We know now that wide expansion is viable in Civ 6. That means that Civ 5's 4-city tall is dead for sure. While everybody is happy about that, I asked myself "How is it if someone doesn't want to expand? Are there some benefits from having densely populated cities?" Here are some of my thoughts on this subject. First of all, it's not a question if to expand, but rather when to stop expansion. In some interview the devs said the number of 6-10 cities would be optimal and I tend to agree. Now what do you have from high population and consequently from large city territory? 1) Obviously, your citizens will be able to work many tiles, and their yields are good even if unimproved. 2) A highly populated city can support more districts. 3) More districts mean more bonuses from city-states and they scale with the number of districts and the number of city-states of the same type ( although Industrial and Militaristic CS affect your cities individually, so they might be more useful to wide empires). 4) Even if there are no CS or they're turned off (can they?), you can always upgrade your districts with buildings that provide yields and Great People. Great People and Social Policies can easily be used to further increase the yields from buildings. 5) City Projects scale with production of your city and therefore with population and tile improvements. They give you yields and Great People. And many GPs make expansion less needed, like Great Merchants that increase your Trade Route capacity. 6) Finally, improvements also require to be worked, so civs with unique ones might consider delaying expansion to have some benefit from building them. Those are, imo, main reasons to stop expansion after the initial expansion phase. We'll learn soon how it is in the final build, we cannot really judge the balance now, but I guess my assumptions are right. What do you think?