How viable is it to play with a few cities / tall?

[Toxicwire†]

I know in Civ 5 you could play wide with 100 cities and still be clapped by someone playing with like 4 well made cities.

Is it possible in Civ 6? And if so, what are the best leaders for it and how many cities you recommend minimum?

[grognardgary]

I had no trouble playing wide in five. In six however depending on map size I say you need at least 8 and those 8 better be well sited,

[Banafrit™]

No matter how you play, its best to go for 6 cities. So 6 cities is also ideal for tall.

Best civs for it are the Khmer and Scotland. Khmer is more religious and domination, while Scotland can do whatever they want with their bonuses to science and production.

[Verienkeli]

Playing tall is quite viable (especially if your leader is Yongle). I usually aim for 5-8 cities total (without war).

[Enigmatic]

I was going to play tall as Kongo. But then I got attacked,
Just kept expanding. I wasn't making a big effort to just keep expanding but again. I'd have to make a commitment to not grabbing more cities. Only incentive not to. Is the tourism bonus for having active trade route. But then again wiping out high culture civs might just be faster.
My capital had 45 citizens.

[Centipede]

I almost always end up with lots of cities because I tend to have fun with domination, but I think I finished one with Canada with 7 cities. You can try that if you like, having lots of empty land between the cities is useful for the national parks.

My problem is mostly that I can't find a good way to survive and thrive on deity to reach the late game, without bullying my troublesome neighbours a bit and taking a couple of cities.

Btw, do build good walls and a small army even with fewer cities. I was having a blast building the wonders with Egypt, when one day, next to my crossbowman defended capital, a tank landed. And the game ended.

[jonnin]

It is viable but harder. Some key points:
- every city generates currency -- money, science, culture, etc. these currencies are often tied to winning directly and indirectly.
- parallel processing. Making 3 archers at once works better than making 1 at a time when you are being warred upon.
- strategic resources are scattered and often require a city off your main cluster to claim, esp late game ones like artic oil.
- good locations often have pretty big gaps between them, and for reasons above its usually better to go ahead and put a small city in there.
- loyalty is stronger with more cities
- religious cluster pressure is stronger with more cities
Some of the pressure stuff may work just as well with super high populations. Not 100% sure, as I tend to spread thin.

lady 6 sky was designed for this and may be your best choice first few tries. Or at least add her to the above suggestions. Its not that different, but she has a very strong core.

[Mindzen]

I don't think people really understand what playing tall means. If you have 6 or 8 cities, you are not playing tall. The problem is where is the line. For me, the line was defined by Civ 5 as being 4 cities because that is how many free monuments you got if you chose that one civic tree. That number has stuck and so I define tall as 4 cities or less. You could play with only 4 cities in Civ 5 and win.

It is difficult to play tall in this game. This game is centered around districts which require cities. The more cities, the more districts. As soon as one civ snowballs through conquest, you will eventually run out of room in your 4 (or less) cities to keep up with yields. It's not impossible, but will require very specific factors and a little bit of luck (the right city states are in the game, natural wonders next to starting location, etc...)

[Centipede]

I feel like it's more suboptimal and delays your win to play with so few cities rather than making it impossible. I say that because the AI simply feels less aggressive than in Civ 5 in both using military to attack and pursuing a victory. It's like they're less aware of how close you or they are to winning.

I remember how frightening and tense Deity was in Civ 5, AIs who caught a whiff of weakness quickly invaded and backstabbed friends, or went for a serious space race, aside from just having numbers advantages. In 6, they often look content to dawdle around in late eras. Wars are low intensity, serious invasions happen when they finally see they have tanks and you have pikemen.

Come to think of it, ever since playing 6 I see much less backstabbing and more complacency. I'm suspecting the agendas make the AI more rigid. they seem caged by it compared to being less predictable in older civs.

It still can be a challenge to play against the overwhelming numbers. City building is a lot more fun. But in terms of strategy, the AI only seem dangerous when they passively stumble into diplomatic or tourism victory, or if you leave score on (I've always preferred to disable that one and go for endless play and proper wins).

Have you seen AI make serious plays for a victory? I'm not saying only when they've been fighting a 100 century war and now finally manage to take your capital with death robots, more like have you seen them be cunning and sneak up with a win?

[View The Phenom]

Depends on the civ, certain ones (Maya, Inca) benefit from going tall. Secondly, if you view tall as "4 Cities or less" then I don't think you understand what it really means; it's never been about hard numbers but really focusing on a small number of highly developed cities vs multiple smaller ones that take more time to get online.

Creating a handful of core cities, where all your development is focused, can be very successful; you tend to get more citizens which turns into more production for wonders/armies/districts early instead of spending resources on settlers and delaying your growth for future cities. And given how important it is to snowball quickly in Civ, early game growth can have huge benefits quickly (including taking neighbouring capitals to expand your empire).

But due to the nature of Civ 6, and the lack of a meaningful penalty for massive expansion (unlike Civ 5), there's little reason to avoid putting out as many cities as possible. Amenities are trivial to deal with and that's really the only limiting factor when it comes to city numbers. You're also rewarded by increasing the number of domestic trade routes to your core cities, so getting as many as possible is ideal.

If you want to go tall it's possible. But there's little reason to avoid just putting out as many cities as possible.

[ACS36]

Originally posted by Verienkeli:

Playing tall is quite viable (especially if your leader is Yongle). I usually aim for 5-8 cities total (without war).

Anything more than 3-4 cities isn't playing tall. You're entering wide territory at 5+.