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 ?