Anyone figure out what scales up the cost of districts?

[Stacked_Deck]

I figure it's probably era, number of cities, or number of districts and which ever one would affect when and where I build them.

 

[Underseer]

I don't think number of cities affects it very much. I tried a game with fewer cities and ran into the same problems with production as my other games.

 

[ccubed]

Here's a thread on Reddit going into district scaling.

There's been a lot of confusion about how district production costs scale. I'm pretty sure I've figured it out (sorry if this is old news).

The game files declare the cost scaling to be controlled by this constant:

COST_PROGRESSION_NUM_UNDER_AVG_PLUS_TECH

I've done a fair bit of testing, and here's what I believe this means:

• Cost begins with the base (60) modified by game speed.
  
  
• Cost grows with your tech/civic advancement.
  
  • This is either/or. If your tech tree is farther ahead, then tech advancement determines the cost. If your civics tree is farther ahead, it looks at that instead.
  • I'm not sure exactly what "advancement" means for each tree. It may be a pre-determined value per tech and per civic (e.g. 5 points per tech and 7 points per civic). The level or era of a tech/civic seems to have no bearing.
• If you have fewer of a given district than the average player has, that district's cost is reduced by 25% for you.
  
  • This is why people thought it scales with the number of districts. If everyone has 2 encampments and you have none, your first one (two? I haven't tested the boundary case) is cheaper (75% of the normal cost). Once you build that one (or two), you've caught up and the cost returns to normal.
    
  • I don't know if this is based on completed districts, or placed districts. My guess is placed ones.
• Districts have the same cost in all your cities. The only limits to having many districts in one city are the cap based on population and finding places to put them all.
  

Some other info / clarifications:

• Only completed techs/civics count. Progress, including via eurekas/inspirations, has no effect.
  
  
• A district's cost is locked in when you place it. You can go construct other stuff, advance down the trees, etc. Other districts' costs will continue to go up, but the one(s) you've placed (even if you've contributed no production yet) does not get more expensive.
  
  • If the cost goes up in the middle of your turn (e.g. you earn an inspiration that completes a civic, and your civic tree is ahead of your tech tree), the UI might not update properly. You might start a district and then find the cost has gone up next turn -- this was simply a UI bug on the turn you started it, not showing the true cost.
• Once you have as many of a district as the average among all players, building more of that district will not cause its cost (nor that of any other district) to go up. However, as stated above, building up to the average number will cause the cost of further instances of that district to increase (you lose your discount).
  
  
• All of the above apply only to "specialty districts". The cost of Aqueduct/Baths and Neighborhood/Mbanza scales with "game progress" only. The number you've built never has any effect. What "game progress" means exactly, I'm not sure. If it's something like score, then your tech advancement may still play a part. It may just be the year or turn count.
  

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes, its basically "tech/civic advancement"... the detail to be worked out is how much different techs/civics contribute to "advancement"

 

[Underseer]

Yes, its basically "tech/civic advancement"... the detail to be worked out is how much different techs/civics contribute to "advancement"

How annoying!

 

[Stacked_Deck]

Here's a thread on Reddit going into district scaling.

Interesting, thanks.

 

[isau]

What this means in practical terms is doing anything other than beelining Industrial zones will make production completely shut down.

 

[RealAntithesis]

I'm not sure what the rationale is for increasing district cost with civic or technology progression. Perhaps that this approximates the advancement of districts requiring more resources to build it into a modern structure (high rises) rather than structures from earlier eras (wooden or stone huts). I would rather just remove this and bring back another mechanic to limit outward expansion of the empire. The old corruption mechanic from previous (Civ4 and earlier?) games represented this quite well I thought, reducing income (or was it happiness) the further from the center of the empire (the capital) a city was, with buildings such as courthouses etc reducing corruption. At least that made more sense in my mind.

 

[Kingreaper]

I'm not sure what the rationale is for increasing district cost with civic or technology progression. Perhaps that this approximates the advancement of districts requiring more resources to build it into a modern structure (high rises) rather than structures from earlier eras (wooden or stone huts).

That would make sense if it were by era. The fact it's by individual tech means that inventing archery makes an industrial era campus more expensive to build.

 

[MadDjinn]

The general cost factor goes up yes, but it also has to do with:

how many you build
how many of a type you build
how many are available to build.

(For Kongo, you don't get penalized for the holy site, because it's not available to build)

Effectively, there will different costs for different districts, especially if you just get the tech for them - discount because you have 0 of them.

 

[elitetroops]

The general cost factor goes up yes, but it also has to do with:

how many you build
how many of a type you build
how many are available to build.

(For Kongo, you don't get penalized for the holy site, because it's not available to build)

Effectively, there will different costs for different districts, especially if you just get the tech for them - discount because you have 0 of them.

This is not quite accurate. Like the reddit post says, you get a 25% discount if you have fewer of a district than the average player has. Other than that it doesn't scale with how many you build.

I tested this in the final save of a space game by spamming aerodromes in every city. There was 6 AI alive at the time, and I don't think anyone of them had built any aerodromes. I had built 2 previously for the Eureka. When I started building them, it listed the cost as 437 in all cities. The next turn it said x/437 in 4 cities, the rest it was x/583 (=the cost does not update properly if you start several on the same turn). So with 6 AI alive and nobody else owning Aerodromes, my first 6 Aerodromes cost 437 and after that it went up to 583, which also was the cost for all my other available districts. 437 is 75% of 583. The reddit post seems to have it right. Edit: Which is totally NOT what the reddit post said... More investigation needed.

 

[ichbinsehselber]

I'm not sure what the rationale is for increasing district cost with civic or technology progression. Perhaps that this approximates the advancement of districts requiring more resources to build it into a modern structure (high rises) rather than structures from earlier eras (wooden or stone huts). I would rather just remove this and bring back another mechanic to limit outward expansion of the empire. The old corruption mechanic from previous (Civ4 and earlier?) games represented this quite well I thought, reducing income (or was it happiness) the further from the center of the empire (the capital) a city was, with buildings such as courthouses etc reducing corruption. At least that made more sense in my mind.

In most early civ versions corruption reduced the commerce (which splits into luxury, science and coins) and also had some reduction of production.
I also agree that this makes more sense to me and also seems less annoying.

 

[CultureManiac]

The Reddit article also said that the cost is set when you place the district. This suggests that if you know where you want a district, it might be better to lock in its location (and its price) once it becomes available, even if you switch back to building something else first.

 

[ichbinsehselber]

I also found an interesting value: CostProgressionParam1="25"
So, probably the cost of the districts goes up by 25 production for each ???
??? could be tech level, number of techs or something similar

 

[MyOtherName]

I'm not sure what the rationale is for increasing district cost with civic or technology progression.

I highly expect it went

• We need to increase the cost as the player progresses.
• How can we measure player progression?
• Players get technologies as they progress! We can use that.

 

[ichbinsehselber]

I highly expect it went

• We need to increase the cost as the player progresses.

I disagree. This would be true if the game must run forever. But I prefer the game to be winnable and end at some point.

There are more arguments to make build items cheaper as game progresses. Some civ versions allow early build items to even cost 0. They are included in the settlers. This cost reduction by progress sounds much more reasonable than an increase

 

[Big J Money]

The Reddit article also said that the cost is set when you place the district. This suggests that if you know where you want a district, it might be better to lock in its location (and its price) once it becomes available, even if you switch back to building something else first.

Interesting. I half assumed one can't switch production after starting a district. If so, this is a clever (but annoying) technique.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Interesting. I half assumed one can't switch production after starting a district. If so, this is a clever (but annoying) technique.

It probably makes that district count against your limit though, so you can't just queue up districts as soon as you get the tech/civic.. you would have to wait for the pop as well.