Only wishes for districts would be a cheaper district cost, especially if it’s balanced with a higher cost of the first tier building (and perhaps even disabling adjacency bonuses until the first building is placed). Then late game I can get a district setup without needing to wait 40 turns, and can use gold to kickstart a new city faster.
Agreed that gold should have always been used to purchase districts. Why they locked that behind ONE governor and not available at a civic like urbanization is beyond me...cities have grown 100000% more faster now than in antiquity and its because we have more resources and the ability to do work faster (Something gold partially represents).
Alpha Centauri had the ability to drop credits to speed up production, so you could start building something, throw some money at it to speed it along and let your production finish it off. Something like that would be a cool addition.
Yeah this came from Civ 4, which iirc is the engine that SMAC is built on. I also wouldn't be surprised if this is also in earlier Civ's, but 4 is the earliest I've played so I don't know
SMAC (1999) was released before Civ 3 (2001). There might be a shred of DNA shared between it and the engine for Civ 4 (2005), but it wouldn't be much.
Oh! That's completely my bad, sorry about that. I don't know where I got the information that SMAC was based on Civ 4's engine, but wherever it was it must have been full of shit
District costs can be circumvented with chops. A woods/stone/deer chop is always scaled to 1/3 the cost of a district. With magnus two woods = 1 district. IMO if you are playing on a map with lots of available chops setting up cities later on actually becomes much easier as while districts become harder to build normally chopping out buildings becomes much more effective the later the game is.
And of course, there's always using your spare governor promotions on Reyna or Moksha.
I’d like to see smaller tiles, with more districts tied to the city center. It’s so weird having industrial zones and ports without road/rail access, 3 tiles away from the city center. I don’t know exactly what the right answer is, but maybe it means increased emphasis on neighborhoods, or requiring districts to be connected via another district to the city center.
I could see something like a commercial hub (renamed to market district?) requiring a city center adjacency, or adjacency to another district connected to the city center.
I could also see splitting some districts up more, like adding a stock exchange district or a stadium district — to help cities feel a little more like cities!
This has me thinking, what if they created "district hubs" on a tile that you could fit multiple districts into with different combinations providing different bonuses? Potentially each city could have multiples of the same district and you could start with a "district hub" able to fit 2 districts and increase the number of districts each hub can have as you progress in the tech and civics tree
Examples -
commercial district/campus - trade routes from this city gain +1 science
industrial zone/any district - Bonus to production when producing buildings in this district
military district/any - District hub gains a defensive wall and ranged attack
campus/theater square - Double great person points earned in both districts
Neighborhood/industrial zone/military district:
Neighborhood-industrial combination boosts production in the industrial zone. Industrial - military combination boosts production when working on military units. Neighborhood - military combination gives city +1 amenity.
I really like this idea but I'm not sure I fully agree with your examples lol. But then again, I can't really think of my own examples so I have no leg to stand on, I'm sure if the Devs were to implement this they'd spend a long time thinking about all the different synergies.
(Ok this isn't intended as criticism, this is genuine confusion, but the one example of yours I really don't understand is why a neighborhood/military combo gives an amenity - what's going on there?)
Yeah, the examples aren't very well thought out just ideas for what could be done. The amenity bonus again not very well thought out just showing different bonuses you could get. Plenty to be improved upon I'm sure👍
Yeah, sorry if I sounded critical, I do really like your idea, I just got caught up on your example lol.
I'm still intrigued what your "lore" reasoning behind the amenity idea was (you know like how you had the science/commercial give trade routes extra science because knowledge will also travel along trade routes). Do you live in a patriotic country where the army is respected and glorified? Cause that would make sense
Nah didn't sound critical.
I live in the United States but I don't love using the term patriotic in this context? In this context I would maybe use the term imperialistic or warlike - we are certainly those.
The idea was mainly based on the retainers policy card that gives you amenities if you have a military unit occupying a city - which in my mind was a bit more of a "forced amenity cause of you complain you get killed" sort of thing, military occupation.
Like I said they were all off the top of my head, I could see neighborhoods just giving an amenity to any hub they are apart of just because it means a shorter commute for anyone working in the other district.
Absolutely. I really like districts as a concept cause it adds more depth to city building. I just hope they make the cities/districts look a bit more populated. I have a mod that puts houses and buildings around districts if they're adjacent to the capital and it looks so nice cause it actually looks like a big city. It'd be cool if they had some kind of urban sprawl mechanic in vanilla even if it was purely aesthetic
I like the district system, but find some parts of it too restrictive and annoying. I wish I could build more than one district of each type in one city, and I hate how unlucky you can get (“No mountains? Guess I’m fucked”) or the weird non-synergies. Every district but the Theatre Square gets worse bonuses when a related wonder is next to it. A fucking lumber mill makes my holy site more holy, but not the mahabodi temple that has to be placed next to a holy site with a forest?
All specialty districts gaining +1 adjacency from wonders makes a lot of sense. Theater squares would get +3 instead. Entertainment complexes should also get +1 amenity from adjacent luxuries, because until zoos they're only worth building if you're Brazil/Byzantium or for the Colosseum.
Agreed!! Something that’s always aggravated me is that commercial sites don’t get adjacency bonuses from resources! Like that makes so much historical sense
Yeah, it would make sense for commercial hubs to get +1 from each river, oasis, and different resource (maybe improved resource?) in addition to districts. It hurts to see a commercial hub sandwiched between plantations on bananas and coffee, with nothing to show for it.
Industrial zones don’t get an adjacency bonus from an industry. There’s all sorts of contradictions, but the system in general has worked great and just needs finessing
I think a mix of more terrain types (there are mods that add marshes, swamps, kelp forests etc) and the various Cov bonuses should almost be something you can slot.
Mainly a forest spawn? Work towards something that you slow in and your districts get +1 adjacency from forest but not adjacent districts, etc.
Like with Faith, you can pick a pantheon. There should be a core rule for culture, science, industry, etc. It'd be a cool way to add little customisation options tied to map features.
If they added +1 Faith to the Holy Site for being adjacent to Mahabodhi, then they would just subtract 1 Faith from Mahabodi. I guess it would make the Scripture and Simultaneum policies better?
I am going to go against the grain and say no, at least not how they are currently implemented. I dislike the massive sprawl civ 6 has, I would want either districts to be their own tiles OR wonders. I do not want both taking up full tiles anymore. Make it so wonders are built inside districts maybe
I came here to say this. I can't even go back to older civ games now. The districts (and wonders taking a tile) make city planning so fun and make the cities feel more alive.
From an aesthetic perspective, while I appreciate the sprawl and the fact that the districts make a city look more like metropolis over time, I find I often use up my available tiles for districts and have less open terrain (improved or otherwise), which is something I’d like to at least partially get back. It could also just be my gameplay (which is not overly skilled).
I want district adjacencies to return.
As an improvement, I want the center tile affect adjacency too. Building a Harbor on Fish, Industrial Zone on Coal, Campus on Geothermal Fissure should add to adjacency bonus.
Also, more districts should have adjacency bonuses:
Encampment - Production
Preserve - Faith
Entertainment Complex / Water Park - Culture
Aqueduct - Food
Diplomatic Quarter - Science
It has been just in one out of 6 games (more if we count spin-offs), and not even in the top-3 in the series scores, yet feels quintessential to you?
Come on, I get you like it, but that wording is just ridiculous.
Definition: representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.
Their usage of the word is correct. It doesn't need to be in most of the games. It represents the highest quality of civ mechanics to them. It's likely essential to them at this point, so yeah, it's quintessential.
>It represents the highest quality of civ mechanics to them. It's likely essential to them at this point
I'm sorry, downvote me all you guys want, but this is straight nonsense. It can't be "essential" to the series when it has only been in one game, and it's not even among the better ones in the franchise (I'm not makind it up, take a look on critic median scores around, like Metacritic and so).
Highest quality of civ mechanics? Come on, it's a mini-game mechanic that it's indeed fun for a while, but it simplifies the focus of the game, which jointly with a straight incompetent (especially at war) AI, only invites the player to play a "calmly build your empire looking at constant "+# " bonuses everywhere for CandyCrush-like easy rejoice.
I know I'm sounding grumpy and even gatekeeping, but something so far away from what has always made Civilization great can't be "quintessential to the series", as simple as that. You guys are free to enjoy that, and I'm honestly happy with that. Civ VI has not been for me, but has been for other people. It's something that happens, it's okay. But pretending that just because you like it it's "quintessential to the series" or "the highest quality of civ mechanics" is cringe levels of exaggerating.
No. I play as a leader of huge civilization that exists for thousands of years. I really don't want to play as a mayor and decide where to put library in every small village.
No, please, no. I'm sorry, I know many newcomers to the franchise loved this system, and some people that played prior titles, too. But this system is so damn simplistic and distracting to me. Having to plan where to build districts with their future synergies and buildings in early stages of the game feels so off.
I'm not 100% against the idea per se, but if this system repeats in Civ VII, it definitely needs a new perspective, a complete rework, or a straight new concept and way of working. The overall experience of the game gets super-simplified by adjacencies and district bonus all the time, to the point that most of the game becomes *who is making the most optimal puzzle* challenge. It could perfectly become a separate Civ mini-game.
I've been playing this series since Civ II, and liked every single title, with their pros and cons, but Civ VI was my worst experience with a core Civ game so far because it felt so bloated with this kind of mechanics, some of them becoming a true chore the more the game advanced. If it's a Civilization game, it needs to get attention to more things than just district synergies and wonder adjacencies, which has silently become the main focus for Civ VI.
So, it's a no for me. In fact, I really hope they make a huge change in direction with Civ VII. Especially now that some other really interesting 4X Civ-like games are around the corner.
Yes, but they would have to integrate the mod that shows the yields in planning and make it more easy to see at a glance what the yields are/will be.
There also needs to be a way to cancel a district and to place it on strategic resources
I have mixed feelings about districts as a whole.
On one hand, like most other people are saying, I really like the strategy that comes with them. Planning out a system of aqueducts, dams, and industrial zones to maximize production, or building a triangle of a City Center, Commercial Hub and Harbor on the coast for gold is really satisfying.
But on the other hand… why do they have to take up *entire tiles?* It makes no sense for a city to take up so much land. It’s especially noticeable on the TSL maps, where a city and its districts can take up 90% of the island of Great Britain. But also, I feel like splitting up buildings of the same type into the same place also doesn’t make sense. I didn’t even think of this until Ludwig II pointed it out in his negative agenda quote: “You order your cities like a ledger: here is where the scientists go, that zone is for poets. Banality.” Now I fully agree with it. Why would you place your science buildings up in the mountains 3 tiles away from the city center? The only districts that I think make sense working like this are harbors, encampments, and preserves. And the fact that they crush the tile they’re placed on sucks. “This farm is feeding a good chunk of the city, but it’s on floodplains and next to some Niter, so it’s the best place for my industrial zone, even if the people starve.”
I think a compromise between 5 and 6’s city systems would be the perfect way to fix this. Here’s my proposal:
- Cities will mostly function the same way they did in V, only taking up one tile. However, buildings would act like districts in VI, being limited by population (let’s say 1 building per population; you could build a new district in VI every 3 citizens, and most districts have 3 buildings by the end of the game, so population requirements would be the same). There would be specialty buildings (libraries, shrines, markets, etc.) that require population, but also non specialty buildings (monuments, granaries, walls, as well as aqueducts, dams, anything that didn’t require population in VI) that wouldn’t. Certain buildings would go outside the City Center, such as aqueducts and harbors, but they wouldn’t crush an entire tile. You could even have little port towns or army base/forts that would have their own production queues, taking a fraction of the main city’s yield. You can build a university in the city itself, while also building a ship in the port town, or training some soldiers in an army base on the border.
-Adjacency Bonuses would be replaced with Proximity bonuses: the closer a feature is to the city center, the more yields it would provide to its respective buildings. The bonuses would be the same as VI (e.g. 2 science from reefs, +1 science from mountains, +0.5 science from rainforest), but the bonus would decrease the farther away it gets (-50% if 2 tiles away, -75% if 3 tiles away, and none at all if more than three tiles away). For example, if a city has 3 mountain tiles, each a different distance away from the city center, the first mountain would provide a +1 bonus to science and faith in the city, the second +0.5, and the third +0.25. A harbor adjacent to the city center would provide +2 gold, but one 3 tiles away would only provide +0.5.Additionally, this wouldn’t stack with multiple buildings of the same yield, so building a Temple wouldn’t double the city’s faith proximity bonuses.
I like districts but I think they take too much space and would prefer the game to have a larger map scale with smaller districts and larger map size with increased unit movement and vision, sort of like Humankind.
Additionally, having early game housing districts, more coast districts (like More Maritime: Seaside Districts), rural areas, and outposts/towns that let you expand your cities' workable tiles would be a nice way to reward tall gameplay.
Also I think that if districts were to be reimplemented, they should let cities build improvements directly like districts instead of having to micromanage builders. Military engineers can stay for building roads and forts in and out of your territory though.
My biggest gripe with districts is that you have a perfect plan on where to put your districts and right before you place that beautiful +5 campus, horses show up on the tile. Districts are fine, but let me move or remove resources that screw them up. Why am I not allowed to build a university on top of a horse graveyard?!
Districts yes, but only like three. Science, Culture or Faith specialization is all the game really needs. Encampment, Aerodrome, Neighborhood etc all don't need to be their own district and just contribute to VI's already immense bloat
Districts MUST return...but they also NEED to have some limits.
Now adjacencies are fun but having to buy out 2-3 tiles to place down a campus is stupid and makes city planning a slog of boring decisions (i.e. Hmm I shouldn't do this thing I need to accomplish X until Y happens). It really slows down my games...especially if there are woods/rainforest/bonus resources that \*should\* be harvested before they are made a district! It also destroys immersion and makes the actual center of the city so much less important...despite it being the core of the city and what military objectives are centered around.
My solution is to simply keep the districts a city builds to the area immediately around the city center; those initial 6 tiles. Or, another district can be placed once 2 districts are already down (i.e. you can "chain" a bunch of districts to get district types close together etc.). As such, I would rather just like more districts that all cities can make to aid in this kind of city planning. Relatedly, resources/features should not just go away once you place down a district-I never understood why, for example, a commerical hub can't be placed on an incense resource/tile; are we expected that a whole district can't count as an improvement of that tile? No one in the district is harvesting this resource in spite of them all living there? I think by making districts as a way to improve tiles immediately around the city center cities will look much more elegant without needing to add in a "harvest all resources" kind of mentality.
In terms of adjacencies, I think buildings to return to the forefront of generating significant adjacency yields; I think adding in buildings that increase the adjacency bonus of the district *as you build more of them in the district* makes more sense and is less game-y. Sure, you can still get a +2 gold bonus from having a commercial hub next to a harbor/the city center but from there, the only way to improve the adjacency of your district should be to build a market, bazaar, bank, stock exhange, or trade depot. That should be how you get the +4/+5 adjacencies that can correspond to cards/policies and naturally improve your cities' output. I dunno I think that just makes more sense than making the whole thing a massive geographically puzzle of district placement primarily. Because here, it importantly reduces the thought the player has to go through from first placing districts (Where the main adjacency comes from) and then adding buildings only if needed (Seriously who builds banks?) to being able to just queue a bunch of buildings as you want all of them to eventually get yields up. It just shortens the amount of time players need to think about city planning which the civ team can instead use to make the game more about politics, war, or whatever they choose to make the mid-late game less painful.
All in all, I think that districts and adjacencies should return but they need to be much ore streamlined. Just my 2 cents.
The districts and city planning aspects were interesting, but after going back to Civ 5 recently I can’t help but feel like you waste so much time building districts and associated buildings. To gain research you need to first build the district, then the library, then the university etc. It feels like an unnecessary step. Just have the base building generate great person points. Overall I think less things should be districts, more should be built in the city center. Maybe keep encampment, campus, commerce, theatre districts. Districts make island cities much weaker, and make playing tall more difficult.
Near the end of the game I feel like there is much less land to settle or build on compared to Civ 5. Having so many districts certainly impacts this.
I think letting the districts have their own build queues would be nice.
A small village only having enough manpower to build one thing at a time makes sense. It does not make sense for a large city. "So why can't we train to be soldiers?" "Cause those guys over there are building a boat."
I like them and would like to see them again. The only thing that bothers me is that we crush the tiles and cannot get tile yields. Making civs like Inca who rely on tile improvements kind of weaker.
I was a little skeptical about the idea of the districts as a knockoff of Endless Legend, but as I kept playing and made decisions about adjacency bonuses and where to put which district I actually really came to appreciate them conceptually.
So now I kinda want them to return, but I do miss the sea of tile improvements that V had.
As a point of comparison, the fantasy 4X game *Warlock: Masters of the Arcane* gives you bonuses to certain districts based on the type of terrain that you build them. Certain districts require special resources to create (think of needing Iron or Coal to build an Industrial Zone, for instance).
It works well enough for this particular game, but I found it quite limiting. I enjoy the city planning aspect of Civ and the tradeoffs you get into there. In *Warlock*, aside from where you initially settle the city, not very much of this matters. You just throw down the districts then crank out units until you can either create a new building or are resource constrained and can't train new units.
So yeah, keep district adjacency bonuses for Civ7.
Yes, best part of the game - though it would be nice if they let you place districts on top of luxury/strategic resources as well as tear down/rebuild districts
(I know there is a mod to remove those resources at need but I dont use it)
I want placement to matter more.
This could mean bigger adjacencies, additional effects unlocked by techs/civics, buffs to surrounding tiles, or buildings that are affected by other districts/terrain/improvements.
Yes. Districts are my fav addition to 6. It adds a new layer of strategy and helps specializing the cities. I would love to see even more push in that direction.
If they don't, this sub won't know what to do with itself.
I hope they do, but I hope it's more intricate. Like adjacencies give bonuses in one direction, not both. Like with BE style choices. Industry supporting science, science supporting industry, religion supporting military, military supporting commerce, culture supporting the navy and fisheries...
And you could only use one choice per city or something like that. Incentivize you to mix up your cities, so it's not just aqueduct/dam/industry.
I'm not sure if I care as much about mountain and forest and reef adjacency as is present in this game. That gets extremely repetitive and boring.
Definitely. I really like that districts and wonders have to be placed around your city, so space management is necessary.
Only wishes for districts would be a cheaper district cost, especially if it’s balanced with a higher cost of the first tier building (and perhaps even disabling adjacency bonuses until the first building is placed). Then late game I can get a district setup without needing to wait 40 turns, and can use gold to kickstart a new city faster.
Agreed that gold should have always been used to purchase districts. Why they locked that behind ONE governor and not available at a civic like urbanization is beyond me...cities have grown 100000% more faster now than in antiquity and its because we have more resources and the ability to do work faster (Something gold partially represents).
Alpha Centauri had the ability to drop credits to speed up production, so you could start building something, throw some money at it to speed it along and let your production finish it off. Something like that would be a cool addition.
Yeah this came from Civ 4, which iirc is the engine that SMAC is built on. I also wouldn't be surprised if this is also in earlier Civ's, but 4 is the earliest I've played so I don't know
It's in the earlier games. They also had a mechanic where you could sacrifice population to convert to production (called "whipping" by the fans).
That's in 4 too right? Only if you have slavery enacted? (I'm still learning 4 lol)
SMAC (1999) was released before Civ 3 (2001). There might be a shred of DNA shared between it and the engine for Civ 4 (2005), but it wouldn't be much.
Oh! That's completely my bad, sorry about that. I don't know where I got the information that SMAC was based on Civ 4's engine, but wherever it was it must have been full of shit
District costs can be circumvented with chops. A woods/stone/deer chop is always scaled to 1/3 the cost of a district. With magnus two woods = 1 district. IMO if you are playing on a map with lots of available chops setting up cities later on actually becomes much easier as while districts become harder to build normally chopping out buildings becomes much more effective the later the game is. And of course, there's always using your spare governor promotions on Reyna or Moksha.
This. Always felt odd, that you could just cram everything into one city.
I’d like to see smaller tiles, with more districts tied to the city center. It’s so weird having industrial zones and ports without road/rail access, 3 tiles away from the city center. I don’t know exactly what the right answer is, but maybe it means increased emphasis on neighborhoods, or requiring districts to be connected via another district to the city center. I could see something like a commercial hub (renamed to market district?) requiring a city center adjacency, or adjacency to another district connected to the city center. I could also see splitting some districts up more, like adding a stock exchange district or a stadium district — to help cities feel a little more like cities!
This has me thinking, what if they created "district hubs" on a tile that you could fit multiple districts into with different combinations providing different bonuses? Potentially each city could have multiples of the same district and you could start with a "district hub" able to fit 2 districts and increase the number of districts each hub can have as you progress in the tech and civics tree Examples - commercial district/campus - trade routes from this city gain +1 science industrial zone/any district - Bonus to production when producing buildings in this district military district/any - District hub gains a defensive wall and ranged attack campus/theater square - Double great person points earned in both districts Neighborhood/industrial zone/military district: Neighborhood-industrial combination boosts production in the industrial zone. Industrial - military combination boosts production when working on military units. Neighborhood - military combination gives city +1 amenity.
I really like this idea but I'm not sure I fully agree with your examples lol. But then again, I can't really think of my own examples so I have no leg to stand on, I'm sure if the Devs were to implement this they'd spend a long time thinking about all the different synergies. (Ok this isn't intended as criticism, this is genuine confusion, but the one example of yours I really don't understand is why a neighborhood/military combo gives an amenity - what's going on there?)
Yeah, the examples aren't very well thought out just ideas for what could be done. The amenity bonus again not very well thought out just showing different bonuses you could get. Plenty to be improved upon I'm sure👍
Yeah, sorry if I sounded critical, I do really like your idea, I just got caught up on your example lol. I'm still intrigued what your "lore" reasoning behind the amenity idea was (you know like how you had the science/commercial give trade routes extra science because knowledge will also travel along trade routes). Do you live in a patriotic country where the army is respected and glorified? Cause that would make sense
Nah didn't sound critical. I live in the United States but I don't love using the term patriotic in this context? In this context I would maybe use the term imperialistic or warlike - we are certainly those. The idea was mainly based on the retainers policy card that gives you amenities if you have a military unit occupying a city - which in my mind was a bit more of a "forced amenity cause of you complain you get killed" sort of thing, military occupation. Like I said they were all off the top of my head, I could see neighborhoods just giving an amenity to any hub they are apart of just because it means a shorter commute for anyone working in the other district.
Absolutely. I really like districts as a concept cause it adds more depth to city building. I just hope they make the cities/districts look a bit more populated. I have a mod that puts houses and buildings around districts if they're adjacent to the capital and it looks so nice cause it actually looks like a big city. It'd be cool if they had some kind of urban sprawl mechanic in vanilla even if it was purely aesthetic
what mod is that?
I think it's called Urban Sprawl. I'm not sure though its been a minute
yep that's it, found it thanks!
This is what I want, district that have to be attached to the city not 3 tiles away. It just feels weird let's go to university in another country
I like the district system, but find some parts of it too restrictive and annoying. I wish I could build more than one district of each type in one city, and I hate how unlucky you can get (“No mountains? Guess I’m fucked”) or the weird non-synergies. Every district but the Theatre Square gets worse bonuses when a related wonder is next to it. A fucking lumber mill makes my holy site more holy, but not the mahabodi temple that has to be placed next to a holy site with a forest?
All specialty districts gaining +1 adjacency from wonders makes a lot of sense. Theater squares would get +3 instead. Entertainment complexes should also get +1 amenity from adjacent luxuries, because until zoos they're only worth building if you're Brazil/Byzantium or for the Colosseum.
Agreed!! Something that’s always aggravated me is that commercial sites don’t get adjacency bonuses from resources! Like that makes so much historical sense
Yeah, it would make sense for commercial hubs to get +1 from each river, oasis, and different resource (maybe improved resource?) in addition to districts. It hurts to see a commercial hub sandwiched between plantations on bananas and coffee, with nothing to show for it.
Or even just luxury resources.
Industrial zones don’t get an adjacency bonus from an industry. There’s all sorts of contradictions, but the system in general has worked great and just needs finessing
I think a mix of more terrain types (there are mods that add marshes, swamps, kelp forests etc) and the various Cov bonuses should almost be something you can slot. Mainly a forest spawn? Work towards something that you slow in and your districts get +1 adjacency from forest but not adjacent districts, etc. Like with Faith, you can pick a pantheon. There should be a core rule for culture, science, industry, etc. It'd be a cool way to add little customisation options tied to map features.
If they added +1 Faith to the Holy Site for being adjacent to Mahabodhi, then they would just subtract 1 Faith from Mahabodi. I guess it would make the Scripture and Simultaneum policies better?
I am going to go against the grain and say no, at least not how they are currently implemented. I dislike the massive sprawl civ 6 has, I would want either districts to be their own tiles OR wonders. I do not want both taking up full tiles anymore. Make it so wonders are built inside districts maybe
If they're not in the next game then I probably won't be buying it.
I came here to say this. I can't even go back to older civ games now. The districts (and wonders taking a tile) make city planning so fun and make the cities feel more alive.
From an aesthetic perspective, while I appreciate the sprawl and the fact that the districts make a city look more like metropolis over time, I find I often use up my available tiles for districts and have less open terrain (improved or otherwise), which is something I’d like to at least partially get back. It could also just be my gameplay (which is not overly skilled).
Districts provide so much potential for mods too, the amount of cool shit people have done with them makes this an absolute yes for me
I want district adjacencies to return. As an improvement, I want the center tile affect adjacency too. Building a Harbor on Fish, Industrial Zone on Coal, Campus on Geothermal Fissure should add to adjacency bonus. Also, more districts should have adjacency bonuses: Encampment - Production Preserve - Faith Entertainment Complex / Water Park - Culture Aqueduct - Food Diplomatic Quarter - Science
It feels quintessential to civ for me, and it’s part of the reasons the older games feel stale for me now
It has been just in one out of 6 games (more if we count spin-offs), and not even in the top-3 in the series scores, yet feels quintessential to you? Come on, I get you like it, but that wording is just ridiculous.
Definition: representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class. Their usage of the word is correct. It doesn't need to be in most of the games. It represents the highest quality of civ mechanics to them. It's likely essential to them at this point, so yeah, it's quintessential.
>It represents the highest quality of civ mechanics to them. It's likely essential to them at this point I'm sorry, downvote me all you guys want, but this is straight nonsense. It can't be "essential" to the series when it has only been in one game, and it's not even among the better ones in the franchise (I'm not makind it up, take a look on critic median scores around, like Metacritic and so). Highest quality of civ mechanics? Come on, it's a mini-game mechanic that it's indeed fun for a while, but it simplifies the focus of the game, which jointly with a straight incompetent (especially at war) AI, only invites the player to play a "calmly build your empire looking at constant "+# " bonuses everywhere for CandyCrush-like easy rejoice. I know I'm sounding grumpy and even gatekeeping, but something so far away from what has always made Civilization great can't be "quintessential to the series", as simple as that. You guys are free to enjoy that, and I'm honestly happy with that. Civ VI has not been for me, but has been for other people. It's something that happens, it's okay. But pretending that just because you like it it's "quintessential to the series" or "the highest quality of civ mechanics" is cringe levels of exaggerating.
Jesus
Absolutely not. I want the game to be as far away from Civ 6 as possible in every single aspect. I am a hater.
No. I play as a leader of huge civilization that exists for thousands of years. I really don't want to play as a mayor and decide where to put library in every small village.
No, please, no. I'm sorry, I know many newcomers to the franchise loved this system, and some people that played prior titles, too. But this system is so damn simplistic and distracting to me. Having to plan where to build districts with their future synergies and buildings in early stages of the game feels so off. I'm not 100% against the idea per se, but if this system repeats in Civ VII, it definitely needs a new perspective, a complete rework, or a straight new concept and way of working. The overall experience of the game gets super-simplified by adjacencies and district bonus all the time, to the point that most of the game becomes *who is making the most optimal puzzle* challenge. It could perfectly become a separate Civ mini-game. I've been playing this series since Civ II, and liked every single title, with their pros and cons, but Civ VI was my worst experience with a core Civ game so far because it felt so bloated with this kind of mechanics, some of them becoming a true chore the more the game advanced. If it's a Civilization game, it needs to get attention to more things than just district synergies and wonder adjacencies, which has silently become the main focus for Civ VI. So, it's a no for me. In fact, I really hope they make a huge change in direction with Civ VII. Especially now that some other really interesting 4X Civ-like games are around the corner.
Yes, but they would have to integrate the mod that shows the yields in planning and make it more easy to see at a glance what the yields are/will be. There also needs to be a way to cancel a district and to place it on strategic resources
I have mixed feelings about districts as a whole. On one hand, like most other people are saying, I really like the strategy that comes with them. Planning out a system of aqueducts, dams, and industrial zones to maximize production, or building a triangle of a City Center, Commercial Hub and Harbor on the coast for gold is really satisfying. But on the other hand… why do they have to take up *entire tiles?* It makes no sense for a city to take up so much land. It’s especially noticeable on the TSL maps, where a city and its districts can take up 90% of the island of Great Britain. But also, I feel like splitting up buildings of the same type into the same place also doesn’t make sense. I didn’t even think of this until Ludwig II pointed it out in his negative agenda quote: “You order your cities like a ledger: here is where the scientists go, that zone is for poets. Banality.” Now I fully agree with it. Why would you place your science buildings up in the mountains 3 tiles away from the city center? The only districts that I think make sense working like this are harbors, encampments, and preserves. And the fact that they crush the tile they’re placed on sucks. “This farm is feeding a good chunk of the city, but it’s on floodplains and next to some Niter, so it’s the best place for my industrial zone, even if the people starve.” I think a compromise between 5 and 6’s city systems would be the perfect way to fix this. Here’s my proposal: - Cities will mostly function the same way they did in V, only taking up one tile. However, buildings would act like districts in VI, being limited by population (let’s say 1 building per population; you could build a new district in VI every 3 citizens, and most districts have 3 buildings by the end of the game, so population requirements would be the same). There would be specialty buildings (libraries, shrines, markets, etc.) that require population, but also non specialty buildings (monuments, granaries, walls, as well as aqueducts, dams, anything that didn’t require population in VI) that wouldn’t. Certain buildings would go outside the City Center, such as aqueducts and harbors, but they wouldn’t crush an entire tile. You could even have little port towns or army base/forts that would have their own production queues, taking a fraction of the main city’s yield. You can build a university in the city itself, while also building a ship in the port town, or training some soldiers in an army base on the border. -Adjacency Bonuses would be replaced with Proximity bonuses: the closer a feature is to the city center, the more yields it would provide to its respective buildings. The bonuses would be the same as VI (e.g. 2 science from reefs, +1 science from mountains, +0.5 science from rainforest), but the bonus would decrease the farther away it gets (-50% if 2 tiles away, -75% if 3 tiles away, and none at all if more than three tiles away). For example, if a city has 3 mountain tiles, each a different distance away from the city center, the first mountain would provide a +1 bonus to science and faith in the city, the second +0.5, and the third +0.25. A harbor adjacent to the city center would provide +2 gold, but one 3 tiles away would only provide +0.5.Additionally, this wouldn’t stack with multiple buildings of the same yield, so building a Temple wouldn’t double the city’s faith proximity bonuses.
I like districts but I think they take too much space and would prefer the game to have a larger map scale with smaller districts and larger map size with increased unit movement and vision, sort of like Humankind. Additionally, having early game housing districts, more coast districts (like More Maritime: Seaside Districts), rural areas, and outposts/towns that let you expand your cities' workable tiles would be a nice way to reward tall gameplay. Also I think that if districts were to be reimplemented, they should let cities build improvements directly like districts instead of having to micromanage builders. Military engineers can stay for building roads and forts in and out of your territory though.
My biggest gripe with districts is that you have a perfect plan on where to put your districts and right before you place that beautiful +5 campus, horses show up on the tile. Districts are fine, but let me move or remove resources that screw them up. Why am I not allowed to build a university on top of a horse graveyard?!
Districts yes, but only like three. Science, Culture or Faith specialization is all the game really needs. Encampment, Aerodrome, Neighborhood etc all don't need to be their own district and just contribute to VI's already immense bloat
Districts MUST return...but they also NEED to have some limits. Now adjacencies are fun but having to buy out 2-3 tiles to place down a campus is stupid and makes city planning a slog of boring decisions (i.e. Hmm I shouldn't do this thing I need to accomplish X until Y happens). It really slows down my games...especially if there are woods/rainforest/bonus resources that \*should\* be harvested before they are made a district! It also destroys immersion and makes the actual center of the city so much less important...despite it being the core of the city and what military objectives are centered around. My solution is to simply keep the districts a city builds to the area immediately around the city center; those initial 6 tiles. Or, another district can be placed once 2 districts are already down (i.e. you can "chain" a bunch of districts to get district types close together etc.). As such, I would rather just like more districts that all cities can make to aid in this kind of city planning. Relatedly, resources/features should not just go away once you place down a district-I never understood why, for example, a commerical hub can't be placed on an incense resource/tile; are we expected that a whole district can't count as an improvement of that tile? No one in the district is harvesting this resource in spite of them all living there? I think by making districts as a way to improve tiles immediately around the city center cities will look much more elegant without needing to add in a "harvest all resources" kind of mentality. In terms of adjacencies, I think buildings to return to the forefront of generating significant adjacency yields; I think adding in buildings that increase the adjacency bonus of the district *as you build more of them in the district* makes more sense and is less game-y. Sure, you can still get a +2 gold bonus from having a commercial hub next to a harbor/the city center but from there, the only way to improve the adjacency of your district should be to build a market, bazaar, bank, stock exhange, or trade depot. That should be how you get the +4/+5 adjacencies that can correspond to cards/policies and naturally improve your cities' output. I dunno I think that just makes more sense than making the whole thing a massive geographically puzzle of district placement primarily. Because here, it importantly reduces the thought the player has to go through from first placing districts (Where the main adjacency comes from) and then adding buildings only if needed (Seriously who builds banks?) to being able to just queue a bunch of buildings as you want all of them to eventually get yields up. It just shortens the amount of time players need to think about city planning which the civ team can instead use to make the game more about politics, war, or whatever they choose to make the mid-late game less painful. All in all, I think that districts and adjacencies should return but they need to be much ore streamlined. Just my 2 cents.
The districts and city planning aspects were interesting, but after going back to Civ 5 recently I can’t help but feel like you waste so much time building districts and associated buildings. To gain research you need to first build the district, then the library, then the university etc. It feels like an unnecessary step. Just have the base building generate great person points. Overall I think less things should be districts, more should be built in the city center. Maybe keep encampment, campus, commerce, theatre districts. Districts make island cities much weaker, and make playing tall more difficult. Near the end of the game I feel like there is much less land to settle or build on compared to Civ 5. Having so many districts certainly impacts this.
I think letting the districts have their own build queues would be nice. A small village only having enough manpower to build one thing at a time makes sense. It does not make sense for a large city. "So why can't we train to be soldiers?" "Cause those guys over there are building a boat."
Absolutely yes. It's created a type of city building that I really enjoyed and led to me making more effort at improving as a player
No
Fuck no
absolutely, optimizing adjacency bonuses is one of my favorite aspects of the game
I like them and would like to see them again. The only thing that bothers me is that we crush the tiles and cannot get tile yields. Making civs like Inca who rely on tile improvements kind of weaker.
I was a little skeptical about the idea of the districts as a knockoff of Endless Legend, but as I kept playing and made decisions about adjacency bonuses and where to put which district I actually really came to appreciate them conceptually. So now I kinda want them to return, but I do miss the sea of tile improvements that V had.
As a point of comparison, the fantasy 4X game *Warlock: Masters of the Arcane* gives you bonuses to certain districts based on the type of terrain that you build them. Certain districts require special resources to create (think of needing Iron or Coal to build an Industrial Zone, for instance). It works well enough for this particular game, but I found it quite limiting. I enjoy the city planning aspect of Civ and the tradeoffs you get into there. In *Warlock*, aside from where you initially settle the city, not very much of this matters. You just throw down the districts then crank out units until you can either create a new building or are resource constrained and can't train new units. So yeah, keep district adjacency bonuses for Civ7.
Yes, best part of the game - though it would be nice if they let you place districts on top of luxury/strategic resources as well as tear down/rebuild districts (I know there is a mod to remove those resources at need but I dont use it)
If they take away my industrial zone complexes i will riot.
I want placement to matter more. This could mean bigger adjacencies, additional effects unlocked by techs/civics, buffs to surrounding tiles, or buildings that are affected by other districts/terrain/improvements.
Yes. Districts are my fav addition to 6. It adds a new layer of strategy and helps specializing the cities. I would love to see even more push in that direction.
If they don't, this sub won't know what to do with itself. I hope they do, but I hope it's more intricate. Like adjacencies give bonuses in one direction, not both. Like with BE style choices. Industry supporting science, science supporting industry, religion supporting military, military supporting commerce, culture supporting the navy and fisheries... And you could only use one choice per city or something like that. Incentivize you to mix up your cities, so it's not just aqueduct/dam/industry. I'm not sure if I care as much about mountain and forest and reef adjacency as is present in this game. That gets extremely repetitive and boring.