Anyone else feel adjacency bonuses for Commercial Hubs & Theatre Squares are thin on the ground?

[UWHabs]

Commerce hubs suffer too because gold is less good than other yields. So while I can sometimes get a +4 commerce hub, at the "Standard" exchange rate, that's really only equivalent to a +2 holy site in what they can buy. Those facts mean that more often than not, I simply end up ignoring the CH adjacency and try to fit it to something else.

Probably what commerce hubs need most are for the buildings in them to further expand on the adjacency. So like Harbors adjacency matters more because the shipyard can turn that into production, if all banks acted like the gilded vault and turned the adjacency into culture (or even if the bank simply gave +gold based on the adjacency as a secondary bonus to its normal use), that would help me care more. And then you probably still need a few other standard or major sources - ie. if all districts simply gave a standard adjacency instead of a minor one, or if city-centres gave a major boost, or even as people have mentioned, if a commerce hub generated 1 gold for every trade route that passed through it, then they would become more valuable.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Banks should do things like increase population yields and reduce cost of purchasing. I like the idea of buildings specializing cities.

 

[enKage]

Really? +3s are easy enough to get and you can then up them to +4s with two districts.

That is why I added "if you need it everywhere"
Getting high adjecencies on HS and Campuses are the most terrain dependant, so you cannot spam it everywhere, while you can pretty reliable get at least +3 campus/harbor and TS every city

 

[InsidiousMage]

That is why I added "if you need it everywhere"
Getting high adjecencies on HS and Campuses are the most terrain dependant, so you cannot spam it everywhere, while you can pretty reliable get at least +3 campus/harbor and TS every city

To me, unless you get really bad city-state RNG, adjacency matters less as the game goes on since they are plenty of ways to boost the yields in the buildings themselves.

 

[konokoni]

With the recent addition of Entertainment Complex / Water Park adjacency for Theater Squares, I feel like they're in a good place right now. I don't think Commercial Hubs need more adjacencies, the ones currently in place are solid & gold is easy enough to get as it is.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Simple workarounds...
Commerce == Coastal + Harbors + promoted Reyna
Theater Squares == Wonders nearby

 

[CoconutTank]

I'd be okay with a Oasis major adjacency bonus for CHs. I don't think it's necessary to make the CH as powerful as a Harbor. On their own, sea tiles are generally less productive than land tiles, and there are fewer water-based districts, so coastal cities start off slightly worse off than inland cities. I think Harbors are crazy good because they're making up for lack of improvements and districts. One can't get trade routes with any districts besides CHs and Harbors, inland cities generally don't want to build Harbors, and there's a strong incentive to settle near rivers for fresh water, so it's not as though CHs don't have a niche and are devoid of adjacency opportunities.

TSes getting major adjacency bonuses from ECs and WPs makes sense and is great. I don't think TSes need any changes at this time.

 

[SaboteurINT]

This Game is already a porn-massive-yield-easy-to-gain.
Gold’s gaining is additionally the easiest. Culture’s gaining - better make it nerfed rather than Another bonus.
Game need to be more challenging as users have more Exp since 5 years.

 

[Hans Castorp]

No.

 

[greenOak]

The probablem with this is that CH compare poorly to Harbors, especially late game. CH should get the major adjacency bonus for the Oasis, the standard for luxury resources and then late game get extra gold for trades between cities with Stock Exchanges.

While true, harbor cities have a lot going against them. Unimproved water tiles aren't worth working until shipyards, and more importantly there are no production chops on the water. If all you do is make the CH as good as the harbor, we go back to pre-GS where coastal cities are strictly worse than inland cities.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Commercial Hub needs another source, yes.

0.5 from resources, maybe? Someone must be buying all that Rice and Venison.

As someone who builds Commercial Hubs in every city though, I don't find the adjacency to be that lacking, or even important. The extra trade route brings in a lot of money. Same with Theatre Squares. You already get +2 Culture from the monument and from any Great Work present.

Science and Faith, though? Harder to come by naturally, so it makes sense that the districts for those yield types to have easier adjacencies.

 

[InsidiousMage]

While true, harbor cities have a lot going against them. Unimproved water tiles aren't worth working until shipyards, and more importantly there are no production chops on the water. If all you do is make the CH as good as the harbor, we go back to pre-GS where coastal cities are strictly worse than inland cities.

Well, not everyone production chops and Commercial Hubs don't need to be better than Harbors, just good in a different direction. I feel CHs should interact with trade routes in some way while Harbors are there to make coastal cities viable.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

0.5 from resources, maybe? Someone must be buying all that Rice and Venison.

As someone who builds Commercial Hubs in every city though, I don't find the adjacency to be that lacking, or even important. The extra trade route brings in a lot of money. Same with Theatre Squares. You already get +2 Culture from the monument and from any Great Work present.

Science and Faith, though? Harder to come by naturally, so it makes sense that the districts for those yield types to have easier adjacencies.

Commercial Hubs should get adjacency bonus from adjacent resoucres, while Theatre Squares culture from adjacent Luxuries.

 

[greenOak]

Well, not everyone production chops and Commercial Hubs don't need to be better than Harbors, just good in a different direction. I feel CHs should interact with trade routes in some way while Harbors are there to make coastal cities viable.

If you don't chop for production, you're ignoring one of the most defining features of civ 6. The game should not try to be balanced for players that ignore such ubiquitous strategies. I never said anything about commercial hubs being better than harbors - I said if they were equally as good. The only reason coastal cities are somewhat competitive to inland cities is because harbors are better than commercial hubs.

 

[InsidiousMage]

If you don't chop for production, you're ignoring one of the most defining features of civ 6.

Alternatively, you can balance short term gains vs long term gains and prefer the latter over the former.

The only reason coastal cities are somewhat competitive to inland cities is because harbors are better than commercial hubs.

Eh, you can get get a lot of good districts and workable land tiles on coastal cities right now so I don't think buffing CH a little will harm coastal play.

 

[greenOak]

Alternatively, you can balance short term gains vs long term gains and prefer the latter over the former.

Eh, you can get get a lot of good districts and workable land tiles on coastal cities right now so I don't think buffing CH a little will harm coastal play.

Even assuming production now is as valuable as production later (and usually production now is better), in any game there will come a time when the hammers obtained from chopping exceed the hammers that will be lost from removing the feature/resource. Nevertheless, there is a reason why those who succeed on higher difficulties tend to chop a lot - its because well timed chopping is extremely powerful. While you are correct that most coastal cities have enough land tiles for districts and working, they can never make up for the lack of chops on the water.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Even assuming production now is as valuable as production later (and usually production now is better), in any game there will come a time when the hammers obtained from chopping exceed the hammers that will be lost from removing the feature/resource. Nevertheless, there is a reason why those who play higher difficulties, or who get superfast win times, do tons of chopping - its because properly timed chopping is extremely powerful. While you are correct that most coastal cities have enough land tiles for districts and working, they can never make up for the lack of chops on the water.

I mean, I chop on occasion but quick wins are boring. I play on Emperor and I've never really felt pressured the chop out stuff unless I'm competing for an early wonder. Plus, I've watched way to many Deity players denude parts of their empire with early game chops only to later struggle with production to really be convinced by the strategy.

Moreover, balancing the game around harder difficulties, which are played far less, seems like bad game design. I'm going to attempt Deity at some point but it looks like the exact opposite of what I want out of the game since you have to laser focused on winning and have to ignore large parts of the game.

 

[greenOak]

How many of these deity players who "denude parts of their empire with early game chops" actually lose? How many of them take longer to win the game than you?

Honestly, I hate the "quick wins are boring" shtick. Everyone cares to some extent how quickly you win because if you fail to win by turn X, you outright lose the game.

You personally may not need to chop on emperor to win, but are you going to tell the guy struggling to close out games on emperor not to chop?. Quite frankly, a strong player can win comfortably on deity without chopping once. You hardly have to be "laser focused" to win. Still, it would be stupid to tell a player not to chop on deity because you don't need to in order to win.

 

[InsidiousMage]

How many of these deity players who "denude parts of their empire with early game chops" actually lose? How many of them take longer to win the game than you? Honestly, I hate the "quick wins are boring" shtick.

Not to use grade school level logic but winning isn't everything. Sure I could rush through my games to get some quicker wins but then I wouldn't enjoy them. I like hitting all of the Eurekas and Inspirations I can, I like building up my empire, I like keeping all of my cities happy or better. Honestly, one of my biggest philosophical complaints about Civ6 is that so many of the mechanics can be completely ignored on higher difficulties with little downside. If you can ignore game mechanics and still comfortably win then the game is not well balanced.

Everyone cares to some extent how quickly you win because if you fail to win by turn X, you outright lose the game. You may not need to chop on emperor to win, but are you going to tell the guy struggling to close out a game on emperor not to chop?

I mean, if you can't finish the game in 500 turns you probably should rethink how you are playing the game and sure, do what you need to win but there is no "correct" strategy for Civ6 and balancing the game around chops is bad game design in my opinion because not everyone uses or likes it.

 

[greenOak]

I mean, if you can't finish the game in 500 turns you probably should rethink how you are playing the game and sure, do what you need to win but there is no "correct" strategy for Civ6 and balancing the game around chops is bad game design in my opinion because not everyone uses or likes it.

It's not even about winning before the time runs out, its about winning before the AI does. For example, a deity player might not care about being faster if he can do a science victory in 250 turns, but he probably would if it took him 300 because 300 turns isn't fast enough for some games. He certainly would care about getting faster if he's taking on average 350 turns because then the AI's almost always winning before he does.

I don't know how you can say that you don't like that you can ignore game mechanics and still win, and then say balancing the game with chopping in mind is bad because not everyone likes it. It seems like you just want the game balanced around the mechanics that you like.