Advantage to have more zones?

[pwb:{]

Hi, I have played several games and start learning the management. I am wondering what are the advantage/disadvantages to have more zones than fewer zones?

Each zone need some basic investments and basic cost. Would it be better to have a giant zone with 100k population, or five smaller zones where each with 20k population?

[CHOO CHOO]

More zones are almost always better, except for requiring a lot of micromanagement.

1) Any assets that are more than 6 hexes away from their zone city will cause administrative overhead, i.e., the entire zone will become less productive, so if you need an assets somewhere you might actually want to found a zone nearby, too.

2) Each city can have a bunch of private sector buildings that give you various advantages at practically no cost, like light industry.

[Thomas]

I am not a fan of having more zones:
-you have limited number of population (and it grows slowly) and higher lvl of cities unlock higher level of assets - and higher lvl of assets are more efficient - resource wise. So if you will spread your population across across 5*20k lvl 1 cities it will be worse then in one lvl 3 city

-lvl1 cities really like to have private lvl 1 agriculture building and will do anything to build it - thats 10k population working most inefficient building.

But due to addministrative strain - you must build new zones - so suffer them when you have to.

[maerchen]

It really depends on your planet. It is a typical challenge playing 4X-games.

If you are on a small tiny moon, you are the king of the hill with one zone. Play tall, stay strong, rule the world. 100k pops may be 40% of the world pop already.

If you are on a vast huge planet, play wide. Expand, have not five but fifty zones. Colonise in addition to conquest.

Advantages and problems of tall:

Lean and easy to manage. Quick to resolve turns.
If you lose it, you die.
Strong single economy,
Possible dependancy on hex perks to get bonuses.
You will have to specialise your economy much more.

Advantages and problems of wide:

Management is hell. Like in the "The UI explained" guide where I showcase a huge empire.

Turn times take hours, probably. They took me hours, and I consider myself sorta veteran. Huge production advantages.
If you manage to hit artifact production, you will grow like crazy (cloning facilities in 5+ zones = 500 additional pop growth per zone).
Huge army size possible. Your militia alone will kill keep whole flanks safe.
Losing a war isn't problematic, but a temporary nuisance.



Another example:

1 Zone with bureaucratic office V is better than 5 zones with Bur. Off. I. You will research better and faster in a tall empire. But the wide empire will catch up later and be more resilient.

[pwb:{]

引用自 CHOO CHOO：

More zones are almost always better, except for requiring a lot of micromanagement.

1) Any assets that are more than 6 hexes away from their zone city will cause administrative overhead, i.e., the entire zone will become less productive, so if you need an assets somewhere you might actually want to found a zone nearby, too.

2) Each city can have a bunch of private sector buildings that give you various advantages at practically no cost, like light industry.

Thanks! I did not know that there is a 6 hex restriction -- that explains.

[maerchen]

STRG (CTRL) +F in the manual for administrative strain.

[pwb:{]

引用自 maerchen：

It really depends on your planet. It is a typical challenge playing 4X-games.

If you are on a small tiny moon, you are the king of the hill with one zone. Play tall, stay strong, rule the world. 100k pops may be 40% of the world pop already.

If you are on a vast huge planet, play wide. Expand, have not five but fifty zones. Colonise in addition to conquest.

Advantages and problems of tall:

Lean and easy to manage. Quick to resolve turns.
If you lose it, you die.
Strong single economy,
Possible dependancy on hex perks to get bonuses.
You will have to specialise your economy much more.

Advantages and problems of wide:

Management is hell. Like in the "The UI explained" guide where I showcase a huge empire.

Turn times take hours, probably. They took me hours, and I consider myself sorta veteran. Huge production advantages.
If you manage to hit artifact production, you will grow like crazy (cloning facilities in 5+ zones = 500 additional pop growth per zone).
Huge army size possible. Your militia alone will kill keep whole flanks safe.
Losing a war isn't problematic, but a temporary nuisance.



Another example:

1 Zone with bureaucratic office V is better than 5 zones with Bur. Off. I. You will research better and faster in a tall empire. But the wide empire will catch up later and be more resilient.

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I agree that playing wide would be more resilient. I think it would become a tower defense game if I decide to play tall and the AIs are playing wide. Things could happen like the end of Constantinople.

I only play the smallest planet (like 35X100) and each turn already becomes slower and slower...

[CHOO CHOO]

引用自 Thomas：

I am not a fan of having more zones:
-you have limited number of population (and it grows slowly) and higher lvl of cities unlock higher level of assets - and higher lvl of assets are more efficient - resource wise. So if you will spread your population across across 5*20k lvl 1 cities it will be worse then in one lvl 3 city

You can mitigate this by specializing your cities - have one with a big buerocratic office, one with a big industrial zone, one with a big farming dome etc. This obviously comes with some logistical overhead and risk in case you lose your roads/rails or even an entire city, but it largely eliminates the inefficiencies that would result from using large numbers of lower-tier buildings.

[maerchen]

The AI has no problem conscripting 50% of its population. They will suffer, wither and die when there is no one planting crops, though. You can wait them out quite reliably, I heard.

Small planets are considered being difficult because you never have room to grow, mind that.