How many cities do you normally settle?

[Kaan Boztepe]

i think that at the moment there are no drawbacks whatsoever and the previous civ iterations of drawback of slower science and culture doesnt make sense at all. On the other hand if they introduced something like dropping loyalty the further you are out of your capital or your big core cities , that would be something to consider. Did the English Empire not implode like that when they couldnt hold on to their colonies half a world away?

 

[Siptah]

Siptah, Liang, Reyna, even Viktor apply

I didn‘t know I was in the game already.

 

[Ziad]

I didn‘t know I was in the game already.

LOL I meant Pingala... no idea where Siptah came from

 

[Formersd]

There is some dependency on map size and how aggressively I'm playing, but usually 8-10. The AI is nice enough to build me more cities.

 

[Aristos]

Everything will change now due to the new Strategic Resource model.

 

[Sagax]

LOL I meant Pingala... no idea where Siptah came from

Siptah had Pingala as the forum avatar for a while

 

[Ziad]

Siptah had Pingala as the forum avatar for a while

Bahaha that must be it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

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.

Well, games are not real life, and have different goals. Nobody is trying to win a victory condition in real life. Civ is a game where only 1 civ can win, and usually that involves being THE dominant power rather than just being a power.

But even in that context, it's pretty clear that size really did matter in WW2. And not just Japan vs America. Despite having a far more advanced military and industrial base, Japan would never manage to subdue China due to it simply being too big even if it was also fighting itself in the meantime. And then you have Germany and Russia. Same thing. It didn't matter how far they pushed or how much they won. It was never winnable to begin with. Russia was simply too big and they could just keep falling back. Certainly if they lost Moscow, the results would be disastrous and many more people would suffer, but the Nazis would never win unless the Russians gave up. Which wasn't happening. Not even Hitler was that delusional.

And of course, Imperial Japan would have fallen apart even without attacking America once America denied them resources. Lack of resources and land was a big deal, which is why they went militaristic in the first place. Pearl Harbor wasn't because they were stupid; it was simple desperation.

Finally, the end of the war just really shows it. All the major Colonial powers lost their colonies, losing land and power. They'd remain strong, but there'd only be 2 superpowers left. Given how biased Civ is towards American history, I think this was probably the intent.

 

[UWHabs]

I would say I tend to settle around 6-8 cities using my own settlers, and then the rest is usually through conquest. Some games it's more, but after that many cities, usually not very many useful city spots. Sometimes end up just packing in a few cities to either claim a late NP site, or to chop out a single district. But usually at that point, any extra cities I settle are more because I'm bored and don't like empty spots on the map.

 

[pgm123]

6 cities, if the map allows it. That's settled, not conquered, but I'll often play peaceful games.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well, games are not real life, and have different goals. Nobody is trying to win a victory condition in real life. Civ is a game where only 1 civ can win, and usually that involves being THE dominant power rather than just being a power.

But even in that context, it's pretty clear that size really did matter in WW2. And not just Japan vs America. Despite having a far more advanced military and industrial base, Japan would never manage to subdue China due to it simply being too big even if it was also fighting itself in the meantime. And then you have Germany and Russia. Same thing. It didn't matter how far they pushed or how much they won. It was never winnable to begin with. Russia was simply too big and they could just keep falling back. Certainly if they lost Moscow, the results would be disastrous and many more people would suffer, but the Nazis would never win unless the Russians gave up. Which wasn't happening. Not even Hitler was that delusional.

And of course, Imperial Japan would have fallen apart even without attacking America once America denied them resources. Lack of resources and land was a big deal, which is why they went militaristic in the first place. Pearl Harbor wasn't because they were stupid; it was simple desperation.

Finally, the end of the war just really shows it. All the major Colonial powers lost their colonies, losing land and power. They'd remain strong, but there'd only be 2 superpowers left. Given how biased Civ is towards American history, I think this was probably the intent.

But at the same time, history also doesn't tilt towards the "Civ" that has the most tiny settlements (which is basically how the game works now). Developed urban centers count for something.

 

[Archon_Wing]

But at the same time, history also doesn't tilt towards the "Civ" that has the most tiny settlements (which is basically how the game works now). Developed urban centers count for something.

That I also agree. Building cities should count for something. I think the design of Rome is generally a good balance of spreading out an empire will maintaining infrastructure.

However, if we're going the realism route, I must say I also cringe at "tall" when I see pop 20+ premodern cities. If you actually think about it, you've probably just created a giant slum with a lack of sanitation and amenities.

 

[steveg700]

How many cities do I settle? As many as I can get away with, really. In VI, there shouldn't be too many other answers.

Happiness does not impose enough of a penalty to count as a constraint. So, settling to gain a luxury resource isn't appealing except as a means of exploiting the AI, which didn't the memo stating you don't need to fork over a large amount of gold to avoid a piddling 5% penalty. So, seek out bonus resources and, of course, strategic resources. Forests, rivers, grassland hills, all good features. If you can settle these, then do settle these.

I think loyalty should provide the answer, but not the way it's currently designed. Loyalty should not be purely a localized effect based primarily on population x your era modifier + some bonuses. Rather, it should be an attribute that acts as a threshold for your entire empire. That attribute can be affected by government, current era, choice of plaza buildings, policy cards, war weariness, amenities, and, of course, current civ uniques. If your number of cities is well under the threshold, you get a positive multiplier towards population-based loyalty pressure. If the numbers of cities exceed it, then comes the negative multiplier. Or as an alternative to a multiplier, the radius of pressure from the capital is extended or contracted.

I don't like seeing the issue in terms of a tall/wide dichotomy dictated solely by personal preference. Instead, see it in terms of strategic and tactical decisions. Put a focus on expansion being a strategic consideration, factoring in both key irrevocable decisions made during the course of the game as well as nobs and dials that can be shifted based on current developments.

Also, tie city defense into loyalty, as vulnerability is a logical consequence of overexpansion and discontentment.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do conquered cities count? I'm used to AI getting in my face pretty fast and that means many more of my cities were founded by someone else rather than directly by my nation on most maps.

 

[AmazonQueen]

That I also agree. Building cities should count for something. I think the design of Rome is generally a good balance of spreading out an empire will maintaining infrastructure.

However, if we're going the realism route, I must say I also cringe at "tall" when I see pop 20+ premodern cities. If you actually think about it, you've probably just created a giant slum with a lack of sanitation and amenities.

Well that was most pre-modern cities eg London before the Victorian era. Quite a lot of modern cities too eg Cairo.
I do think there should be more reward for growing cities larger, probably by making specialists more worthwhile, but the larger cities should be drawing on the resources of the smaller ones.
The current internal trade caravans system seems entirely wrong. It encourages you to send caravans from your bigger cities to your smaller cities. Rome didn't send grain to the rest of the empire, the rest of the empire sent it to Rome.