Civilization VI Tips: Expanding Your Empire
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Purchase Civ VI and it's DLC while supporting the channel here!
saxygamer.chro...
Expansion is crucial in Civ VI, and can play a big part in determining whether or not you have the necessary resources to attain a victory. In this guide, I go over how to choose settling locations and how many cities you should have!
-The Saxy Gamer
This entire channel is UNREAL! I am brand new to Civ 6 and totally obsessed. Thanks for making these man, this is great stuff!
Bro I really love the government and policy system - it really lets you customize so much the policies that you want
I guess Im asking randomly but does any of you know a method to log back into an instagram account..?
I was dumb forgot my login password. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer me!
@Isaiah Aydin thanks for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm trying it out now.
Takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Isaiah Aydin it worked and I finally got access to my account again. Im so happy:D
Thanks so much, you saved my account!
@Cayson Bobby you are welcome :D
coming from civ 5 to civ 6 its really strange how expansion is encouraged rather than discouraged
Civ 5 is the only one in the series that greatly discourage expansion.
@@sebounart3068 Civ Beyond Earth too
@@mikei4455 BE are basically Civ5 Expansion
Before Civ 6 I always did 3 to 4 high pop cities and built them up, this game changes everything for me
I know, glad i learned that now, i have lost a game because i got used to CIV 5, and wasn't expanding that much, the game has been going extremely well at the start, until suddenly two civs got much faster in science and culture, and then it was a losing game
In Civ 6 "Thot" means
T-that
H-hill
O-over
T-There
Yeah i'm a T H O T.
T hat
H Hill
O Over
T There
That’s some funny shit 😂😂😂
This channel is so underrated
I wish I hadn't gone into the comments a few videos ago, because I still can't unhear the "young Principal Skinner"
Oh shit
Rome was literally getting on my nerves. Romes rapid expansion took the best spots when i came to building cities. Mind you Rome had three Cities while i had recently got my first one(not including the capital). Having no choice i surprise attack rome and took one of its Cities. Rome called for peace, i agreed but it didn't last long, because that SOB settled near my Capital. I was like "oh hell no" and so i declared war but at this point I had The Viking and Gilgamesh declare war on Rome. I took Rome's new Cities and settled another one. Now I've got 4 settlement and Rome has Two. Man was it Epic. Now i have to focus on my Tech and Resources
I'm afraid cause Rome is settling near me in the early game, I declare war too, an call for peace I'm waiting for the Next move.
Nice game mate
Was a good story, make me laugh a bunch
"Oh hell no!" 😂
I bought Civ 6 four days ago and have been playing nonstop. I literally cannot win a game to save my life & after watching a TON of your videos, I realized that I have been playing "tall" like Civ 5 taught me which explains why I get out cultured, religioned and scienced. I hate having more than three cities but you're helping me understand this game so much more. Thank you!!
I've got to say though, I wish playing small and tall was somewhat encouraged. I'd love to just get 4 cities with Korea and dive bomb a science victory. So satisfying
Japan is literally built for small and tall
I always thought I knew what I was doing in civ 6 but I’ve learnt from these videos that I do not. My next game is going to be so much better next time! I’m going to make notes on all the videos and have a document ready to create an intense empire
Your videos are vastly superior to other people's. Thanks for teaching us this game.
How about a short video on population growth and housing space. I can never seem to have enough room to grow in population. Especially inbetween aqueduct and neighbourhood era
Ahhh... that's why I had to abandon 3 games for 3 on my first weekend! I could not work out how it was that the other civs were researching everything faster than me even though I was building universities and focusing on science.
Thanks! I'll try again with game 4...4th time lucky...?
Great vids, btw.
I would just like to say that these videos have helped me figure out how to WIN at CIV6 and I just put in my first domination victory at 1.5 years of playing. “Think wide, not tall” and BOOM. It worked!!
I know this video is really old, but I also wanted to add another point to determine settling a third city as the netherlands in your game.
I would settle one tile above the first spot you marked, directly on the coast. a) gets the eureka for sailing, b) Still loads of rivers. c) further from capital, giving both cities more room to grow and place wonders (this plays into creating your own adjacency for theatre squares) and finally, d) on that spot there are at least 2 spots for polders, which are fairly impactful once unlocked, although one of them requires placing the harbour away from the city centre. Upside to this is that instead of the gold adjacency you get the culture bomb.
Also being directly on the coast means you have potential for a city that can build loads of wonders later in the game, polders make it defensible from the sea, and a military offensive against germany would give you a city shield from the land, although that city is terrible.
Petra is good if you happen to have a city with desert tiles, but settling in a desert to build Petra is stupid unless you are Cleopatra and get unusually rewarded for wonders, or the location is tactically significant.
Desert tiles are worthless.
Normal tiles are not.
Petra makes desert tiles useful.
Petra takes time to build.
Settling on useful tiles to begin with > settling on worthless tiles and spending a wonder's worth of prodution to make them good.
Instead, settle in a good spot and build a wonder that actually does something useful maybe. Or just build other things.
The AI doesn't seem to rush Petra, so imo it is worth settling on desert and going for it.
A good idea is to settle near a desert, but not in the middle of the freaking desert, yeah :D
Abraxis86 Petra gives a lot of gold
Abraxis86 I tend to do a Petra city only when the desert has some other major draw (such as a wonder or a lot of volcanoes)
Didn't play very often yet and after a long break I played my very first game on King difficulty and at the end Montezuma had 800 science per turn with just 13 cities. Luckily I still won the space race because I had insande production.
I am late to your game but there are two things I want to say, one is you know Civ6 really well and I appreciate the amount of information that you pass along the one gripe is that you zoom in and out and move around the maps so quickly it is difficult to watch the video.
I do appreciate the amount of time it takes to conceptualize, create, edit and UL this content for me to bitch about... :)
Just started playing Civ 6, these videos are invaluable. Are you doing to update this series to reflect the changes that Gathering Storm has wrought?
Thanks! I do plan on it. I want to make sure that I leave myself some time to really let the new mechanics soak in though. Hopefully over the Summer I'll be able to get a lot of tips and in-depth videos out for the new stuff and changed stuff!
New to Civ with 6th being my first, played lots of RTS over the years but the learning curve is huge. Been watching your videos lately trying to get the hang of it.
My own preference is to pre-empt enemy expansion by getting to good sites first, close to them [the proof is their complaints]. When adding districts, link your expanding cities to prevent others getting inside your empire. Or, place districts so they adjoin impassible terrain, which also blocks access. Lastly, if you use 2-3 units to block an enemy settler entering a gap, the settler may patiently waste MANY turns until you make a permanent border join.
Your videos on Civ 6 are very informative and easy to follow. Thank for your help!
Great video. working through them now. The "no. duh" at the beginning was gold.
It's a travesty that I searched for civ guide but this series didn't appear as top results and only found it in recommendations after having looked for better guides
I really like this video series. Some constructive criticism though - you move the map around when you are explaining things so much that it is hard to focus in on what you are doing sometimes. I mean... it happens constantly when you are explaining things where there is no reason to move the map. Just move the mouse so we can see what you are talking about instead of these 20 pixel "move it just to move it" things you are doing. It is almost like a nervous twitch. WITH THAT SAID - you are very well spoken and very easy to understand and I greatly appreciated the series.
Please stop fidgeting your map so much! It’s almost impossible to watch! VERY annoying!
I am still so trained to look for luxury resources that the whole district stuff is not working for me. I think thats why people were so mixed about Civ 6 since the district process really feels foreign.
I totally agree, people don't tend to like to change how they play, so they favor the style of Civ 5 instead.
Well untrain yourself and adapt. Like the good gamers do haha.
@@TheSaxyGamer Funnily enough, I went back to Civ 4 for a few weeks right before getting Civ 6 with both expansions and all the DLC... needless to say, felt like a Civ noob my first game or two LOL
Dark_Khan 223 Cliul
Civ4 was the best Civ ever. Complex and yet simple
thanks for settling an argument between me and a friend. he said techs get more expensive the more cities you have. I said no way. you proved my point :D
That's kinda funny... Cities get more expensive the more techs you have.
He was exactly wrong. = D
I'm slowly learning to play this game. I expanded to 5 cities early on and went bankrupt trying to put outfit them all with encampments/barracks for defense and campus/libraries for science (which I was way behind in) and entertainment districts so citizens quit bitching about being bored.
The "Advisor" suggested disbanding some of my military units, but I honestly didn't even have all that many.
Thanks for the really usefull insights. Coming back to civ 6 since about 2 years and I was getting thrashed by others. This is a really good refresher to get me up to speed again.
I can barely handle micromanaging 5 cities, it just gets exhausting late game.
Thats my one biggest complaint about civ 6, bigger is absolutely always better, especially since trade routes are so strong and they are directly tied to how many cities you have.
I would prefer it if the game was closer to civ 5, where instead of settling cities for free and needing no amenities at all till they hit 3 pop (people can stop them hitting 3 pop till they can afford to raise it), a "base" amenity was required for new cities. It would mean you couldnt settle infinitely for free, at some point new cities will require some investment before they become worth it, or you'll have to dedicate policy cards to having amenities in your new cities. This way, instead of settling new cities being a penalty like in civ 5 BNW, or settling new cities being basically free like it is currently in civ 6, it's a real investment.
As the game currently is, I can only play on lower difficulties because like you, micromanaging loads of cities later in the game is a pain. Very occasionally it's fun, but it takes so much time and usually i'd like to stick to my 6 - 7 city empire, limiting me to less expansionist civs like Scotland and the Khmer.
Take your time
@@alexandermoore2959 how about playing on smaller map
I've started to play this game last week and I wasn't that good until I've started watching your videos dude. A very big thank you from me. Also I subscribed to you :)
(Sorry for my not-so-good English, am from Germany x))
I know that I am a few years late to the party, but one thing that I have finally gotten to start working for me is the Civ bonus expansion for districts that give culture bombs. This is really useful with Poland if you can get the Encampment down in the correct spot at the correct time. Unlike some Civ's, Poland will steal from another city when placing the encampment and if you are also going Religious you can flip the city's religion at the same time as the land grab.
I'm new to the game, you touched on pretty much every question I had. I appreciate the video, thanks
Love the video! Couldn't agree more with most of the stuff in the video and would just like to add a few things. When expanding, unless you have a specific plan you can always try and go ancestral hall with the GP and plug in the 50% production towards settlers. If you have Magnus with his promotion to not lose population and either take Classical Republic so all your cities can contribute or if you have a strong enough capital then go Autocracy. On top of that the 50% if you have a chop (another Mangus perk) for them as well!
I think having a small & strong set of core cities is still a great strategy - focusing too much on expanding (or anything) takes away time & resource from other important things
In this video Saxy gives the important advice not to build a city only for building Petra, because someone can build the wonder first... And in the invitational tournament he did it!
That is actually hilarious that I said something like this almost 3 years ago. Should've watched my own video before the tournament XD
I usually go for territory I don’t care for the resources at times I want to take up as much space as possible carving out big chunks of the continent I’m on. I also create buffer cities to be aggressive at another Civs that are close especially at their capital limiting what they can take and giving distance between my main cities who they cull have to fight to get to
The best way to expand in civ 6 is take over other cities
I just raze every city I take because I don't want my country infected with their filthy citizens
@@Spider-Man62 That is very inefficient, you will not gain in production to expand your army for the long term. I take over the world first before I spent time on stupid ideological shit
@@lppoqql what about warmonger? I took London and it was a pain in the ass. I still regret it.
I just attacked a city state and the entire world declared war on me
@@bruhh009 Why? Didn't you station troops there? The best way is to take all cities then there will be no rebellion.
I always settle my first 5 cities about as far as I can. It sucks not having solid contiguous borders for half the game, but it helps your cities having the most land possible toward the mid and late game. After my first core cities, I will still settle *minor* cities in between to seal up any gaps, and to use whatever land is left.
thats me too. Settle in chokepoint areas to seal off my empire then fill in. I did it in 5 also but that required alot of praying and damn near going bankrupt. But once you avoided that it was off to the races
Conversely, I settle 3 tiles apart, and never lose a game. = )
In this video Sax _almost_ figures it out. He's talking about how spread out his cities are, AND he's talking about how few of them he has (which is why he lost), he just can't seem to make the connection. = )
You want more cities closer together nearly always. There are exceptions, sure, but if your options are ten cities 5 tiles apart, or twenty cities three tiles apart the civ with twenty cities will _always_ do better, all other things equal. On top of that, 20/3 is _also_ better than 20/5... your units still have to get from one place to another.
Yeah, in 1850, the further, larger cities will be better. Shame they were eliminated in 350BC, due to severe lack of production and growth, or due to trying to fight a war on multiple fronts while being separated by half a continent.
honestly this is the first time I heard the phrase ‚feel free to dislike‘ and it makes you so much more likeable and humane haha
Great Video, I have one question tho that maybe can be the subject of another video (not sure if you did one about it yet). I always struggle about when to expand versus when to try to dominate a pre-estabilished city from another faction instead of expanding (when playing domination ofc). Either way, keep up with the awesome content.
The answer to this question comes with experience. My advise is to plan out the war as far in advance as possible. Figure out what units you will use to beat your enemy, which strategic resources you need to settle on to be able to create those units and then focus on spamming out the units and invade your opponent before they become obsolete.
For example, in one of my games, I had Germany settle right next to my capital, so I knew from the start that I had to beat them.
Fortunately I found a nice land that had double Horses. So I just focused on settlers to make 3 cities. And then I spammed horsemen until I conquered all of their cities (they did not have time to build walls).
I see. Apreciate the answer. I usually start with 2 or 3 slingers/archers because of barbarians. And depending on the map type, I simply don`t have space to settle after that.
That's specially true on Real Earth Locations, wich I really enjoy playing but is on a way too small scale for the ammount of major civs + city-estates that spawn. On some civs, like Persia, you have like 3 major cities and 2 city estates spawning almost on your line of vision wich makes normal settling close to impossible.
On that specific case, well, it`s persia, so the problem fixes itself after you take some of them down. But it does make it very hard for some civs like Brazil to go for a peaceful run aiming for a cultural victory sometimes, since sometimes it's hard for me to find suitable places to settle, depending on where enemy spawns.
I suppose I should play a bit more continental random seeds... Again, Thanks for the answer.
Oh yeah. I should mention it was on standard speed, so I definitely had the time to sneak in some archers before the main plan was set into motion. They are great for border defense.
Thanks! I mostly agree with with Jan said, in that it really all comes down to personal preference and the situation of the game. If you get forward settled early on or are playing a particularly aggressive Civ (Monty, Gilgamesh, Germany, etc) then early war can be a much better way of expanding. If you're planning to go for a more passive game or perhaps a later war, I would recommend just trying to spam settlers as much as you can early on.
Normally, I look primarily for luxuries, and within that, I move a little bit left or right in order to cover something else which is interesting like natural wanters or hills. The question is where is the line between these decisions?
2nd cities should be about staking out your boundaries, imho. Forward settle your neighbors to claim lots of space. You can infill after.
Maybe I'm prince, that's not gonna fly on emperor or above. You need your second (and usually third) cities to be productive, or you're gonna get steamrolled.
I'm liking your series, learning heaps
Love second half of video. Thx
Thanks for those tips, good video!
I played Civ a lot thru Civ IV. It sounds like it may be a good thing I didn't play V. Thanks for the videos. I have found them very helpful. It's been about 15 years since playing any version of Civ.When I started about a week ago I was getting beat EARLY, and thru your videos that has greatly improved. At least now I'm in the same age or close to the winner. So as my scout is exploring, I've been settling cities where I find natural wonders. I guess it's not good to run all over the map and settle away from the capital. Have you done a video that tells where to find the info about production, adjacent districts etc.? Like how do you know that the campus by the mountains gives you 7 points? I have many more to watch, so I might not have found it yet. Is there a chart on the screen you can click on?
Civ IV and VI share the same expansion philosophy
Im a beginner to civ and to civ6 especially. Is it smart to aim for having the most amount of districts in every city, or you should you rather be sniping the good district spots, and keep it at 3-4 districs a city ?
That is very much a matter of playstyle. I personally like to try to snipe the really good district spots and built cities geared towards producing the yield of that good district, but it is also a very viable strategy to just place down a lot of cities and just build a ton of districts with individually lackluster bonuses. I think that the mass expansion and district spam strategy is probably a bit stronger considering the meta of the game, but either one is viable and I'd advise that you go with whichever one you feel more comfortable with.
@@TheSaxyGamer Alright then, thank you for answering. Will go with the sniping strat, feels more fun to me
I personally aim for 3 to 4 districts. A must are commerce, science and production. Some of my cities get harbors and/or encampments.
By the atomic era I'm making close to 1.8k a turn. By the information era I'm close to 2.7k. With that much gold just by whatever you need.
“to attack Germany“ i like :D
How far apart should you build your cities?
This is a bit late but 5 tiles is nice enough
I think your first few cities should be even a bit further, because if you dont get it first, the other civs will
I prefer 6. No overlap but close enough for the ranged districts like industrial and entertainment
I don't understand the argument that Olympia was useless. It's small but it can produce stuff in the background, isn't that a good thing? As you highlighted more cities doesn't cost anything so is there such a thing as a "bad" city?
I am so used to Civ5, and doing solo city civ 5.
Hard moving to Civ6.
You could have used that same spot for the +7 campus with your capital city..
I have brought PEACE, FREEDOM, JUSTICE, AND SECURITY. To my New Empire. -Anakin
So even though a lot of land is shity and doesn't give any good yields nor resources at all, it's still 100% important to claim more land than other nations? Then why is it so super important to have a strategy and very carefully plan on how to use your settlers if you're going to end up claiming every bit of land there is at the end?
In that case, after you’ve exhausted resources, the planning with city placement has to go to land denial to stop enemies settling on the borders of your good cities. also to set up defensible positions (imagine founding a city on the only way in through a mountain pass)
Why put your cities so close together?
Take the Canal City
Recently lost to my arch nemesis. Teddy Roosevelt. My empire covered the globe. Dang science
Great video as always. Could you make a video about useful mods like you use one for the pins.
Thanks! I could make a video of the sort, but I don't really know of many useful mods, as the Map Tacks one is the only one I use haha
What should be the build order for a newly settled city? I never know what to spend over 10 turns making.
I try a lot, but the only way I can ever win is through conquest. I just can't set up enough cities fast enough to lead in other areas, so I take them : /
Maybe try to get a golden age (I usually get it in medieval age), so you can choose a dedication which allows you to buy builders and settlers for faith. In my Emperor game with France, I was able to get a pantheon which gives you faith for chopping (IIRC it's called 'goddess of the harvest'), and when I hit medieval golden age, I bought like 5-6 settlers easily. Also unlock the Civil Service civic, so you can get a cultural alliance with somebody who has settled close to you, to remove the loyalty pressure they are doing. The only bad thing is that probably you won't have many spots to settle, but it's definitely worth it if you have some. Even if it has bad yields and no fresh water.
In that France game, I even settled 2 cities on the opposite side of Germany, and set up a cultural alliance, so that his cities won't have pressure on me.
Hope this helps :)
This is why I play Germany...I just take over city states...make like one settler and maybe one more when I can buy with faith
*Manifest Destinying intensifies*
is it better to expand near the capital, ,away from the capital on the same continent or on a whole other continent away from every one?
Was it necessary to build a new city for that god tier camp, cz you could have bought tiles instead, it was in reach of your capital
Great video!
I noticed when you were placing a pin that you had many more pin icons that I do in my game. Is that a mod?
Thanks! Yes, it is a mod called Map Tacks on the Steam Workshop.
do you have a list of mods?
That's the only one I use actually
Cool, thanks!
How do you open the civ wikipedia😅?
You have lots of empty tiles. Why don’t you build anything on them? Or you don’t have to?
how do you get so many tiles while spreading out cities? I get no where near that even 300 turns in
Why is it that my 3rd and 4th city always take forever on production whether it's a unit or building production it take FOREVER how do I improve this?
District costs are... complicated, but it depends on what districts you're building, when and where the cities are founded, etc.
See I can never get more than 3 or 4 cities before I have nowhere to go. By that time I’m already I’m already cut off and surrounded by AI I have no idea how I’d be able to get 6 cities.
Hello Saxy Gamer,
What civ is really good to play with in a pangaea map ?
A lot of the land-based domination Civs are very good on Pangea (Montezuma, Gilgamesh, Scythia, etc), as well as most of the Religious Civs as well (except for Indonesia).
@saxygamer at minute 1:22, you have Lisbon there, Where did you get the Portuguese?
it's a city-state
I disagree with several of the things said in this video, first off that where he pointed out the great place to put the campus is within the range of the capital city! Why wouldn't you keep it with the capital city and the many advantages there instead of building that second city where he did (even putting it one block further down the river would be preferable?
Late reply, but for one thing you're limited to the number of districts you can build by population. Even if he wasn't, _getting out to_ that tile is 300+ gold, it's in the outer ring. That's a bought builder, and with a governor, that's four improved tiles, or chops he's missing out on, to slow build an expensive district.
Coulda just chopped a settler with Marcus, and gotten the campus for free, several dozen turns earlier.
Yeah, EVENTUALLY he could have built that campus there cheaper, or he could settle there and build it _now._ And again, until he hits 7 pop, those are his two districts. What if he was looking for a holy site, or an encampment for a GG, or a commercial district for trade routes?
As it is, his cities are spread too far out. The second city center should have been _closer_ to the capital, not further away. He almost realized that too. He's talking about how he lost due to having WAY too few cities, and then he's talking about building them 5 tiles apart.
Yeah, that's why. In general, your core cities need to be closer together. Unless there's a good reason, my first ring of cities isn't more than 3 tiles away from the capital. This allows many things, but for example shared power, shared amenities from a single arena (and thus districts saved), closer/overlapping defenses, adjacency bonuses... Spreading your cities out like this only pays out once your population is working every tile. By that time the game is over, and if it's not there are literally dozens of other mistakes you've made along the way.
This is a great guide series for how to win on prince or maybe even king, but above that you're gonna lose (as he very eloquently demonstrated).
@@iami3rian394 I tried this (years ago) and it's probably true when you are playing on Duel or Tiny maps, but I have always played on Standard maps (which takes much larger) and found that it really limited my capital city in later game (just as an ex, sz 13 capital vs sz 26 capital).
On the other side of that equation, I found that I was able to link infastructure together with tighter cities. And I learned new strategies because of it, because you're never too old to learn something new!
(I've been playing Civ from the very beginning, and was really sad when Civ 6 came out, b/c all of a sudden Civ jumped on the bandwagon and eschewed 'realistic' in favour 'cartoony' - it seems to be all the rage right now but as my kids had moved out at that point, I needed to 'Adult' my life. I actually abandoned Civ in favour of City:Skylines for a few years. It's a very good game, but deals with city infrastructure instead of nation-building, and I ended up needing to come back to crush the Romans One. More. Time. 😸)
@@TheBrilliantPhoenix I always play standard or large. It isn't about not having the space (although in this example it may have been), it's bout building cheaper, faster infrastructure.
And at 3 tiles, unless you're in desert or tundra you're not limited to 13. It's nlmich closer to the difference between 25 and 35.. which again shouldn't be an issue.
I know it was an example, but in practical terms, you won or lost the game by then. It's RARELY an issue, and I'd argue the hundred or so turns of increased yields are more than worth it.
How do u mark the Spot for city
Thanks
Alot of my civ 5 habits need to die in this game. Kinda sad because I really enjoyed growing tall in 5.
I know you were going for cultural victory but it doesn't look like you have much of a military at all? I don't see encampments or forts on your borders. Do you risk going without a military or is it there and I'm just not seeing?
I didn't invest too heavily in a military in that game. It was a mistake because I got attacked and had to fight a pretty tough battle. Whenever I go for a low-military game, I try to make sure I save plenty of gold in the event that I need to purchase some units quickly for defense, hence the 17000 Gold that I had saved that game haha
Might be a dumb question, but why does it look like night in part of your vid? How do you get it to look like that
Andy Lindquist go to settings and either set the lighting to a certain time of day or turn on dynamic day night cycle
I allways choose tall city management cities with 50 population
I disagree, I like more space between my cities. Later in the game it gets great and governors help a great deal keeping loyality :)
Yh i agree. I have 6-7 tiles between my cities.
For me it depends, in my "core" cities I prefer to give them space to grow fat, and will usually have 5 - 6 tiles between them. Outside of the core cities though, the main purpose of my cities is to just place districts, have trade routes and generally exist. I also like having some tile overlap because it means you can squeeze more amenities out of entertainment districts later on.
For instance, if you are gunning for the Colosseum early on, having a lot of cities closer together will solve your amenity issues for a very long time, and allow you to place even more and grow more large cities.
Does anyone know how to make ur dotted borders into solid borders
You have to complete a civivc which unlocks the hard borders and the posibility of negociating over open borders.
Do these tips apply to all difficulty levels?
What happens if you capture someone's Capitol? Do you take the whole empire or just the Capitol city?
You just take the capitol
is it just me or is there way more mountains in civ 6 than civ 5
Always forward seatlie
Stop with jerking the screen when it serves no purpose! It's SO annoying!
2:48 Netherlands attacks Germany? Well well well... how the turntables
How the hell does everyone always have so many resources
You forgot to address the problem of encroachment warnings from AI civs.
Anybody else find by the third city they found the production costs skyrocket
District costs are... complicated, but it depends on what districts you're building, when and where the cities are founded, etc.
How do you make your borders grow fast?
1) Build or buy a settler, and settle another city (hey, it gives you more tiles, right?)
2) More seriously, assuming you're talking about expanding borders of already settled cities: buy or build monuments in your cities (the 2 culture it adds doesn't require a district and will speed up passive tile acquisition) -> most recommended, monuments are cheap, no maintenance cost, don't require placement of a district, aids civic acquisition and (minor) aid to a cities loyalty when it's facing issues.
3) Buy the land you want. Not recommended as culture expands your land also while helping acquire civics, but can be useful if settling land near an enemy city and you want to deny them some good tiles.
4) Build Theatre districts and their appropriate buildings. Not recommended unless going for a culture victory, or you are trying to slow down an enemy civs culture victory. Theatre districts have irritating adjacency requirements, and culture is easier to come buy than science. Building one early game in a city that has a wonder will help you get great people to place in future theatres, however you can just as easily steal them from your enemies with spies.
5) Generate enough faith to pick a pantheon. Choose either religious settlements, or any pantheon that generates culture in your cities. Make sure to pick the appropriate pantheon (useful in the early game even if you don't want to create a religion, gives you a small kick to civic acquisition as well which gets you closer to limes, serfdom, Merchant confederacy and other relatively decent policies). If you keep a religion, you keep theese bonuses throughout the game if you maintain it appropriately.
6) Play Russia. Their cities start with more land, and great people used in cities with lavra districts expand their borders.
7) Use culture bombs. Civs such as the Khmer and Poland can use culture bombs to grab land for free. Culture bombs are great when grabbing land near enemy cities, since unless they have finished a district or wonder on the tiles you want, you can actually steal their land. Any civ has the potential to use culture bombs with industrial zones and holy sites with the appropriate great person/belief, however I wouldn't recommend using these for the bomb alone unless the land is completely void of adjacency bonuses.
Basically, it boils down to generating culture if you don't want to buy your land, as culture helps you passively acquire land faster. Ultimately, production, gold and expansion should be prioritised over this however, wasting a lot of time building a monument in a city that struggles to support itself will just stunt that city for longer.
How were you making 400 culture per turn on turn 250? I was only doing 150...
When should I look to settle my third, fourth cities, and so on?
Try your best to focus on adjacency from then on, location isn't as important with those.
Is Loyalty a DLC add-on?
rise and fall
@@Roule_n_Scratche only reason i am tempted to get that DLC is for the new civs. doesn't GS have basically everything else?
@@marinewillis1202 oof, i dont know alot about civ, idk
I’m tired of using cheats. I’m gonna play for real. I have no satisfaction using cheats. I only use unit cheats because of barbarians. Every darn turn, barbarian camp after barbarian camp. Would making the map wet and new result in fewer of these dreaded barbarians?
I don't believe so, however, it would make Barbarian attacks more tedious due to the hills. Keep in mind the same applies to your units as well.
just turn off barbarians
Couldn't your capital reach the great campus location?
It could, however the capital has 2 great campus locations: on top of the 7 adjacency, there is another with 5 adjacency closer to the city centre. Given how much of a struggle gold can be early in the game, that would have been a cheaper tile to purchase, and settling the second city means he gets the 7 adjacency campus as well. Whats better than one great campus location? 2 great campus locations.
he sounds like skinner from the simpsons
most complex game i have ever played
take a shot every time you hear "district adjacency"
“kuh-RINTH”? How about “KOR-inth”, with emphasis on first syllable. (It’s from Greek, not a Romance language.)
ChrisGeez how about shut the fuck up you sad bastard