I only picked up Civ6 in the last Steam Sale. I had played Civ5 before, but was a little out of practice. I played the Civ6 Tutorial (Gilgamesh) and have since been playing on Settler difficulty to get a feel for the game. I had many aborted games where I had clearly messed-up big-time, but I have finally hammered out three victories. I never enjoyed Domination, so I have been experimenting with the peaceful conditions. I also always preferred to play Tall rather than Wide --- it feels more rewarding to me. I think I am now ready to start stepping the difficulty up, but there are a few parts of the game I could use some direction on. My first win (about fifth game) was a Science Victory with Rome. This felt pretty similar to Civ5. I took about 350 turns, which I think may have been a little slow. I had five cities, each with a Campus and Industrial Zone. Two had Space Ports, and I had scattered other useful districts (eg Commercial Hubs) around the empire. I also had a friendly (Culture-focused) neighbour who I ran a long-term Science Alliance with, to milk a few extra beakers. I had almost no difficulties in this game: Rome seems excellent for newbies! I had three Golden Ages, then two Dark Ages, then won on a Heroic Age. My second win (after countless attempts) was a Cultural Victory with Egypt --- Cultural Victory was my favourite in Civ5/BNW. I took a bit over 300 turns, which I am positive is too slow! I had four cities, each with a Theatre Square and all buildings. I had three cities with Art Museums (one was Themed; two others were 2/3) and one with an Archaeology Museum (I feel like Art Museums are more useful). I also had multiple Campuses and Commercial Hubs. I had a long-term Science Alliance with a friendly neighbour and was Suzerain of three City States between me and my other neighbour (who DoWed me and had all his troops killed by City States, bwahaha). I used Trade to establish a huge reservoir of Gold and prioritised Wonders that provided extra slots for Great Works --- even then, I often had GWAMs sitting around my empire with nowhere to use them. I also accidentally wasted GPP on Hildegard of Bingen, who I could not use: I now know to look more closely at who they are! I did not get a National Park (I had a spot in mind, but it was one tile away from the maximum reach of the city I placed for it --- another lesson learned!) and have not yet experimented with Seaside Resorts (I had no cities near the coast --- Pangaea map). My third win (after a few fails due to accidentally playing on Prince) was a Religious Victory with Russia. This was over in the Classical Age, very, very easy, and exceedingly dull. Germany built Stonehenge to get the first Religion, but I had the first Missionary out and converted their one city before they could do anything. I converted everyone else before they established a Religion. I only had three cities at this point, with plans for 1-2 more; Suzerain of nowhere. My first question is are those games too slow? Should I be winning earlier, and if so is it possible to win earlier while playing Tall and never fighting aggressive wars? My build order has developed into: Scout, Slinger, Slinger, Builder, Settler. I built a Lavra with Russia before my first Settler. This seems to work for me and my play-style. I am a little uncertain after here. In Civ5 I used to get 3-4 Builders and put improvements on every tile. With Builders now having limited charges, should I spam them to improve every basic tile (eg Farms on every empty Grasslands, Mines on every empty Hill), or is that now a waste? I have experimented with both and cannot decide which was better. I have found using my second Builder with Magnus as my first Governor to clear all my Woods a good way to get started. Once the Capital no longer has Woods to benefit I move Magnus to the next city and use the next Builder there to repeat. I am still having difficulties getting my head around Housing and Amenities. With my Egypt win, I was constantly being told my cities lacked both. As someone who prefers to play Tall, I presume I want to push both of these up as hard as I can, correct? Until Neighbourhoods are unlocked, it seems like Farms are my best way to add Housing (Pastures/Camps/Plantations are resource dependent), but Amenities seem harder. Getting new Luxuries is one of the things I look for when sending-off a Settler, but they are not always available in good locations. I try to Trade for them, but this is difficult early on. I am loath to build Entertainment Complexes early, due to limited Districts (the others seem more valuable). What is the best approach here? In Civ5/BNW I would almost always found a Religion, but it seems considerably less attractive in Civ6 due to Holy Sites. Some Civilizations are heavily incentivised to go for Religion (eg Russia, Arabia), but otherwise is it worth investing one of your limited early-game Districts on a Holy Site? A Campus or Encampment seems wiser (in general), or Theatre Square for Cultural Victory. Would you aim for Religion with Civilisations that have a minor bonus towards it (eg Japan), or only a major incentive (eg Russia)? If you are not pursuing Religion, are Pantheons worth putting much emphasis on, or just plan on it being a minor, short-term bonus until a neighbour converts you? Free stuff is always attractive. Eurekas, Inspirations, and City State Quests give free stuff. How much emphasis should I give these? At present, I am only doing them if they are something I would have done anyway (eg I always get the Inspiration for Craftsmanship with my first Builder, typically picking up two Eurekas at the same time). Obviously it is not worth going out of your way on things you cannot control or are actively in opposition to your strategy, but is it worth going slightly out of your way to get one? For example, you were going to make a military unit anyway and a City State wants you to make a Spearman. Would you make the Spearman for the free Envoy, or make the (say) Swordsman you otherwise would have produced?