I just want to throw a discussion open on one of civ’s "problems"/"features" it has had since forever really, and how civ 6 fares on it – the problem/feature of infinite city spam. It works on two levels I guess. The first is on the number of cities you have. And the second is on how big/powerful they are. To remind others, I shall give a brief civ history focussing mainly on number of cities:
Civ1 – Civ2
The larger your empire, the more corruption & waste you had. This manifested itself in wasted hammers and wasted gold that your city produced. If you were really far from your capital, it was not uncommon for cities for produce say 10 hammers (or shields as it was in those days), lose 9 to waste, and therefore only have 1 for building. So these cities were very unproductive and inefficient compared to your inner core of cities. You could alleviate this slightly by changing your government. In the ancient era a republic had less corruption than a monarchy. And later democracy had less than communism. But communism was better than a republic (I think).
Civ 3
Was basically exactly the same as civs 1 & 2. However, there were more ways to control it via buildings.
Civ 4
Had perhaps the best way of controlling infinite city spam over every civ, including civVI. It introduced maintenance in the form of gold. It cost money to found a city. The further it was from your capital, the more expensive it was. Gold was also used to generate science. So if you spammed out cities endlessly, then your science would grind to a complete halt, and you may even run into the negatives. This shortfall could be made up for by running science specialists. But eventually you would need cottages, which took time to grow, which would then pay for your expanding empire. Also, if you were colonising another continent, the costs could be crippling. As a way of circumventing that, you could create a vassal by ceding the newly created cities to an AI that would give you preferential trade and also help you out in warfare. Food was also limited by a city health mechanic, which would stop them from growing if they became unhealthy.
Civ 5
Introduced global happiness. This sort of turned the civ world upside down. Before, even on 4, the goal was generally to get as many cities as you possibly could. 4 threw road blocks down to try and slow you down (or even stop you), whereas 1-3 merely dis-incentivised you to perpetually grow. Civ 5 encouraged you to stay small, but grow big. So health was removed, and the “ideal” number of cities, particularly in the early to mid game, was pegged at 4.
Civ 6
And so we arrive at civ 6. There are 2 ways it tries to limit you – housing and amenities. But they both concern population and not number of cities. In fact, there is almost no way of constraining the player at all when it comes to numbers of cities, other than in the length of time it takes to build a settler, which can no be built without shutting off your growth, which is another important factor. Cities half way round the globe can be just as profitable as cities right next to your capital. There is no corruption and waste. The only slight caveat in this is that amenities are finite. So the more cities you have, the less amenities to go around. And the less big your cities can actually get unless you spam wonders and/or entertainment complex’s. There is no restriction on housing though, as it depends on city built improvements like districts and aqueducts.
My conclusion here is that city spam is back, and in a very big way. You are basically encouraged to spam as many cities as possible, as wide as possible. Because the wider you go, the more room you have for districts and wonders later down the line. IMO this basically means the first 100-150 turns you should basically be constantly churning out settler after settler providing you have a large enough army to defend your territory. You don’t necessarily need to build early districts. All that will come much later once you have finished expanding. So all your early builds should pretty much be either – A settler, a builder, a trader (for the roads), or military.
This means you forego a number of early boosts to tech and also, most likely, a religion. But all that’s worth it IMO for the crazy amount of stuff you can generate with 10-15 cities. The other option of course would be to conquer everything in sight right from the get go. A total war pursued from turn 1 would also be a viable tactic IMO.
Civ1 – Civ2
The larger your empire, the more corruption & waste you had. This manifested itself in wasted hammers and wasted gold that your city produced. If you were really far from your capital, it was not uncommon for cities for produce say 10 hammers (or shields as it was in those days), lose 9 to waste, and therefore only have 1 for building. So these cities were very unproductive and inefficient compared to your inner core of cities. You could alleviate this slightly by changing your government. In the ancient era a republic had less corruption than a monarchy. And later democracy had less than communism. But communism was better than a republic (I think).
Civ 3
Was basically exactly the same as civs 1 & 2. However, there were more ways to control it via buildings.
Civ 4
Had perhaps the best way of controlling infinite city spam over every civ, including civVI. It introduced maintenance in the form of gold. It cost money to found a city. The further it was from your capital, the more expensive it was. Gold was also used to generate science. So if you spammed out cities endlessly, then your science would grind to a complete halt, and you may even run into the negatives. This shortfall could be made up for by running science specialists. But eventually you would need cottages, which took time to grow, which would then pay for your expanding empire. Also, if you were colonising another continent, the costs could be crippling. As a way of circumventing that, you could create a vassal by ceding the newly created cities to an AI that would give you preferential trade and also help you out in warfare. Food was also limited by a city health mechanic, which would stop them from growing if they became unhealthy.
Civ 5
Introduced global happiness. This sort of turned the civ world upside down. Before, even on 4, the goal was generally to get as many cities as you possibly could. 4 threw road blocks down to try and slow you down (or even stop you), whereas 1-3 merely dis-incentivised you to perpetually grow. Civ 5 encouraged you to stay small, but grow big. So health was removed, and the “ideal” number of cities, particularly in the early to mid game, was pegged at 4.
Civ 6
And so we arrive at civ 6. There are 2 ways it tries to limit you – housing and amenities. But they both concern population and not number of cities. In fact, there is almost no way of constraining the player at all when it comes to numbers of cities, other than in the length of time it takes to build a settler, which can no be built without shutting off your growth, which is another important factor. Cities half way round the globe can be just as profitable as cities right next to your capital. There is no corruption and waste. The only slight caveat in this is that amenities are finite. So the more cities you have, the less amenities to go around. And the less big your cities can actually get unless you spam wonders and/or entertainment complex’s. There is no restriction on housing though, as it depends on city built improvements like districts and aqueducts.
My conclusion here is that city spam is back, and in a very big way. You are basically encouraged to spam as many cities as possible, as wide as possible. Because the wider you go, the more room you have for districts and wonders later down the line. IMO this basically means the first 100-150 turns you should basically be constantly churning out settler after settler providing you have a large enough army to defend your territory. You don’t necessarily need to build early districts. All that will come much later once you have finished expanding. So all your early builds should pretty much be either – A settler, a builder, a trader (for the roads), or military.
This means you forego a number of early boosts to tech and also, most likely, a religion. But all that’s worth it IMO for the crazy amount of stuff you can generate with 10-15 cities. The other option of course would be to conquer everything in sight right from the get go. A total war pursued from turn 1 would also be a viable tactic IMO.
