How many cities do you normally settle?

[ChocolateShake]

I'm curious as we're getting closer to release to see how many cities you normally settle. GS will have a few more mechanics that will make you think twice about where to place your cities, but there are also lots of new stuff for governors to make you really want to build up some specialized cities.

I usually aim to have 6 - 8 cities on large maps with default settings/continents or fractal. At that point I prefer developing my existing cities unless there's a really great spot that I've found. Otherwise I normally don't settle more cities after 8, only getting more if I end up in a war. I'm wondering if I'm being a bit too relaxed with my settling.

Sometimes I prefer to play around with the settings to give each civ more room to expand into. Loyalty I've noticed is pretty effective at making me rethink where I should place cities, especially when trying to establish colonies. That's another benefit that Phoenicia will get, they and the Maori I believe will be going for some nice coastal colonies.

 

[Chefofrats]

The more the better, usually as many as I can support with amenities happiness-wise. This topic has been pretty much exhausted, look up all the various "tall vs wide" topics on the forum.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I usually aim to have 6 - 8 cities on large maps

Wow that's a really low number, I play on Tiny maps and usually have about 10 cities.

 

[ChocolateShake]

The more the better, usually as many as I can support with amenities happiness-wise. This topic has been pretty much exhausted, look up all the various "tall vs wide" topics on the forum.

I'm aware of "tall vs wide" discussions but I was more interested in discussing how far players usually go to expand, if there's a sort of target number that we each go for. I don't see "tall" as a competitor to expanding but rather as a complement to deciding when you should focus on development of your existing cities as opposed to establishing more new ones. Naturally we always want to expand, but I think each player draws a line at some point due to various factors, I'm curious where that line is.

Do you have a rough number of cities where you decide you've got enough?

Wow that's a really low number, I play on Tiny maps and usually have about 10 cities.

Oh wow I suspected I was a bit too relaxed with my settling I usually manage to get by on about 6, if I have less than that I feel like I'll fall too behind. After reaching 6, if I feel like I need more districts or need them in specific places then I usually go for a couple more. I think I might be leaning towards developing existing cities a bit too early, do you normally settle the cities you want by ancient/classical?

 

[Josephias]

Choosed 9-12. Actually I don't have a fixed cap, but following Civ V I am quite used to go on settling waves.

So, I'll start pushing a core of 4-6 cities, with the exact number depending on the good locations / resource spots available. As long as loyalty permits, I may leave inner gaps and forward-settle if necessary to ensure a good location/resource. After this, I'll take my time and fill the inner empty spaces as needed, or - if nearby colonization áreas are still available (quite posible as my first growht push is normally towards ohter civs) I may launch sttler waves by latle middle ages / renaissance to cover that area (colonization push), and from there, maybe different waves in following eras if I discover other áreas still interesting, without huge loyalty presures and/or with new resources neded in the following eras.

I don't know (don't care really), if this is the most optimal style to handle expansión, but it fits the way I play and it normally does not put me at disadvantage. Depending on if I'm isolated or just in the middle of other civs, the final number of (own-founded) cities I end with may vary greatly, and for extense empires the develompent of cities will vary also (core will be well-developed altough maybe not the tallest posible, while 2-nd and 3-rd wave áreas are just midly developed, except for cities founded in specially strong locations, which may grow as tall and important as the core cities).

 

[Futumch]

Millions. Well, not millions. A lot though. If I name them alphabetically, I usually know I have to start consolidating by the time I found Yakdroppings and Zerowing cities.

 

[IvoryPavane]

For me, it’s quite map dependent but I try to settle as many as I possibly can without crippling amenities, or leaving myself defenceless to other Civs.

And for the space there is too, don’t want to settle snow and tundra just because it’s there. (Maybe on canada!)

 

[Red_warning]

The answer is as many as possible

Depending on map and opportunity it could be anything from 6 to a dozen or more cities.

 

[Chefofrats]

Do you have a rough number of cities where you decide you've got enough?

No, it is always a direct consequence of the world's geography, and current and potential amenities. I will generally always settle or conquer a city if it provides me with a net benefit, that is when settling/conquering benefits me more than it costs me, resource-wise (and I understand resources very broadly, as science/production/culture/faith/amenities/strategic resources etc.; if I'm going for a domination victory, a city's status as a capital is also a "resource"). Thus, the number of cities I own is dynamic, depending on the changing situation. It makes no rational sense to arbitrarily set a number of cities in your head.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

I dont limit myself to x cities , for me it is turn dependant. i usually stop active setting after 1/3 of max turns with only resource dependant settling.

 

[Giskler]

As many as possible.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I don't know (don't care really), if this is the most optimal style to handle expansión, but it fits the way I play and it normally does not put me at disadvantage.

Sounds pretty efficient to me.

 

[ChocolateShake]

I don't know (don't care really), if this is the most optimal style to handle expansión, but it fits the way I play and it normally does not put me at disadvantage.

I play the same way, after getting about 6 I usually pause a bit and work on developing them a bit before going on another wave. I also haven't ever faced a problem due to this, I can't resist building up my cities a bit before expanding more

core will be well-developed altough maybe not the tallest posible, while 2-nd and 3-rd wave áreas are just midly developed,except for cities founded in specially stronglocations, which may grow as tall and important as the core cities

Yup I'm always happy to see a colony/relatively late city grow to be quite powerful, rivaling or exceeding some of my core. This is going to be very interesting with Phoenicia too.

 

[Cerilis]

Until I am out of space!

 

[Ziad]

ALL the cities.

 

[Disgustipated]

Around 12 to 15 on standard size maps, maybe 15 to 17 on large. Can't play any maps bigger than large atm. The exception is my take all domination victories where I conquer all the cities (not just capitals). In that case I may only settle 2 or 3 and conquer the rest, but I often capture settlers, and put them in open space gaps.

That's my main issue with Phoenicia, Firaxis had 22 cities in their live stream, that's too many for my tastes. I get annoyed by excessive district and settler cost before that point.

 

[ChocolateShake]

That's my main issue with Phoenicia, Firaxis had 22 cities in their live stream, that's too many for my tastes. I get annoyed by excessive district and settler cost before that point.

Wow that's a lot of cities. I knew settling was popular but I didn't realize people are settling that much. I rarely use entertainment complexes but it seems they'd be pretty important once you go past 8 cities.

Looks like most fanatics are going more than 8 cities, I guess as a group we'd have the expansionist trait but 40% so far are going up to 8. I'm curious to try out settling heavily in one of my games and holding off on developing my core.

It makes no rational sense to arbitrarily set a number of cities in your head.

Yup it doesn't make any rational sense, it's a preference that I have personally. Certain games have developed metas, like StarCraft II, where there are only a few rational openings per race, and each play has a rational counter-play - deviations are very rare. Getting 1v1 wins comes down to effectively scouting your opponent and executing the predetermined rational counter strategy that fits most. I enjoy that type of game too.

Civ is more expansive and allows more creativity in approaches, I personally use it to escape from rationality but of course playing rationally is just as valid. There's enjoyment to be had in both approaches, it all comes down to the individual player. I personally get most excited when I discover and can use a non-optimal way to play that also leads me to victory. I've had success even on deity with non-meta strategies, though I rarely play on deity, I favor emperor or immortal.

 

[AmazonQueen]

9-12 usually which tends to be as many decent cities as I can get.
Indonesia and Russia seem to be the civs I build the most cities with, doubtless because they can build decent cities in places other civs can't.

 

[Ziad]

My favorite kind of gameplay is peaceful expansionist naval trade empire that is very active in diplomacy with a hint of war for land security purposes and a minor focus on religion. There's a reason I expect to enjoy Maori, Mali, Phoenicia, and to a lesser extent Canada.

I like having a lot of cities but not necessarily through conquest.

 

[Elhoim]

In general I try to go in groups of 4, due to the amenities, but I definitely end up with 13+. Unfortunately, there's really no downside to wide play. I like it this way, BUT it should be a bit more of a challenge to pull it off. Amenities should be more of an issue, especially in foreign continent cities, GA penalties harsher, conquered cities harder to please, etc.