City placement redux (for the third time)

[Theseus]

I'll start with a quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
It is possible to ICS (city-tile-city) in the early game, and remove cities later on to get some good Metros. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do this with a looser pattern (city-tile-tile-city), which I prefer.
Dominae

That is from alexman's Commercial trait thread.

FLASH: BOLT OF LIGHTNING HITS THESEUS IN THE HEAD!! NEWS AT ELEVEN.

Sooo, I've been playing around with city placement paradigms the last coupla weeks.

I've been pretty much an avowed 3-tiler (city-space-space-city) for a while, with some 2s and 4s dependent on terrain.

But the territory expansion resulting from the Palace had been bugging me, and I've been thinking about / planning to post a thread about placement anyway.

Then Dominae's comment JUMPED out at me.

Boy, is that a teaser... (I have to make dinner ).

Later, I'll post two editor screenshots I had previously re 3-tile spacing and 3/4 tile spacing (around the capitol).

Then, I want to get into a discussion about a new 2/3/4/5 idea I have.

[DaveMcW]

The key to my ICS/OCP transition is a disposable capitol.

[Odin]

ACK!!! The cities are too close together for my tastes. I prefer no more than 6 tiles overlaping in a city. In the center of my empire I have a few production rich cities with the full 21 tiles as my wonder factories.

[Dominae]

Theseus, you'll have to clarify; I have no idea what you're getting at (but I'm excited nonetheless!).

DaveMcW, do you mean you plan to disband your capitol so that the four surrounding cities can grow to their full potential? If so, why does it have to be the capitol?


Dominae

[DaveMcW]

Yes, I plan to disband the capitol. This has a couple advantages:

1. My first 4 cities are 2-3 squares away, which helps with distance corruption under despotism.
2. I have maximum flexiblility setting up my second core.
a. I can build the FP and wait for a leader to rush the palace in a large foreign city.
b. I can build the FP, then transfer population from all my large cities to a new location for a free palace jump.

[Dominae]

I see. But in a previous thread (I'm not sure I remember where), you mentioned that CXCXC could easily be transformed into CXXXC via disbanding. I assume this is what you mean by ICS/OCP ('OCP' -"optimal city/capitol placement?). But as far as I can tell you can use this pattern empire-wide. It's just more obvious around the capitol because that's where you start.


Dominae

[BRC]

Theseus get back here!! I really want to hear about this, because I have been contemplating the same thing in my current Emperor game. Where are you??

Dave: Keep going. Explain how you use this in your games and how to keep it efficient. How close are the cities around your cores after Hospitals?? It would be a tremendous help.

[DaveMcW]

Since I was going for a space race win I used 18-20 tiles per city. But my ICS start is what let me do it so fast. (That and the AI being on Monarch )

Here's a few more pictures.

[Theseus]

OK, my city previous city placement editor screenshots, for thought...

(but they are all I'll get done tonight)

[Theseus]

Basic 3 tile spread, incl. from the capitol

Hardcore 3-tile.

Aside from all other considerations, what jumps out at me here is the defensive benefit... consider how many towns / cities can lend immediate support.

[Theseus]

4 tiles from capitol, and 3 tiles otherwise

I am not impressed... adding one town doesn't do much for me, and the access benefit is foregone.

[Theseus]

But, again, think 2/3/4/5, and abandoning towns.

Bed time, and dreaming of city placement.

[Dominae]

DaveMcW, sorry for being so dense, but the only city placement that is remotely ICS (that I can see) are one or two cities around the capital. Is this what you're getting at, that really close spacing around the start location is critical? Or did you build far more cities, then disband them? Your screenshots seem to show you using 4-spacing everywhere except in the very core, where you finally disbanded your capital...

Theseus, tell me if I'm getting what your getting at:

CXCXXCXXXCXXXXC


Dominae

[Harovan]

What about a pattern close to this:

o . . . . o . . . . o . . . .
. . c . . . . c . . . . c . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c . . . . c . . . . c . . . .
. . o . . . . O . . . . o . .
. . . . c . . . . c . . . . c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . c . . . . c . . . . c . .
. . . . o . . . . o . . . . o

The 'o' are permanent cities, the 'O' is the capital (if it isn't coastal) and the 'c' are military camps. The cities are located in the "ideal pattern", giving each city 19 tiles to work. The camps are located in two rows between the cities. This reduces the number of tiles to an average of 19 tiles per 3 cities, which is close to 6 per city, ideal for the start. After construction, one of these rows can be disbanded by building workers, leaving an average of 19 tiles for 2 cities, which can be distributed so, that the cities build an aqueduct and get 12 tiles, while the camps stay at size 6. Again, minimal loss. Close to sanitation, the rest of the camps is disbanded by building workers, leaving an ideal pattern of cities with the potential to grow very large. The first chunk of workers improves the terrain and is then added to the cities, the second chunk lays down the railroads.

Of course, the coastline and mountain ranges will disrupt this scheme, but in general it should be possible to stay pretty close.

[badams52]

Sir Ralph, that's an interesting idea. I was looking at the other site's OCP article since that's the one I've been using mostly and it matches up precisely with your 'o's without the 'c's which gives the least overlap for your large cities. But after my NIC game, I have decided with many of the others on apolyton that a closer city placement is more benefecial.

I won't rehash my reasons as many reasons have been stated before and better than myself here . But I will mention one that I haven't seen mentioned before: reduced pollution. I'd like to see you find and create a size 6 town causing pollution. Even size 12 cities cause less pollution than their larger bretheren. Of course in my prefered CxxxC, there's large cities with pollution, but the CxxC should reduce pollution effects substancially. Has anyone else noticed this?

Currently, I am using the DaveMcW CxxxC spacing. I like the option of having a few larger cities for production and the 4 space pattern locks up borders and allows a city the average of 16 working tiles, 11 all his own and 5 of the 10 shared among others. Obviously cities on the outer edge get more and the average per city will increase because of that.

If I'm reading Theseus and Dominae correctly, it looks like a CxCxxCxxxCxxxxC pattern would then turn into a CxxxxCxxxCxxxxC pattern. Looking to have your cake and eat it too Theseus?