When to stop founding cities?

[Art Morte]

My preferred play style is peaceful expansion. I enjoy forward settling and blocking other civs into their peninsulas and other corners of land while rushing to expand myself. Fractal and shuffle maps are my favorite as the landmasses you tend to get suit this style well. Plus finding those uninhabited islands late into the game is nice.

However, what I'm finding - to my disappointment - in Civ 6 is that the point seems to arrive too early when it makes very little sense to settle new cities any more. Playing standard speed and size, it pretty much feels like anything settled after turn 200 will never have time to grow to anything meaningful. And if the city does not have much production from terrain, that point comes even earlier, as you'll be forever building that first district.

It doesn't really make sense that you're in, say, the industrial era, building factories and stock exchanges, while your new cities will only complete their first district 50 turns into the future. The disparity between your old and new cities is simply too big. The obvious answer is "don't found but conquer your new cities", but that's not how I normally like to play.

So, what are the experiences and opinions of people here, what would you say, on standard speed, is the point when you probably should stop founding new cities, when the benefit you get from them until the end of the game becomes minimal?

 

[Siptah]

I disagree, I never stop settling in peaceful games. Especially when going for a cultural victory, more coastal tiles and more TS are always worth it. I also don't seem to have that 50 turns problem, maybe because I'm playing on epic and it translates differently. One or two trade routes, chop a forest, invest in improvements and many new cities founded in the second half of the game are useful (=have 2 districts) soon.

 

[Turrdy]

or just play aztec and rush the districts with builders.

but you're right, it isn't very motivating to found cities if everything you want to build takes an entire era to build. I'm not very concerned about that though mostly, since I'll have enough cities by then anyways. Just the occasional "Oh right, i founded that city an hour ago, almost forgot" when the first production reminder pops up

on the other hand, sometimes you have to found cities in late game, just to get the oil, aluminium, and uranium you so desperately need to exterminate your enemies...

 

[Ivan Hunger]

In way, I think you answered your own question. There are various ways to help get a newly founded city up on its feet. If it's within range of your trade network, then domestic trade routes are an obvious solution. If it has hills or forests nearby, then you can build mines and lumber mills. If it's on a river, you can use gold to buy a water wheel. But if you can't find any settlement locations that meet at least one of these criteria, that's when you know it's time to stop expanding and focus on other things.

 

[Art Morte]

I disagree, I never stop settling in peaceful games. Especially when going for a cultural victory, more coastal tiles and more TS are always worth it. I also don't seem to have that 50 turns problem, maybe because I'm playing on epic and it translates differently. One or two trade routes, chop a forest, invest in improvements and many new cities founded in the second half of the game are useful (=have 2 districts) soon.

I may not be as good and/or efficient player as you, but if I've founded 4-6 cities around the industrial era, I don't seem to have all those resources - trade routes, builders, gold - to really boost my new cities through all those means.

or just play aztec and rush the districts with builders.

but you're right, it isn't very motivating to found cities if everything you want to build takes an entire era to build. I'm not very concerned about that though mostly, since I'll have enough cities by then anyways. Just the occasional "Oh right, i founded that city an hour ago, almost forgot" when the first production reminder pops up

on the other hand, sometimes you have to found cities in late game, just to get the oil, aluminium, and uranium you so desperately need to exterminate your enemies...

Yeah, those later strategic resources are a reason for founding later cities, but that's usually a matter of founding just one or two new cities. My problem is that in most of the games there seems to be good, enticing land unoccupied in mid-game (and even later) that can fit several cities. Initially I get excited about the possibility of settling there, but my excitement turns to disappointment when the production times make it feel like those cities will start to contribute something meaningful only very late in the game.

 

[Siptah]

I may not be as good and/or efficient player as you, but if I've founded 4-6 cities around the industrial era, I don't seem to have all those resources - trade routes, builders, gold - to really boost my new cities through all those means.

I don't think it is about good or efficient. It's more what you prefer to do in your games. All 3 of those boost options are related to CHs and Harbors (since I often buy Builders). I build quite a lot of them, every city has at least one. And I love the double adjacency for harbors card, and the +4 gold from trade routes card. I build less campuses and encampments than most other players do, which means I'm advancing slower and am more vulnerable. And I don't have large armies in my peaceful games, which also increases gold per turn. I rarely spent gold on Great People. Notice that I usually play on King or Emperor, higher difficulties need different strategies, and I would need more other districts and a larger army.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

I may not be as good and/or efficient player as you, but if I've founded 4-6 cities around the industrial era, I don't seem to have all those resources - trade routes, builders, gold - to really boost my new cities through all those means.

Try to alternate between expanding and supporting your new expansions. Too much expansion with no support will result in a lot of worthless cities.

Social policy cards can help you with this. Equip the colonization/expropriation policy and expand like crazy. But when you discover a new civic and get to swap your cards out for free, equip the ilkum/serfdom/public works policy and focus on improving your new land. The next time you discover a new civic, switch back again. Keep alternating, and you'll get a lot more out of your expansions then you will from just spamming them all the time.

 

[Rosty K]

I usually take good spots in 'my' territory, then fill the gaps (so that the AI can't settle in that only available tile in the middle of my lands. Well, if it's just one tile, I'll rather put a unit there), and then only expand if I get a free settler from AI/barbarians, or if there is a spot somewhere with the resource I need.

 

[PYITE]

Sending a worker or 2 to your new city is the key to quick late game city development.

Harvest and chop. Found late cities that have ample resources and features to make your city grow. The farther advanced you are in science/civic (greater of the 2) the more production/food you get from chop/harvest.

Don't waste a worker charge building a pasture for sheep or cow, just harvest it and quickly up the city population. Same for rice and wheat. Any stone or woods that is harvested should complete a significant portion of a district.

At around 2/3 of game completion you should start harvesting and chopping every feature/resource available that gives production in every city. The exception is saving things to chop in your spaceport cities.

 

[bladex]

never keep building

Don't waste a worker charge building a pasture for sheep or cow

unless your Australia CULTURE BOMB ROCKS

 

[UWHabs]

Yeah, a worker is big to helping a new city get set up. A mine will be 4 or 5 cogs, and a trade route will give the city another 3-4 as well, so you're already talking about a size 1 city with about 10 production. Especially if you have a quick district that you can lay down (ie. cheap navy dockyard for England), my new cities were only taking about 15-20 turns to build one once that basic infrastructure is up. And if they happen to already be in range of a factory, that helps as well.

No, the new city will never be one of your main production centers, but it can still be a useful addition at the cost of a settler and a builder.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Run the settlers card when you want to expand. Then run the builders card. I often have a city or two with production that just spend most of their times building workers/settlers.

 

[FlyinPhil]

There is another benefit to founding cities besides resourcing and production and all that. Someone above mentioned denying territory to rivals. One settler is a small price to pay relative to the military and diplomatic investment/penalties of dislodging a rival city from favorable territory. I will build entire lines of cities to keep rivals from expanding to an area immature not necessarily need, but I don't want them to occupy, either.

 

[Kyro]

Hmm...when you win? There's no two ways about it, more cities is ALWAYS better. Of course at some point you will realize you're already winning and founding more is just redundant in the context of winning.

Use a couple of internal trade routes to jump start that CH and you'll have 3 trade routes for the next district. I agree that new cities shouldn't need trade routes to survive though; it's not supposed to get more difficult to start cities later on because that favors early warmongering too much and makes the early game too important. If anything it should get easier...

If you hate district costs like I do play as the Aztecs and you can ignore that entirely...plop a city, buy a builder and there you go 1 district in 5 turns. No need to worry about unnecessary inflation, no need to redirect trade routes, don't need to make sure your new city is near the rest. Freedom from bad design.

 

[Guandao]

I'm spamming cities now in my recent game. I used to build around 4-6 cities in Civ5 and was able to win the game. Now, I have an incentive to settle more cities.

 

[UWHabs]

Hmm...when you win? There's no two ways about it, more cities is ALWAYS better. Of course at some point you will realize you're already winning and founding more is just redundant in the context of winning.

Use a couple of internal trade routes to jump start that CH and you'll have 3 trade routes for the next district. I agree that new cities shouldn't need trade routes to survive though; it's not supposed to get more difficult to start cities later on because that favors early warmongering too much and makes the early game too important. If anything it should get easier...

If you hate district costs like I do play as the Aztecs and you can ignore that entirely...plop a city, buy a builder and there you go 1 district in 5 turns. No need to worry about unnecessary inflation, no need to redirect trade routes, don't need to make sure your new city is near the rest. Freedom from bad design.

Yep, Aztecs certainly have a big edge in setting up crappy cities. As well, anyone who has a cheap district too, since then one chop is enough to get almost all of the district complete. Especially Germany, where your first district will be a Hansa, so if you plan them right you can finish it quick and that gives you an immediate +4 or +5 production, and then more if you have industrious city-state allies too. Especially since the commerce hub bonus (accidentally) gets applied as soon as you place the commerce hub, not even when it's complete, which means you can immediately pop it down to get the full Hansa bonus as you build the commerce hub.

 

[Frostburn]

There is another benefit to founding cities besides resourcing and production and all that. Someone above mentioned denying territory to rivals. One settler is a small price to pay relative to the military and diplomatic investment/penalties of dislodging a rival city from favorable territory. I will build entire lines of cities to keep rivals from expanding to an area immature not necessarily need, but I don't want them to occupy, either.

Agree. When I am settling cities around turn ~200 as OP suggested, usually I am not expecting it to be very productive and am mainly doing it for some strategic reason which doesn't necessarily require that city to grow fast. They can also be great decoys or "walls" against approaching enemies. Enemies will often stop to conquer the first city in sight, and this can buy you time in a pinch while your army makes its way back to protect cities which are actually valuable.

 

[Lee Duane Fitzsimmons]

It depends what you want to do with the cities. It also depends on how you design your empire. There are numerous options available.

 

[agonistes]

Stop settling when you don't want any more cities.

 

[genyl]

As much as civ6 favours going wide I rarely build cities at industrial and later. They are useful even if they have only a few tiles of quality land but my point is that if there is decent terrain available you should grab it sooner than later. The earlier you build a city the more return you get from your investment.

The exception to this is if you need and can grab a strategic/luxury, then I always go for it.

It is worth mentioning that , even if minimal , there are still penalties for every new cities: worst luxuries distribution, escalating cost of settlers , 1 less pop and defensive needs.

Because of the bonus 50% card I try to build settlers in batches

Ancient - Build 1 settler without the bonus and grab the juiciest spot

Classical- get the 50prod bonus and fill any decent spots in your continent

Reinassence - just before you get caravels build a few settlers and send them to colonize the new discovered land. Often the AI leaves juicy land empty. At this point I will also fill poor spots too as only now I start building entertainment districts