Concern about districts

[Tantor]

I`m a little concerned regarding the new District feature.
As far as I have understood there`s room for three buildings in a District.

But if there`s no more eligible buildings in a district than there is room, players don`t have to make any decisions about wich buildings to construct, only wich districts to construct.
Once you have decided wich District you want, you can sinply go Ahead and construct building as the become available with no further thought or consideration.

There should be more buildings than room to build for every district. Then the players must make Strategic Choices about wich buildings to construct in every district in different cities.

Otherwise every science district will contain the same buildings....

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Don't worry, there are more buildings than slots per districts. For example, we know that players will have to choose between a barrack or a stable to put in an encampment district. So there will be choices.

 

[Amrunril]

Yes, at least some districts will force you to make choices about which buildings to construct. Of course, even if this weren't the case, you'd still be making all the decisions you do in Civ V about whether and when to construct buildings in your cities. Just because a building is available doesn't mean it's worth investing production in immediately or at all. And even for buildings that are almost always worth constructing immediately, the district system will still result in more diversity. You may end up rushing science buildings in every city with a campus, but in Civ V you rush science buildings in every city.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's not about number of choices, it's about number of meaningful choices. And it's a huge difference. In Civ1-5 the number of meaningful choices in city building was generally zero. City specialization was more about order of buildings than actual building list.

In contrast, districts taking tiles are really meaningful choice.

 

[Tantor]

It's not about number of choices, it's about number of meaningful choices. And it's a huge difference. In Civ1-5 the number of meaningful choices in city building was generally zero. City specialization was more about order of buildings than actual building list.

In contrast, districts taking tiles are really meaningful choice.

Meaningful Choices are important, thas why I wanted the Choice to have different buildings in my Districts, not just sit and wait until the NeXT one i available

 

[stealth_nsk]

Meaningful Choices are important, thas why I wanted the Choice to have different buildings in my Districts, not just sit and wait until the NeXT one i available

You still have a lot of choice - you have several districts to choose to build into, you have core tile which hosts several buildings, you have optional buildings in districts, like wither Barracks or Stables, you could choose to build a new district and so on.

 

[BenZL43]

At least, there are 2 district that requires you to choose building:

Encampment: Barrack or Stable
Theater Square: Art Museum or Archaeological Museum

 

[masda_gib]

And then there is the Holy Site with its faith building that is dependent on your religion. Cathedral, Pagode, Mosque, some more.....

 

[King Jason]

Even if there weren't extra buildings it's still more in depth than previous systems because there was virtually no reason not to just build any building available in a city back then either.

There's more to consider than just "I can build a building now, so I shall" - build order is hugely impactful in civilization. Furthermore, cities aren't going to have all of the same districts in them so while every city with a campus may have the same buildings - not every city is going to have a campus.

The strategy is in deciding what districts to place, when to place them, and when to construct the buildings that you can build there. This could mean the difference between getting a religion first, reaching a tech or civic first, or being beaten to a wonder.

 

[Acken]

Civ4 and 5 have always allowed you to make most of the buildings in a city. And there is a sense of choice in what to build when you start optimizing your playthrough. Now on top of it you have a choice to make for districts.

So im teally not understanding where the problem is if choice is a concern compared to previous games. You could add more constraints but there are more constraints on buildings in civ6 than previously.

 

[Relinou]

not to mention you can only build a district for each 3 population you have. (correct me if im wrong) which means that you have to choose which districts you build wisely.

 

[Magil]

Based on the current build, I'd say the relevance of the decision has just been moved from buildings to districts. In V, there wasn't much in the way of interesting decisions when it came to what buildings to build (mostly due to the blandness of the terrain and lack of options in meaningful terrain improvements), but this wasn't always the case.

In IV, matching buildings to the terrain was much more important. A library or market wouldn't do much in a city with no commerce potential, and a stable is a worthless use of production in a city that's not a heavy unit producer.

In VI, that level of decision-making seems to have been moved to placing the districts themselves, as the yields of a district can drastically increase based on where you place them on the map (and by extension, where the city is settled). On the other side, buildings themselves tend to be very uninteresting (flat yields require basically no decision-making whatsoever).

The exception to this rule is areas where you can only fit 1 building out of 2 (or possibly more?) in a district, such as the choice between a barracks and a stable.

 

[Big J Money]

There is meaningful choice in Civ V, it's gold maintenance. But I find the new system more exciting and intuitive.

 

[King Jason]

There is meaningful choice in Civ V, it's gold maintenance.

Gold maintenance in civ5 was practically meaningless. My casual level of play was emperor and I don't think I've ever spared a single thought on building maintenance while playing that game.

Meaningful choice is something like having only 1 spot in your city's radius that has 3 adjacent mountains and needing to decide if you want the +3 bonus to go to faith or to science, because that is a decision you simply can't undo, at least not without suffering gross opportunity costs. Or having pop restrictions on districts so you need to decide what districts will go in which cities. Or for some civ5 examples - Deciding to shoot for the great library or not, deciding to sling to the national college before expanding or expand and get the college later. These are choices that can affect the entirety a game.

Gold maintenance in civ5 was merely a slight nuisance - a hiccup, at best. Certainly not a valid reason not to build every building in each city. If anything it simply moderated the pace and timing that you did it.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Later on districts allow for specialists and the bulidings don't seems to care about their location which mean that in the long run the district system may be a way to specalize your civilization as a whole on a resource. Like a religious focused civilization may want a holy district in every city no matter how good it is because for this civilization how much faith it can produce is the most important thing.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Also.... because each district you have increases the cost of all other districts, your civilization is sort of forced to specialize.... even if you have 10 cities of pop 17, they won't all get 6 districts before the game is long over... which means the priority you build them will matter a lot.

 

[Atlas627]

Also.... because each district you have increases the cost of all other districts, your civilization is sort of forced to specialize.... even if you have 10 cities of pop 17, they won't all get 6 districts before the game is long over... which means the priority you build them will matter a lot.

It increases the production cost of the new districts, but that may not matter a lot.

Gold maintenance costs appear to stay the same.

 

[isau]

In one of the videos one of the designers also says that a city's base defense is based on how many units it has produced in the past. I have only heard this in one place, and I forget which video it was (possibly the IGN one). It's possible that that info wasn't accurate, but if it is, it means at least at the building vs unit level there is another decision to make.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Gold maintenance in civ5 was practically meaningless. My casual level of play was emperor and I don't think I've ever spared a single thought on building maintenance while playing that game.

Agree. The idea od decreased appeal looks better, IMHO.

 

[Scaramanga]

The main strategy is the tile the district gets placed on, I guess. What's really exciting is the ability to sack a city by pillaging all the districts. This was an option that was lacking in Civ 5 as an alternative to capturing, liberating or razing; just destroy everything but the city center and leave.