[Vanilla] King - winning on

[Victoria]

and you'll understand that city center buildings can generally be delayed for quite awhile

monuments and granaries are general exceptions, they are for the expansion phase.

Religion and Faith are generally bad investments

monumentality tells me faith is a good investment, religion not so much.

 

[knighterrant81]

monumentality tells me faith is a good investment, religion not so much.

That's fair, although faith is really the only resource you can completely ignore and still win the game with. You can't really ignore gold, production, culture, or science. Food after a certain point can be ignored, but you can have 0 Faith the entire game and still do well.

monuments and granaries are general exceptions, they are for the expansion phase.

Monuments are really useful for getting that first Government unlocked, and generally boosting your Culture without having to invest in a lot of Wonders or Theatre Squares. I'm curious how you use Granaries in your expansion phase. I tend to delay them unless I have a city with low housing (like a coastal city), and then I will rush buy them, or perhaps rush buy a Water Mill for the Eureka. I'd say that city center buildings (particularly ones that contribute to global resources like Monuments do) bolster the argument that more cities is the best way to victory in Civ VI.

 

[Victoria]

I'm curious how you use Granaries in your expansion phase

If there are good workable tiles, working them earlier with more pop really helps. The granary gives us food as well as housing so increases growth and that extra food does allow more flexibility with pop to land allocation. (Working a 1/4 tile without damaging growth too much).

 

[dwcole78]

Thanks for all the discussion guys! I expect I am not growing fast enough and playing to much tall like you have to in higher levels in V. V was VERY much wide doesn't work. Seems no real difference in how I should play my current situation so will play that some more soon and post what happens.

 

[zxcvbob]

I was going to start a thread just like this one; I've recently dusted off my Civ 6 game (I play *way* too much '5), and I still have the vanilla version. Gonna try not to hijack this, but what I'm doing (that's not working) is I build a scout, monument, slinger, and granary, then try to get 2 more cities planted. If it's reasonable I'll make a builder and improve 3 tiles for the culture and science boosts, but sometimes the land isn't worth improving right away or there are too many barbs to try. Then either a holy district or a campus. Somewhere around the classical or medevial era, one of my neighbors will get froggy and I'll punish them severely, but usually don't capture their last city. Then I build another city or two. I play mostly peacefully after the first war, focusing on science and culture -- have to do both. I use spies to steal great works, and sabotage spaceports and industrial sites. And I usually *almost* win, but one of the AI's squeaks past me in either science or culture. BTW, I usually end up allied to almost all the CS's; I know they can be important, especially for science victory, but there have been almost no scientific CS's in my last 2 games.

My favorite wonder is Great Zimbabwe, because the AI's don't know how to build it and it's flypaper for their spies.

Maybe I ought to try domination; it's more straightforward. I will shut up and listen now.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Yep first 100 turns should focus more on Settlers and military rather than districts. Understand that large cities are actively detrimental and you'll understand that city center buildings can generally be delayed for quite awhile. Claim territory first, and then build your districts. I do tend to build 1-2 districts early (generally Campuses if I have good locations for them), but not much more than that. I usually build a scout first, but only one.

Here's a good way to think about this. Districts are the most powerful thing in this game - but generally each victory type requires only ONE district type (SV wants Campuses, CV wants Theater Squares, etc.) If you only build 5 cities, well, that's only 5 "victory districts." If you build 10 cities, you have more places to build your victory district.

Civ VI can sort of be summed up as a series of phases. Expand/Conquer-->build your victory district in every city-->continue hitting End Turn until you win.

why are large cities detrimental? population gives you more tiles to work, gives you culture, science or gold depending on your governor, gives you flexibility (going full prod, going hard growth, going full specialists..), allows you to exceed district limit. what exactly are the downsides?

also, your assesment that each victory only needs 1 district is simply wrong. campus for example needs campus and space port to even be able to finish the game, but also heavily needs cultural sites because SV requires adequate culture per turn.

CV needs cultural sites and holy sites (for rockbands etc.), one could even argue it wants districts for amenities and appeal. also, I actually do not build my "victory district" in every city, and I don't think it's optimal to build a +0 district in an expansion just because it correlates to your VC. building a harbor or EZ for the additional TR would probably be more optimal in that situation, especially as number of cities increases.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

monuments and granaries are general exceptions, they are for the expansion phase.
monumentality tells me faith is a good investment, religion not so much.

question: I almost always get a golden age first, and then simply take the bonus that gives me +4 GPP per turn, which usually results in me getting a religion, even if I do not have a holy site (I rush-chop it a few turns before the GP comes in usually).

Obviously this will not work always on Deity or Imm since the AI is hellbent on getting religion, but isn't using the era bonus for a "free" religion entirely worth it? I also don't fancy the alternatives too much to be honest, especially because I rarely have harbors or EZ up to benefit from the science one. cultural era bonus is very strong and I almost always take it when I get a religion anyway/don't want a religion.

I was going to start a thread just like this one; I've recently dusted off my Civ 6 game (I play *way* too much '5), and I still have the vanilla version. Gonna try not to hijack this, but what I'm doing (that's not working) is I build a scout, monument, slinger, and granary, then try to get 2 more cities planted. If it's reasonable I'll make a builder and improve 3 tiles for the culture and science boosts, but sometimes the land isn't worth improving right away or there are too many barbs to try. Then either a holy district or a campus. Somewhere around the classical or medevial era, one of my neighbors will get froggy and I'll punish them severely, but usually don't capture their last city. Then I build another city or two. I play mostly peacefully after the first war, focusing on science and culture -- have to do both. I use spies to steal great works, and sabotage spaceports and industrial sites. And I usually *almost* win, but one of the AI's squeaks past me in either science or culture. BTW, I usually end up allied to almost all the CS's; I know they can be important, especially for science victory, but there have been almost no scientific CS's in my last 2 games.

My favorite wonder is Great Zimbabwe, because the AI's don't know how to build it and it's flypaper for their spies.

Maybe I ought to try domination; it's more straightforward. I will shut up and listen now.

I'd recommend more and earlier settlers. some people do them as their 2nd build. Personally, I usually go:

Scout or Warrior - Scout or Slinger - Worker or Settler - Worker or Settler (depending on which one you picked earlier) - Settler or Monument. I don't bother with Granary until I get housing problems. So in a normal game it will look like this:

Build a scout, then a slinger, then a settler and a worker to barely get the Eurekah for craftsmanship in time. After that sometimes a district, especially if I have a unique one, for the next Eurekah. And then I spam settlers with the early empire card in my two cities. Delaying the Monument feels very bad and might not be the greatest idea. It really depends on how much value you get out of your units, for me scouting and warfare are my strengths, so I play towards those.

The biggest advantage of building units early is meeting CS, finding ruins, finding barb camps, meeting Civs, finding natural wonders, finding expansion spots, finding coastlines/mountain ranges, stealing settlers or workers, blocking enemies or barbs, protecting your settlers/workers/tiles.

Really, units and cities early are by far the best long-term investment.

 

[Victoria]

but isn't using the era bonus for a "free" religion entirely worth it?

Golden ages are... well golden.
Free inquiry gives 10% eurekas as well as extra science. Just what you need
Pen brush and voice is similar, very handy, underrated in my view.
Monumentality is OP, no faith? Just pillage something, practically anything for free gifts.
Exodus.... well I’m going RV so it’s great... not going RV, then it’s not a free religion, it is a religion at the cost of the other 3 great golden age helps and they will help so much more in future era points (which you now need an additional +5 of) than religion will unless going RV.

worth it? Only in an upside down world to me.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

worth it? Only in an upside down world to me.

especially since my religions tend to not be the best (rarely get first) and require immense ressources to spread (faith which could otherwise be used to accelerate ones VC). I value the +10% for Eurekahs/Inspirations very highly, but always valued the science from Harbor/EZ incredibly low, since for me it comes online rather late. I will try out Monumentality and Free Inquiry in my next games, thanks a lot for your advice. So far my standard was Pen Brush and I think it's as good as it gets, especially good if your science is good but culture is lacking (like when playing Korea). I don't really understand your comment regarding monumentality, how does it help with pillaging? afaik it only gives the movement speed bonus to workers, not units. However more workers is always good.

I have also never really considered that they all give you additional ways to earn era score. Mainly because in the game where I snowball, I always get golden ages without even trying. I had a recent Multiplayer game however with a horrible secluded start and started with a dark age, imho whether you get a dark, normal or golden age first is pretty much entirely down to the map and RNG.

 

[Victoria]

So far my standard was Pen Brush and I think it's as good as it gets,

your comment regarding monumentality, how does it help with pillaging?

Monumentality GA most of the time for me unless I harbour some desire.
The worker speed you can get later with the red logistics card. It’s the buying settlers and builders with faith that makes monumentality so monumental. Many things provide faith when pillaged, and lots of it, especially with the Raid card slotted which I chose rather than the often crappy -1 gold per unit maintenance.

the last monumentality option sort of makes you want an early SV.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Didn't even think about faith buying, that is such a game changer. You get cheaper gold buys, too, iirc. I, too, am a Raid connoseur

 

[knighterrant81]

why are large cities detrimental? population gives you more tiles to work, gives you culture, science or gold depending on your governor, gives you flexibility (going full prod, going hard growth, going full specialists..), allows you to exceed district limit. what exactly are the downsides?

also, your assesment that each victory only needs 1 district is simply wrong. campus for example needs campus and space port to even be able to finish the game, but also heavily needs cultural sites because SV requires adequate culture per turn.

CV needs cultural sites and holy sites (for rockbands etc.), one could even argue it wants districts for amenities and appeal. also, I actually do not build my "victory district" in every city, and I don't think it's optimal to build a +0 district in an expansion just because it correlates to your VC. building a harbor or EZ for the additional TR would probably be more optimal in that situation, especially as number of cities increases.

After size 10, it turns out that the benefits of a higher population do not outweigh the costs (this is due to things like specialists being really weak in Civ 6). The cost of housing improvements and districts (like Aqueducts and Neighborhoods) and Amenities are significant. Also, since you only need 2 or 3 District slots, those extra slots don't provide much benefit. Again, it is better to have more small cities, because you can actually get a ton of low-maintenance population that way, and you get more space for your victory District. Yeah, obviously, you need other Districts too. I'd say adjacency is one of the weaker aspects of your Districts. I'm not advocating building +0 Districts, but as long as you can get +3, that's all you really need. A bigger factor is your Great Person generation.

Maybe a better way to say it is not that "you build more cities so you can build more victory Districts" but that "you build more cities to build more of every District." The more cities you have, the more likely you'll be able to find good spots for all your District types and meet the conditions for more Wonders. Districts are the main source of things like Culture, Science, Gold, Trade Routes, etc. etc. So you have to build more of them, so you have to build more cities.

Spaceport doesn't really count as a District in my book. By the time you can build Spaceports, the game is generally won, and you are swimming in District slots. That the Spaceport happens to take a District slot is incidental and doesn't have much impact on the game. A better argument vis-a-vis Science Victories would be Industrial Zones. 3-4 good Theater Squares paired with the right Wonders can rocket you through the Culture tree pretty fast, which is definitely important for SV .

I'd say with the advent of Rock Bands that Faith is more important to a Cultural Victory now, but I don't think every Cultural civ or game should involve rushing to get a Religion right away, and I think Theater Squares would be a higher priority. I usually advocate new or struggling players to avoid Religion, as it is easy to bog down your early game expansion rushing Religion, and it is difficult to realize the benefits without knowing how to capitalize on high Faith properly.

Here's the thing. When I have 15+ cities, I probably have 4-5 +3 adjacency options for my victory District that I can build right away. I also have 4-5 +3 spots for other District types as well. Yeah, I am not building my victory District in every city (at least not right away), but I can get started on all of those Districts (victory or otherwise) right away instead of waiting for my pop to grow. Why choose when I can build both?

The other advantage of going wide is the same advantage that it has always had in Civ - more building queues and crowding out your opponents. One more city built by you (strategically placed) is one less city built by your neighbor. One of the biggest reasons the jump from King to Emperor is so difficult is because that's when all the AIs get an additional Settler.

The only reason to build Entertainment Complexes is to enable building the Colosseum. Generally, once I've built the Colosseum, I never have to worry about Amenities again. Even if I don't snag it, I don't tend to build many Entertainment Complexes. Well, unless I'm playing a Civ like Scotland!

I have a secret crush on Harbors, to be honest. I do like playing naval/coastal games, so the weakness of naval strategies throughout Civ 6's history has made me sad. The best part about harbors is they give me something really strong (additional Trade Route) in exchange for something fairly weak (a coastal tile). My favorite part of the District system is how you can use it to make terrible tiles start working for you.

I'm going to sum up my playstyle:

1. Expansion and Defense. Build/capture 10+ cities by about turn 80-100. District costs are locked in as early as possible but I don't build them yet. Focus is on military and Settlers.
2. Consolidation. Focus is on Builders (pumped up by Serfdom and often the Pyramids), any early Wonders I'm aiming for, and chopping out the Districts I locked in earlier.
3. Victory. Now the game is pretty much won, so I settle down for 100 clicks of the End turn button while managing my Empire,and keeping track of my rank in my Victory area (e.g. am I first in Science? Am I first in Science generation?)

 

[yung.carl.jung]

After size 10, it turns out that the benefits of a higher population do not outweigh the costs (this is due to things like specialists being really weak in Civ 6). The cost of housing improvements and districts (like Aqueducts and Neighborhoods) and Amenities are significant.)

Cities grow even with housing, albeit slower, so there is no need to invest in housing for growth. I've often had cities 3 or 4 above housing limit because I was unwilling to build neighborhoods. However your point about amenities is a sound one - bigger cities may suffer malus because of lacking amenity. Personally it's not been much of a problem for me, but mathematically it is. You still need to consider that some degree of housing and amenities should always be built, simply for the Eurekahs. So you should always have an Aqueduct, a Neighborhood or three, and three Sewers for what is maybe the most important Inspiration in the game. I'm probably forgetting something, but that already is a significant amount of housing (same goes for amenities) you should build anyway, always.

Also, since you only need 2 or 3 District slots, those extra slots don't provide much benefit. Again, it is better to have more small cities, because you can actually get a ton of low-maintenance population that way, and you get more space for your victory District. Yeah, obviously, you need other Districts too. I'd say adjacency is one of the weaker aspects of your Districts. I'm not advocating building +0 Districts, but as long as you can get +3, that's all you really need. A bigger factor is your Great Person generation.

How many districts you need is kind of irrelevant, it is still a bonus to be able to build more, even if you're not going to in every city. However because adjacency is a thing, even districts that do not directly correspond to your VC are a bonus, insofar they give adjacency and GPP. GPP are good in any scenario, even if they don't correspond to your VC again, because of city state quests for example. Admirals are entirely useless in most games, but still often have given me Science or Cultural suzerain status. I feel this quest (GP quests in general) pops off disproportionally often, but that is probably down to bias.

Maybe a better way to say it is not that "you build more cities so you can build more victory Districts" but that "you build more cities to build more of every District." The more cities you have, the more likely you'll be able to find good spots for all your District types and meet the conditions for more Wonders. Districts are the main source of things like Culture, Science, Gold, Trade Routes, etc. etc. So you have to build more of them, so you have to build more cities.

That is true, but not pertaining to the argument. Letting your cities grow (passively) does not reduce your ability to settle more cities, unless you invest unnecessary ressources, see the first part of my response. I've gotten 15+ cities without investing in any housing/amenities besides what is needed for eurekahs. Going wide is always better, but it's not mutually exclusive with going tall like it was in Civ 5. The rest of your post is built on that premise.

I have a secret crush on Harbors, to be honest. I do like playing naval/coastal games, so the weakness of naval strategies throughout Civ 6's history has made me sad. The best part about harbors is they give me something really strong (additional Trade Route) in exchange for something fairly weak (a coastal tile). My favorite part of the District system is how you can use it to make terrible tiles start working for you.

I have a love and hate relationship with harbors. I always build them, because often times no +2 Comm Hub is available, but I loathe them giving GAP. I want merchants, not admirals. What is very nice though is that harbor buildings improve yields in coastal cities so incredibly much. That is one thing I really like about Civ VI.

the weakness of naval strategies throughout Civ 6's history has made me sad

I think naval warfare is both strong and incredibly easy once you get to Frigates. Everything before that just sucks though, I loathe it. Really badly implemented. Melee ships are incredibly useless, most AIs do not even settle directly on coast anyway, often even 2 tiles from coast. I've had games with 6 AI and not a single coastal city I could take, no joke. However, winning with Frigates into Battleships is still one of the best ways for a DomV, exactly as it was in Civ V. Yes, you need horsemen+ and you could potentially get screwed by the map, but once you have extra range and that incredible mobility warfare becomes almost too easy.

1. Expansion and Defense. Build/capture 10+ cities by about turn 80-100. District costs are locked in as early as possible but I don't build them yet. Focus is on military and Settlers.
2. Consolidation. Focus is on Builders (pumped up by Serfdom and often the Pyramids), any early Wonders I'm aiming for, and chopping out the Districts I locked in earlier.
3. Victory. Now the game is pretty much won, so I settle down for 100 clicks of the End turn button while managing my Empire,and keeping track of my rank in my Victory area (e.g. am I first in Science? Am I first in Science generation?)

I play pretty much exactly the same way, though I self-settle more (aiming for about 10 self-settled cities and about 10 conquered ones after t100) and upgrade my army all the way through, I'm pretty much always at war looking for either cities or peace deals.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Cities grow even with housing, albeit slower, so there is no need to invest in housing for growth.

But it does mean that food is the worst yield because it suffers diminishing returns very rapidly in the first eras. Whereas if you focus on more cities that would give you more science, culture, gold, even faith, etc is far more efficient.

On a more basic level, to get more food, you need to spend builder charges on farms in most cases. Builders get more expensive the more you build, so spending a lot of charges on farms is going to hurt your game later on for minimal gain. Those charges could have been use on mines ,luxuries, or chopping. Do we have anything else that helps with growth? Granaries are the only decent building-- water mills are pretty mediocre and neighborhoods are mostly memes. One must realize that a "burst" of value is more important that yields over time because Civ games typically do not go on forever. The later you get into the game, the less turns you have to use something.

When builder charges are more plentiful once you get the +builder charge cards, it becomes more viable to build farms. But it is still a subpar investment.

If you look at a lot of fast players, they don't even improve a lot of the tiles due to builder actions no longer being unlimited. If you look closely at tile yields, you may realize most of them actually suck and most improvements that aren't mines are actually pretty awful. This is especially true when it comes to flatland tiles without resources. To put it bluntly, these tiles are not going to help you win most of the time, so they might as well not exist.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

But it does mean that food is the worst yield because it suffers diminishing returns very rapidly in the first eras.

sure, I often only build 6 farms for the inspo unless they're incredibly efficient

Whereas if you focus on more cities that would give you more science, culture, gold, even faith, etc is far more efficient.

again, it's just a false dichotomy. the debate was on whether growing cities past 10 pop (not the same as investing in food or housing) is actually bad or harmful for your victory condition, which clearly it is not unless you have amenity problems.

 

[knighterrant81]

Cities grow even with housing, albeit slower, so there is no need to invest in housing for growth. I've often had cities 3 or 4 above housing limit because I was unwilling to build neighborhoods. However your point about amenities is a sound one - bigger cities may suffer malus because of lacking amenity. Personally it's not been much of a problem for me, but mathematically it is. You still need to consider that some degree of housing and amenities should always be built, simply for the Eurekahs. So you should always have an Aqueduct, a Neighborhood or three, and three Sewers for what is maybe the most important Inspiration in the game. I'm probably forgetting something, but that already is a significant amount of housing (same goes for amenities) you should build anyway, always.

Not all Eurekas and Inspirations are worth adjusting your playstyle for. I submit that it is not efficient to build a Neighborhood just for a Eureka.

How many districts you need is kind of irrelevant, it is still a bonus to be able to build more, even if you're not going to in every city. However because adjacency is a thing, even districts that do not directly correspond to your VC are a bonus, insofar they give adjacency and GPP. GPP are good in any scenario, even if they don't correspond to your VC again, because of city state quests for example. Admirals are entirely useless in most games, but still often have given me Science or Cultural suzerain status. I feel this quest (GP quests in general) pops off disproportionally often, but that is probably down to bias.

You're missing the point. Yes it is a bonus to build more. The question is, "which is more efficient, to build more (put more production into) Settlers/military/victory condition, or to put more production into Housing and Amenities?" It turns out, that after size 10, it is more efficient to focus on things other than population.

That is true, but not pertaining to the argument. Letting your cities grow (passively) does not reduce your ability to settle more cities, unless you invest unnecessary ressources, see the first part of my response. I've gotten 15+ cities without investing in any housing/amenities besides what is needed for eurekahs. Going wide is always better, but it's not mutually exclusive with going tall like it was in Civ 5. The rest of your post is built on that premise.

Sure, I mean I always end up with plenty of cities that are greater than size 10. I don't think we play all that different. What I'm getting at is that 10 is the break point, where the benefits of additional population don't outweigh the costs. Yeah, the costs aren't insurmountable or even all that high, but it is helpful to know that you don't really need to worry too much about that size 10 city that is going to grow in 150 turns.

I think naval warfare is both strong and incredibly easy once you get to Frigates. Everything before that just sucks though, I loathe it. Really badly implemented. Melee ships are incredibly useless, most AIs do not even settle directly on coast anyway, often even 2 tiles from coast. I've had games with 6 AI and not a single coastal city I could take, no joke. However, winning with Frigates into Battleships is still one of the best ways for a DomV, exactly as it was in Civ V. Yes, you need horsemen+ and you could potentially get screwed by the map, but once you have extra range and that incredible mobility warfare becomes almost too easy.

My emphasis in your quote. That pretty much sums up Civ 6 - I may love the harbor, but it killed naval warfare that you no longer NEED to ever settle on the coast. Oh, and GS actively punishes you for settling there. It is better after the patch, though.

sure, I often only build 6 farms for the inspo unless they're incredibly efficient

again, it's just a false dichotomy. the debate was on whether growing cities past 10 pop (not the same as investing in food or housing) is actually bad or harmful for your victory condition, which clearly it is not unless you have amenity problems.

You're missing the point. There isn't a debate, one choice is just the most efficient. Its just math. One is good and helps your victory condition. The other is better, and will help you win faster.

Now, it is okay to not want to play that way. (It is a bit counter-intuitive - shouldn't bigger cities be more powerful cities? Also, big cities are fun and make you feel powerful.) I don't play to race the clock, but I use the work others have done to inform my decisions. You can certainly still win while making high-pop cities. It is more efficient to build more smaller, spread out cities.

So I bring it back to my point in this thread. You, me, @Archon_Wing - we are not the point of this thread. We can win reliably at the difficulty level we choose to play at. What I'm focused on is players like the OP - players who are struggling to win or to win on a higher difficulty level than they've played before. For them, becoming more efficient can make a big difference in their enjoyment and reaching their goals.

 

[Archon_Wing]

again, it's just a false dichotomy. the debate was on whether growing cities past 10 pop (not the same as investing in food or housing) is actually bad or harmful for your victory condition, which clearly it is not unless you have amenity problems.

Well, I mean I dunno how to grow cities without food or housing.

It's pretty hard to grow past 10 without housing, at least in a part of the game where it actually matters,.

It's more that you should aim for pop 10 as a goal to take advantage of the cards that benefit. If you do grow past pop 10 on their own, that's fine. It's not like I'm saying that you should starve your city should it dare hit 11, but 10 pop is just ideal if going through normal game flow. Actively pursuing city sizes above that is basically inconsequential to victory. In other words, large cities are at best a small boon and at worst detrimental if they cause amenity problems.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Well, I mean I dunno how to grow cities without food or housing.
It's pretty hard to grow past 10 without housing, at least in a part of the game where it actually matters,.

I easily get 15+ cities by the end of the game with just fresh water and a granary. Running internal TR later in the game will do that for you. The one city where I build an aqueduct/neighborhood for Eurekah sometimes reaches 20 pop. Also, having a 15 pop city is one of the most meaningful Inspirations there are, so skipping it seems very suboptimal.

Not all Eurekas and Inspirations are worth adjusting your playstyle for. I submit that it is not efficient to build a Neighborhood just for a Eureka..

Why is it not worth it? You're not giving an argument here, just stating an opinion. I don't think every Eurekah is worth it either, I often times don't build two Galleys for example, nor do I build a fort in most of my games, because they have close to zero economic benefit. The housing from a Neighborhood however allows for more pop, meaning more centralized production, which is literally your bottleneck for space victories. I reckon building one aqueduct, one neighborhood and six farms is almost a must in most games, though the Neighborhood is the least valuable of the 3, simply because it comes online so late. I skip it in maybe 1/10 or 2/10 games.

You're missing the point. Yes it is a bonus to build more. The question is, "which is more efficient, to build more (put more production into) Settlers/military/victory condition, or to put more production into Housing and Amenities?" It turns out, that after size 10, it is more efficient to focus on things other than population.

That's not what we are arguing about. I never invest more than necessary for Eurekahs/Inspos into housing/food, as I've stated three times now, so bringing up this argument is just futile and unnecessary. Please try arguing in good faith. I probably play one of the most violent/expansionist playstyles on this entire forum, you're barking up entirely the wrong tree. In fact, you're not even in the correct dog park.

Sure, I mean I always end up with plenty of cities that are greater than size 10. I don't think we play all that different. What I'm getting at is that 10 is the break point, where the benefits of additional population don't outweigh the costs. Yeah, the costs aren't insurmountable or even all that high, but it is helpful to know that you don't really need to worry too much about that size 10 city that is going to grow in 150 turns.

The only thing you have established as a "cost" for growing past 10 is less amenities, which I have agreed is one negative factor. There is not a single other "cost" out there and you know it. There is literally no downside to growing your cities past 10 pop if you are doing well on amenities. And if you straw man "growing past 10" into "investing in housing/food" one more time you'll step onto a Lego piece and hurt your foot.

You're missing the point. There isn't a debate, one choice is just the most efficient. Its just math. One is good and helps your victory condition. The other is better, and will help you win faster.

Now, it is okay to not want to play that way. (It is a bit counter-intuitive - shouldn't bigger cities be more powerful cities? Also, big cities are fun and make you feel powerful.) I don't play to race the clock, but I use the work others have done to inform my decisions. You can certainly still win while making high-pop cities. It is more efficient to build more smaller, spread out cities.

You're wrong on every level and your smugness is not just unjustified, but kind of embarrassing. You've not only not provided a single succinct argument besides amenities as to why growing past 10 is bad (which was your initial claim, after all), you've strawmanned yourself into a corner and are holding up the flag of "optimal play", and of "objectively better", "spreading misinformation to newer players" when you're simply wrong.

You literally say "you're missing the point" twice while completely missing the point yourself and arguing against a windmill. I don't know what it is you're trying to accomplish, but it's not working.

Growing past 10 population, for all things considered, is in almost every scenario beneficial. End of discussion.

Investing in food and housing is, in almost every scenario, and aside from Eurekahs/Inspos, not optimal play. I'd be the first person to tell you that. But that is completely irrespective of our discussion. These statements are not mutually exclusive in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I easily get 15+ cities by the end of the game with just fresh water and a granary. Running internal TR later in the game will do that for you.

If you're running on internal trade routes, you're missing out on 30-40 gold per route and probably some culture or science, even discounting alliances. I guess you can't send all of them externally but half of the trade route yield is basically dead weight.

Also, having a 15 pop city is one of the most meaningful Inspirations there are, so skipping it seems very suboptimal.

You only need 1 city for it, and that's just one inspiration. If you really want it, you can just chop some jungle or gather food. I wouldn't really call that one of the most important inspirations out there-- it's just a few turns saved. Also I forgot what that civic does-- why is it important again?

I sometimes DO grow a city to 15 for that purpose, but I never go out of my way for that purpose. If it happens, it happens.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

If you're running on internal trade routes, you're missing out on 30-40 gold per route and probably some culture or science, even discounting alliances. I guess you can't send all of them externally but half of the trade route yield is basically dead weight.

you missed the part where I said I rerout them later in the game. I always run GPT trade routes over food, they're much better in my opinion, I only switch to internal for the later stages of SV (shortly before Spaceport comes in) or DomV (when I've declared on most Civs). I also often just don't have enough TRs to other civs because I'm permanently at war, even for culture and science games. Had a point in my last game where 6/10 civs were at war with me, so I had to use internal TR and it really crippled my economy.