Struggling to get more than 5 cities

[NeilUK02]

Hi

I am struggling at the start , I can't seem to get a decent size Civ going. I send my warrior out at the start and within 4 or 5 moves (sometimes maybe 8) I meet at least two Civs who are already settled close by. A couple of City states as well and I am closed in. Without taking cities by war I can't expand.

Happens on standard, large and huge maps. Is this by design or a bug? In Civ 5 I usually had enough space at the start to get 4 or 5 cities down, even after meeting other Civs

 

[Victoria]

The default Map size is small.... one always changes this to standard which seems to help an the distribution tends to balance out... sort of.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Without taking cities by war I can't expand.

If you want to play a peaceful game that's fine, but you can easily add your neighbors' cities to your empire with a couple warriors and about a half dozen archers. Acquiring the city is great but the big prize is the ability to settle the area as you see fit.

 

[Balkans]

I must say i didn't experience lack of expansion space. I'm not sure if you are looking for some dream locations but i get the minimum of 8 cities in most games, some of it don't necessarily go into perfect spots, but they sure pay of their investment. If i go some conquering strategy then i change the approach to how many settlers i need. I like to play on emperor since it's most fun for me and i get almost all the wonders i want, but even immortal/deity i can squeeze the cities i need. I'm really trying to remember if i had a single game (civ vi) where it crossed my mind that i'm out of expansion room - something that i hated in civ iv, especially higher difficulties.

 

[Victoria]

where it crossed my mind that i'm out of expansion room

I get it about 1 game in 5. You tend not to get it if aggressive because you want then to settle close so they are AI Meat.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Without taking cities by war I can't expand.

Just fyi, the game is really designed for you to snack on your neighbors in the early eras. I'm not saying you need to, just be aware that you're choosing to make the game a little harder, like not changing your civics cards or building any ranged units.

Happens on standard, large and huge maps. Is this by design or a bug? In Civ 5 I usually had enough space at the start to get 4 or 5 cities down, even after meeting other Civs

On thing Civ VI changed from Civ V is that the viable distance between cities is much more flexible. Factories, power plants, zoos and stadiums all provide their benefits to every city within 6 hexes (there are some Wonders that do, too, and becoming the Suzerain of Toronto increases everything's range to 9 - Toronto may be my favorite city-state). In my current game, all five of my core cities are close enough to get the benefits from every one of those districts (and if I can find Toronto, I'll have enough power to fire my Wave Motion Gun and instantly win the game). Theoretically, all 5 cities could get the boosts from 5 Industrial Districts and 5 Entertainment Districts (I'm not going to build 5 of each, but I could if I wanted to). Also note that multiple District buildings provide a slot for a worker, so every district can accommodate at least 3 workers (I'm not sure what the maximum is - maybe 4?). Finally, many hex improvements get adjacency bonuses just like Districts do. So four farms in a diamond can easily produce 5 food each.

All of which is to say, you might be spreading your cities out more than is strictly necessary.

 

[dac050]

Toronto may be your favorite city state? Hands down Toronto is my favorite city state. No question.

 

[UWHabs]

I find it varies. Some games I'm hemmed in and would only have space for maybe 3-4 cities (and sometimes they're really only half a city, being more a city I can pack in to get extra adjacencies). Other times, I've been able to block out a large patch of land and have space for 5-6 cities without even much overlap going on.

But I think in general, the game is not set up for you to expand peacefully in general to more than 4-5 cities. It's set up so that you can get to probably 3-4, maybe up to 5 or 6 if you pack them tighter, and then you'll be pushing up on someone else's borders. That's probably partly why the AI seems to get to maybe 3 or 4 cities and then seems to stop building, even if they have space. Almost like they've been designed with that in mind, they get their core down, and then don't realize they still have room to grow.

 

[GIO888]

Play Large Map, and I build Builder, Slinger, Settler in that order first.

Usually gets you your second city about the time your first Warrior has uncovered a good location.

I do agree VI seems tipped towards early conflict with your neighbors - thx Bladex for the globalparameters heads-up, I'm trying that for deffo.

 

[greygamer]

I delay my first settler to complete as I hit pop 4/5, but I focus religion so you can get cities quicker if you ignore that. Even focusing on religion I have space/time to establish 5+ cities by turn 100 (this is on a small map.) I usually play continents but have done this on pangea/fractal also.

Look for a start location with 2-3 tiles with 2+ food to get to at least 3 pop quickly but also with 2+ production yield tiles close (you might need to build mines/pastures for this so plan your research accordingly), luxury tiles are not as important early on as additional cities can grow to 2 without needing amenities.

 

[NeilUK02]

Thanks for the replies, I think maybe I am trying to leave too much space between cities, I don't seem to get the "Build City" tip close by though but I will start a new game and settle cities a bit closer to each other. I usually play on standard map until I get more used to a version, did the same with 4 and 5. Then I tend to play with a huge map

 

[walkerjks]

Place your cities closer. 4 spaces is perfectly fine (and ideal for the biggest regional bonuses), barring reasons to space them farther apart.

 

[General Tso]

Just reduce the number of AI civs. Less civs equals more space.

 

[FurballRocker]

Settling cities closer is most definitely much more viable in civ 6 as you rarely need a tall city as it is all about the districts and size 10 cities can fulfill most needs. In fact you only really need a size 7 in most cases as you should build a commerce district and industrial zone in every city along with a district of your victory choice and that is generally all you need.
I tend to go for 10 pop as that allows me to build a harbour also in coastal cities and entertainment districts in others.

I have noticed there is also much more food in civ 6, to the extent that i can have over 10 surplus in the end game when i have switch all my cities to production and loaded up all my specialists to slow down my growth as i don't need it anymore and only ever need to place farms in really barren cities i have placed to grab resources or just put down to fill space to stop the AI settling there so in general you need far fewer tiles to sustain a large city and that is before we start on internal trade routes.

 

[beorn]

I've seen incredible variety. Sometimes severely hemmed in, sometimes almost too much space (I want trade partners, after all).

A lot of this is random, which I see as a real strength of the game. The amount of space, the kind of terrain, and the particular mix of city states and major civs really makes a difference, so playthroughs really differ.

fwiw, I have tended to find the most open space on some of my games using the central sea map type. It also seems to me that certain civs tend to get more/less space on average, due to the game's tendency to place initial cities in suitable locations. Russia is likely to have access to a lot of tundra. Germany usually seems to be plunked down among some city states -- which is high advantageous.

And to repeat the point above, you are generally better off if your cities are close together. Not only for the factories, zoos, etc with regional effects, but also for the additional opportunity for adjacency bonuses.

 

[greygamer]

I've seen incredible variety. Sometimes severely hemmed in, sometimes almost too much space (I want trade partners, after all).

A lot of this is random, which I see as a real strength of the game. The amount of space, the kind of terrain, and the particular mix of city states and major civs really makes a difference, so playthroughs really differ.

fwiw, I have tended to find the most open space on some of my games using the central sea map type. It also seems to me that certain civs tend to get more/less space on average, due to the game's tendency to place initial cities in suitable locations. Russia is likely to have access to a lot of tundra. Germany usually seems to be plunked down among some city states -- which is high advantageous.

And to repeat the point above, you are generally better off if your cities are close together. Not only for the factories, zoos, etc with regional effects, but also for the additional opportunity for adjacency bonuses.

Yes there is a lot of randomness and it is best to adapt to those starting conditions. Not everybody is happy with this.

 

[Jimdigriz]

Just reduce the number of AI civs. Less civs equals more space.

Yep. That's what I do!

 

[Victoria]

Playing a religious Peter game spawning on the pointy top bit of tundra. I managed to squeese in 3 cities in a tight triangle for loads on dancing on tundra... worked fab and my settlers settle faster as they were closer. I usesed to space them 6 apart , or even 7 like Civ5... there is little need to do that inCiv 6

 

[manu-fan]

I play on Huge maps and never seem to have an issue finding space for 5-8 cities. Even if a Civ is close by, there is usually room on the other side.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I usually find the opposite true: there's way too much space. If I were to expand as much as I could, I would be looking at 15+ cities, without even wiping out neighbors. When I do wipe them out, I would need 30+ cities to fill out all that space.

That's actually what demotivates me from completing some games. If I choose to settle it all, I could be looking at 250-300 turns to victory, since I'd be churning out quite a number of Settlers myself.