Single city civilization

Hull tyyp

Chieftain
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
20
I really believe civilization 6 could benefit from having a single city civilization like Venice was in civ 5.

I know civ 6 has a very vell designed wide play but that also sometimes makes late game quite tedious. Especially on bigger maps when you can't win early. It would be nice to have OCC civ to relax and cruise to victory.

Now there would be some challenges to designing a Venice like civ in this game:

*Land - 3 ring radius around a single city could get cramped really fast if you add some districts, wonders and water tiles. OCC civ should have a more comfortable 5 tile workable radius.

*Settlers - with so many game mechanics to get settlers faster, for free or even the ability to steal them, it would be unwise to just remove them. Perhaps there could be a unique unit that replaces settler? Unit that has the same increasing cost but can instead do something interesting and useful besides settling a city. Single charge for a special tile improvement?

*Mechanics related to the amount of cities - It would be boring to be stuck with two trade routes and a single governor, there should be a way to get more trade routes and use governor points.

*Conquest - War is inevitable, but what happens when you capture an enemy city? What about domination victory? Perhaps there could be a way to turn free cities into city states? Sort of how it is in the barbarian game mode. Maybe by doing a trade route to it or using the unique unit? You could have a special domination victory condition to turn all original capitals into city states, something to challenge more experienced players.

To conclude. A Venice like, powerful single city civilization would make for a nice chill game of civ 6.
 

Haig

Deity
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
2,843
Location
Finland
I havent thought about a literal single city civ, but I hope some new leader of the new Leader Pack would have a bonus for a small empire with a powerhouse capital.

Example:
Theodora of Byzantium
- Bonus production for constructing districts and wonders in the capital, but in other cities -50% production penalty for their construction.
 

bbbt

Deity
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
2,552
I almost expected them to do that with Portugal, with the Feitoria functioning like a vampire castle, but that's not the route they went.

But something like that model, where you can plant improvements around the globe sending resources back to your capitol, would be interesting.
 

Birch617

Warlord
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
228
If you are into modded content for the game, play Portlime's Teotihuacan civ, a historically accurate 1 city civ
 

Hull tyyp

Chieftain
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
20
I almost expected them to do that with Portugal, with the Feitoria functioning like a vampire castle, but that's not the route they went.

But something like that model, where you can plant improvements around the globe sending resources back to your capitol, would be interesting.
Yeah it almost seams like they were thinking about it. Even their trade route ability scales with how many civs are in the game. Hardly makes sense historically tough.
If you are into modded content for the game, play Portlime's Teotihuacan civ, a historically accurate 1 city civ
Cool mod! Will try that out.

Yeah the purpose of the op wasn't to suggest anything specific but to just say it is possible to make a fun 1 city civ in this game.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,030
I really believe civilization 6 could benefit from having a single city civilization like Venice was in civ 5.

I know civ 6 has a very vell designed wide play but that also sometimes makes late game quite tedious. Especially on bigger maps when you can't win early. It would be nice to have OCC civ to relax and cruise to victory.

Now there would be some challenges to designing a Venice like civ in this game:

*Land - 3 ring radius around a single city could get cramped really fast if you add some districts, wonders and water tiles. OCC civ should have a more comfortable 5 tile workable radius.

*Settlers - with so many game mechanics to get settlers faster, for free or even the ability to steal them, it would be unwise to just remove them. Perhaps there could be a unique unit that replaces settler? Unit that has the same increasing cost but can instead do something interesting and useful besides settling a city. Single charge for a special tile improvement?

*Mechanics related to the amount of cities - It would be boring to be stuck with two trade routes and a single governor, there should be a way to get more trade routes and use governor points.

*Conquest - War is inevitable, but what happens when you capture an enemy city? What about domination victory? Perhaps there could be a way to turn free cities into city states? Sort of how it is in the barbarian game mode. Maybe by doing a trade route to it or using the unique unit? You could have a special domination victory condition to turn all original capitals into city states, something to challenge more experienced players.

To conclude. A Venice like, powerful single city civilization would make for a nice chill game of civ 6.

I havent thought about a literal single city civ, but I hope some new leader of the new Leader Pack would have a bonus for a small empire with a powerhouse capital.

Example:
Theodora of Byzantium
- Bonus production for constructing districts and wonders in the capital, but in other cities -50% production penalty for their construction.

If you are into modded content for the game, play Portlime's Teotihuacan civ, a historically accurate 1 city civ
The problem is, none of these were REALLY one-city Civ's in history, or even portrayed as such by historians. Venice had colonies all the way down the Adriatic and into the Aegean, and up into the Veneto hinterlands - the, "one-city," thing there is nonsense. Portugal and Byzantium are even more bizarrely false, as such. And Teothuacan was the centre of a Pre-Toltec, Pre-Aztec EMPIRE, by all reckonings, NOT single city-state. I'm afraid I have to sternly opposed and criticize this idea.
 

Hull tyyp

Chieftain
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
20
The problem is, none of these were REALLY one-city Civ's in history, or even portrayed as such by historians. Venice had colonies all the way down the Adriatic and into the Aegean, and up into the Veneto hinterlands - the, "one-city," thing there is nonsense. Portugal and Byzantium are even more bizarrely false, as such. And Teothuacan was the centre of a Pre-Toltec, Pre-Aztec EMPIRE, by all reckonings, NOT single city-state. I'm afraid I have to sternly opposed and criticize this idea.
Yeah I have to agree on most of that. These hardly suit an OCC civ. So it makes sense to pick something from a real city state. But if you think about any past or present city state then none of them are/were empire level powerful.

So if a single city civ were to be added it would most definitely be a "what if" type civ.
And now that you think about it, there are plenty of "what if this country became an empire" types of civs in the game.
 

Vandlys

King
Joined
Mar 8, 2017
Messages
715
Location
New Atlantis
If you are into modded content for the game, play Portlime's Teotihuacan civ, a historically accurate 1 city civ

Yeah it almost seams like they were thinking about it. Even their trade route ability scales with how many civs are in the game. Hardly makes sense historically tough.

Cool mod! Will try that out.

Yeah the purpose of the op wasn't to suggest anything specific but to just say it is possible to make a fun 1 city civ in this game.

I mean, is this truly a once city civ if part of the mod is a governor belonging to the civ that is focussed on conquering nearby cities, and gives you a bonus if you conquer a city state?
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
837
I think one of the few true "one-city" real historical examples could be Singapore. It is truly a single city-State, without colonies or anything; however, it managed to actually have a quite big influence on today's geopolitical affairs, especially economy. Perhaps too recent to figure in a Civ game, but it could do the trick.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,030
I think one of the few true "one-city" real historical examples could be Singapore. It is truly a single city-State, without colonies or anything; however, it managed to actually have a quite big influence on today's geopolitical affairs, especially economy. Perhaps too recent to figure in a Civ game, but it could do the trick.
Yes, Lee Kwan-yew died in the 21st Century.
I never saw the appeal of this idea for Civ 6. It worked well for Venice in Civ 5 but the emphasis on wide in this game, plus districts, plus the fact that wonders take up tiles…all these make it seem less like a fun challenge and more like a chore.
Although I have never played Civ5, I do still stand by the historical inaccuracy and bunk of Venice being a, "single city-state civ," in truth, as I said above. In fact, it would not have been even close to what it grew to being without those Adriatic, Aegean, and Veneto hinterland colonies, which it did control under sovereign rulership, not as loose vassals. It's a portrayal of Venice that wasn't at all what was there.
 

iammaxhailme

Emperor
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
1,947
If we are going to have a city-state civ, Singapore may be a good choice. Since they were kicked out of Malaysia, maybe some abilitiy like reducing loyalty pressure from enemy civs, since you'd probaly end up surrounded by a lot of foreign population... imagine having your capital flip!
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,030
If we are going to have a city-state civ, Singapore may be a good choice. Since they were kicked out of Malaysia, maybe some abilitiy like reducing loyalty pressure from enemy civs, since you'd probaly end up surrounded by a lot of foreign population... imagine having your capital flip!
But, as was stated above, Lee Kwan-yew is almost certainly too recent a leader to touch. That's the big problem.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
As Patine said, no such empire really existed in history. Indeed, it's a contradiction of terms. That being said, cities shouldn't be taken literally in Civ; they obviously fill considerably more land than real life cities and represent provinces and major urban centers. Consequently, something like the Papal States/Vatican City could be a good candidate for this kind of thing--but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Venice, however, was not a good candidate for that idea, and Byzantium would be an even worse one unless you chose one of the final Byzantine emperors who were just sitting around waiting for the city to finally fall (which...how about no?).
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,616
Location
Texas
An interesting one that could work as a city-state could be Babylon. Under Hammurabi he turned the single city-state into an empire, so theoretically you could still capture other cities, but not build settlers.
At least that's how I would design one, because limiting it to actually one city isn't ideal, in my opinion.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,030
An interesting one that could work as a city-state could be Babylon. Under Hammurabi he turned the single city-state into an empire, so theoretically you could still capture other cities, but not build settlers.
At least that's how I would design one, because limiting it to actually one city isn't ideal, in my opinion.
I don't know. Looks like the First Lawyer in History was a wee bit more successful and expansive in his borders than you give him credit for.

Babylon_Map.png


And some of these cities, especially in that dark green, "core," area, or on the fringes, may have been founded by Babylonians, and not just conquered or vassalized.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
I don't know. Looks like the First Lawyer in History was a wee bit more successful and expansive in his borders than you give him credit for.
coughs in Urukagina, Ur-Nammu, and Eshnunna

And some of these cities, especially in that dark green, "core," area, or on the fringes, may have been founded by Babylonians, and not just conquered or vassalized.
I think Babylon would be a prime candidate for a Maya-type ability where you have a super buffed-up capital and weaker peripheral cities. At all points in its history, Babylon itself was the crown jewel of its civilization--as opposed to the more distributed glory of the Assyrians, for example. (Assyria really needs to return in Civ7, and they really need to be a glorious builder of wonders.)
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,616
Location
Texas
I don't know. Looks like the First Lawyer in History was a wee bit more successful and expansive in his borders than you give him credit for.

View attachment 645522

And some of these cities, especially in that dark green, "core," area, or on the fringes, may have been founded by Babylonians, and not just conquered or vassalized.
I wasn't meaning to downplay his accomplishments at all. If anything, it would suit to his playstyles, like @Zaarin said of having a very buffed-up capital and him being a backstabber. :mischief:
Besides it would give more room to have Assyria and Sumer as well, with those core cities you mentioned as being part of Sumer. :)
 

bbbt

Deity
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
2,552
The problem is, none of these were REALLY one-city Civ's in history, or even portrayed as such by historians. Venice had colonies all the way down the Adriatic and into the Aegean, and up into the Veneto hinterlands - the, "one-city," thing there is nonsense. Portugal and Byzantium are even more bizarrely false, as such. And Teothuacan was the centre of a Pre-Toltec, Pre-Aztec EMPIRE, by all reckonings, NOT single city-state. I'm afraid I have to sternly opposed and criticize this idea.

I mean, by game mechanic standards, they aren't really 'One City' civs either. Venice in Civ 5 you could puppet city states as part of your empire, representing that Venice's colonies were often existing cities they exerted influence over, not ones they founded. I haven't played the Teothaucan mod, but it appears you just can't build settlers - you are can conquer other cities as part of your empire (and are encouraged to).

Realistically, a lot of civs started as "one city civs" in the above sense, conquering and or influencing to expand their empire. Civ's model of build settlers of citizens to go out and found new cities is not something I'd say was the way a lot of the world has worked.

I'd love to see a version of Civ (maybe a game mode in Civ 7) where settlers are extremely expensive (or non-existent) and the map starts out littered with barb camps/free cities/city states and you have to form your empire by conquering and influencing those into your civilization rather than 'founding' cities.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
I'd love to see a version of Civ (maybe a game mode in Civ 7) where settlers are extremely expensive (or non-existent) and the map starts out littered with barb camps/free cities/city states and you have to form your empire by conquering and influencing those into your civilization rather than 'founding' cities.
This is basically how Humankind works. You have a little time to found cities of your own, but by the Classical period most free space is inhabited by minor civs you have to conquer or annex diplomatically. Also around this stage settling becomes absurdly expensive. Like a lot of HK, it sounds better on paper than it works in practice.
 
Top Bottom