How many cities do you normally settle?

[Ziad]

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.

FULLY agree. I love wide expansionism but Civ6 doesn't punish it enough. In Civ5 you get scaling tech/policy costs (too much actually but VP fixes it). Rome Total War has civil wars and such.

If they ever do a third expansion I really hope they put in some corruption/revolution mechanics that make wide empire management more critical.

 

[ChocolateShake]

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.

Ah I've played Indonesia quite a bit, I'm drawn to them for building coastal empires! The kampung really helps get a different feel out of their cities. Curious to see how they'll do now in GS.

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.

That sounds like a lot of fun to me too. I've always enjoyed a nice war breaking out during my peaceful playthroughs, usually it ends up being my closest neighbor deciding I have some juicy cities to grab. Pretty satisfying to retake them then decide whether or not to go on the offensive.

FULLY agree. I love wide expansionism but Civ6 doesn't punish it enough.

I would like to see a civil war/revolution mechanic once you get to a certain size and if you're too far ahead in the lead. I'd love it if the amenities system was more tied into diplomacy, and if the AI would realize when you're becoming dependent on them to keep your civ intact. They could start to try and get more concessions from you, possibly forcing you into either becoming more aggressive, or forcing you to look for a diplomatic solution, possibly going to the world congress to force civs who have a monopoly on an amenity to trade extra copies at a reasonable price... some nice possibilities there.

 

[redfox85]

I play with a mod that forces cities 5 tiles apart ... and follow the rule of thumb of a min of 5 cities or 1 city per lux (not counting the cap). I'll end up with between 5 to 11 cities typically + the cap.

 

[Z6E1Z9O]

1, i cant get over the fact that i cant do one city strategies anymore like i used to in civ 5,which is why i havent won a single game since i bought the game(civ6)

 

[Zaarin]

Usually 4-6, with perhaps another one or two in the mid- or late-game if space permits.

 

[Sagax]

9-12, but that includes the conquered neighbors, who always start too close for comfort. Battering Ram is the best Settler in the game

 

[Archon_Wing]

biggest rival + 2nd biggest rival

Obviously more is better, but this is usually the turning point.

 

[Rath_O_God]

If we are talking about actually settling and not concurring cities, I probably get in the 8-10 range. That's normal about the point where I have run out of good spots and have to acquire some more from the AI. Depending on the map I might build a few late game settlers to get access to strategic resources in the tundra.

 

[Lord Lakely]

FULLY agree. I love wide expansionism but Civ6 doesn't punish it enough. In Civ5 you get scaling tech/policy costs (too much actually but VP fixes it). Rome Total War has civil wars and such.

If they ever do a third expansion I really hope they put in some corruption/revolution mechanics that make wide empire management more critical.

I disagree that wide should be punished more. Scaling district costs and Loyalty Pressure do enough imo (I settle roughy ~15 cities per game and often 20+), and if it were up to me, I'd just get rid of the scaling costs altogether, because they are counterintuitive. (Better to add a system of inefficiency, based on distance)

The problem is that the game doesn't reward tall play enough. Specialists suck, and tile yields are generally too rubbish to justify more pop. Housing restrictions are harsh, 1 Amenity per two pop is a very annoying restriction on top of that. Aqueducts and Neighbourhoods usually aren't worth the cogs.

So yeah, balance is an issue, but wide can stay how it is. Tall has to be buffed. Adding a cog/coin per pop and giving housing per district (or T1 building) can go a long way...

 

[Archon_Wing]

I agree that there should be brakes on expansion, but why should tall really be rewarded? Why should you be rewarded for not doing something?

If 3 cities was as good as 30 cities, then why bother expanding then? This in itself explains why there should never be a tall meta. If you get the same result

I mean seriously, as braindead as wide play is, you at least have to evaluate the map and conduct military activity. It may not be much, but what kind of skill is there in just passively turtling on a few cities, ignoring 90% of the map, and just building all the buildings in them?

Is there a reason besides "Civ 5 did it?", since before that you built few cities because you were boxed in and had no other choice, but planned to break out later. Or you did it for a challenge and accepted it was as such that you were doing it for the sake of doing it.

Basically, the way I see it, conquest and war is a large part of civ. Most of the balance is focused around it. There is no such thing as an "always peace" option. So if you choose to completely ignore this and ignore half the X's in a 4x, it makes no sense for the game to reward you to do that.

 

[NegativeZero]

I'll be squeezing in cites as room is made avalible. However, I'll hold settling if I'm trying to shoot a particular Age which can be more valuable.

I would like to see some wide vs. tall or dense vs. spread placement choices as there is little downside to zerging across the map.

 

[Kibikus]

Just looking at the poll and the responses, it seems that different people play with a different number of cities that suits their own playstyle, so overall I think Firaxis have done a decent job to get away from the 4-city "dogma" of Civ 5 (although I do think there is still some balancing to be done, specialists being one issue for example).

I personally tend to change my approach from game to game to keep things fresh. Sometimes I would have my corner of the world with 4-7 cities, and be peaceful throughout the whole game, other times I would conquer a neighbour and have a good 10-12 city empire, and when I go domination, I just conquer/raze everything in my way.

 

[Victoria]

more interested in discussing how far players usually go to expand,

Expanding by taking the enemy is just worth so much more, not only have they pre-built districts and not chopped but taking their cities gives eurekas you would not always get normally

Your own settlers start costing more and more. I answered 5-8 because that is roughly how many of my own settled cities I will use as real ket cities in my empire which I guess is what you are really after.

Playing a long game I will also get additional settlers because you run out of things to do in some cities and these can be for amenity/resource cities, troll cities, gift cities and tourism cities. I intentionally nerf them so they do not grow (well maybe the troll city I will fatten).
Gift cities in a long game I will often build just to get rid of the "you occupy my city" dip negative... maybe these will be gone in the new release.

 

[legalizefreedom]

Is there another good city site? Then I'm still settling.

 

[Ziad]

I disagree that wide should be punished more. Scaling district costs and Loyalty Pressure do enough imo (I settle roughy ~15 cities per game and often 20+), and if it were up to me, I'd just get rid of the scaling costs altogether, because they are counterintuitive. (Better to add a system of inefficiency, based on distance)

The problem is that the game doesn't reward tall play enough. Specialists suck, and tile yields are generally too rubbish to justify more pop. Housing restrictions are harsh, 1 Amenity per two pop is a very annoying restriction on top of that. Aqueducts and Neighbourhoods usually aren't worth the cogs.

So yeah, balance is an issue, but wide can stay how it is. Tall has to be buffed. Adding a cog/coin per pop and giving housing per district (or T1 building) can go a long way...

I mean they pretty much buffed Tall in GS as it is by reworking the governors to be more specialized. Siptah, Liang, Reyna, even Viktor apply. I don't think they should ever make it so that having 3-4 cities is the same as 15-20 cities though.

I agree about scaling district costs being annoying, but I wouldn't refer to that as necessarily being a nerf. Settling a new city has literally no drawbacks other than taking an amenity at pop 3 but you typically settle in a place that has a luxury you can trade, or you can mitigate issues entirely by just purchasing from the massive gold you'll inevitably get.

More cities does everything in this game. More gold. More trade routes. More GPP. More science. More faith. More loyalty.

When I refer to punishment I mean actual legitimate drawbacks.The bigger you get the harder it should be harder to maintain control. In standard strategy games it comes in the form of corruption, revolution, increased border security needs, etc...

 

[Disgustipated]

I agree that there should be brakes on expansion, but why should tall really be rewarded? Why should you be rewarded for not doing something?

I agree with most of your reasoning, but there have been several examples of "tall" empires in history. Japan is a notable one.

edit: I should be more clear. I don't mean to say Japan should be as strong as the U.S., WW2 clearly showed that can never be the case. But that doesn't mean they should be insignificant either.

 

[Ziad]

I agree with most of your reasoning, but there have been several examples of "tall" empires in history. Japan is a notable one.

They have many major cities though.

I think it's a difference between "thick" and "wide" moreso than "tall" vs "wide" in the real world.

Japan would be a player that settles cities really close together... and that's what they incentivize in civ6 lol

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If not conquering I usually end up at about 6-8. Who wants more than that? It get tedious really quickly.

 

[Leathaface]

I aim for at least 8 but normally get at least 9 I settle myself. Since R&F I often get on average 2 cities by loyalty flip, though sometimes 4 or even 5 cities.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

9-12 roughly, from MY settlers. From Conquered cities... well... um, all of them.
On a Giant map, that number does go up later on. (when I start making settlers to reduce pop pressure in some cities)