Should they eliminate the production district, lower production, raise science?

[stiiknafuulia]

I don't see what an industrial district gives to a new individual city that a commercial district doesn't. In fact, by the sole parameters in the OP, Commercial hubs are better than Industrial districts.

If we're talking overlap, then I'd argue that industrial districts are even less "necessary" in new cities with clever planning, because you can have 1 city influenced by 4 or more factories which means that city never needs to build an industrial district for itself - allowing it to use it's district slot for something else. Do this appropriately and you'll have industrial cores that fuel the production of nearby cities so they don't require the district themselves.

Qin nailed it; Industrial district spam is only really 'required' for a science victory. In practice, this is no different than Holy Sites being required for religious victories or Theater Squares being required for culture victories (then again could you win culture without them? idk).

Otherwise your production needs can be met with a modest use of the Industrial districts.

Are you sure you've thought this through? Production is clearly the most important resource, as your cities can't build anything without it, and the cost of everything except military units escalates quickly to absurdity. The more industrial districts, the more production across the board -- including your core cities. If every district affects even two cities, it's almost always worth building. With three it's a total no-brainer. With Toronto's bonus, gl to your enemies...

 

[skallben]

Anyone remember CIv V having a similar problem with a global production defecit? How did they fix it? Because I cannot remember.

Also, made a poll earlier this week about science/industry balance. 88% agree tech progression is too fast.

You find the poll and the discussion here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/science-vs-production-balance.601645/page-2