Builder mechanic, visual style and that we cant remove districts is main draw backs of CIV VI – do a

[Duuk]

Personally, I sorta despised the whole "paint the map" thing that existed in previous game where you have 10 builders hiding somewhere doing nothing. No I don't want to manually road either. Roading in V was painful since I know I was wasting gold if doing it wrong.

For roads/rails I'd like an advanced version of what we have now. In the early game, trade routes for them. As you develop further districts, those districts connect to the city center via roads (and to each other). As you develop techs, urban sprawl starts to happen which connect other things via roads in a spider web slowly and automatically.

 

[Kibikus]

I like builders and I like the visual style.

But I am curious, people who want to remove districts - what do you want to put in their place? Farms and mines? If a tile is surrounded by mountains, or mines and quarries, or wonders, why would you want anything but a district there?

 

[Sostratus]

But I am curious, people who want to remove districts - what do you want to put in their place? Farms and mines? If a tile is surrounded by mountains, or mines and quarries, or wonders, why would you want anything but a district there?

About 99% of it right now is a desire to just undo crappy AI placement when people capture their cities. Especially if you have a unique district of some sort that has special placement rules, like a seowon or hansa.
As I mentioned in my last post there's also the fact that it would allow you to have a more dynamic strategy + content around what "mature" cities look like at the end of the game, but that is largely outside the scope of the game now.

 

[Medopu]

I like builders and I like the visual style.

But I am curious, people who want to remove districts - what do you want to put in their place? Farms and mines? If a tile is surrounded by mountains, or mines and quarries, or wonders, why would you want anything but a district there?

It's like asking why you need to remove resource improvements, well the game doesnt care why, you simply can, if you want to.

As for district replacement, depends on situation. Maybe you need a wonder and the only good location is occupied by the district, maybe you decide you dont need a mountainside holy site and want a campus right there, maybe you figure out you got enough gold so you want to replace commercial hub with industrial zone...

Personally, i'd never do it but i dont see a reason why there wouldnt even be an option to do it if someone really wants to.

 

[Piranga]

You say that, but then I look at the cartoon Civ IV Egyptian of your forum avatar. Are you sure it's not just a matter of what you are used to?

Hatshepsut was my favorite leader in 4, when I got addicted to the series, so I chose her as my icon.

Unfortunately we haven't seen her since. Especially since the Civ 5 leader images were such an amazing improvement than compared to 4.

Most unfortunate that the art direction regressed in 6, and so did their choice for Egyptian leader.

 

[Dotsworthy]

I think the reason why districts were not made removable is down to two reasons:

- Districts are fixed bonuses and as there is no real economy in the game (employment etc.), you don't need to micromanage your industry to compete with another civ or change your industry to chase new technologies to replace old ones that become obsolete. It's all flat bonuses.
- A lot of wonders rely on the adjacency or presence of a district in that city, and allowing players to remove districts could lead to them cheesing the game into their capital having every powerful wonder without the districts required.

That said, I think the game could benefit from a district mechanic where you run a city project to do one of three things:

- Move a district, placing the equivilant number of hammers spent building the district and it's buildings in the first place to move it to a more suitable location in the city.
- recommision a district to turn it into another district.
- Remove a district, however this should have two penalities. One is some sort of amenity penalty for a set number of turns, to replicate the disruption this would cause (such as the job losses losing an industrial district would cause). It should also cause any wonders that rely on that district to lose it's bonuses.

 

[Duuk]

I think the reason why districts were not made removable is down to two reasons:

- Districts are fixed bonuses and as there is no real economy in the game (employment etc.), you don't need to micromanage your industry to compete with another civ or change your industry to chase new technologies to replace old ones that become obsolete. It's all flat bonuses.
- A lot of wonders rely on the adjacency or presence of a district in that city, and allowing players to remove districts could lead to them cheesing the game into their capital having every powerful wonder without the districts required.

That said, I think the game could benefit from a district mechanic where you run a city project to do one of three things:

- Move a district, placing the equivilant number of hammers spent building the district and it's buildings in the first place to move it to a more suitable location in the city.
- recommision a district to turn it into another district.
- Remove a district, however this should have two penalities. One is some sort of amenity penalty for a set number of turns, to replicate the disruption this would cause (such as the job losses losing an industrial district would cause). It should also cause any wonders that rely on that district to lose it's bonuses.

Or simply have checks that say "cannot remove district due to wonder requirement".

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think it's fine that once it's built it's built. You should be probably be able to change your mind and cancel the orders before it's finished, though.

 

[orasis]

I disagree with all three. Especially after playing V and IV the last month or so...

1. I think builders have made you really think about production and gold. I also like how some policies/wonders can hurt or help an empire. Cost for builders also goes up over time.

2. I hated it at first but to be honest I now prefer the artwork of VI over V. The only thing I dislike in VI is the fog of war, I still think it's bad... especially when you're looking around trying to find who has what resources and where they are located for.... friendly purposes.

3. I don't like this. You should be punished for making a bad decision whether or not it could be anticipated. Part of what makes a video game fun is a little bit of random unknowns. If knew right off the bat how to place my city/districts and could remove them whenever I wanted... what fun would that be? Look at CK2. Yes I know it's not the same exact type of game... but it's still wildly popular and that's because of how random it is. Every game feels so different to the previous that the 'world' always feels alive. Sort of like CIV where every world feels new... sometimes you're blessed and other times you're cursed right from the start.

 

[Elhoim]

I think the reason why districts were not made removable is down to two reasons:

- Districts are fixed bonuses and as there is no real economy in the game (employment etc.), you don't need to micromanage your industry to compete with another civ or change your industry to chase new technologies to replace old ones that become obsolete. It's all flat bonuses.
- A lot of wonders rely on the adjacency or presence of a district in that city, and allowing players to remove districts could lead to them cheesing the game into their capital having every powerful wonder without the districts required.

That said, I think the game could benefit from a district mechanic where you run a city project to do one of three things:

- Move a district, placing the equivilant number of hammers spent building the district and it's buildings in the first place to move it to a more suitable location in the city.
- recommision a district to turn it into another district.
- Remove a district, however this should have two penalities. One is some sort of amenity penalty for a set number of turns, to replicate the disruption this would cause (such as the job losses losing an industrial district would cause). It should also cause any wonders that rely on that district to lose it's bonuses.

Also another reason they don't allow it is that you can "culture bomb" building a district with that ability, removing and placing it again for another culture bomb.