Era does make sense (I hadn't seen the full stream..and it seems reasonable)
so things that seem to affect the cost increase
1. General Number of districts (including ones started being built...city centers, aqueducts, neighborhoods, captured districts uncertain.)
Initially ~6/district increasing as districts increase
2. Do you have one of these districts already?
~x2/3 bonus cost if you don't (or x3/2 if you do...) this factor may depend on # of districts
3. Era
Classical->medieval=~10% increase in bonus cost
4. Base cost of the district (UD and/or modern ones like ports)
All I really hope for is that the formula is available/explained in the civilopedia (they probably won't...they leave massive amounts of formulas completely hidden... as interesting as it is working it out, I'd REALLY prefer if they actually disclosed it...perhaps a part of the civilopedia for mechanics)
Unique Districts are half cost.
Also keep in mind that all videos I've seen showing cost were on quick speed; everything will presumably cost a bit more on normal speed.
1. General Number of districts (including ones started being built...city centers, aqueducts, neighborhoods, captured districts uncertain.)
Initially ~6/district increasing as districts increase
Unique Districts are half cost.
Also keep in mind that all videos I've seen showing cost were on quick speed; everything will presumably cost a bit more on normal speed.
Yep, I was just referring to comparison of Entertainment Complex and Campus in case of Norway, neither is UD, and speed is the same, so both (and all other early districts) have base cost of 60.
Now I saw it with proper resolution, so it is 146 vs 155, nothing changed except of entering Medieval Era.
So the the districts have different cost later on? That would indicate that the cost increase is per districts type, which would be good. That encourages you to generalize and build all kinds of districts. And punishes players that includes build the same kind in ask cities
I suspect Spanish cities were just created in World Builder. Or they got free settlers from goody huts. AND/OR they could use policy to decrease settler cost.
So the the districts have different cost later on? That would indicate that the cost increase is per districts type, which would be good. That encourages you to generalize and build all kinds of districts. And punishes players that includes build the same kind in ask cities
actually it looks like the cost increase is the same for all types of districts (in proportion to their base cost)...unless you have 0 copies of the district. (it is the same for districts there are 1 or 2 of)
I seldom write on this forum, but I find myself compelled by my own and other's worry.
We have established why the settler cost is increased. I may not like the way they go about it, but I accept it.
I've read this thread and might have missed it, but why do you think the developers feel the need to increase the cost of districts based on how many you've already built? It feels so wrong. If I recall correctly one of the devs said there was no more tall and no more wide. Then what is this?
Increasing cost due to change of era, that I can live with, but please... Ed think about this!
@ 40:09 - Aztec DLC is listed as a mod in the main menu. Ed is playing on difficulty "5" which was King in Civ V. The game speed clock is at 15 minutes after the hour suggesting this could be Standard. In Civ V, the "time" for standard was 7 minutes after the hour. Maybe now they are using 15 min increments.
I seldom write on this forum, but I find myself compelled by my own and other's worry.
We have established why the settler cost is increased. I may not like the way they go about it, but I accept it.
I've read this thread and might have missed it, but why do you think the developers feel the need to increase the cost of districts based on how many you've already built? It feels so wrong. If I recall correctly one of the devs said there was no more tall and no more wide. Then what is this?
Increasing cost due to change of era, that I can live with, but please... Ed think about this!
I think that tall vs. wide has been redefined in terms of cities and districts rather than cities and population.
Basically, there are a finite number of districts you can build at any given point in the game due to their increasingly prohibitive costs. You can either choose to concentrate those districts in a relatively small number of cities or spread them out. A city with many districts has to have a high population and isn't very specialized. A city with only a few districts is going to be more focused on specific yields and won't require as large as population.
However, this doesn't seem to be a strictly binary arrangement. You can sit anywhere along the spectrum of #of cities vs # of districts per city with greater or lesser specialization.
Do note that a civ with a larger number of cities seems to have a greater capability of qualifying to build more Wonders while a civ that has only a few, but powerful cities will be more capable of completing the Wonders they do qualify for.
How this is reflected in specific strategies for the 4 victory types is unknown at this time.
I just realized weird thing related to district costs. Almost all streams/let's plays were played on quick speed (except Norway in last one), which seems to be similar to Civ5 - all costs are 67% from "standard" costs. This clearly applies to buildings in all streams (see screenshot), and also applies to envoy points for example.
However, it does not apply to districts. They have base cost of 60, and go uphill from there. Which is strange, since they should have base cost of 60, but should start on 40, which never happened.
Obviously it has some kind of explanation, I am just saying that it looks strange.
I think that tall vs. wide has been redefined in terms of cities and districts rather than cities and population.
Basically, there are a finite number of districts you can build at any given point in the game due to their increasingly prohibitive costs. You can either choose to concentrate those districts in a relatively small number of cities or spread them out. A city with many districts has to have a high population and isn't very specialized. A city with only a few districts is going to be more focused on specific yields and won't require as large as population.
However, this doesn't seem to be a strictly binary arrangement. You can sit anywhere along the spectrum of #of cities vs # of districts per city with greater or lesser specialization.
Do note that a civ with a larger number of cities seems to have a greater capability of qualifying to build more Wonders while a civ that has only a few, but powerful cities will be more capable of completing the Wonders they do qualify for.
How this is reflected in specific strategies for the 4 victory types is unknown at this time.
Since we still don't have complete information on the game, I imagine there'll be ways to mitigate the skyrocketing cost of districts.
A developed city with a good Industrial Zone should likely have the capability to still build new districts; otherwise the Spaceport District would be a real hassle to complete. Beyond that, trade routes may become effective enough to ship production to a new city, or late game policy cards may provide discounts, or one of the remaining City-States may cut costs. Who knows!
So far I haven't seen any policy that reduces costs, only increased production towards a specific item. There's at least one for districts, Veterancy, for Encampments.
This is something I hadn't thought of previously. If districts cost can rise exponentially, you could get to a point where Spaceports are so prohibitively expensive to be impossible to complete a science victory, without significant pre-planning. That isn't realistic. At this point, I feel there isn't enough information. It's very possible these costs increase are logarithmic and not exponential, we just haven't seen enough districts for the curve to start tapering out.
Whoa, that district math looks brutal. I will never understand why the designers of a civ game are so intent on stopping the players from building cities...
It is a double edged sword.
Civ is often played in 1 player and sooner or later, players will climb up the difficulty (hopefully). Traditionally the way to make the game harder is to give the AI bonuses.
Now imagine an AI that had no malus to slow down its growth. More cities made it stronger, it had no unhappiness at all to worry about (or unhealth) it could expand like a virus, taking over every tile and supporting an army x5 the size of your empire.
To see this in action just add Hiawtha to your diety pangaea game
The limiter also encourages the player to go to war. In every civ game ever made, their is a huge selection of military units, because they expect you to use them.
Once your kingdom reaches tipping point from a building point of view, you are then expected to wage war and take cities or conversely to lose cities. This is also why mid-game is usually so dull, because there is less to do to enable you to focus more on war
Spoiler:
and not because they totally didn't know how to make mid-game exciting, honest!
.
Looking at civ6, lets say you build 4 cities + districts and that is the de-facto optimum self build. After that, to make your empire bigger, you just take enemy cities and make them yours. With happiness muted to just local now, their really is no reason why you shouldn't absorb the AI into your own kingdom.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
