Excuse my ignorance

[Catt]

Originally posted by Solomwi


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.

Solomwi - I'm not sure I understand your point. If you can expand to "uslessness" before running out of land, then you might reassess what is useless. If, within you overall empire, there are tiles that are both not used and not going to be used before hospitals, then you are not taking every advantage available to you. Even a temporary city plopped down could produce workers or artillery units, without any improvements or upkeep responsibilities. Even fully corrupt cities can create taxmen for extra gold. How can you have the same amount of tiles being productively worked as a 3-tile empire if some of your tiles are not being worked?

Other benefits of 3-tile spacing includes (i) tile sharing (workers can improve certain tiles that are worked by citizens of different towns depending on city size when city size fluctuates due to settler/worker production), meaning less worker investment for more "effective" improved tiles and (ii) flexible defense or flexible mood control (even 1-move units can move from one city to another in one turn.

I've found 3-tile spacing is powerful, but come to enjoy 4-tile spacing unless the terrain demands otherwise (4-tile being CxxxC) -- it allows a moderate degree of power in the early game, and also allows a decent city size after hospitals. In other words, I am convinced that 3-tile is more powerful but 4-tile more enjoyable.

Catt

[zorbop]

i find cxxxxc to be the best method, even on higher difficulty levels.

For C3C though, i have been developing a different method.
I try to keep my first 5 cities or so all a different distance from the capital. Kind of a spiral pattern. This allows for minimal corruption. I like to have 5 or 6 productive cities, and the rest a really just to take up space and raise my culture(at least before communism/fascism/democracy)

[Solomwi]

Catt, it's just that I've never found overall land to be a hindrance in building my empire, but I play wide open maps (huge, continents, 8 civs).

Don't misunderstand, I ultimately expand beyond "uselessness" (poor term on my part, maybe "non-productive" is more appropriate) in search of UP, at least wanting all of my continent. And, for the record, I tend to use an amalgam of CxxC and CxxxC, depending on terrain and circumstances at the time of settler production/city founding, minimizing overlap and at the same time minimizing unreachable tiles, but with an eye to establishing chokepoints and "picket lines" to cut off enemy expansion. I'm going to have to re-evaluate taxmen with C3C, but up thorugh PTW, they, by themselves, haven't been enough incentive to produce a settler and send it out.

I'm not arguing against tight spacing (or at least not meaning to), just trying to get a better grip on the "unworked tile" justification for it. I'm on board with it because of the other benefits, i.e. tile-sharing, defense, etc. Even with primarily three tile spacing, I can, in the late game, cherry pick which cities grow where in my cores enough to get plenty of 100+ shield cities (and 120+ after Robotics).

Two or three metropolises pumping out a tank in one turn surrounding a city set to produce cruise missiles, as a general pattern, is very powerful, and very attainable, even with 3 tile spacing.

[Alexander's Horse]

your ignorance is excused