I've played civ 6 just over 80 hours and I have wondered that if i settle more cities will it increase the amount of science and culture needed to research techs. I know in civ 5 thats how it worked, the more cities, the more science needed to research techs.
I would also like to know how you guys play the game, tall or wide. Which is better in your opinion?
I've played civ 6 just over 80 hours and I have wondered that if i settle more cities will it increase the amount of science and culture needed to research techs. I know in civ 5 thats how it worked, the more cities, the more science needed to research techs.
I would also like to know how you guys play the game, tall or wide. Which is better in your opinion?
Actually, in Sid Meier's Civilization V: Brave New World the amount of science the player can generate was dependent on map size, type and what the map yields are. Not necessarily building 'more cities' mainly because having lots of cities can become rather unwieldy in the end game.
Sometimes, it's more convenient to have just 2-3 cities generating as much science as a 16 city sprawl.
In VI it's pretty much always better to have one more city. It's good to have a few tall cities, but you want to keep most of them small so they don't eat up amenities.
I've played civ 6 just over 80 hours and I have wondered that if i settle more cities will it increase the amount of science and culture needed to research techs. I know in civ 5 thats how it worked, the more cities, the more science needed to research techs.
I would also like to know how you guys play the game, tall or wide. Which is better in your opinion?
Developer intention for Civ 6 is war and aggressive expansion. Tall play allows players the competitive/efficient choice of peaceful play so that had to be discouraged through a myriad of design choices.
Thus it is fallacy to assume you have a real choice concerning tall or wide play. There is only infinite, aggressive expansion if you want a powerful civilization aligned with the game's objectives.
A good rule of thumb is 10ish citys by t100. Theres no reason to not just keep expanding. The hit from amenitys will never outweigh the hit to output, even getting down to rebels is fine.
To echo others, in my experience VI is more similar to some of the older Civ games in that it encourages big empires with lots of cities. It's all about exploring and settling which I enjoy, I always felt a little bit restricted by V.
To echo others, in my experience VI is more similar to some of the older Civ games in that it encourages big empires with lots of cities. It's all about exploring and settling which I enjoy, I always felt a little bit restricted by V.
I agree. "Tall" seemed like a Civ V contrivance and the "tall vs wide" debate makes no sense to me coming from IV mostly. It's honestly not fitting as a dominant strategy for an empire building game. What would be the point of making nice huge maps if you're only going to use a few spots? I do feel 6 puts too much emphasis on quantity though; no real drawbacks to expanding.
The ironic part is I loved to employ a "tall" approach in IV since I like wonders; which was nice because you eventually had to take advantage of it to expand eventually. In V when it's encouraged so much, it doesn't even feel special.
I think the lack of the Tall option diminishes this game. I don't always want to play as an aggressive expander; sometimes I want to play as a compact builder and make a move later in the game. The way this game is set up, creating too few cities makes it challenging to keep up, much less prepare for a mid game or later military expansion. If you want to win with religion or culture, I feel like you've got to build as many cities as you can quickly in order to keep up.
I think IV and V were the most flexible entries in the series; both were biased one way on the Tall/Wide spectrum, but allowed for functional and competitive games even on the other end of the spectrum. V even had a OCC civilization (Venice)! You can't do that with VI - even if district restrictions were removed for a OCC, there's still not enough hexes to build enough wonders or districts to remain competitive.
VI reminds me more of II and III - it was clearly better in those games to have as many cities as you could, even when the negative modifiers made them useless. I feel like that in VI now, in order to win you need to put out a bunch of filler cities. To me, that's micromanagement without much purpose; a lot of cities that can only do one or two things well is more work than managing fewer cities with specialties and options. A lot of cities to me now feel like cities from III that were far from your capital - you needed them, but they were nearly completely useless due to the corruption mechanic, and just a drain on your time.
Yes. It seems that, for a city, being adjacent to too many foreign cities makes them disloyal, while being adjacent to other domestic cities makes them more loyal. So having a compact, contiguous empire will mean less risk of a city splitting off. Cities that are away from your main empire are going to require additional care to make sure they do not split off.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
