When do you stop settling?

[BeTheRowdy]

I often feel that my midgame is bogged down by the number of cities I've settled. Scaling district costs and the demand to keep pace with the AI on science, culture, and great people make settlement feel wrong after a certain point. But I've struggled to identify exactly where this point lies.

Do you tend to settle as often as possible? Do you settle only freshwater? Only new strategic and luxury resources? Will you settle any arable land at all? Any defensible land? Or do you have a specific number of cities in mind regardless of the map?

I usually prefer to settle as much as possible, but it just ends up feeling like I never get my key districts online fast enough and never have time to do anything but build districts.

 

[zxcvbob]

I wish there was a way to just build gold late-game, so the cities would quit pestering me about what to build next. I sometimes don't finish games that I'm winning because managing 20 or 30 or more cities (a lot of them captured) gets tiresome.

 

[joncnunn]

To me, this looks dependent upon what you what to do with the new cities:

If you want cities to continue having districts, then it's going to be difficult for a newly built fresh city in Rean. era to be anything other than a net drain on your economy. (All those trade units you relocated there so it could get production to build districts there could have been improving production in a preexisting city)

But if you aren't attaching to attach a district to it, then the cost is a lot lower. (Say a city built just for a strategic resource)

It's generally best to build whatever cities you are planning on building as fast as practical consistent with being able to defend yourself against barbarians and the AI on your starting landmass. Part of this is only building the first couple settlers in your capital and after that use other cities (primarily those pop 3 or 4 but a city that's suffering from -75% growth from being at housing capacity is also a good choice.)
Use the lock in cost of district trick; no need to actually spend a turn building it, it just needs the tile placed to lock in the price after which you switch back to what is currently more important.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

I settle locations that will maximize tile utilization. If there is no fresh water and no possibility of an aqueduct and no Mohenjo Daro nearby then I just don't settle there until I need to fill it in. You see, the whole map belongs to me. Other major civs think the land near their start belongs to them, but they are mistaken. They aren't there to compete for victory, but to frustrate my attempts to dot map the world and maximize its productive output. I don't stop building cities unless I run out of amenities. Eventually I have to stop once all the amenities are exhausted, therefore the game needs more amenities.

 

[Japper007]

I wish there was a way to just build gold late-game, so the cities would quit pestering me about what to build next. I sometimes don't finish games that I'm winning because managing 20 or 30 or more cities (a lot of them captured) gets tiresome.

umh there is...

just scroll down the list till you get to district projects. Both the Industrial and Commercial hub investment projects yield gold and some great person points.

 

[MyOtherName]

just scroll down the list till you get to district projects. Both the Industrial and Commercial hub investment projects yield gold and some great person points.

In Civ 4, if you built wealth, the city would continue to produce well nearly indefinitely. In Civ 6, if you build the commercial hub project, you'll get prompted to pick a new build in a few turns.

 

[Leyrann]

I continue settling until there is no valid point on the map to settle anymore, though in pracise I don't reach that point before the game ends. I do, however, prefer good spots over bad ones even if the good spot is further away.

As for new cities late in the game, you can relocate some 2-3 trade routes there (just take the first ones that want new orders) and send them to the cities that give the most production to the route. Buy a few builders (2-3 if you have +2 charges, otherwise something like 4-5) and use them to improve the land around the city, maybe chop some stuff, etc, and you have a good city running in no-time.

As for projects, yes, you have to re-select them, but you can basically turn off your brain while doing so, which makes it far less of a problem. Also an option, if you are close to winning and just want to press "end turn", you can instead start building Thermonuclear Devices. They require a lot more production than projects. And of course you can also start a war to have more "other" stuff to do in between selecting builds for your cities.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

I often feel that my midgame is bogged down by the number of cities I've settled. Scaling district costs and the demand to keep pace with the AI on science, culture, and great people make settlement feel wrong after a certain point. But I've struggled to identify exactly where this point lies.

Right now I'm playing a game where I hit that problem. Despite being just a standard map, there's a lot of good land to be had even past midgame. So I did some number crunching.

Do you settle only freshwater?

Freshwater matters for cities you want to grow. So cities that specifically bring strategic/luxury resources may be exempt (see below). Still, there are usually some decent tiles to work around every city, so Housing doesn't hurt. Later in the game it's possible to boost a new city's production via traders and quickly develop it, including an aqueduct. But I'll only consider that if the city spot is truly exceptional.

Only new strategic and luxury resources?

Depends on what the AIs pay for them, in the above-mentioned game they paid very well, being Deities of 7+ cities. For instance, I settled an otherwise not spectacular city for Niter and Coffee, sold them for ~50gpt, and boosted a tech (worth 100s of research).

Any defensible land?

Only matters early on, particularly for the capital. Once barbarians aren't a threat and you have the AIs where you want them it isn't a consideration.

Or do you have a specific number of cities in mind regardless of the map?

No.

I usually prefer to settle as much as possible, but it just ends up feeling like I never get my key districts online fast enough and never have time to do anything but build districts.

Settlers in that game are almost at 400. At some point, even with good spots remaining, it's better to focus on other things. For one, the time until the game's end (and thus the time to pay off the settler) is less and less. Secondly, settlers go up and up in production cost (+20 for each) and realistically in food cost as 'higher' pops are lost by your more and more developed cities.

 

[Darth Tribble]

I generally focus on developing my capital first, but I sometimes manage to build another city or two early on. After I think I got the important stuff out of the way for my capital (building units to defend, monument, etc.), and I've found a strategic resource, coast or arable land, I settle it.

I generally keep on settling until I've claimed all the land relatively close to my capital that I deem important for growth or strategic reasons. After that, or if there is no longer any appealing land to settle, I will usually capture AI cities if I want to expand further. Mainly because I like overseeing a racially heterogenous empire, and it just seems like too much work to raze a city and rebuild it with your own settler.

 

[joncnunn]

In Civ 4, if you built wealth, the city would continue to produce well nearly indefinitely. In Civ 6, if you build the commercial hub project, you'll get prompted to pick a new build in a few turns.

The CQUI mod can help since it includes build queues. (But won't eliminate the problem entirely.)

 

[Victoria]

I will build all game.
I will build a gifting city for warmonger reduction and as Eng;and as long as I do this off continent I will get a free unit in exchange.
If I see a resource I have not got I will build a city on it as soon as I can, often I do not want it to grow, it was a cheap arena-zoo
I will often play with no set strategy in mind beyond "Cultural or Dom IDC which" and this means I chuck seaside resort towns out there
If I see a nice rivermouth I will settle it, buy a builder in it and put 2 trade routes there and its got a harbour and CH before you know it.

 

[DouLou]

I will build all game.
I will build a gifting city for warmonger reduction and as Eng;and as long as I do this off continent I will get a free unit in exchange.
If I see a resource I have not got I will build a city on it as soon as I can, often I do not want it to grow, it was a cheap arena-zoo
I will often play with no set strategy in mind beyond "Cultural or Dom IDC which" and this means I chuck seaside resort towns out there
If I see a nice rivermouth I will settle it, buy a builder in it and put 2 trade routes there and its got a harbour and CH before you know it.

Are you fussy about settling coast or flat grass early?

 

[Victoria]

you fussy about settling coast or flat grass early?

I am currently playing a game on deity where my capital is settled on coast without fresh water, really enjoying the game... around T150 and the tide is turning in my favor. Land start naval at T100 due to island size.
All flat grass I will restart unless there is somewhere visible I can move... all flat grass is fairly rare, seems to come in waves so for about 2 days most starts will be flat grass and its just meh.

England seems to have a coastal bias but does not always start on the coast and I am fine with that because I do not use Naval that much as its OP but the harbors are great, especially off continent ones.

 

[DouLou]

I am currently playing a game on deity where my capital is settled on coast without fresh water, really enjoying the game... around T150 and the tide is turning in my favor. Land start naval at T100 due to island size.
All flat grass I will restart unless there is somewhere visible I can move... all flat grass is fairly rare, seems to come in waves so for about 2 days most starts will be flat grass and its just meh.

England seems to have a coastal bias but does not always start on the coast and I am fine with that because I do not use Naval that much as its OP but the harbors are great, especially off continent ones.

Ah ok nice. I tried to play flat grass and it felt horrible....

I had a game previously where i settler 7 or so cities then ran out of good land. There was a big patch of land uncontested to the left of me surrounded by coast. Big enough for 3 cities but all flat grass and no new luxuries... just bonus resource. Should i have settled it you reckon?

 

[Victoria]

If I was China I would have grabbed it quick and built great wall on it.
If I was going for a cultural victory I would certainly have grabbed any coast for seaside resorts... also any coast with a river mouth
As long as I had enough amenities I would consider settling it around T100 because another civ will otherwise and the cities will grow fast for science... just not good for building much fast.
The bonus resource is not enough, if strategic resource it can be handy to have more to trade.
if weak on amenities it could tip you into rebellion fairly fast becaus ethe cities will grow unless not near freshwater which for a useless city just stopping other civs is what i will do, avoid the water.

 

[BeTheRowdy]

What about mass settlement specifically? Do you tend to incorporate a mass settlement phase early in the game in conjunction with the Colonization policy? What sorts of factors lead you to bring an end to this phase, if any?

 

[Victoria]

The first 80-120 turns roughly typically is when.
You get the feeling of being full enough to relax

 

[Leyrann]

What about mass settlement specifically? Do you tend to incorporate a mass settlement phase early in the game in conjunction with the Colonization policy? What sorts of factors lead you to bring an end to this phase, if any?

I start building settlers before I even have Early Empire, and then, barring special circumstances, I put in Colonization as soon as I can and then, whenever I can change policies, I simply check if I'm still building settlers. If there's less than, say, 3 turns left on the last one, I swap it out, otherwise I leave it in. Sometimes, I swap it back in for a while around the medieval or renaissance era and then build a few settlers together, but typically it's just a steady stream in all cities where (using Colonization) settler build times are at most some 12-14 turns and there is nothing more important to build.

 

[cazaderonus]

This is a moot question imo. as there aint any downside in settling new city, i dont see any reason to set a "no more settling" milestone in my games.

Obviously i will still need a good reason to settle, be it a a missing strategic resource or lux, or a good dirt. But i dont care if it's turn 85 or 180, if it's any good i will settle the city. Even if it takes ages to grow, so be it, and then i'll start with a commercial hub. And probably send a builder to chop for instant growth or fast build basic buildings and tile improvements.

And really, the growing cost of districts is not really an issue if your cities progress steadily.

Last game with France i settled 2 cities after turn 240 just to spam resorts on the coast. Those 2 cities were worth their pound of tourism despite having 5 pop at the end of the game and just a commercial hub.

Overall, starting a city "late" benefits from the growth of your empire. You have much more tools and solution to help that city come to par with the more ancient ones, especially gold. I dont know about you folks, but imo in CiVI, gold is god.