1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Anyone has a good reason to play tall in CiVI ?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - Strategy & Tips' started by cazaderonus, May 10, 2017.

  1. cazaderonus

    cazaderonus Actual Dad.

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    640
    So yeah, i just posted in another thread and it made me think to this good'ol debate of wide vs tall.

    I'm sure we can all agree that CiVI feels a lot more organic regarding expansion than CiV, in which it was punishing because of the global happiness shenanigans..

    But, the result in CiVI is that it's purely a bad decision to not expand. Focusing on a small empire, say 5 cities, brings little if no perks, and will bring a lot of downsides.

    Growing your cities tall gives just one advantage : more districts in that city.

    But that one perk is easily destroyed by the fact that a brand new city will quickly reach a pop size that will allow for 3 more districts to be built. And then comes the whole lot of perks offered by that new city :
    - Possibility to grab more land\resources\luxes
    - Allows to build copy of existing districts (when a city growing tall will only get slots for a new kind of district) allowing well.... victory (and trade routes)
    - A new production queue
    - others, i'm pretty sure

    So, is this a good thing that starting in a crowded areas pretty much means war if you want to have any hope of winning the game ? What ways could be implemented to make small empires with big cities viable ?

    Or maybe tall\wide was just a flawed design in CiV and we need to rethink those definitions ?
     
  2. antimony

    antimony Warlord

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    192
    Well having to expand via war is its own downside. A peaceful game almost always means less cities, but you can get favorable trades for luxuries, and later alliances/defensive pacts with strong neighbors which allow you to go all in on your victory conditions without having to invest heavily in military.

    Personally I find about 5 early cities works well for science or cultural victory, then settle a few more later to get specific resources, or in the CV case, get more museums to fill and beach spots for seaside resorts. Even in this case my core cities are usually not quite "tall" either, i.e. no more than around 15 pop, and rarely ever a neighborhood.

    The general consensus seems to be that specialists are underpowered, which hurts truly large cities, but it would be interesting to see someone come up with a good strategy to use them.
     
  3. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    No, there's no good reason to not expand if you're able to. After all, that would not make sense, would it? First you grab all the land you can grab, and then you start developing it. Because if you don't grab it, someone else will, and you'll never be able to build a city there anymore. The best strategy in any Civ game excluding V is to go wide first and then build tall on that base. Which is also the best way in the real world to become powerful, I might add.
     
  4. PYITE

    PYITE Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    392
    Gender:
    Male
    I think we need to rethink those definitions.
    Tall is viable in VI but not in a 4 evenly huge cities V style kind of way. A couple of huge cities supported by small cities is what I consider tall in VI. Having a couple of cities that are production monsters will aid in science and cultural victories. Science for production of space modules and culture for getting key wonders like Eiffel.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  5. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    In Civ VI as is the case for all versions of Civ except for V, tall vs wide is a false choice; you can both found a lot of cities and get them all to reach a high population.
    You can and should do both. (Mostly by after the first two maybe three settlers sent from the capital just sending cities at their housing capacity or otherwise food limited as opposed to cities that can still easily grow; along with capturing the AI settlers and using those to found cities.)
    In fact, more cities fast -> more commercial districts fast -> more trade routes fast -> more food and production for a couple of key cities.
    There are however limits in Civ VI prior to neighborhoods when not playing Australia as to how tall each city can reasonably get due to the -50% growth from being at "only" +1 housing capacity and the -75% growth from being at it.
    Production is also quite a bit more important in Civ VI; so if a city is already working all the high production tiles it's less important to grow; but I'd still recommend building a 4 turn granary in a housing caped city over a 15+turn IZ.
     
  6. Arms Longfellow

    Arms Longfellow Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    184
    Tall is bad at the moment, mostly because specialists are terrible, so even if you have a massive pop city where every square is worked, the excess pop going toward specialists isn't getting you much. Also, the lack of buildings that boost % of science/gold/culture/production but instead just give flat + bonuses means that you can't add multipliers to really take advantage of a large pop city. I'm confident that future patches and expansions will buff tall play without punishing players for going wide (ie corruption like in Civ 3).
     
    Thibaulthc and Bobfregman like this.
  7. Bobfregman

    Bobfregman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Arms Longfellow has it right. The lack of % yield modifier buildings, buildings that give bonuses per pop, and good specialists makes building tall a poor strategy. In civ 5 there were pros and cons to be considered when deciding whether to go tall or wide. In civ 6 the only reason to go tall is as a challenge or just for the fun of the experience. At higher difficulties and in multiplayer tall struggles mightily, there's no real advantage to building tall over wide.
     
  8. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,316
    What is the point of talking tall when you have not defined what it means.
    Tall is only something to consider once you have enough cities to win.
    We are better having a discussion over what is better... going for 10 cities or going for 20.. having 5 cities on deity is just not enough to win (unless religious) so is a pointless conversation.

    In that context there is reasons to build tall than wide
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  9. DeOrator

    DeOrator Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't think of any reason to go tall in Civ VI. On top of the advantages listed by everyone else, having many cities gives you the chance to diversify your risks. Suppose your cap gets nuked. This is a bad situation in any game, but it is catastrophic when you only have five cities. All it would take is 3-4 nukes to cripple your civilization. However, if you have fifteen cities, it will take much more than 3 nukes to stop you. The sheer inertia of having so many cities is an advantage of its own.
     
  10. cazaderonus

    cazaderonus Actual Dad.

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    640
    For the sake of debate, let's say tall would be just as in CiV.

    Shouldnt it be a viable way to go in CiVI ? Say you dont have much room to expand, and dont want to go for conquest, shouldnt an empire of 5 cities ending at 25 pops offer the possibility to win the game ?

    This also raises the question of the importance of food in CiVI. So far, i will never ignore a good productive spot for a city because it lacks food. When on the other hand i might pass on a food heavy location.
     
  11. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,316
    Its not civ V and it does not seem to me like it is possible to win on deity with 5 tall cities. So to discuss tall in 6 you need a new definition of tall. To me Tall is 15-25 pop cities

    An empire of 5 cities on settler you will win oith no troubles... so maybe its about difficulty?

    NOW you are talking like a civ 6 player! I agree with this viewpoint

    Too much food makes you fat and fat makes you fail
    If you are productive in this world you feel of use.
     
  12. cazaderonus

    cazaderonus Actual Dad.

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    640
    Obviously i implied Deity for the difficulty level. I still need to try something soon.

    And i expect your never thought of me as a food guy. In CiV it took me years to finally decide on focusing on food lol. So in CiVI, i'm more than happy with production and gold being king and god. Gimme mines, moooooaaaar mines.
     
    Victoria and DeOrator like this.
  13. cazaderonus

    cazaderonus Actual Dad.

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    640
    Joke aside, it says something about how food and growth seems irrelevant in CiVI. And it's not a good thing. One of the most, if not THE most, important factor of civilization is always how good its demographic is. I find it pretty bad that a food heavy location will just feel....well bad.

    I kinda hoped for an internal trade route system that would let us actually move some production\food from a city to another. It would probably have been too much micro management but it would have make granary cities a thing.
     
  14. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,316
    Food is important early Getting your city large enough to house 3 districts is typically enough and if it eventually gets to 4 you can have some entertainment...5 you are spoilt for choice.
    So a city of 7 , 10 and 13 are targets... beyond that your reason for districts has gone and all you are getting is 0.7 science and 0.3 culture per person and while those numbers mean something early... they mean very little later. This is another reason why the AI runs away early with science and culture... very large cities. Just not the districts to get the better later benefits.

    I even chop in food early as it ultimately means more production earlier.

    Production is a vehicle to success but not the end goal. You just need enough food to make it happen.

    I personally feel that food was a bane of Civ V and growing tall to win.

    i suspect they want us to have tall as an option in this game but the value is just not there currently. If it was it would be good because there would be more choice. Its a bit blander with production being King.

    i do make +4-5 prod trade routes and +3-4 food trade routes ... It does provide some trade flexibility... often my food trade routes go external rather than internal as more food is pointless but if I want to grow something it is a decent boost with a single route. Most other people seem to spread theirs out... must be my bad but I struggle to see why
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  15. Photi

    Photi Governor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    700
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington
    If the game favors population over number of districts and trade routes for power, then wide later in the game becomes overpowered. if it favors number of districts and trade routes over population for power, then tall empires struggle. one style needs to be nerfed, the other buffed, how do you do that without penalizing playstyles?
     
  16. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,316
    I think you are chaining your mind to civ V... civ VI just does not really fit nicely into the same box as civ V. Its not really tall vs wide is it? the concept here just just does not seem to fin in the same way.

    I have no issue with "how many cities to you have and how large are they"... tall and wide just do not make sense... you have a number of core cities and can expand out primarily for other reasons than just population.

    I think my mind works differently... I get focused on one thing. To me Civ VI my archers can move AND shoot in the same turn and so its a different game, I do not use any Civ 5 buzzwords.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  17. Photi

    Photi Governor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    700
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington
    actually i didn't play V, and went many years between BTS and now, so IV is a little lost in the fog of time. but i remember the OCC being viable in IV, going too far in expansion had its negatives. i cannot remember exactly what those negatives were, if i remember right we last saw corruption in III. But you make good points about needing new vocabulary, or at least new definitions, other than the commonly understood "tall" and "wide"

    @Victoria if i have been following your meanings properly in this and other threads, you believe a medium width empire of average height is the sweet spot for CivVI empires, no? in which case maybe the developers found a happy medium. At around launch time i tried several games limiting myself to 3 cities on emperor, it didn't seem to work and i got bored, but at the time i was still getting to know the new mechanics (districts mainly). Under regular play circumstances (never cared much for OCC), i always feel i need at least 15 cities preferably 20. But this is feeling, not knowledge. I should try 10 cities, however i'll need to overcome the anxiousness.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2017
  18. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,316
    So like many things I just stole other people's thoughts from this wonderful forum and concentrated purely on what was required for a culture victory, replayed a game again and again to get down the turns then applied that methodology to each level of of play and with different numbers of cities.

    There are too many variable is each game, terrain, civs etc to make anything accurate... maybe I should have used TSL but even then, that does not match your next game

    Regardless, roughly the number of cities matched the difficulty level. Now the AI is better maybe add a city or two

    Remember, that's just going for hardcore standard culture win and can be quite dull. I prefer to mess around, I am all for it just being something to amuse me.

    Sometimes you need a few amenities, dump a couple of later cities down to get them. Cannot get a trade route to Timbuktu? Plop a settler closer... need some more resorts, spread more. So it's not simple and to me those are maybe what you call wide cities... I do not know
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  19. Japper007

    Japper007 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I think "Tall" in civ 6 is more a question of how you get lot's of territory into your empire, not if.

    Planting cities spaced wide apart to eventually get all their tiles filled with pop from your fewer but bigger cities: that's tall
    Planting cities close together to get all your tiles worked quicker while eventually having lots of smaller cities: that's "wide" (or "smallpox" for the older civ players among us)

    Tall meaning four cities was just a peculiarity about civ 5, especially the BNW expansion. (One I disliked but that's a different discussion altogether)

    So yeah, tall play is viable and has become better with the last two patches, just don't expect the "I'll just hide in this corner with three cities" tall of civ 5
     
    acluewithout and Victoria like this.
  20. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,526
    In Civ 4, OCC was about settling lots of great people, not having a big productive populace. Also, OCC had a special ruleset to relax the limitations on national wonders.

    The negatives to expanding too far were:
    • The AI is liable to squash you with an early war since you didn't build up enough military. (at high difficulty)
    • You would be late to significant early technologies
    Also, limiting growth was something you never really did in Civ 4. There were no inherent drawbacks to it, and furthermore food was plentiful and citizen costs scaled rather slowly. So, you almost always grew your cities large enough to work good tiles or reached your health/happiness caps, whichever came first.

    (and you might be running slavery, and perpetually growing to feed the whip)
     

Share This Page