how many cities?

[Terminus]

I am curious how many cities people think are needed to win? I am up to about 12 cities in my current game, and it is getting difficult to manage them all, make decisions for the workers, etc. I don't really want any more cities than this.

[=7CAV=SPC.Henson.K]

That's about right in my experiences. I pass on most worker functions at this point if I'm in the lead, just need to keep everyone happy and producing troops.

[Dorok]

I agree that 12 seems often mean it's already won both by score and by ambitions. I always continue expend and once up to 24, but it doesn't seem very useful/necessary.

For me, 6 plays (2 quick dual) and 7th running, the gameplay seems degrade more or less past turn 100/120.

So I'm trying the option, ruthless AI, supposed to focus on trying stop player win, not sure on the effect. But eventually it's more because I play at too low difficulty (still Strong with AI and tribes boost options).

And yeah with too many towns the workers are a bit exhausting, auto building of road and auto workers should work much more softly. In fact lack of multi move also increase the micro management.

[N311]

I assume it would be based on how you want to win. By turn 100-110 with 12 cities you would hit vp threshold on the larger size map.

having your cities averaging out at 4 points each will net you 48. So with enough wonders 12 is more than enough

Manage to build 10 wonders and you only need 9 ish averaging at lv 4

[Dorok]

I quoted that with huge random seaside maps the amount of points required can vary. I quoted from 60 to 70.

9 towns to win would be quite technical, with conquests it seems too low at best you captured some empires borders weaker towns because borders are most often later towns less developed.

With expansion you probably need have get them fast and not be involved in many wars slowing down your pure development.

To temper OP valid concern on amount of towns and excess of micro management, once you lead at score, you can just play manual auto your workers, just pick closest game suggestion with priority to culture and that's it, and ok build any wonder you can that late game, plus build one more town even crap is still one more point so if you can why not.

[evolena]

Originally posted by N311:

I assume it would be based on how you want to win. By turn 100-110 with 12 cities you would hit vp threshold on the larger size map.

having your cities averaging out at 4 points each will net you 48. So with enough wonders 12 is more than enough

Manage to build 10 wonders and you only need 9 ish averaging at lv 4

I'm not so optimist as this estimation.
It was 98 Victory Points needed for the Large (so not the larger Huge) Archipelago map of the Game of the Week #126 (previous week), so 49 points minimum for a Double Victory. Having a dozen Legendary cities might take too long on higher difficulties (the AI may then have more than 25 points, increasing the number of points you need for the Double Victory).
On Medium size Coastal Rain Basin maps, the Victory Points threshold is often around 60.

Ambition Victory is there for a reason.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Dorok:

I agree that 12 seems often mean it's already won both by score and by ambitions. I always continue expend and once up to 24, but it doesn't seem very useful/necessary.

For me, 6 plays (2 quick dual) and 7th running, the gameplay seems degrade more or less past turn 100/120.

This, 100% this quote, is what I am finding.

I am on just the third or fourth play now, I think, and I am finding the same thing as Dorok... 12 cities is a sort of sweet spot, and the gameplay does start to get a bit worse in the final 20-40 turns (which is usually so far turns 120 to 160 for me).

For cities, 12 cities is pretty solid simply because you want that culture to make the cities worth more than just a point or two. Which means I keep finding myself going for buildings and improvements that boost culture or help me tech faster to get to other stuff that boosts culture. This translates into building fewer units or settlers after I get to the 11th or 12th city: so long as I have a decent military for defense, at that point it pays off more to add culture to cities than to focus on building the tools to capture even more cities.

It does depend on wonders, though... get a bunch of them and suddenly you need even fewer cities.

I've yet to play on some of the higher difficulties... just on Able, Just, and whichever is the one where the CPU is on even playing-field. So it's hard to know how it'd scale on those much higher difficulties... but on Normal and lower difficulties, I agree, 12 cities is all that really makes sense to have.

[N311]

By looking at the options it doesnt really change, just how able and quick the ai will be to get points

@evolena, how many cities will prob heavily impacted by settings then. Huge 7 players games on the standard map type comes up with vp score of 54-60 need. So its prob more a fraction of total cities on the map

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

...so long as I have a decent military for defense, at that point it pays off more to add culture to cities than to focus on building the tools to capture even more cities.

Not enough plays, but from two plays among 7, if you failed escape some serious war that isn't vaporwar (too far borders/empires, too weak enemy, enemy already busy in another serious war), you get drag into firstly slower development, secondly capture at least some towns to close the war properly enough. In such cases you haven't that much choice.

That said since some plays I use the option aggressive AI and now competitive AI, that perhaps don't make AI more performant but probably generate more wars. This can change the context.

[evolena]

Originally posted by N311:

@evolena, how many cities will prob heavily impacted by settings then. Huge 7 players games on the standard map type comes up with vp score of 54-60 need. So its prob more a fraction of total cities on the map

Certainly, it was just to point out that the required points could be a lot higher than 60 under some circumstances (while the maximum number of points Wonders can give are fixed).
In this case it was a Large Archipelago map with Large islands size and player + 5 AI. Having all wonders and all end techs is only worth 29 points, so in my (probably extreme) example that's still nearly 70 points to get with cities only for a Points Victory. That can't be obtained with 12 cities (or good luck to get 12 Legendary III cities).

So at this point, the question of the number of cities is probably not "How many cities are needed to win a Point/Double Victory?" (requiring heavy focus on Culture), but "How many cities are enough to win an Ambition Victory?". And to that the answer is probably as many as you are comfortable with.

[Dorok]

So the answer is more that it depends on the score requested for the play, and ambition victory isn't much the answer it's just an easy victory provided to players.

[evolena]

Originally posted by Dorok:

So the answer is more that it depends on the score requested for the play, and ambition victory isn't much the answer it's just an easy victory provided to players.

Ambition Victory is the intended victory for single-player, the one that creates stories. Points Victory is here as the initial measure for victory when in early development there was only testing multiplayer matches, and as a winning condition for AI (so the failing condition you as a player is racing against, apart being eliminated).
The Double victory is the easy victory to speed things when you're dominating.

See Old World Designer Notes #11: The End [www.designer-notes.com]

[Tommy]

Originally posted by Terminus:

I am curious how many cities people think are needed to win?

I've been playing the game for 2 years and never had more than 10 cities. Won hardcore achievement (highest difficulty + against all nations + high event level + realistic mortality + locked save + ruthless AI + no undo) with just 7. But I believe the more, the better.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by evolena:

Originally posted by Dorok:

So the answer is more that it depends on the score requested for the play, and ambition victory isn't much the answer it's just an easy victory provided to players.

Ambition Victory is the intended victory for single-player, the one that creates stories. Points Victory is here as the initial measure for victory when in early development there was only testing multiplayer matches, and as a winning condition for AI (so the failing condition you as a player is racing against, apart being eliminated).
The Double victory is the easy victory to speed things when you're dominating.

See Old World Designer Notes #11: The End [www.designer-notes.com]

Then it's an unfinished game as AI don't play for the ambitions victory.

I support fully asymmetrical design between human player and programed opponents, but that seems going too far for win condition.

Double victory is more to avoid pointless longer play when the win is clear, it isn't that easy to achieve by plan.

Two other problems with ambition victory:
- Too easy.
- Bad balances between the different types of ambitions.

I can understand it was the initial goal to achieve offer diversified paths, even if through achievements it feels not that great for me. Moreover on paper the idea could looks well thought.

But at end and for now it is far to be properly finished, it needs quite more tuning from being less easy to balance better the different types of ambitions, without mention that for me it feels weird AI don't compete for an ambition win.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Tommy:

Originally posted by Terminus:

I am curious how many cities people think are needed to win?

I've been playing the game for 2 years and never had more than 10 cities. Won hardcore achievement (highest difficulty + against all nations + high event level + realistic mortality + locked save + ruthless AI + no undo) with just 7. But I believe the more, the better.

So the game is too easy and you need penalize yourself by limiting your number of cities, and this since first play?

For me 10 looks challenging, and my first play, first win, was with 24 towns lol.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Then it's an unfinished game as AI don't play for the ambitions victory.

I support fully asymmetrical design between human player and programed opponents, but that seems going too far for win condition.

This is my reaction, too, to the claim that ambition victory is the ideal single-player goal.

VP victory is the clearest victory condition that actually pits the CPU opponents against the player. It's the main way the CPU can beat you to the finish without simply killing you off.

The quote is right, here... if ambition victory is the one most intended for single-player, then the game really needs to let the CPU do more to interrupt a player going for ambitions. And/Or the game needs to allow the CPU players to also complete ambition victory goals.