Many vs Few Cities?

[ArchonOfJustice]

So I got this game during the summer sale, and just now got around to trying it. I did the tutorial mission that seemed a 1v1. I tried to build as many cities as possible, but then later read it may be best to just have a few cities instead of many. What are the pros and cons of many vs few cities?

[Matthew]

Unfortunately in the latest (last?) iteration of Civ 5, there is very little reason to expand. Basically the only reason to expand is for a few more specialist slots, which can be achieved with just 3 or 4 cities.

That said, you can expand if you do it properly. The reasons you would do so vary, but generally it would only be for domination purposes or to acquire later strategic resources (coal/oil). Some advanced strategies can benefit from expansions through things like Sacred Sites or specialist timings or sniping AI cities which have already built a ton of world wonders.

Reasons why: Technically an expansion results in slightly more gold, science, faith, and culture. The problem is for every turn later you settle a new city, it becomes increasingly difficult to get it caught up to speed and pay off the initial investment. The amount of gold, hammers, food, and time you would pump into say a city settled on turn 200, you could have instead just used all that energy on your existing cities and just win faster. Too much work for too little profit.

[Senor Fonz]

I always expand LOTS! On harder difficultys it is more difficult and you need to be building a lot of buildings for happiness but later on with policies it gets easier. I see no reason on not to besides pissing other countries off but if you control the majority of luxuries (always hard for me to get other peoples spare resources because they trade it with others first) and a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of strategic resources then nobody can stop you no matter what victory you want to go with.

I am playing on king right now as murica with 12 enemies and going for domination. I already have Berlin while keeping about 6 allies. I have about 12-13 cities so far I think and plan on building more as I find coal and Uranium. Sadly I rushed oil and none was in my starting are so have to send up some settlements to the icy north but there is coal and will be a good place to launch some attacks against Japan and the neitherlands.

[Staber13857]

the main problem with expansion is the empire curbers as I like to call them. Every new city you have makes each new tech you have cost 5% more, social poclies 10% more, and costs 4 happiness on standard map size. Since its rather difficult to matain more than four or five cities untill the industrail era, its rarely worth it to go wide.

[Wolfe]

I'm on my first game and felt I had to expand loads due to other civs making a city on part of my continent. I'm playing on the real world map and luckily started on North America, but the incas took South california from me building a city right outside my capital, now I'm building cities every where I can and expanding all over the north.

I'm playing peacefully except for the barbarians and not going for domination necessarily, but I'm not letting those incas build anymore on my land that's for sure.

[Bblok]

it depend's on your civ and place, wide can be very good but it has like a time limit. until the early industrail you can kill everything on your path but later tradition wil catch up and, out tech you.

[Vinyl Scratch]

The only limitation to expansion is happiness, which means Luxery resources.

If there's a good spot for a city with a Unique luxery you don't own, then it's almost always worth placing a city there.
(this is ignoring where enemy players have made cities though, so diplomacy is a factor obviously)

If it's getting late into the game though (post-renaissance) you probably shouldn't be looking to make new cities, unless it's for strategic resources you don't have, like Coal, Oil and Uranium.
You should keep in mind that making new cities will increase Tech and Policy Costs, so you should always think about how long it will take to make that city worthwhile enough to make up that difference.
Usually...it's pretty easy to make the difference though.

Originally posted by Bart:

it depend's on your civ and place, wide can be very good but it has like a time limit. until the early industrail you can kill everything on your path but later tradition wil catch up and, out tech you.

Just because you make a lot of cities doesn't mean you can't go tradition, it's still a beneficial tree for wide play, you just miss out on the free buildings.

[RNGeepers]

If theres terrain worth taking yea 3-4 resources any kind, otherwise keep it tiny. I rarley go over 5 cities and if i do its because the hapiness can take it. Or if i dont have a strategic resource, coal oil aluminium, ill settle for it.
Just did a one city start, ended up with half the map and only settled two extra cities in modern era.
Bloody game never gives me every strategic resource close by sigh.

[Wolfe]

Thanks to a huge expansion having around 25 cities I'm now the World super power with virtually all of North America, Alaka, the Bering Strait, parts of Russia, all of Japan, Greenland, Iceland, Portugal and Spain, the UK, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, parts of North Africa, with only the Russian and Asian landmass lacking part of my Empire.

[Lemmini]

in the latest version of civ5,l dont think there is any reason not to expand,if you want to win in a large map

[wnp8613]

Expansion is dependent on many different things.

First off, Which victory are you going for? If you have decided to try for the science victory, epansion is not the best option. Between 4-5 strong cities can outpace a mega-empire build in a heartbeat, especially at the modern era, when all the AI players attempt to expand globally. The cities that you make must have enough production and science to allow you to swiftly research and build the rocket parts. If you have decided on a culture victory, a larger empire will allow you to influence more players and gain influential status over them. Also a museums are necessary in your main land as you discover more great works and discover artifact sites. The more museums you have, the more works you can hold and the more influence you produce. Also remember to optimize your great work placements to gain bonuses. If you plan on a domination victory, I have found a larger empire is infinitely easier to win with than a smaller empire. It is all about outpacing the AI, but once you have reached the later eras, the effects of more cities are not felt as much. I like to attack a civ and capture one city. Then build an airport on that city to quickly shepard my troops from my civ to the front. I will then raze every other city and keep their capital (unless a city has something I want). However, a small compact civ will avoid the global stage and can use the conflicts between AIs to take the capital of one of the AIs and secure a victory that way. There are multiple strategies so go with whatever feels right. If you plan on a diplomatic victory, small, influential civilizations usually win out. Large civs often draw too much spite from other civs (unless on a huge map) which will lead to rifts between you and another super power. However, large civs often have more diplomacy with city states, which will give them a leg up with more delegates. Finally, if you are going for time victory, larger civs have more points (from multiple buildings, more population, more land area, more specialists,... you get the picture) and it requires you to be quick on the wonders. This is definetly the hardest victory on the higher levels since the AIs have such a score boost.

Secondly, Which civilization are you? There are so many civs in this game that I am not going to bother going through them all but I can give you a few examples. France, which has a strong cultural background and tile improvements that can become really awesome in the later eras, is a great civ to try for the culture victory. They prefer a medium size civ ( around 12-13 cities by the end of the game). The chateau improvements cannot be placed next to one another so you have to expand a little bit to gain a significant advantage from the bonus. The netherlands, which may seem like an underrated civ but when played correctly can become a powerhouse, is a great civ for domination. They dont require a large area but they need at least one city located in an area with flood plains or marshes. (Warning, do not develop marshes in the early game. The tile improvement can only be built on unimproved marsh territory. Flood plains can be converted.) The improvement becomes great after economics is researched, and allows you to have large armies with very little overall area. Finally, England which can be played as either a large civ or a small one. The strength of the English comes from their ships and naval enhancements. In history, the British had a small, but strong homeland, and then spread multiple little cities around the world. They discovered that, in the end the werent able to hold cities they couldnt reach, which lead to their downfall. The size of your nation depends entirely on what risks you want to take.

Finally, the size of your civ is affected by the choices you make throughout the game. Does your religion give you bonuses for more cities or more followers? Did you choose the social policy that will decrease the effect of multiple cities on next policy? Do you need a certain stategic or luxury resource? There are hundreds of reasons to either expand or stay small, it all just depends on how you play. This is a great game but it needs to be played through many, many times in order to develop a sound strategy.

I am currently playing a modded game on diety with 24 civs, 60 city states, and one of the largest maps I have found. I have 8 cities right now in the atomic era. When I play on diety, I only play domination, because with 24 civs, it is impossible to stop every one of them from completing one of the other victories. I plan to expand to 16 cities by the information era, with a few puppet cities scattered around the globe. I have 85 war units, with another 30 or so civilian units. I have a positive 205 gold per turn and 180 culture per turn. I am 3rd in technology but I am the only person in the atomic era. So as you can see, a medium to large civ can keep up with even the toughest AIs, you just need to play your cards right. I will usually add 1 city for every era between classical and rennesance, 2 cities per era between industrial and modern, and 3-4 cities on the last era. This gives me enough time to upgrade everything in those cities so they can become helpful when they are needed.

Well thats all I have to say about that. If you are interested in what I said and want to know more about different civs or overall strategy, feel free to message me a question or two.

[Acken]

Without trying to tell you which one is best or worst let's first agree on the following definitions:
-Tall = Few Cities = 4 cities (sometimes 5)
-Wide = Many Cities = 6 to 8 cities

Let's now delve into pros and cons:
Tall:
-Very easy to play. Straightforward, always work. Recommended for beginners
-Current fastest times are usually achieved with a tall approach and Tradition
-Good for wonders, focusing on a big capital allow for an easier wonder spam
-Repetitive, can get boring

Wide:
-Harder to play, more subtleties. Require a good knowledge of the game to get similar results than playing tall.
-Lots of anti-wide mechanics: Costly national wonders, harder happiness, angrier neighbours
-A lot more production overall for wars

[ArchonOfJustice]

Thanks everyone. I should also have mentioned I only have vanilla Civ 5 right now, I wish I had got the complete edition, but oh well. Does that affect it at all?

[RNGeepers]

Originally posted by ArchonOfJustice:

Thanks everyone. I should also have mentioned I only have vanilla Civ 5 right now, I wish I had got the complete edition, but oh well. Does that affect it at all?

Cant even remember what it looks like lol.

[Staber13857]

Originally posted by Van Gent:

Originally posted by ArchonOfJustice:

Thanks everyone. I should also have mentioned I only have vanilla Civ 5 right now, I wish I had got the complete edition, but oh well. Does that affect it at all?

Cant even remember what it looks like lol.

Vanilla was alot more friendly to expansion if I remember correctly.

[Eamos]

The main difference between Vanilla and BNW is that there isn't a tech disadvantage for expanding. Because of this, the bigger you are the more tech you can have, more production, more gold etc... The only real consequence to building wide is it's a lot harder to get social policies so you probably won't win by a cultural victory.