Early Game Critique

[Aust]

Hello! I have been reading some guides about city placement and so forth. I was hoping to get some critique on my situation 65 turns into a quick speed King game. I am new to Civilization VI and hoping to improve. I read that four hexes apart and planning for adjacent industrial districts was a good idea.

Screenshot (5)

• Aust
• Sep 17, 2017

Screenshot (6)

• Aust
• Sep 17, 2017

If there is a more proper section of the forums for this question please inform me. I will delete and repost there. I am new and looking to improve.

Regards.

 

[Esperr]

The advice you got is old from how factorys used to work, you no longer need to do that. That being said city placement isnt so much important as how many you have. This is the least important civ game in terms of placement, basically most of your citys except for your core ones will cap out at 7 or 8 anyway. You more want to focus on getting a trade hub up in every city ASAP and get internal routes going. Fresh water helps but isnt a deal breaker. Luxs are semi important, if you can keep happyness at 0 great but -1 is fine. Ussually if your at negative onr in some citys it will be offset by number of citys anyway. You do want decent food spots for your early citys(lots of green) as they will grow past 7. Will post more later when not on mobile.

 

[Victoria]

The main advantage of settling a city closer is it is one turn faster, often it is better to go a few extra moves for better stuff. Also if your borders have gaps sometimes the enemy will sneak a settler in to cheer you up.

One main exception is the coliseum, if you can build it early enough with chopping it gives great culture if you have many close cities.

Industrial zones take a lot of production to build and produce little back for quite a while. Factories now don't stack

 

[Aust]

Thank you for the responses and advice. It appears that some of the guides I found are out-dated. I will be more concerned about resources and number of cities in the future rather than placement.

 

[Japper007]

I see a lot of cities that could have been on rivers, but are instead one tile off. I think fresh water is more important than building a perfect lattice of cities. General rule I'd say is settle freshwater first, then backfill the rest. In your game, f.e., I'd have settled the rivier between you and Monty before settling sites like your easternmost city.

On setting close together, this is good because you don't "waste" tiles half the game. You need over 30 pop in a city before it can work it's full three rings, that's usually just not viable. It's also unnessary, as 7-10 pop is all you need to get the nessesary districts for any victory. 3 tiles between cities is more than enough space, I'd settle closer if the game allowed it. Only exception to this rule is if you play centralised production, where you put all your trade into one city with lot's of hills/forests to one-turn units, builders, settlers and later maybe Spaceship parts. In that case that city needs all it's tiles, though you can also achieve that by "stealing" tiles from smaller cities around it as it grows taller.

 

[EpicWestern]

Yeah there needs to be much more attention to the housing benefits from water. Mainz, Frankfurt can easily be placed on that main river, and even Berlin if its further south. Heidelberg should be on coast to gain the lesser sea based housing bonus and also allows quicker sea access for trade routes and naval units. It also gives you faster/less expensive access to clams. There might be room for one non-water city in there somewhere but I would only send a settler there after I've explored quite a bit and saw that more further out options have been exhausted.