[NFP] Optimal # of cities (Asking those who played the update)

[Ash plays civ]

Hi all. Sorry if this is a noob question or if it's been answered.

What do people think is the right number of cities after the changes to amenities? I have heard people say 5-7 is good for tall civs while 16 to 20 is good for wide civs, but that was before the update.

I'm playing a wide civ with about 21 cities right now and I really do feel the pressure of amenities. I am aiming for 23 to fill out my continent but the price of settlers has really gotten high. I *think* I own/traded for most of the luxuries on my continents(small) map as well. I have 6 and found 7. Only missing pearls.

So for those who have play tested the new update what would you say is the right amount of cities for either playstyle?

 

[universecreep]

I always thought with CIV VI more is better - kinda like CIV II.
I'm not expert, but that seems to be the case.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

The more the better.

 

[8housesofelixir]

If you are really into optimization and want to achieve sub-200 turn win in every game, 16+ cities is still better. And you can cap your amenity at -1 without any penalty (very counterintuitive, I know, but that's how things work now). Also, try play a bigger map when play wide, as it has more luxuries and more civs to trade with.

If you are not serious about effectiveness then 5-10 cities are still fine. It just take more turns to win.

 

[Vizurok]

The more the better is generally right although escalating Settler costs will eventually lead to a point where building any more of them is simply not worth it.

Personally, however, I would always advocate that the optimal number of cities is around 8-10. You can easily win any victory type on any difficulty with 10 cities so I really don't see any reason for getting dragged to the micromanagement hassle of additional cities.

 

[Siddharth Venkatesh]

Settler cost increases but so does chop value as you research more techs, so you can often settle a new city, and then use that to chop out a settler. I agree though that 10 cities is more than enough to win. It won't be as fast in terms of turns as 20 cities, but it will be much less painful to micromanage. I usually stick with 10 and then get more through war if I want, I realize the value of more cities but can't be bothered to manage more.

 

[Koljar]

While I tend to play rather wide I ususally also get a few quite tall cities inbetween (usually my cap and/or 2nd city). And that's usually where I see amenity issues first. In my current game I have way more cities at slightly negative amenities than I ever had before. Didn't really seem to slow me down tho - two are above 20 and about 10(ish) are well beyond 10 and I didn't even prioritise growth in any of those. Guess the tweaks to amenities start to impact your cities slower and later (lower amenities, slightly negative can easily be compensated by more pop it seems).

So to answer the actual question: Settle as long as you see a use in it (luxuries, tactical spots, strategic resources, ...). Grow as needed. It all depends on map settings, actual civ, opponents, ... I don't think there is just one answer.

 

[tetley]

Optimal # of cities (Asking those who played the update)

All of them.

 

[Ash plays civ]

My people are really unhappy with me

Spoiler :

 

[Casualty of war]

A well-placed Coliseum and/or having suzerainity of Zanzibar can pretty much handle the Amenity needs of any number of cities. More impactful than number of cities is not having extraneous Amenity-devouring population in your cities. 4, 7 and 10 population are the magic numbers to grow to then stop, although some people enjoy letting their Pingala city get huge. I'm partial to a grouping of Temple of Artemis cities being enormous and Amenities well in hand.