Excuse my ignorance

[pmaura]

I am sure this has been answered but I can not find a sufficient answer when I do a search on city placement.

In Civ 3 what is the optimal position for placing cities from each other three squares away four six etc.

[Catt]

If only there were a simple answer . . .

Your question is often debated, and a whole series of styles and methods have emerged that are favored for different reasons in different circumstances.

A search for "placement" in thread titles just from the strategy forum turned up these results: click here.

Also see the "Must Read" threads (a topped thread above here in the strategy forum) which contains links to one or two threads on placement tactics including this one.

Catt

[Kuciwalker]

It varies. I remember there was one strategy where you placed cities 1 tile apart.

[Theseus]

Well, even though there are lots of issues and answers to the question, I think the easiest to play is generally 3-tile placement (i.e., cxxc).

This makes for easier sharing of high value tiles, and also a strong military network with roads. The general downside to it is that it limits the late-game growth of cities, but I do not find that to be so horrible.

Most of the other issues have to do with corruption, which is currently in C3C, uh, under discussion.

[vmxa1]

I would say you can't go too far wrong with CxxC in CivIII or PTW.
More complex plans are to be found, such as camps and RCP in the links mentioned by Catt.
I am still blundering around for a plan in C3C.

[grappleman]

ive found CxxxxC works quite well as it allows for maximum growth of your cities in the late game. also if you are a religios civ this is easy to accomplish with cheap temples.

[vmxa1]

CxxxxC is very hard to pull off above Monarch.

[ducki]

I was always fond of 3 diagonal tiles + 1 orthogonal between cities - this allows the "fat plus-sign" that your eventual 21-tile workable area becomes to match up with each other.
C
x
x
x
xC
I hope that worked(edit:maybe it'll work this time).
Problem is, you end up with a block of 4 tiles that don't get worked on two sides, as well as an impossible time expanding that out beyond the first 5 cities and a minimum of two-turn movement from one city to the next for foot-units.

It _looks_ really good, but isn't really a viable option (for me) above Regent. Aggregating and analyzing the collected wisdom of the strategy regulars here, I try for CxxdC or CxxC depending on location of rivers, hills, luxuries, bonus tiles, etc. CxxC seems to allow for the most flexibility in defense, as you can have 1 defender for every 2 or 3 cities in a pinch, but I sure hate the whole borg-look.

[Arrian]

I've grown used to CxxxC. I used to prefer CxxxxC, but that results in too many tiles not worked prior to hospitals.

Amongst those who play on the upper levels, my CxxxC is considered "wide" spacing. I play primarly on Monarch and it works well there.

Edit: I should point out that I do not hold to a specific pattern religiously. If getting a city on a river/lake or some other such bonus (hill defense bonus, blocking a "chokepoint" etc) means moving it a tile, so be it. So in certain situations, my cities may be CxxC or CxxxxC.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

ducki makes an interesting point that is not often addressed... the direction of city spacing.

As previously noted, I think 3-tile spacing is in general the easiest style, especially for newer players.

But let's make something clear: That does NOT have to be in a straight line!!

We usually express such as CxxC. Using ducki's convention:

C
x
x
C

But this is good too:

C
x
x
xC

as is:

C
x
xx
xxxC

... as well as similar permutations.

Use the terrain! Rivers, hills, access to resources, etc.

Have a nice CP day ...

[CerberusIV]

Explore early and identify the key sites for chokepoints, resources, etc. Settle them and backfill. I don't use a fixed pattern but rule of thumb is that if it looks too close it is probably right. You should aim to give each city a potential 12 workeable tiles and allow coastal cities the possibility of expanding into sea tiles with hospitals later in the game.

I have been playing since just before PTW came out and am only now getting city placement close enough. I am in a bit of trouble in some of my PBEM's as I haven't packed enough cities into my territory. Some of those games are rescueable by putting towns in between the cities, some aren't.

[Mountain Sage]

Don't forget to take into account the level of the game and the kind of world you're in.
You should use the same tight spacing when you play archipelago/small continents and/or Emperor and Deity.
The AI usually goes for a CxxxC or even CxxxxC spacing. By having a CxxC spacing you can pack more cities on the available land. This gives you more gold and especially military units.
Of course, once you have hospitals, you have often to allocate manually which tiles are used by which city, but by then the game should be (almost) over.
You can look at some posted games (for ex. my 'Emperor' thread). The visuals between the AI lands and mine are very telling.

[Solomwi]

Arrian's answer begs a question I've been mulling over for a while: that of the early game unworked tile. Now, I can understand the problem if you're leaving a bonus or river tile unworked due to city placement and instead have a citizen working a plains tile or something. My hangup is as follows.

Prior to hospitals, reducing the number of unworked tiles with city placement does not increase the number of worked tiles, so what is the "fewer unworked tile benefit" on, say, a wide grassland expanse with no rivers (just to eliminate the more beneficial tile issue)?

It just hit me that on smaller than huge maps, the overall land issue could be the root of this, which would explain why I've never seen the benefit of trying it in my games. So let me rephrase the question to "Is that it, or are there other benefits I'm not seeing?"

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Prior to hospitals, reducing the number of unworked tiles with city placement does not increase the number of worked tiles, so what is the "fewer unworked tile benefit" on, say, a wide grassland expanse with no rivers (just to eliminate the more beneficial tile issue)?

Surely the point is that your civ is working a higher proportion of the tiles within your territory once your cities reach size 12 if you have more cities on a tighter spacing. Once your cities hit 12 they can't work any more tiles and the only way to increase the ouputs from your civ is more cities. Basically it is a trade off between a larger population working more tiles from late ancient to early industrial or a larger population after the early industrial once you can build hospitals.

Possibly leaving a few cities with more space to grow into monsters later a tighter spacing for most cities is beneficial in the middle game where it really matters.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


Surely the point is that your civ is working a higher proportion of the tiles within your territory once your cities reach size 12 if you have more cities on a tighter spacing.

That's my point, and the reason for my last paragraph. On a huge map, I can usually expand to uselessness in the early game far before running out of land, so a higher proportion of my tiles being worked due to tighter spacing doesn't really make a difference. Either way I've got the same amount of tiles being productively worked.