Do you think players that like tall empires should skip buying Civ 6?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Artifex1, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. JustMormegil

    JustMormegil Chieftain

    Oct 24, 2016
    Moscow, Russian Federation
    Tall is still viable, some civilizations have more advantages in going tall (like Kongo), but in general its possible for any civ.
    Tall requires much more space for cities to support high housing and good spots. If I go tall, I place cities 4,5 or even 6 tiles away from each other (if in safe), then rush commertial districts for trade routes, feudalism for effective builders/farms bonus and industrialization for factories overlapping bonus. 4 cities is optimal in terms of amenities, but you can place more. Regarding governments, I try to rush Merchant republic - +2 trade routes is so good as you are limited in trade routes number.
  2. CultureManiac

    CultureManiac Prince

    Dec 24, 2009
    Tall definitely works, even at higher levels. However, it's nice to feel the chains of CiV are off and to have the choice whether to build an expansive empire.
  3. steveg700

    steveg700 Deity

    Feb 9, 2012
    IMO you're using terms like "handicapping" and "severely weakening" too liberally. There are advantages and disadvantages to overlapping your cities.
  4. spfun

    spfun King

    Oct 8, 2010
    I see a lot of bitter wide players coming from Civ 5... :lol: There's nothing wrong with people wanting to stick with 4 spread out cities, if that's how they like to play. It isn't competitive with wide however and has major limitations.

    Tall isn't really a thing like it was in Civ 5, you can limit yourself to 4-6 cities. ( No less than 4 though, while 1 city was deity beatable in Civ 5 ) It will still beat deity pretty comfortably, and its still my favorite way to play any Civilization game. Its just that you could have 10+ cities at the same pop size at next to no cost, and doing so will win you the game 50+ turns sooner. I like to win fast, but also like playing with 4-6 cities. :undecide: Housing and surplus food limits your growth potential until neighborhoods ( which is late game and thus irrelevant ) which is why I don't like the term Tall been used at all. Its simply how many cities you like to play with, with more = better with no real trade off.

    In civ 5 you could have a pop 30 city relatively early with a nice food start and wonders like hanging gardens. Pop 30 city isn't even common for me in civ 6 even with 4 spread out cities with me winning well before that time comes.
  5. Nefelia

    Nefelia Prince

    Aug 12, 2005
    Lol. To be fair though, it is only really the Civ IV hardcore fans that take their nostalgia into the realms of obnoxiousness.

    @spfun :

    I agree that the terms tall and wide are obsolete, as the artificial choice between expansive empires and developed cores is missing in Civ VI. I tend to find myself going expansive, with maybe one or two cities taking the time to go full metro (with a multitude of districts and a focus on housing and growth).

Share This Page