.

I would like to see outlying, secondary cities (Rural) able to concentrate on growing food and then send some of their surplus along to older, larger, more developed cities (Urban). This might be similar to the internal trading route mechanism in Civ 5, but hopefully more nuanced.

This would be nice, giving cities without districts something to do other than building units, and if a genuine transfer mechanism would keep the outlying cities permanently smaller than the core urban cities. I think if using a transfer mechanism you would need some kind of bonus to make internal trade routes more worthwhile, like creation of gold and culture out of the trade. This could help those outlying cities slowly grow their borders even if they never build culture buildings of their own.
 
This would be nice, giving cities without districts something to do other than building units, and if a genuine transfer mechanism would keep the outlying cities permanently smaller than the core urban cities. I think if using a transfer mechanism you would need some kind of bonus to make internal trade routes more worthwhile, like creation of gold and culture out of the trade. This could help those outlying cities slowly grow their borders even if they never build culture buildings of their own.

I agree that would be interesting. Essentially make cities be able to support others in some ways and exchange, each having different roles, making small towns potentially great at serving bigger towns though receiving something else back, and allowing the bigger towns to be bigger or specialize further.
 
I agree that would be interesting. Essentially make cities be able to support others in some ways and exchange, each having different roles, making small towns potentially great at serving bigger towns though receiving something else back, and allowing the bigger towns to be bigger or specialize further.

Yes, exactly. And what I would really like — maybe unlocked through a mid- to late-game technology — is to have those outlying "Rural" food-producing towns allowed to work one additional ring of tiles, four rings instead of three.
 
That's a really interesting way to put it! Urban vs rural and it's maybe something the devs had in mind. It's looking more and more like cities are going to have to play individual roles and prioritize. Perhaps the civ'a central first cities can be highly urbanized and cities outside the inner core can be agricultural/resource based and help support the inner cities or just act as frontiers. Though is Civ V i didn't use trade to grow cities too much, maybe trade can become separated into inter- and intra-civ.
 
To be honest, I would hope that any sort of "this or that" strategy develops organically. I felt like the developers "forced" tall versus wide into V to the detriment of the economic/peaceful aspect of the game (which led to them later adding distracting minigames to try and spice it up, like Archaeology and Espionage). Time will tell, but I always feel like limits on empire management should exist to largely encourage you to find a way to break them, rather than serving as a checkpoint to make you play a certain way.
 
I agree with your notion of Tall Vs Wide in Civ 5 was forced. I feel Civ5 really wanted to step away from "ICS and "SoD" and jumped a bit too far.
However, strategies such as Tall Vs Wide, Urban Vs Rural, Cottage Vs Specialist dont just happen. Games are made of Rules which define the Moves you can Play in the Game.
They have to be defined, at least in a overall sense.

The strategies that develop organically however comes from the implementation of those over reaching Strategies
which best reflect the winning conditions available to them. In Civ's case this would be the 4 city Science/Early National Wonder Rush.
A good real world example, though reversed, is the idea of a Football Coach's Philosophy Vs the Tactics that he uses. The Football Rules gives us the Tactics that we can use.
The coaches Philosophy is the implementation of these tactics that the Coach believes can win the Football game.
 
Something I forgot in the OP but which is likely to be important on this issue.

Projects.

Not many details on these yet, but there seems to be one per district or yield, they can be completed many times per city and give a large amount of said resource and associated great people points. A 'rural' city with only a campus could spend all its production on the research project for the entirety of the game, stopping only to produce builders and buildings for the campus.

also that city could get a decent amount of science from size alone because it would have space for housing/farms.
 
I think Rural vs Urban is a bigger insight than a lot of posters here are giving it credit for. Japan and Germany, for instance, are the biggest pure urban civs, you'll be wanting to go heavy on districts with them. Civs with more unique improvements might go more rural, or at least, urbanize slower than other civs. I think in the late game, all civs will eventually become urban, but districts have a cost, and you won't always want to build districts immediately.

I'm looking forward to this.
 
Domination victory also seems to be a science over culture condition.
(Culture unlocks plenty of buildings, but few units)

I don't think the difference will be so huge, because remember that Corps and Armies are unlocked via the culture tree, and I think having units rwice as strong is at least better than having a unit of the next tech level.
And there is also all the Cassus Belli that are just mandatory to play warmonger.
 
Wish there was a focus on commerce option where you're able to hire mercenaries and buy buildings instead of focusing on production.

You can borrow city-states units for money, you can buy units with money, you can buy buildings with money, there is a civic called mercenaries (unlocks policies), and the merchant republic government gives you a discount on gold purchases.
 
Back
Top Bottom