Towns vs Cities? Bad/Good Design? META?

tman2000

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Messages
83
I'm struggling a bit with towns and knowing how to use them. There are a few observations I've made very very late into the process, and then the common wisdom gathered so far. Finally, a question of whether this feature is good or not or if it needs improvement. Then, what's the actual best way to use these?

Observations:
  • Gold and hammers->gold don't require specialization.
  • All specialization vs. growth really does is send food to your city. Food in Civ VII sucks, so it seems universally correct to grow cities, as many specialization options are weak.
  • Towns mainly exist when it's hard to afford cities, or to create gold. Thus, mining towns in rough terrain are a good gold source.
  • Other specializations are very niche. Trade route for happiness crisis or early in antiquity age for extended range. Fort towns for really decisive battles as a last resort. Farming/fishing for coastal heavy or otherwise when a town really can't grow anymore might as well accumulate that marginal growth to cities, especially in exploration for the specialists. Religious site to squeeze in relics if you don't have room. Urban center for former cities after age transition that you would otherwise make into farming, but which don't have many farms.
  • Hub is good in theory, maybe in the early phase of modern or exploration for some good influence boost, and for those small settlements used to fill gaps in your territory. However, something about them is severely nerfed. I'm sure there's some cheese that would ruin the game if they buffed hub towns, but frankly I think they should because I think no one's really using them.
  • Rome can build culture in towns. OP, don't forget about it.
Common wisdom:
  • Grow towns at least until all resources are captured, then specialize.
  • Settlement cap makes town play less appealing. If you can afford them, cities are always better.
  • Grow mining towns until the gold buff equals your net present value of if you grew into more mines.
That said, what do you think? Do towns work as a feature? I hear that the reason for them is because of how cities in Civ VI were worthless until you really maxed their production ability and there is a problem of "throw away" settlements. I'm not sure Civ VII fixes that...

As for the meta, here's what I'm thinking:
  • In Antiquity, build all towns as if they're going to become cities. Look for resource adjacencies.
  • The only exception is one or two spots with tons of mine or woodcutter tiles as a gold generator
  • Another exception is if your second settlement can produce a lot of food and grow your capital early, pre turn 50.
  • Leave towns as growing until every resource is captured, and then leave them growing anyway.
  • The exception are mining towns once the bonus is greater than the number of mines you could still get over the amount of time required.
  • Don't lean into farming until exploration, where island towns can fuel young cities.
  • Convert everything into a city unless it's a fishing town with minimal space, or a very productive mining town.
  • Don't do religious sites or fort towns unless you need to at that moment.
  • Don't do trade towns except in a happiness crisis, or in early antiquity.
  • Just really, just leave towns to grow until you can afford to make them cities.
  • Hub towns are sometimes marginally useful in modern for filling gaps and generating a little early influence but otherwise ignore them.
  • By the middle of the modern period, you should only have any towns if you can't afford to make them cities with sufficient gold buildings.
What do you think?
 
I forgot to say that post-meta, the point is to react to the unique situation of your roll. Sometimes you have to place towns that don't optimize your adjacency situation just out of necessity. I have been burned by waiting out 15 turns letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
 
I only played ~5 games so far, so still figuring everything out. In general I feel like city/settlement strategy depends a lot on leader and civ. Civs such as the Maya obviously want a lot of cities while Augustus probably wants only 1 or 2 cities during Antiquity. In general, the consideration that you can buy/build (ageless) unique quarters in cities is a huge consideration, as well as policies and mechanics that exclusively work in cities or (less often) towns. From reading what you wrote I think I tend to go for more towns than you do, usually having about 2 towns per city in the end of an age. Later in the game, towns get better, because they boost the population of your cities, allowing you to get more specialists.

All specialization vs. growth really does is send food to your city. Food in Civ VII sucks, so it seems universally correct to grow cities, as many specialization options are weak.​
Not sure if youre aware of this, but towns still grow even when you choose a specialization (even though the ui implies otherwise), they just don't get the 50% bonus. I'd say that specialising is almost always correct. In the antiquity age going for Science/Culture on Quarters and Influence is good and in later ages the farming/mining spec seems preferable.

Urban center for former cities after age transition that you would otherwise make into farming, but which don't have many farms.
Im not 100% on this, but I think this wouldn't work, because only non-obsolete buildings count as quarters. This is one of the reasons why I don't think you should have too many cities in Antiquity.

Don't do trade towns except in a happiness crisis, or in early antiquity.
In the last two games i played (and the first two on deity) I went pretty heavily for trade routes and also had a trade town for that puprose in all ages. I think trading is very strong not only for the ressources, but especially for the 10 Relationship it gives you. It is the only reliable way to positively affect your relationship with the AI, which is very needed, because they just forward-settle you and then hate you for it lol
 
So far I've been keeping towns towns if they have low production capability. I only tried a mining town once, but they really don't seem worth it. If it has good production, might as well make it a city. Food going to cities = more specialists, so for me farming/fishing are the way to go.
 
I rarely keep towns. I want the production and the ability to build things. I have yet to see a need for keeping towns, unless I have them in a totally remote location. Last game I had about 35 settlements and among them were maybe 4 towns...they were the newest settlements and hadn't grown in size by the time I had my victory. I haven't had a situation where my cities needed a town to provide them with food. Maybe I'm missing something. I haven't seen a concise, easy to follow, demonstration on why towns are essential or can improve my gameplay.
 
I recently played an OCC (One City Challenge) game to both see if I could keep up with the AI with a single city, as well as play around with towns. Some things I did:

I chose spots to settle based on the specialization I needed and with only one city, I had to focus. I would grow the town to size 7 first before building any urban districts. I would also wait until it took longer than ten turns for growth. Once I hit those two criteria, I would specialize the town and then purchase my urban districts.

In normal games that aren't OCC I still do the above, but I'll determine if the town is going to become a city before I settle it. I don't like settling locations unless there's a good reason for it.

Didn't the devs state that they wanted the cities to be similar to real life. By that I mean as they getting more huge the city provides less of its own food and more on imports from towns?I could be misremembering.
 
Didn't the devs state that they wanted the cities to be similar to real life. By that I mean as they getting more huge the city provides less of its own food and more on imports from towns?I could be misremembering.
Problem is, cities don't have SHRINKING population like they did in previous games. I think in Civ 4 I would let cities shrink sometimes.

Towns feeding cities doesn't make sense if cities can't shrink from lack of food. I feel like the devs kind of forgot.
 
I really enjoy the unsettled balance between towns and cities; of all the changes VII made this really is the unambiguous best. I prefer playing tall now that we have a game in which specialists work again, and in my experience I've found that while you can have a bad city, you can pretty much never have a bad town. Even if you settle on a one-tile island in the ocean, you can get a lot of value purely out of fishing boats and as an intercontinental connector. If you want them to work, though, you really have to be careful about which ones you're going to make into cities and which ones you aren't. I've dithered on really nice town-to-city locations that would mess up my city growth by converting them because good resource adjacencies are awfully tempting—but if you make your towns and cities in the right pattern they're fantastic. This game really rewards forward thinking and settlement planning, which is one of its strongest points.

Usually I try to have all my cities set up by the end of Exploration, because by the time you get into Modern it'll take absolute ages (or way too much gold) to not only overbuild your buildings to enable your specialists again, but also to fill out your increasing specialist slots. If you have 3 ages of civs all with their own unique quarter, that's a ton of extra specialist slots you'll need to fill: potentially loads of yields, but expensive to get them set up.
 
I really enjoy the unsettled balance between towns and cities; of all the changes VII made this really is the unambiguous best. I prefer playing tall now that we have a game in which specialists work again, and in my experience I've found that while you can have a bad city, you can pretty much never have a bad town. Even if you settle on a one-tile island in the ocean, you can get a lot of value purely out of fishing boats and as an intercontinental connector. If you want them to work, though, you really have to be careful about which ones you're going to make into cities and which ones you aren't. I've dithered on really nice town-to-city locations that would mess up my city growth by converting them because good resource adjacencies are awfully tempting—but if you make your towns and cities in the right pattern they're fantastic. This game really rewards forward thinking and settlement planning, which is one of its strongest points.

Usually I try to have all my cities set up by the end of Exploration, because by the time you get into Modern it'll take absolute ages (or way too much gold) to not only overbuild your buildings to enable your specialists again, but also to fill out your increasing specialist slots. If you have 3 ages of civs all with their own unique quarter, that's a ton of extra specialist slots you'll need to fill: potentially loads of yields, but expensive to get them set up.
Wait, if a city is underfed, does anything happen other than slow growth?
 
As far as I've seen, it's just slow growth. But very slow growth, since the required food per citizen grows so fast without modifiers to it. If I were to change anything, I'd bring back the citizen placement from VI and growth mechanics: it feels weird to me that not only can settlements not lose population, but you can "buy" population instantly by placing down districts. I'm very happy to not have housing anymore though.
 
As far as I've seen, it's just slow growth. But very slow growth, since the required food per citizen grows so fast without modifiers to it. If I were to change anything, I'd bring back the citizen placement from VI and growth mechanics: it feels weird to me that not only can settlements not lose population, but you can "buy" population instantly by placing down districts. I'm very happy to not have housing anymore though.
As far as I can tell the only real value of towns as food sources is in the late exploration with tons of fishing towns creating specialists. They don't work as food sources in the other periods.

If city populations could shrink, that would make towns very useful.
 
Towns can:
- claim territory
- secure resources
- support cities
- be managed easily without each production choice
 
So they simplify going wide but then why shouldn't you upgrade them all to cities when you can?
No need for do it or not. Just a choice.

I don't want to directly control all my settlements, so I let them as towns and they do well.
 
I forgot to mention another reason I keep towns around. To avoid micromanagement, especially after conquering a lot of enemy cities. Having a lot of cities is more micromanagement. Of course this brings up the amusing scenario of having a size 30 or 35 "town". Kind of hilarious when you have a former enemy capital or major city be a "town".
 
I only played ~5 games so far, so still figuring everything out. In general I feel like city/settlement strategy depends a lot on leader and civ. Civs such as the Maya obviously want a lot of cities while Augustus probably wants only 1 or 2 cities during Antiquity. In general, the consideration that you can buy/build (ageless) unique quarters in cities is a huge consideration, as well as policies and mechanics that exclusively work in cities or (less often) towns. From reading what you wrote I think I tend to go for more towns than you do, usually having about 2 towns per city in the end of an age. Later in the game, towns get better, because they boost the population of your cities, allowing you to get more specialists.


Not sure if youre aware of this, but towns still grow even when you choose a specialization (even though the ui implies otherwise), they just don't get the 50% bonus. I'd say that specialising is almost always correct. In the antiquity age going for Science/Culture on Quarters and Influence is good and in later ages the farming/mining spec seems preferable.


Im not 100% on this, but I think this wouldn't work, because only non-obsolete buildings count as quarters. This is one of the reasons why I don't think you should have too many cities in Antiquity.


In the last two games i played (and the first two on deity) I went pretty heavily for trade routes and also had a trade town for that puprose in all ages. I think trading is very strong not only for the ressources, but especially for the 10 Relationship it gives you. It is the only reliable way to positively affect your relationship with the AI, which is very needed, because they just forward-settle you and then hate you for it lol
I tried playing Augustus Rome with 1 city at first and then went to 2 in Antiquity but still felt bad. The +2 extra production per town in capital is nice it does not outweigh the benefits of a city. And while you can buy culture buildings in towns you can't complete the Unique Quarter or get science buildings.

Another thing is that the population costs increase so rapidly that food becomes rather worthless. So if you try to play with all the towns sending food to your capital you maybe end up with +2 more population at most compared to what you would have in a regular game which hardly makes it a super city.

So my current strategy regardless of who I'm playing with is to make as many cities out of high production towns as I can. Low production towns are not worth making into cities so they can remain towns. Generally you don't have money to make everything into cities anyway so at least in this sense it's fine to have soe food towns to grab resources in low production areas. For instance the Distant Lands settlements you make for Treasure Fleets are often going to be low in production but thanks to the new Towns/Cities mechanic that works fine.
 
Last edited:
Wait, if a city is underfed, does anything happen other than slow growth?
I'm not sure what exactly happened, but I got a famine that led to citizens leaving city and destroying a building in the very, very late game. It was a game that I dragged on artificially, and at some point in the modern era, I had two cities with famines. They showed negative food income and lost a citizen every turn. I got a notification that they have a famine (the food icon in red) as well. However, there clearly was something wrong, as buying some food buildings did not increase the produced food in these cities - they were stuck at -22 per turn forever. They also had massive unhappiness (but no revolt or red fist). So, I'm not sure what exactly triggered it: unhappiness, lack of food, or a combination. However, as there is the famine text and icon, I assume that the base system for negative growth/loosing population is included in the game for some reason. It might be a leftover from something they experimented with, or something that's just meant to be very unlikely to happen, or an unfinished feature. It would be great to see this expanded upon!
 
So they simplify going wide but then why shouldn't you upgrade them all to cities when you can?
I would turn the question round - you have to ask yourself what does it benefit your empire to spend the gold to convert this town?
  • Do I have a wonder I want to build there?
  • Do I have a unique quarter I want to spam everywhere?
  • Is there some other building I need that I can't put in a town?
 
I would turn the question round - you have to ask yourself what does it benefit your empire to spend the gold to convert this town?
  • Do I have a wonder I want to build there?
  • Do I have a unique quarter I want to spam everywhere?
  • Is there some other building I need that I can't put in a town?
I would add:
  • Do I have a tile improvement that is nice enough?
Because so far I found that improvements (civ uniques, or city state bonus) are more efficient in town than in cities. The reason is lack of room, which means any rural quarter improvement you put in a city will eventually be overbuilt, hence losing the investment. On the other hand, if you put that improvement in a farm town it will produce till the end of the game.

The only limit of this line of thought is that most of the time the role of a town is to get the resources tiles as fast as you can, which most of the time mean few rural districts to improve (or else you will spend far too long to grow into the resources...)... But the first three cities you put will most likely be full by the start of modern era...
 
Back
Top Bottom