As you all probably know, back in Civ 5, there was a thing called "tall vs wide", and this does not seem to be the case anymore with Civ 6. Personally, I liked tall, for a few reasons: It let me build some spectacular cities It didn't force me to try and keep track of a vast empire I did not need to spend my time making relatively tiny decisions for a bunch of cities I didn't care about It let me play peacefully, as I didn't need that much space to expand into This is the playstyle I enjoy most, and to some extent it mitigates what I consider one of the worst aspects of 4X games in general: You spend your time in the early game making few, but really important decisions, which is enjoyable, while the late game decisions feel more like chores. I believe this has to do with the scale of things: when you have just one city, what you choose for that city is hugely important. When you have 50, each city is less important, and to make matters worse, several will be completing their construction each turn. Tall mitigates this by allowing you to keep the scale of your nation at a level which is enjoyable to you. Now, while it is possible to play somewhat tall in Civ 6 with some of the civs (Kongo and India), doing so is essentially choosing to cripple yourself on purpose: So many yields are dependent on number of districts (science, culture, gold, faith, great people), which require more cities and more space Number of trade routes are dependent on number of districts Wonders require both space and specific locations, which means more cities A high population doesn't really boost your yields significantly, and specialists/district workers don't produce much There are very few buildings which multiply your ouput by a percentage, it is generally all flat yields Getting a high population in a city in the first place is not that easy, as population is limited by housing and amenities There isn't really any significant disadvantage at any point for founding or conquering a new city In particular, with the way production costs are scaled up throughout the game, the most efficient way to play is as an expansionistic warmonger. Capturing cities with districts already built in them will easily put you ahead of the competition. This is a bit unsatisfying to me, because taking on the AI in war is a bit like taking on Stephen Hawking in a boxing match. There could be multiple ways of making tall more viable. Just a few ideas off the top of my head: Higher specialist yields GP points from specialists Upgradeable districts Some way of getting more trade routes from a large city (upgradeable districts, specialists, or just population, for example) Alternatively or additionally, just higher yields from trade routes to or from large cities Add some disadvantage/tradeoff to expanding too much, or tie it to tech/civic development. Logically, it should be harder to hold a vast empire together than a small one, especially in early times. Basically, it comes down to increasing the potential of big cities, while adding some tradeoff to expanding too much. I'm not saying it needs to be a great option for every civ, I'm perfectly happy with some civs being better for tall and other for wide. But at the moment, I think all civs are better off going wide. Just to clarify, what I mean by tall, is 4-8 cities through the entire game. So, is it just me, or does anyone else miss tall? What do you think can/should be done?