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

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

Yeah i'm a T H O T. T hat H Hill O Over T There

That’s some funny shit 😂😂😂

Oh shit

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!" 😂

Japan is literally built for small and tall

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!

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

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)

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

That's kinda funny... Cities get more expensive the more techs you have. He was exactly wrong. = D

Please stop fidgeting your map so much! It’s almost impossible to watch! VERY annoying!

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.

That is actually hilarious that I said something like this almost 3 years ago. Should've watched my own video before the tournament XD

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.

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.

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.

Civ IV and VI share the same expansion philosophy

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.

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

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

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!

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)

it's a city-state

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).

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 :)

Andy Lindquist go to settings and either set the lighting to a certain time of day or turn on dynamic day night cycle

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

District costs are... complicated, but it depends on what districts you're building, when and where the cities are founded, etc.

You just take the capitol

You have to complete a civivc which unlocks the hard borders and the posibility of negociating over open borders.

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.

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.

District costs are... complicated, but it depends on what districts you're building, when and where the cities are founded, etc.

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.

Try your best to focus on adjacency from then on, location isn't as important with those.

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

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.

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

ChrisGeez how about shut the fuck up you sad bastard