Optimal Growth Rate Strategies

[theodcyning]

I've recently realized the tremendous importance of early expansion. I somehow had been playing stupidly tall most of my early game, preferring to put my first production into early culture, science, or military. After switching it up and choosing to put my earliest production into builders and settlers I am amazed at how well my game has improved! Getting out like 4-5 cities by like turn 30 is invaluable. In theory, if I spent my first production on a monument, then I'd only be out less than 30 net culture in exchange for having said 4-5 cities. However, I am wondering is there some kind of optimal growth rate, or a strategy for such that you follow? Some estimation or theory of exactly how wide vs tall to go, and how quickly?

In my experience right now... I'm starting to find many of my early spawned cities rarely have enough production to churn out the ever increasing cost of settlers in a reasonable time, so I leave my capital to produce them. I immediately prioritize producing enough cities to grab all nearby Amenities; having 2-3 Amenities is invaluable when your populations are low enough to not use them up(ecstatic bonus). I then fill in fresh water gaps, planning to squeeze in as many cities as possible until producing settlers becomes too time consuming; at this point I effectively take a break from producing settlers. After this, I find housing becomes my next limiting factor with respect to overall growth. It becomes a rush to build builders, farms, granaries, or more settlers before hitting one-pop-below-housing. After stabilizing any housing crisis, I find some cities now have enough production to churn out any last settlers if necessary or convenient.

In short, I think the keys might be:
*spend first production on improvements and expansion
*settle near luxury resources first and foremost
*keep capital producing settlers till it becomes unreasonable to do so
*immediately prevent housing crises with farms and granaries.
*once each city is generating good production, return to producing settlers if convenient.

tricky parts:
*low pop means high amenity bonus, but low yield; contradictory benefits
*timing growth vs production
*having to break to make warriors(for defense or escort) and builders
*hoping u start near luxuries

What are your strategies for trying to achieve optimal growth? particularly with your early game. What are some more of the absolutely invaluable benefits of mastering early growth rates? Are there some civs that are actually way more optimal going tall? Or civs that are optimal going SUPER wide? Does anybody get real mathematical about it?

Oh, and for more context, I am thinking mostly in terms of MP strategy, where(like in prince) everybody has an equal start. I am quite sure that on deity, not putting more priority on a heavy military defense can be irreparable.

 

[Boyan_Sun]

Can I interpret it as you want to play more efficiently? If yes, try to forgot the growth. The population model of Civ 6 is totally broken.

All Civ's most optimal way is to go SUPER wide. In Vanilla, build/capture many small cities close to each others with population of 4-8, is the best way to develop. This will consume the least food, housing, and amenities, allow the sharing of farms and its housing between cities. This is very easy to understand - there is a growth formula in the formula thread, comparing one 18 pop city and three 6-pop cities (assume the same yield), you will find the answer:

• one 18-pop city: amenity cost 8, food cost ~1800, housing cost 15 (5 from fresh water), initial 6 tiles
• three 6-pop cities: amenity cost 6, food cost ~500(170 each), housing cost 3 ((6-5)*3), initial 18 tiles

In fact, in Civ6 after one city grows to 6, the benefits of rising population are likely to be dwarfed by the resources it costs; when grows to 10~12, the benefits will be nearly zero but cost also grows fast; after 12 it will even be negative benefit (imagine you're paying much and getting worse). Experienced PvE players (efficient focus) in Chinese forums will control population growth, and rarely build low efficient things like granaries, neighborhoods or aqueducts. But in early game the first 4 pops are really worth to grow, try to have fresh water and high food tiles in first few cities before you can harvest food on a large scale.

Things are a bit different in R&F. The doubling yield policy of buildings now requires 10 pop, and they are so important which can almost double your city yields. So in R&F, the most efficient population is 10.

I think this is a big reason why good players of Civ4 or Civ5 don't like C6 very much, because the optimal solution is really crude and counter-intuitive, which ruined the immersive experience of the whole game.

 

[eleven11]

I can only speak for Deity SP as I have never played MP. There are only two instances I worry about growth. One is for the first 30 turns, working a food tile immediately to get 2 population quickly and continue with food so I can keep churning out settlers with decent production behind it. After that, I maybe only care to grow 2-4 cities at an efficient rate.. and by that I just simply lock the city on production focus and then lock citizens one at a time on food tiles until I feel like the population is growing at a rate acceptable to me. The only other thing I do to encourage growth is use internal trade routes for those same cities.

But yeah, as @Boyan_Sun mentions - wide is the way to go. Go wide and go as fast as you can. If you don't have space then take cities from the AI. Control population on all cities except your core. Easiest way to do that is to not build any housing buildings or farms. Once a district is in place in a non-core city, lock the focus and citizens on whatever it is (gold, culture, science). I try to have 7 cities by T70 and 12 by T100. That's been my (perhaps incorrect) personal benchmark. I'm a good player but by no means among the best... however, my experience is that, for any game, 10+ cities will win it for you.

For housing, my granaries get built but later than you'd imagine.. probably post feudalism. A minor exception is if I settle in a spot with no food/grassland tiles or fresh water. Those cities will start with a granary unless I need military units or culture. Basically, I don't want my non-core cities completely stagnant at 1-3 pop.. need to encourage them slightly.

I'm assuming you are chopping your settlers.. or are you playing on quick speed? If you aren't chopping settlers, give that a go. Run Agoge and and overflow off of a military unit into a settler. I hard build the first settler and once I get Magnus I go (edit) Archer -> Chop -> Settler. Works well to get 3 cities on the board really quick. I do it again once I get Early Empire and I'll overflow a couple more settlers. That is when my first decision point comes in (assuming I haven't been attacked) - take cities or continue passively with settlers?

 

[Boyan_Sun]

Oh, and for more context, I am thinking mostly in terms of MP strategy, where(like in prince) everybody has an equal start. I am quite sure that on deity, not putting more priority on a heavy military defense can be irreparable.

Ah MP, well OK... As far as I know MP was a completely war game, military pressure will only be greater than PVE, army dies frequently, everything will make way for production. Therefore, it will take more consideration of efficiency. The difference between PVP and PVE is only that it is difficult to trade, you must get productions and gold by yourself.

But when it comes to growth, it was the same thing as PVE. If you have the opportunity, you will find all the way to build/conquer new cities instead of growing population from old cities, then you can build more CH/IZ and get mines faster, need less amenities and housing at the same time. However, when there is no good opportunity or low military pressure, there will be a few population growth, most for new districts, but not to be deliberately optimized. Mines and lumber-mil in Civ6 can produce food either, just find some edge tiles to build a few triangular farms. After all, MP won't give you enough time to plan carefully, your time will mostly spend on army control and build.

The change I know about MP after R&F is that science is a bit more important, more campus will be built if conditions permit (but still not very high priority).

 

[kaltorak]

I somehow had been playing stupidly tall most of my early game

the only stupid thing is how OP going wide in civ6 is.

 

[kaltorak]

Can I interpret it as you want to play more efficiently? If yes, try to forgot the growth. The population model of Civ 6 is totally broken.

All Civ's most optimal way is to go SUPER wide. In Vanilla, build/capture many small cities close to each others with population of 4-8, is the best way to develop. This will consume the least food, housing, and amenities, allow the sharing of farms and its housing between cities. This is very easy to understand - there is a growth formula in the formula thread, comparing one 18 pop city and three 6-pop cities (assume the same yield), you will find the answer:

• one 18-pop city: amenity cost 8, food cost ~1800, housing cost 15 (5 from fresh water), initial 6 tiles
• three 6-pop cities: amenity cost 6, food cost ~500(170 each), housing cost 3 ((6-5)*3), initial 18 tiles

In fact, in Civ6 after one city grows to 6, the benefits of rising population are likely to be dwarfed by the resources it costs; when grows to 10~12, the benefits will be nearly zero but cost also grows fast; after 12 it will even be negative benefit (imagine you're paying much and getting worse). Experienced PvE players (efficient focus) in Chinese forums will control population growth, and rarely build low efficient things like granaries, neighborhoods or aqueducts. But in early game the first 4 pops are really worth to grow, try to have fresh water and high food tiles in first few cities before you can harvest food on a large scale.

Things are a bit different in R&F. The doubling yield policy of buildings now requires 10 pop, and they are so important which can almost double your city yields. So in R&F, the most efficient population is 10.

I think this is a big reason why good players of Civ4 or Civ5 don't like C6 very much, because the optimal solution is really crude and counter-intuitive, which ruined the immersive experience of the whole game.

Wow. I play civ since 1, 4 beeing my favourite, altho 5 became awesome too. When I look at 6, it looks great, but I just cant enjoy it and never really understand why. This explanation is a very good one. I fraking hate all you explain about the mechanics.

I just know that civ6 feels like Im playing chess to win the game instead of making an awesome empire.

 

[paxis]

Wow. I play civ since 1, 4 beeing my favourite, altho 5 became awesome too. When I look at 6, it looks great, but I just cant enjoy it and never really understand why. This explanation is a very good one. I fraking hate all you explain about the mechanics.

I just know that civ6 feels like Im playing chess to win the game instead of making an awesome empire.

You can build awesome empire also in Civ 6. The point is this is not efficient as Boyan_Sun mentioned. But if you like build big cities, just do it, there is no realy limitation.

 

[kaltorak]

You can build awesome empire also in Civ 6. The point is this is not efficient as Boyan_Sun mentioned. But if you like build big cities, just do it, there is no realy limitation.

Well, if 3 towns produce more science than babylon, I call it a problem.

 

[paxis]

Well, if 3 towns produce more science than babylon, I call it a problem.

As I wrote this is not optimal but possible.

 

[norrel]

I just know that civ6 feels like Im playing chess to win the game instead of making an awesome empire.

Makes sense to me. Civ6 (still) feels more like a vibrant, abstract strategy game than an immersive 4X title. Not necessarily a bad thing, yet certainly different in feel from its predecessors.