficient to me. I've also noticed that I can more easily gain territory with this method, and combined with a higher worker production it's a cinch. Note, however, that I am currently playing on Chieftan level, but still I have noticed a marked improvement in my playing style since switching to this sub-optimal placement method.

[diablovision]

I recently jumped up to Emperor level and tried for the first time to pack tighter than optimal. I played the Babylonians (which I havent before) to change things up a bit, and wow did I find myself in over my head quick!

I think the level change has royally screwed me up, because I cannot REX worth crap, I am getting bullied by the AI, my citizens are pissed, and I can't support enough workers to get the improvements done fast enough (not being industrious is a major handicap!).

I just recently waged a war to trim down the Chinese who have been getting too close for comfort, so from that I got a bit of a bump. I think I am about the same size as the rest of the civs on my continent, but dammitall if I don't have one hell of a catch up job to do.....

[joncnunn]

Ok, on Emperor level:
luxaries are much more imporant. If you only see one unique type (or NONE!) in the area you can easily REX to, but see your neighbor with them, plan on a rush.

As Babs, I'd do the Bowmen rush and eat the despotic GA, using whatever is not needed for more Bowmen for extremely fast Temples and Libraries.

And even if you have a situtation that does not call for a war you need more units than on Monarch just to discourage the AI.
With unit support costs, this means that Republic may have to wait. Beeing the Babs helps because you have a balanced unit (2-2-1) and also can switch govts with 2 turn anarchy.

It's also extremely imporant on Emperor level to check cities whenever they grow and when you move a military unit out of a city. There's times when 10% luxaries may be needed on this level.

[Gremnon]

I try not to overlap unless I have to. But when I place cities, I allow for the standard area of the city (the x shape) and a tile between them for both sides. This, in turn gives me plenty of culture quick and full coverage of the tiles.

[ew0054]

I like spacing out metropolises Civ2 style first, then toward the modern era, stuffing small (size 3 or so) towns in the areas around them. This creates the feel of suburbs, but don't steal too many resources from the larger cities.

I hope something like suburbs get implemented somehow in Civ4. Perhaps as the city gets bigger, some houses can appear in the surrounding tiles. I think that'd be cool.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by ew0054
I like spacing out metropolises Civ2 style first, then toward the modern era, stuffing small (size 3 or so) towns in the areas around them. This creates the feel of suburbs, but don't steal too many resources from the larger cities.

I hope something like suburbs get implemented somehow in Civ4. Perhaps as the city gets bigger, some houses can appear in the surrounding tiles. I think that'd be cool.

Just so you know, doing that is not a particularly good idea in terms of game play. By the modern era, you should have most/ all workable squares worked in your major cities. By creating new cities on currently worked tiles, all you're doing is taking food/ shields away from your highly productive cities, increasing your maintenance costs (by having more cities and thus improvements than you need) and worsening your corruption problem.

The real payoff in close city placement is in the early game, when doing so allows you to work more tiles earlier than you otherwise would. The approach you're taking is exactly the opposite of what is best in terms of optimizing your game.

At lower levels, you probably can get away with this approach: doing this at more difficult levels would be very difficult to justify.