Best Tall civs?

What are the best civs for going tall?

We all know that Babylon, Korea, Poland, and the Aztecs are excellent at it, but what about civs like the Inca and Shoshone?

The Shoshone seem like they would be excellent at tall due to their excellent early game and being able to settle the best locations first.

The Inca also seem like they would do extremely well tall due to their massive food bonuses.

Are these civs viable at playing tall?

I have had a lot of good to great games with the inca going tall. You can rather easily get 3-4 cities with awesome food- and hammer production with their farms on every viable hill. And then you can choose what victory path you want to pursuit.

India should be a logic choice with their UA, but I never played them.

Ethiopia should go tall even do their steel kind of invites to going wide to get extra faith. But going tall is probably the safest route with them, especially on higher difficulties.

The cultural civs Brazil and France will benefit from having a really strong capital with a few solid cities for support.

Venice. They are darn good at going tall.

Austria with coffee house can really benefit from tall.
India can go tall without investing in happiness.

Iberian Husky said:

What are the best civs for going tall?

We all know that Babylon, Korea, Poland, and the Aztecs are excellent at it, but what about civs like the Inca and Shoshone?

The Shoshone seem like they would be excellent at tall due to their excellent early game and being able to settle the best locations first.

The Inca also seem like they would do extremely well tall due to their massive food bonuses.

Are these civs viable at playing tall?

Click to expand...

Actually, every single civ in the game can play Tall really well, even those you think are designed for wide.

While a wide player would use extra sources of happiness for another city, a tall player uses them for more Golden Ages.

Venice, someone posted a pic of a size 100 city recently.

But yes, the Incans are great at going tall. Just in general they are amazing.

India obviously. After 6 pops you are having more happiness and grow insanely tall.
And although you mentioned it, Aztec is extremely well in growing tall, as the floating garden is +15% in total food. I had a recent game as Aztec (immortal quick speed) which I got Temple of Artemis and all my cities are on rivers. I almost have double the population of the ai with the second highest population. I swear I've never had a harder time getting more happiness. It's like every 3 or 4 turns I have a growth in multiple cities.

India are actually far better off going wide. Yes, you can play tall with them and not get into any unhappiness problems, but this is the case for every civ when playing tall.

Aside from those civs which have uniques allowing for extra growth (Inca, Aztec, Siam, etc), it is entirely down to location. If you play with start bias on, one would expect the likes of Russia and Sweden (Tundra based) to not perform as well as the likes of England or China (Grassland). Civ's with a coastal bias will tend to do better than those that don't because of the sea trade routes to the capital.

Unlikely candidates to consider are Brazil and Morrocco. Brazil, with their jungle bias, can get some very large, science heavy, jungle super cities by the late game, which you are kind of forced into due to the lack of hammers in early game (meaning fewer settlers). Morrocco (and other desert biased civs), on the other hand, with a nice desert start can build a super Petra city and be very successful going tall. Add to this the additional trade route and free caravan obtained in relatively early game, you're on to a winner.

The last I'll mention is Egypt. Whilst wondermongering isn't ideal in most situations, Egypt, with a marble start, is the most likely to nab those food wonders. Stack Temple of Artemis, with Hanging Gardens, Collossus and Petra, as well as Stonehenge/Great Mosque of Djenne/Desert Fokelore (Get your religious food bonuses too!), and you'll have a grand tall civ before turn 100 comes about.

In my Sweden saves there have usually been a lot of camps/fishes and food giving luxuries to compensate for the otherwise poor starting conditions allowing Stockholm to grow rather tall.

But I guess that depends on what kind of settings you start with. I usually have the standard settings but some like sparse and then I guess Sweden (and perhaps Russia) will have to work really hard to get going, at least with their capital.

Enonwnn said:

India are actually far better off going wide. Yes, you can play tall with them and not get into any unhappiness problems, but this is the case for every civ when playing tall.

Click to expand...

India's better CONQUERING wide, not self founding wide. (They start the game at only +3 happiness and can not afford the -6 per city to self found cities nearly as quickly as liberty guides call for.)

More Golden Ages is actually one of the main benefits of being tall, if they don't conquer anybody, a tall player as India will notice several more Golden Ages than if they had played anybody else.

Sweden with 3 massive cities becomes an absurd culture and GP powerhouse. Inca for SV. But tall play isn't my style. Same every time.

I have played Tall with Germany several times. Would easily have gotten SV on Deity in at least two of my games but I always turn that off. The cheaper Military and the free Military if they get a choice spot means they don't have to buy much military early. Plus they are pretty good on Gold/Science with Hanse(kind of like an added mini-University) but I always have Happiness issues after 30+ in the Capitol. Though I think this is applicable to each Civ... My Shoshone experience on Immortal was just not human. Mine as well have played myself, they really don't have any competition if you work them right. I feel like you're getting Double and triple The Real Estate and when it's good, it's good : )

I have started Babylon and trying to win the game purely by Domination.(Tall bottoms out later in the game as far as the size of the Military you can support and generally against a Civ that has on the number of a dozen or more cities with good defensive terrain it could be near impossible to win a Domination Victory) Culture and Space Race would be interesting perhaps...

Neither Inca nor Shoshone make for good tall civs. The main benefit of the Inca is their ability to pay no upkeep on roads, which means you want as many roads as possible. That means lots of cities. Shoshone, you are far better off settling many cities and grabbing lots of land with their unique ability than trying to build tall with them. The only benefit to playing tall as Shoshone is you'll be able to work all valuable tiles immediately, often even those in the third ring from the city.

Overall, there are a number of civs that are decidedly *not* designed for tall play, it isn't true that all civs can play tall well (though it is true that the game has many penalties to stop you from going wide, meaning on some maps you may have to). Rome and Carthage are two more examples of decidedly wide civs that don't work well going tall at all. Also, why are you mentioning Poland as a tall civ? They are quite militaristic (Ducal Stable is a mostly military building and has XP bonus for mounted units, ie. wide play). Even Babylon can benefit from going wide (especially with the Order ideology, which is great for science civs) with their excellent defensive bonuses though they should prioritize setting up the National College early.

Great tall civs are: Korea, India (true - can go wide too), France (surprisingly), Morocco, Ethiopia, Venice. Overall, though, it mostly depends on the map what style of play to pursue.

Inca is good for going tall. Mountains are often found in a few areas of the map and they often start in one of those areas. Getting 4 cities up and running around those mountains will give them not only a big capital but for cities that gets a lot of apples and hammers. I have played games when 3 of my 4 cities have been settled next to a mountain so they could build the observatory. Just because they pay no or only half the maintenance cost on roads and railroads does not mean you have to build lots of roads, it is simply giving them an economical advantage on top of the food and hammer advantage they usually get. And a good science boost mid game if cites are settled next to mountains.

I just finished an Immortal game with Askia where the UA (Triple Gold from Barb Camps and Cities) really allowed me a very tall start.

I had a coastal cap and went two-city NC. I then quickly planted a third on the coast and the extra gold is fantastic for buying early granaries and libraries. That means quick Cargo ships into the capital.

I actually only had mediocre lands with my capital, so the cargo ships were essential. A strong cap led me to get Leaning Tower/Porcelain Tower combo, and then put me on an easy victory course.

Also, the Mandalku Cavalry is quite a good UU, and game in handy when my Northern Neighbor sent 20 units at me.

Strategist83 said:

Neither Inca nor Shoshone make for good tall civs. The main benefit of the Inca is their ability to pay no upkeep on roads, which means you want as many roads as possible. That means lots of cities. Shoshone, you are far better off settling many cities and grabbing lots of land with their unique ability than trying to build tall with them. The only benefit to playing tall as Shoshone is you'll be able to work all valuable tiles immediately, often even those in the third ring from the city.

Overall, there are a number of civs that are decidedly *not* designed for tall play, it isn't true that all civs can play tall well (though it is true that the game has many penalties to stop you from going wide, meaning on some maps you may have to). Rome and Carthage are two more examples of decidedly wide civs that don't work well going tall at all.

Click to expand...

It may depend on exactly what you call "wide" and "tall." I would define wide as 6+ self founded cities with little break in settler production. I wouldn't consider conquest going wide.

That being said, Rome plays a lot like India, get a few super good tall cities and conquer for benefits as the game goes on. Rome gets a production bonus for all cities outside of Rome itself. New cities don't have the hammers to take advantage of it, so (just like Rome did historically, a very smart move on the UA for them), they are best at winning fights and assimilating new areas, rather than burning and rebuilding.

The major advantage Carthage has are all with the harbors. They can allow Carthage to settle on a few good coastal spots and grow. Due to the huge range of cargo ships, they can easily grow their own cities with food shipments while looking for only the best spots. Their UU also helps with this, since it can control the barbs very well. Going tall means Carthage makes it's city connections and ability to make long coastal trade routes work for it. Going wide makes city connections less worthwhile.

Meanwhile the Inca have 2 benefits that work together much like Carthage. They can get big cities and not have to pay much for the connections. Where you can get mega cities, tall is almost always favored.

I don't consider Brazil good for tall. They are more of a wide culture civ to me. Eat up that jungle and spam brazilwood camps.

Siam is the father (governs children) of all tall civs in my mind, though. They can get a religion on 1 city. They can burn though SP trees like no one's business. They can get huge pop numbers. I haven't used them in BNW, but I guess the 4 free Wats still works too, which made them good for Tradition.

I have to say I like Greece tall too. They can get early CS bonuses with little investment (Siam gets bigger bonuses but can't keep friends as well), but it's sad to have early game UU's not do any work for you.

Strategist83 said:

Overall, there are a number of civs that are decidedly *not* designed for tall play, it isn't true that all civs can play tall well (though it is true that the game has many penalties to stop you from going wide, meaning on some maps you may have to). Rome and Carthage are two more examples of decidedly wide civs that don't work well going tall at all. Also, why are you mentioning Poland as a tall civ? They are quite militaristic (Ducal Stable is a mostly military building and has XP bonus for mounted units, ie. wide play). Even Babylon can benefit from going wide (especially with the Order ideology, which is great for science civs) with their excellent defensive bonuses though they should prioritize setting up the National College early.

Great tall civs are: Korea, India (true - can go wide too), France (surprisingly), Morocco, Ethiopia, Venice. Overall, though, it mostly depends on the map what style of play to pursue.

Click to expand...

Yes, just about every civ designed to go wide gets a bonus going Tall compared to normal civ as well due to the Golden Age Counter. (Extra Golden Ages)

Ok, Rome & Carthage's bonuses towards being wide aren't happiness based and so don't apply to being tall.

Carthage isn't exactly generic civ playing Tall though, it has a nice early game gold boost from instant city connections with The Wheel and in addition external sea cargo routes will provide more income due to already having a Harbor. In addition, I think that whenever Carthage captures a coastal city they'll insantly get the free harbor just as much as if they self built it.

Playing peaceful and playing tall, Rome's UA is kind of like the Religious follower belief giving extra production (decent, but there are better options). This one also works on captured cities.

That's actually not a single civ in the game in Civ V that can't follow a tall strategy and not do well. Basically to eliminate Tall as a viable tactic the GA counter would have to be removed and in addition national wonders would have to be changed to require a fixed copy of buildings instead of 100%.

However, with the exception of 2 civs, every civ in the game can also self found wide and do well. India's per city penalty is such that they can't spawn out the cities as fast as a liberty self found 6+ city guide calls for. Venice isn't allowed to found cities as all.
Both of these civs can conquer a wide empire (India does that extremely well) and so we can safely say that every civ in the game can do well conquering wide.

On the Inca, yes their UA is pretty much ignored playing peaceful tall. However, their unique tile improvement allows an Incan player to do a much better job growing the cities to be tall than most civs. In addition, if the hill range extends past where they self founded, Inca has a speed advantage conquering. A self founded wide player may in fact have problems fully exploiting Inca's unique tile improvement due to global happiness concerns.

Rooftrellen said:

I don't consider Brazil good for tall. They are more of a wide culture civ to me. Eat up that jungle and spam brazilwood camps.

Click to expand...

Brazil is actually an excellent civ for peaceful tall. Those natural Golden Ages you get simply playing tall are periods in which Brazil gets doubled tourism.
Yes, going tall your first GA won't do much good for tourism, but you'll have plenty more natural Golden Ages from having gone tall to make up for that.

joncnunn said:

India's better CONQUERING wide, not self founding wide. (They start the game at only +3 happiness and can not afford the -6 per city to self found cities nearly as quickly as liberty guides call for.)

Click to expand...

Going wide with India requires different tactics to your typical wide founded strategies. Like all tactics, it's not always suitable, but the rewards are great if you're able to pull it off.

Briefly, the key things to aim for are:

> Complete Tradition ASAP - those free aqueducts in your first four cities will help a lot;
> Don't go overboard with settlers in your first 50 turns. A typical tall start is what you want;
> Around the time NC is complete, expand as fast as you can;
> Ensure there are enough luxuries/CS alliances/religious happiness to offset your initial happiness loss - with decent faith generation, Padogas will instantly offset the bad part of India's UA;
> Get food caravans/cargo ships to your new cities ASAP! You are only better off with India going wide when those cities are >8 population.

With most civs, I will usually find that I will struggle for happiness later in the game, and Golden Ages will be seldom. With India, late game happiness is never a problem once you've gone wide due to their UA. In BNW, it's how you're able to end the game that matters. India's UA comes into fruition in the late game, therefore the more hits you can take in the early game, the more your late game will blossom.

I've attached a few screenshots below of a 12 city (11 built, 1 recently captured) India to show how nice it can be by late game (and yes, this map was very favourable for this strategy):

Strategist83 said:

Neither Inca nor Shoshone make for good tall civs. The main benefit of the Inca is their ability to pay no upkeep on roads, which means you want as many roads as possible. That means lots of cities. Shoshone, you are far better off settling many cities and grabbing lots of land with their unique ability than trying to build tall with them. The only benefit to playing tall as Shoshone is you'll be able to work all valuable tiles immediately, often even those in the third ring from the city.

Overall, there are a number of civs that are decidedly *not* designed for tall play, it isn't true that all civs can play tall well (though it is true that the game has many penalties to stop you from going wide, meaning on some maps you may have to). Rome and Carthage are two more examples of decidedly wide civs that don't work well going tall at all. Also, why are you mentioning Poland as a tall civ? They are quite militaristic (Ducal Stable is a mostly military building and has XP bonus for mounted units, ie. wide play). Even Babylon can benefit from going wide (especially with the Order ideology, which is great for science civs) with their excellent defensive bonuses though they should prioritize setting up the National College early.

Great tall civs are: Korea, India (true - can go wide too), France (surprisingly), Morocco, Ethiopia, Venice. Overall, though, it mostly depends on the map what style of play to pursue.

Click to expand...

There's a lot in this post that strikes me as inaccurate. The Inca make for great Tall civs (up to 4 cities is my definition). Their starting bias makes it very likely that you'll get very large cities around mountains for your terrace farms, and you want a high pop for science, especially from astronomy, and that bonus fades as you leave your starting zone. True, the road maintenance is great, but remember that you'll get the the free tiles inside your area, which a tall civ would have anyways, so the advantage isn't as great as what you might lose by going wide.

The thing I've found with the Shoshone is that you're almost forced into being tall because your civ borders encroach on enemy Civs before you've even got the chance to go wide.

And you're way, way, off about Poland. For starters, Poland has the ability to be strong at any type of style. Being able to combine Tradition and Liberty makes for a very powerful Tall strategy. I'm most of the way through a Deity game with them, and I've never had to declare war. Heck I was only able to build a single stables. I'm going Tall with them, and it's worked out quite well thanks to their abilities.

Your say that their militaristic building and unit means they have to go wide, but you leave out any discussion of their unique ability, which is by far the most important aspect of Poland.