Aerodome District: Bad Idea, Guys

In today's Let's Play... not a single city as large as 18 on Turn 233 . And yes, you're of course right that we probably won't need an encampment in every city. But your largest cities? That have already been your unit producers all came and have specialist buildings, and walls so that the Encampment gets a ranged shot? I don't think too many people are going to build over encampment districts, nor forego them for defensive fort purposes and specialization purposes unless it's a city deep in the back of an empire.

 

This is circular argument. "The aerodome is bad because I can think of reasons it could be bad." I can make up as many reasons it could be a good.

Here we go: "But anti-air units are expensive and not very strong." Evidence for this: baseless guess.

 

Doesn't the Airport district also house the Hotel, a building that's very important for Cultural Victory?

Likewise the Harbor district, it doesn't just make boats. It also has buildings that make water tiles produce more yields.

The Encampment is really the only district that is exclusively military-focused.

 

Just to be 100% Clear: As I wrote above, my thesis is Aerodome is bad because you have to forego a district you'd want instead for a relatively unnecessary military hub. That's arrow-straight. No circles.

Your (self-admittedly baseless) counter-claim is: Planes are great, you'll need planes, and (implicitly) the opportunity cost is worth it.

My rebuttal, is that you didn't need planes in BNW (unless on Diety and in a tough scrap), and anti-air worked just fine in BNW if you had enough.

 

So, this is an interesting point. As you suggest, this means you're building the district for Tourism, and taking advantage of the fact that since you wanted the Tourism, you might as well have planes.

Still, I like this point: Reward the Tourism AI with some extra self-defense via an air force. Which, if the AI is in the tech lead, or at least tech parity, might force a human to have more than anti-air counter.

 

I didn't see in all the screenshots for today... isn't it likely that the Aerodrome will also bring in tourists? And perhaps other effects of a military (moving troops) or non-military (trade?) nature?

(I see someone else pointed out the tourism thing as I posted this.)

 

The devs specifically said that the idea is that cities should specialize and not every city should get every district.

 

I totally get specialization. If there was a different Population cap (say only 2 pop needed), or a faster growth rate (Cities get to 20+pop at a quick rate, akin to BNW), then I totally get cities choosing certain districts over others, and having that choice.

But a city that doesn't have Districts producing Science, Culture, Gold, and Hammers is a strange city indeed in a Civilization game, where the winner in those buckets wins the game. It would be a strange Civ game indeed where foregoing those made your game better simply because you can build a few units.

 

But also remember that location is king in Civ6. So a city with a sweet Campus spot between mountains is going to outproduce in science two cities with a bad location for Campuses. Same with culture, faith etc. So placing the districts in every city is a waste.

The argument that it is "strange" to do so in civ shows the failure to understand the rules of the game.

 

Um, you realize that you put buildings in these districts, right? Libraries, Universities, etc. The district allows you to place the buildings. But the buildings are still important. You're telling me with a straight face that you're going to found cities and then simply not put Libraries and Universities in them because the city doesn't have a mountain nearby? That's how you think this game will go?

Like many on this board, I've played thousands of hours of civ. Of all iterations. And, yes, I've never, ever seen a Civ where you had a city you founded (not merely puppeted and never annexed) where you turned down the opportunity to build science buildings, gold buildings, etc.

Mate, if you think you can play Civ6, found 6 cities, and simply skip science campuses in a couple and will be gaining an advantage over the player that doesn't... well, I look forward to that report .

 

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions

 

Kyoto(A.I) has 18 Also it is 233, halfway through the game. I see 30+ cities as attainable, the ease dependent on late game food/growth buildings. If there is the equivalent of the Hospital and Medical lab I see 40+ Pop Cities as attainable. 31 allows every District (districts and aqueducts dont count for pop)

Compared to Civ 5 it looks a little bit slower though. I would have hit mid 20's by 1610 in normal gameplay

 

Seems fine mechanically to me. The district limit encourages city specialization rather than cramming everything into one city. Just make a city (or a couple of cities in a larger empire) with a heavy emphasis on production and growth, and put your military-enhancing districts and buildings there. Put the science, culture, and religious stuff elsewhere.

I don't follow. In IV, for me at least, it was not uncommon to have cities that focused only on production and had basically no science/gold output. Or a city that had the sole purpose of feeding as many specialists as possible. This isn't a new concept, and it was a very viable thing. Not every location was strong enough to support strong commerce and strong production, so you needed to tailor your strategy based on what the location could do and your empire's needs. In theory, VI should offer the same level of decision-making.

 

The point is you need to Trade off between those... if you want more Science you must either

1. give up placing some other district (Gold, faith, culture, military, tourism, etc.)
OR
2. found another city/grow one of your current cities.

So there is a Trade off.

(you actually don't need ANY Science/Culture/Industrial districts as you get science and culture from population, and production from tiles..Commercial Districts or Harbors you need to get gold, Holy sites you need to get faith...with some UI exceptions)

 

I think the airport district is a brilliant idea, actually it would be even better if air units could only be created there, and stationed only there or in the airfield improvement.

It would definately add a new strategic point, where you'd have to set them wisely to protect them from enemies, and when in e offensive you would have to rush to take them first to deny the enemy air power, as in real life (f.i. the US Army Rangers specialization is to take airports). Anyone who has played WW2 hex strategy games will understand it.

Besides I'm all for city specialization, as in real life, cities tend to focus on certain sectors. I can think of some towns that were born around an airfield.

 

While this isn't strictly the case as far as we know, the biplane had a listed range of 3. So carriers, aerodomes, and airstrip improvements are going to be vital to getting your planes where they are needed, if other aircraft have similarly small ranges (I expect later aircraft will have longer ranges, but who knows by how much).

And it seems like bombers do require an aerodome to be built.

 

I also realised that the biplane does also require an aerodome district to be built (you can see it in the last Firaxis stream when Ed shows the Kongolese city unit list, minute 46). Which would be as I dreamt and clearly make aerodrome districts really relevant in the late game

 

Looking at the screenshot I was referencing again, this is correct. The Biplane requires an aerodome.