1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is tall vs wide even still a thing...?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Sascha77, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. Sogno di Volare

    Sogno di Volare Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    45
    Tall vs wide is a Civ V thing only. The factors that made it a balancing game in V just aren't in play in VI.

    Civ VI is just "how many cities" and that's more of a question of when or how quickly the answer is "many".
     
  2. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,780
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, it's not really much of an issue, which is good overall, I think.

    Advantages of going tall:
    Larger cities will tend to have better production, so will produce more.
    More districts in a city = better bonus for internal trade routes.
    Luxuries will go direct to the important cities

    Advantages of going wide:
    Regional affects of Factories/stadiums can affect more cities (ICS)
    Easier to get districts (10 size-4 cities can build 20 districts, 30 if you're a civ with a unique district. 4 size-10 cities only get 16 districts, 20 if you have a UD)
    Some free bonuses (fresh water or policy cards to give housing per city)
    more traders (more chance at Harbor/Commercial zone)

    In general, I think the game is skewed a little bit in favour of simply settling everywhere, in that there really is almost no downside to settling a city if there's even a handful of tiles that are useful. And especially later in the game, sometimes you can plant a city that's already in the vicinity of 2-4 factories/power plants, giving them a big production boost early. Plus you can settle a city, work to get an early commercial district/harbor, and then if you really want, ignore that city and re-assign that trader to a more valuable city. It's very hard to crash your empire by settling extra cities, and settling extra cities will have very little effect on being able to grow your core cities bigger (other than the opportunity costs of extra settlers/builders).
     
  3. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,429
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Lately I've been noticing the AI settling little bitty cities in gaps in my Empire, and it's pissing me off. My borders just haven't grown fast enough to fill those gaps. They are only getting a few good tiles in those cities, and most of those tiles are sea resources. I have trouble believing these cities are really good for the AI to settle. But maybe they get a few gold from those sea resources. I'll never do it though. The AI does a better job expanding in this game, than the last game, but I play with barbs off, so the AI does expand much more successfully.
     
  4. Japper007

    Japper007 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I think we need to redefine tall vs wide:

    tall: Player tries to build a strong core of cities and an army, and only then mass expand through either conquest or settling leftover spots.

    wide: Player focuses on grabbing as much land as possible and then mass spams districts and armies later

    A tall player has a significant chance of overwelming a wide player early when the wide player is still overextended. While the wide player will eventually overwhelm the tall player through sheer output and numbers.

    In civ 5 tall meant expanding very little at all throughout the game, while in civ 6 it means having a focus on a strong core, I think this is a better system BTW, since you actively get punished for playing the game wrong (i.e. not expanding in a 4X game)
     
  5. Sogno di Volare

    Sogno di Volare Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    45
    I think at that point it would be best to leave tall and wide to Civ V... call it something else for VI.
     
  6. Japper007

    Japper007 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Tall vs wide is not just a civ 5 concept ya know, civ 4, and to some degree civ3, have it too. There it had to do with settling distance: wide=Many clustered cities so they can "share" tiles, tall=fewer cities settled to grab maximum tiles without overlapping.

    Pretty much any (good) 4X has the concept to some degree. While the exact parameters of what constitutes "tall" and "wide" change from title to title, the core concept is the same: do I capitalize on improving on my start location? (tall) or focus on grabbing as much terrain, trade goods, provinces, etc. to be an unstoppable juggernaut? (wide) F.e in the Total War series a player has to choose whether to invest their gold in an army, to expand early by taking cities (i.e. the wide strategy) , or buildings, to get a strong economy rolling and eventually get a better army (the tall strategy).
     
  7. Sogno di Volare

    Sogno di Volare Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    45
    I think the edge between tall and wide and consequences were much harsher in V than say questions of resource exploitation / expansion you get in a 4x game. I don't think of those things as the same at all.
     
  8. Japper007

    Japper007 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes but that is because civ 5 BNW got this concept wrong.
    Tall vs Wide should concern the question:
    How do I conquer/take over the majority of the map?

    Not:

    Should I?

    No 4X game should have the player not want to rule the world after all.
     
  9. ZHONN

    ZHONN Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    CiV was really hard on wide play and it was something I rrally hated. I love it how the new game encourages empire building. I wouldn't be opposed to certain restrictions like corruption in CIV, but I sincerely hope it never gets as boring and forced as CIV.
     
  10. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,780
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, 5 had the flaw where in many ways (especially before BNW going for a culture victory) where adding extra cities to your empire essentially made it worse, which should never happen.

    4 had a good balance, in that the new cities would pay off, but if you expand too much and too fast, it can cripple you. That was a good mechanism, because while it still encouraged expansion on the whole, it limited how fast you could go, and could have an effect where a large early war could actually destroy you. 6 is missing that limit right now, where there truly is no penalty for expanding out too quickly other than opportunity cost, but I do at least appreciate that I can go out, settle a city that has a few bonus resources, and not feel like I'm going to hamper my empire because of that one city. That's at least the right way to go, however it would be nice if there was something in there to prevent you from essentially going full ICS/spam.
     
  11. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    Back to Civ VI:
    There is no way building / capturing a city if you have less than 4 (6 if playing the Aztecs) can possibly harm your empire. (Those are in fact the minimum number of cities you should have to avoid wasting the effect of luxuries)

    It is also trivial to show that building / capturing a city that contains a unique luxury resource to your empire if you have less than 8 (12 if playing the Aztecs) will be greatly beneficial to your empire as a whole. (In this case at least 50% of your cities will get a new amenity as soon as you hook it up)

    The current average amenity level vs what the city would provide to your empire becomes a factor if you expand past that (because when the city grows to 3 it will start taking luxuries from other cities), but it's still a whole lot easier for it to be worth it than in Civ V. (Instead of a massive pop growth penalty to the entire empire for hitting -1, only the individual cities are affected and the growth penalty is tiny vs the purely local insufficient housing capacity penalties)

    In Civ VI, a city growing by 1 population instead of reducing global happiness by 1 will bring the individual city 1 closer to the housing capacity limit (possibly causing the city to slow down growth but not affecting any other. ) And if the empire has greater than 4 (6 if playing the Aztecs), then half the time it will cause the city to need one more amenity; which depending on the situation and the luxury manager will either be eaten by that city or alternatively a luxury from another city will be transferred to this one, transferring the cost to another city.
     
  12. Zenstrive

    Zenstrive Ocean King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    914
    Gender:
    Male
    With regional buildings, ICS is the only way to play Civ VI
     
  13. CaiusDrewart

    CaiusDrewart King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Without global happiness, city maintenance, or per-city tech penalties, playing "tall" in Civ V basically means forgoing extra science, culture, faith, territory, resources, and production for very little benefit. Any city with a couple half-decent tiles will make up the production or gold it cost to build a Settler very quickly. And taking cities from the AI can be even cheaper--plus those cities will come with lots of pre-built infrastructure.

    I have no idea what the developers were thinking when they designed a Civ game with such soft, barely noticeable checks on expansion. I mean, I think the clamps were on much too tight in Civ V and that basically ruined that game, so I understand why they didn't want to bring global happiness back. But how did they not realize that ICS was going to be extremely effective in Civ VI?
     
  14. Alleria

    Alleria Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Thank you very much, that's much clearer. :)
     
  15. mnf

    mnf King

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    659
    I've been thinking about ICS. Take a regular civ. We would want each city to have the Industrial, Commercial, Entertainment, and one other zone appropriate to our victory goal. We'll need every city at 10 pop for this, and a fully upgraded Entertainment Complex provides for 11 pop without considering other Zoos and Stadiums in range. Housing will come from City Center (1), Granary (2), Aqueduct (6 or 2), Factory (1), 4 Farms (2), other sources (policies and religion etc). At 10 pop, we will need 20 food, and working from plains tiles forming a 4-tile formation, we go from 2*4=8 food to 3*4=12 food to 4*4=16 food as tech progresses, plus 2 from the City Center, 1 from Granary, 1 from Water Mill, and we would get 20 food. In total we will need 4 tiles for districts, 4 tiles for farms, 1 tile for the Aqueduct, totaling 9 tiles. So that's the first ring plus 3 tiles from the second ring. Considering that we will more likely than not be forced to have more tiles due to water sources and terrain formation, we'll most likely be able to throw in another district (and have the food for the population) as well, to take care of our Encampment and Harbor needs.

    It does seem doable, and we can always just find spot for our super production city with a good +5 or +6 adjacency Industrial Zone and a river for the Ruhr Valley.

    If each baby city is in range of 6 Industrial Zones, it'll be getting 42+2+1=45 and any other production from tiles. So that's 15 turns per Mechanized Infantry, but we'll be rolling out lots in parallel. If we have 15 cities all doing this, it'll be 5 Mechanized Infantry Armies per 15 turns, or on average it takes 3 turns to train a Mech. Inf. Army. Even if we consider other victory conditions, simply having that many cities and that many districts geared towards our victory goal, makes ICS a lot better than any "tall" empire. 15-20 Theater Squares, 15-20 Holy Sites.

    With Amenities and Housing basically taken care of by each individual city, it seems clear that the problem is with the ranged production buildings.
     
    Cruiser76 likes this.
  16. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,780
    Location:
    Toronto
    You don't even need to get to size 10 for each. You really only need industrial and Commercial to properly sprawl out cities as effectively as possible, and then probably only need a handful of entertainment zones to fill in (since you'll get amenities from luxuries and overlap as well). That gives you a bit more leeway in deciding what other districts need to be built. And certainly if you have Toronto nearby, well, that just makes it even crazier, since then your factories reach 9 squares, which could potentially be an insane amount of factory overlap for each city.
     
  17. Sascha77

    Sascha77 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    One thing I will say is that this ICS-galore "requirement" is really getting on my nerves.

    I hate having to micro 10 or 15 cities - especially when you conquer enemy cities which have to brought up to snuff, since the AI usually does a piss-poor job of improving terrain and building the right stuff in their cities. The lack of a build-queue makes this even more problematic.

    Plus now it seems you can settle directly on an enemy border. In my current game, Gorgo plopped down a city right on my border (there are no tiles between my border and her city-center). And the AI will generally settle *everywhere* they physically can, making empire maintenance tedious/confusing and causing constant AI whines about "troops on their borders" and/or religious conversion.

    S.
     
  18. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,522
    Location:
    Madrid
    For me this would be a pro, except for 2 reasons.

    1. I would like the more cities the better, but only if you find awsome land, not just any land. I would like that cities on bad spots werent worth it.
    2. Need some kind of automation of citiesin lategame
     
  19. Matthew.

    Matthew. Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,179
    Perhaps not as defined in Civ 5, but it more or less "works". If you settle the ~5 city locations around your starting area and build them up, you will gain enough momentum to finish any victory type. However, if you wish to continue to expand, you are no longer overly punished for doing so, which rewards wider play. Remember that wide comes with its own inherent penalties, such as needing more settlers, workers (which now consume even more hammers since temporary), military to protect borders (yes AI is incompetent but still a valid point), etc.

    If you mean "tall" as in you have two cities and blow away all your competition with ease, then I'm glad that style of play is dead. The game is about building up empires, not managing city-states.

    I think the balance between the two is pretty good, it is just hard to tell right now because numbers are off elsewhere, such as mid to late game tech/civic costs.
     

Share This Page