[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

Duckfromstatefarm said:
Tall is basically a few cities (3-4 cities for example) but a few powerful governors while playing Wide is you are spread out with lots of cities but need lots of governors to keep all cities under control.
Click to expand...

Denkt said:
Not necessarily.

What tall and wide mean is just different focuses. A tall play would focus on developing most if not each city but don't mean having few cities. Wide mean there is a priority on acquiring new cities instead of developing cities.
Click to expand...

CPWimmer said:
I think one of the reasons Tall is still seen as 3 or 4 cities is due to luxury resources being limited to only 4 cities in Civ VI. This, along with 4 cities historically being the usual sweet spot in Civ V, tends to make people still feel that same number applies to "Tall" in Civ 6 as well. Once you go past that you are starting to get into a hybrid kind of scenario.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I meant by "these days". I figure we all have a notion of what it means in numbers to us by previous Civ games, Civ V for example, but I think Civ VI has changed that for me because I agree that it also means more digging deep into developing your cities to the max possible (and Civ VI gives you more mechanics to do so) which having fewer cities can certainly allow you to d0; you are not going crazy and through the motions at times with too many cities. As numbers go, I would probably think that for me it is shifting up one city, meaning 4-5 cities now.
 
I didn't like V's restrictions on wide play; yet I love investing in all my cities. I've never been one to just spam cities and leave them empty shells; which is maybe one reason I don't play as high a level as many here.
Which was why I appreciated the changes that IV brought which forced others to invest more in their cities.
 
nzcamel said:
I didn't like V's restrictions on wide play; yet I love investing in all my cities. I've never been one to just spam cities and leave them empty shells; which is maybe one reason I don't play as high a level as many here.
Which was why I appreciated the changes that IV brought which forced others to invest more in their cities.
Click to expand...
It's possible to have a tall and wide empire with a very happy populace in V: India.
 
Zaarin said:
In today's Wikipedia superstition, there is a "Did You Know" on an Anglo-Saxon boarhead helmet. Alfred the Great leading Wessex confirmed.
Click to expand...

Well... If we are including the Did You Know section, we're bound to get even more mentions of Civilizations. It's kind of hard not to have some kind of connection to either existing or possible future civilizations. Like the monkeys comment above. Eventually something will come up. Even me including On This Day section will include a lot of significant events and some will surely involve an ancient or classical civilization.

But if we are including the Did You Know section:

  • ... that statesman Costea Bucioc, who reputedly survived a poisoning attempt at the Moldavian court, was later impaled by the Ottoman army?
Click to expand...
Ottomans confirmed.

But like I said, the Did you Know section has a lot of obscure stuff. I often don't even look at it. There are often articles about something so unimportant, what's the point of making it in the first place.
_____________________


As for wide versus Tall, 4 cities is usually what I go by. But I have yet to do a true tall game. Even my India game I ended up with around 7 or 8 cities. It's just so hard to do in this game.
 
Khmer is a good choice if you have 4 river spots.
 
Disgustipated said:
Khmer is a good choice if you have 4 river spots.
Click to expand...

4 cities isn't wide.

EDIT:
Disgustipated said:
As for wide versus Tall, 4 cities is usually what I go by. But I have yet to do a true tall game. Even my India game I ended up with around 7 or 8 cities. It's just so hard to do in this game.
Click to expand...

I had a Greece cultural victory with 7 cities recently. And 3 of them didn't even have an Acropolis because there were so few hills on my islands. :(

(actually I ended with 9 cities because England was annoying and I demanded some in a peace deal but that was like, atomic era)
 
Leyrann said:
4 cities isn't wide.
Click to expand...

Oh I thought we were talking about tall, I realize the comment said tall and wide. For that, I find the civ doesn't matter. But if I have something like Kilimanjaro, I can get some pretty big cities up, or at least one really big city. And I often do like having big cities. You'll never see me with less than size 10 cities in the atomic age, and most of mine are over 15. I want powerhouse cities, not cities that you have to chop to get anything done in them.
 
Disgustipated said:
Oh I thought we were talking about tall, I realize the comment said tall and wide. For that, I find the civ doesn't matter. But if I have something like Kilimanjaro, I can get some pretty big cities up, or at least one really big city. And I often do like having big cities. You'll never see me with less than size 10 cities in the atomic age, and most of mine are over 15. I want powerhouse cities, not cities that you have to chop to get anything done in them.
Click to expand...

Uhm... It was about Civ V lol.
 
ahhh well, I feel dumb. It's hard for me to remember a lot of Civ5 mechanics at this point. I still may play the game again some day. I still haven't deleted it. I still would have liked to seen the Liberty tree buffed up a little bit. But the biggest problem was the culture needed for the policies.
 
Leyrann said:
I had a Greece cultural victory with 7 cities recently. And 3 of them didn't even have an Acropolis because there were so few hills on my islands. :(

(actually I ended with 9 cities because England was annoying and I demanded some in a peace deal but that was like, atomic era)
Click to expand...
I won a Cultural game as Kongo with four cities (I guess) :P
 
Disgustipated said:
But like I said, the Did you Know section has a lot of obscure stuff. I often don't even look at it. There are often articles about something so unimportant, what's the point of making it in the first place.
Click to expand...
Really? To me, the "Did You Know" and "On This Day" are the interesting parts. The featured article is rarely anything really interesting. :p
 
Speaking of Civilization and Wikipedia, they removed the 'Civilizations and Leaders who have appeared in the Civ series' section recently for some reason even though it had been there for years. I had to go to the history to see it.
 
bbbt said:
Speaking of Civilization and Wikipedia, they removed the 'Civilizations and Leaders who have appeared in the Civ series' section recently for some reason even though it had been there for years. I had to go to the history to see it.
Click to expand...
It was removed, since it constitutes original research and also belongs in a video game guide than in an encyclopedia.
 
bbbt said:
Speaking of Civilization and Wikipedia, they removed the 'Civilizations and Leaders who have appeared in the Civ series' section recently for some reason even though it had been there for years. I had to go to the history to see it.
Click to expand...

Yes. I ended up having to recreate it on my Civ VI spreadsheet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

planetfall
Why is river goddess broken?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Oberinspektor Derrick
Oberinspektor Derrick
Marla_Singer
  • Locked
*** Site experiencing technical issues ***
Replies
13
Views
861
The_J
The_J
D
Mod Request
Replies
0
Views
262
Daniele
D
bengalryan9
Civ Discussion - Antiquity Age Summary/Tier Lists
Replies
14
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
GeneralZift
Is Civ7 Getting a Classic Expansion?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
Back
Top Bottom