Why such small empires?

[Ebrim]

6-8 feels like a lot to me. Much more than that and cities start to lose personality. I'd almost rather put them over to AI management.

 

[gunnergoz]

Any Civ game I've played with more than 6-8 cities turned out to be a muddle with little character. The tension shows best with fewer characters (cities) on the map, since each of them is more important to the overall effort. But I don't advocate against games allowing for more cities.

In fact, I'd like to see a mod for settlement of villages (3 hex cluster) and towns (7 hexes.) These would not be intended to grow into cities, though I suppose they could. The point is they would be satellite communities around the main cities in the game, filling in the gaps between the major cities. But that's just me.

 

[cazaderonus]

155 isn't even half of the game's speed.

They were also playing on Island Tectonics/Archipelog map, so there was less space to settle. (there wasn't that much space if I recall).

The fact it is turn 155 is a good point. We have a bad habit with civ v where we usually dont expect city to be created post t80 or past a certain number because it was almost always a sub optimal decision due to mainly the cost in science and culture research time, global happiness and the national wonder system.

In civ vi i havent heard anything about an increase in science and culture cost with newly founded cities. Also, the lack of global happiness doesnt risk crippling your other cities because of that new one.

So i expect empires to grow in phases instead. With the cost increase for every settler, it makes sense to grow your firts cities a bit and then pop another batch of settlers once your production catches up with that cost increase. In the same time, exploration or even diplomatic events might reveal new interesting spots etc..

 

[Miravlix]

A city isn't a city.

A city is more like an American state, so that makes 6-8 bigger than most countries in the world, so it's simply a matter of you having trouble with translating the game scale to the real world.

 

[skyclad]

I share your concern. We should be rewarded for expanding and it should be a race. By medieval or rennaisance era basically all good land should be taken, the continent should not be filled with "island" cities, disconnected and isolated.

 

[jjkrause84]

A city isn't a city.

A city is more like an American state, so that makes 6-8 bigger than most countries in the world, so it's simply a matter of you having trouble with translating the game scale to the real world.

I've seen my share of mental gymnastics on this board (especially to justify broken Civ 5 mechanics), but this absolutely takes the gold....

Anyway, several people have reverted to the 'it's just a demo/beta and they're not playing optimally!' defence. Fine. OK. Does this include the computer, as well? Are they playing sub-optimally for the sake of the reviewers? How about the maps? I've yet to see any Civ 6 map, anywhere, where 6 cities was reasonably possible for any Civ. At most you seem to get enough space for 3 cities before bumping into another Civ or city-state borders (in many ways it is city-states that ruin it, since they take up so much space from the off).

My guess is, just like in Civ 5, Civ 6 will not be an empire-building game. You'll plop down your 4 cities and sit for 250 turns, hitting enter. I hope I'm wrong, but so far most of the ideas and systems feel like fluff meant to distract the player away from the lack of meaningful decisions. Then again, I'm starting at a place of deep scepticism, especially after the debacle that was Civ 5. Ed Beach does not inspire any hope for me (especially when I hear him gamely try to discuss history).

Again, I hope I'm wrong about all of this.

 

[Amightymuffin]

I've seen my share of mental gymnastics on this board (especially to justify broken Civ 5 mechanics), but this absolutely takes the gold....

Anyway, several people have reverted to the 'it's just a demo/beta and they're not playing optimally!' defence. Fine. OK. Does this include the computer, as well? Are they playing sub-optimally for the sake of the reviewers? How about the maps? I've yet to see any Civ 6 map, anywhere, where 6 cities was reasonably possible for any Civ. At most you seem to get enough space for 3 cities before bumping into another Civ or city-state borders (in many ways it is city-states that ruin it, since they take up so much space from the off).

My guess is, just like in Civ 5, Civ 6 will not be an empire-building game. You'll plop down your 4 cities and sit for 250 turns, hitting enter. I hope I'm wrong, but so far most of the ideas and systems feel like fluff meant to distract the player away from the lack of meaningful decisions. Then again, I'm starting at a place of deep scepticism, especially after the debacle that was Civ 5. Ed Beach does not inspire any hope for me (especially when I hear him gamely try to discuss history).

Again, I hope I'm wrong about all of this.

well atm they havent gone past the mid game and have garely focused on settling on any of their games as they have drawn up specific scenarios to show of certain features i.e religion game. You'll have to wait for the game to release before anyone can make a statement as to how feasible 6-8 cities are for a player to create during a game.

i end up going for 6-7 cities in CIV V but that was my playstyle mostly but it was possible

 

[elitetroops]

Anyway, several people have reverted to the 'it's just a demo/beta and they're not playing optimally!' defence. Fine. OK. Does this include the computer, as well? Are they playing sub-optimally for the sake of the reviewers? How about the maps? I've yet to see any Civ 6 map, anywhere, where 6 cities was reasonably possible for any Civ. At most you seem to get enough space for 3 cities before bumping into another Civ or city-state borders (in many ways it is city-states that ruin it, since they take up so much space from the off).

The AI is playing sub-optimally because of Prince difficulty. Marbozir's Brazil game easily has room for 6 cities, if not more. In the last video he has settled 4 with several good spots still available.

 

[Martinus]

Why would anyone want to manage more than 6-8 cities? This is not a diss - an honest question. Beyond that it just becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

The fact it is turn 155 is a good point. We have a bad habit with civ v where we usually dont expect city to be created post t80 or past a certain number because it was almost always a sub optimal decision due to mainly the cost in science and culture research time, global happiness and the national wonder system.

In civ vi i havent heard anything about an increase in science and culture cost with newly founded cities. Also, the lack of global happiness doesnt risk crippling your other cities because of that new one.

So i expect empires to grow in phases instead. With the cost increase for every settler, it makes sense to grow your firts cities a bit and then pop another batch of settlers once your production catches up with that cost increase. In the same time, exploration or even diplomatic events might reveal new interesting spots etc..

That's a very good point. On top of that, given how workers now function, resources around a new city can be developed in almost no time.

 

[Amightymuffin]

Why would anyone want to manage more than 6-8 cities? This is not a diss - an honest question. Beyond that it just becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

benefit from superior production and access to resources also i enjoy having a bigger blob on the map

 

[skyclad]

Why would anyone want to manage more than 6-8 cities? This is not a diss - an honest question. Beyond that it just becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

Its not a lot to manage really civ5 had pretty poor and slow ui though. Just pick what to build and try to improve tiles in line with pop growth. To me each city is not like a character in an rpg like someone said above, they dont need to feel special.

 

[c4c6]

I remember hearing it in an early play preview, but I'm not going to put in the effort to find it and I could be wrong. Everyone has a faulty memories to a degree ...

I seem to remember hearing it in an early video, too. [6-8]
But methinks for me the first occurrence was in an article, asking for the city limit and the answer (of an Firaxis representative) was: "50 to 100 % more than in Civ5". [So I concluded, it matches 6-8 indeed]

 

[jjkrause84]

Why would anyone want to manage more than 6-8 cities? This is not a diss - an honest question. Beyond that it just becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

Did you ever play Civ 4?

 

[Magil]

Why would anyone want to manage more than 6-8 cities? This is not a diss - an honest question. Beyond that it just becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

Not... even a little bit, really. That's the part of Civ I enjoy the most, growing and developing my cities. Having more gives me more interesting things to do, more interesting and meaningful decisions to make. It should be very nice in VI, which naturally lends itself to personalizing and specializing cities. So long as a large empire is feasible.

 

[cazaderonus]

That's a very good point. On top of that, given how workers now function, resources around a new city can be developed in almost no time.

Yeah you re right to add this on top of my previous post. It all adds up to show that building a city at every point is the game is a valid thing to do, especially if you prep it well.

I can really see myself settling 4 cities including my capital quite fast. Then building those up with districts, wonders, adding an army and then decide to go for a 2 settler, 2 builders production queue 2 times in a row and going for 8 cities.

Be it because i just want more lands, or need new strategic resources or need to build a place with high defenses to act as gigantic citadel.

Core original cities will be at a point where they can sustain my global needs to progress toward a victory while new cities will come online rather quickly due to good planning and policies choices while my army can protect those new areas. A few dozen turn later i could start that process again to settle far away lands such as islands or new continents.

Or i could just stay with my 4 cities and build up for conquest or just decide i have what i need or the rest of the game.

This makes the game not only more realistic but also a lot more realistic. Empires are something that grow over time.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Why would anyone want to manage more than 6-8 cities? This is not a diss - an honest question. Beyond that it just becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

GET OUT (For once a good opportunity to use this phrase! )

Serious answer: to feel like I'm managing an Empire -- instead of a rump-state, as in Civ V. I often play on a TSL world map, and I want it to be feasible to take over at least a whole continent without too much trouble. Ideally, an AI or two would do the same in each game; so the end-game would be a huge war and/or space or cultural race between 'Eurasia and Oceania', so to speak. That would be epic -- unlike turtling in, say, Scandinavia or Tibet and slowly waiting for your buckets to fill to the winning point.

For the record, my ideal average number of cities (on a Standard map with standard setting) would be something like 15-20 cities. Occasionally I'd like to go larger and manage 30-50 cities. And in a few games I might opt for a smaller empire and settle for 10 cities. But I'd like to found and/or conquer at least 10 in every game. If Civ VI doesn't lend itself to that, I'll mod the game to make it possible. I'm *so* tired of 4-city 'empires' from Civ V!

 

[Magil]

This makes the game not only more realistic but also a lot more realistic. Empires are something that grow over time.

I don't think "realistic" enters much into it. The Roman Empire was at its peak (in terms of territory) at the end of Trajan's reign in AD 117, well before the Medieval era. In Civ terms it grew very quickly.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think "realistic" enters much into it. The Roman Empire was at its peak (in terms of territory) at the end of Trajan's reign in AD 117, well before the Medieval era. In Civ terms it grew very quickly.

And it was probably the longest existing one. Most empires didn't last long after their founder's death.

 

[BrokenBokken]

Anyway, several people have reverted to the 'it's just a demo/beta and they're not playing optimally!' defence. Fine. OK. Does this include the computer, as well? Are they playing sub-optimally for the sake of the reviewers? How about the maps? I've yet to see any Civ 6 map, anywhere, where 6 cities was reasonably possible for any Civ. At most you seem to get enough space for 3 cities before bumping into another Civ or city-state borders (in many ways it is city-states that ruin it, since they take up so much space from the off).

If you think the argument people are making is 'it's a beta/not finished' and not 'we haven't seen enough' then you aren't really looking for people to show you a countering view. You're here to trumpet your conclusion.

 

[Martinus]

I think most players probably do not enjoy managing dozens of cities.