4 ms·

I'm hoping they've made some changes towards making vertical expansion (focusing resources on developing a small number of large, advanced cities) a bit more of

I'm hoping they've made some changes towards making vertical expansion (focusing resources on developing a small number of large, advanced cities) a bit more of a viable alternative to horizontal expansion (focusing resources on founding as many cities as quickly as possible). In Civ5, with the former approach, city population growth eventually becomes unsustainable (as with fewer cities, you have access to fewer resources and buildings to provide happiness to offset the growth of unhappiness from population), and city productivity will also eventually plateau (as all tiles are worked on and specialist slots filled). In practice, you tend to fall so far behind your rivals in terms of technology, economy, and military that even a cultural victory becomes out of reach on higher difficulties.

dragonwriter 10y ago
IIRC, Vertical expansion has been improved and made more competitive in every Civ release starting with at least Civ III.
- lewisl9029 10y ago
  You're probably right. I've only played Civ5 though, so that's the only perspective I have. Hopefully they continue the trend with Civ6!
- jharger 10y ago
  Yeah, I remember spamming cities seemed to be the only way to get ahead in Civ 1 (and democracy to elimite waste/corruption... ha!). Now I play most Civ 5 games with somewhere around 3-4 cities if I'm not going for a conquest victory.
- Colin_M 10y ago
  I agree. Venice was a very viable Civ to play as in V, and there you're only allowed one city.
Terr_ 10y ago
Or at least provide some AI governors so that when you do build wide, you don't have to micromanage all the different build-priorities quite as much. "Look, it's very simple, the city is called Moneyopolis, it's next to gold mines, and I want it to focus on money. That means unless something really dire is happening like a food-shortage, you build a marketplace, a bank, and a stock-market. If you can't, then make me some gold." "OK, now Scienceland and Warriorville, any status updates?"

dragonwriter 10y ago

IIRC, Vertical expansion has been improved and made more competitive in every Civ release starting with at least Civ III.

lewisl9029 10y ago
You're probably right. I've only played Civ5 though, so that's the only perspective I have. Hopefully they continue the trend with Civ6!
jharger 10y ago
Yeah, I remember spamming cities seemed to be the only way to get ahead in Civ 1 (and democracy to elimite waste/corruption... ha!). Now I play most Civ 5 games with somewhere around 3-4 cities if I'm not going for a conquest victory.
Colin_M 10y ago
I agree. Venice was a very viable Civ to play as in V, and there you're only allowed one city.

Terr_ 10y ago

Or at least provide some AI governors so that when you do build wide, you don't have to micromanage all the different build-priorities quite as much. "Look, it's very simple, the city is called Moneyopolis, it's next to gold mines, and I want it to focus on money. That means unless something really dire is happening like a food-shortage, you build a marketplace, a bank, and a stock-market. If you can't, then make me some gold." "OK, now Scienceland and Warriorville, any status updates?"