Changing the focus of your city.

[Larsenex]

I like the unpacking of cities. I like how we are forced to make choices on what to build at what city. Early on your Capital may start as an Autocratic warrior producing powerhouse with say farms and a barracks district.
Alas you are falling behind in tech....Your 2 or 3 new cities are also good choices for the barracks district and your main capitial does have that 4 mountain hexes in a U shape near it.....

So, can we destroy a district and rebuild, refocus our cities as needed?

I know such tear down and rebuild is probably never ideal on the higher difficulties but I rarely play that tough.

I like to play to have fun and if I feel i need to refocus my capital to be the <snip> of the continent instead of the Industrial wasteland that is Detroit than I would like that choice.

Any word on being able tear down districts?

Cheers!

Moderator Action: This is a family friendly site; name of a web site snipped
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

As long as the Encampment isn't occupying the tile that would be ideal for a Campus, there would be no need to tear it down. Just build the Campus and the buildings and assign a citizen to work it.

 

[Larsenex]

Well that is my point. Suppose early on you want to build on a tile (for any reason) an encampment that is actually better suited for say a campus or banking. Again its hypothetical but the real question is can we tear down a district and rebuild a different one there?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Well that is my point. Suppose early on you want to build on a tile (for any reason) an encampment that is actually better suited for say a campus or banking. Again its hypothetical but the real question is can we tear down a district and rebuild a different one there?

Well, yes. But that will only be a problem for your first few games. After you get used to the districts, you should be able to identify their ideal locations right from the start and not build districts in spots better suited for other districts.

 

[m15a]

The answer to your question is that we don't have any word on tearing down or moving districts yet. We do know that if you happen to build a district on a resource, you will have access to that resource, which was one of the other concerns about regretting your district placement. That seems to indicate that moving districts won't be an option.

I don't really see a strong argument for it, anyway. The main issue here is basically: what if you messed up on your district placement? Well, then you messed up and try to work around the mistake. It's the same as the issue of poor city placement. Maybe later in the game you realize that your city would have been better a tile over, but you just have to work with the decisions you (or the other civs) made.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Well, yes. But that will only be a problem for your first few games. After you get used to the districts, you should be able to identify their ideal locations right from the start and not build districts in spots better suited for other districts.

Arguably, the skill cap is increased if it's possible for the player to tear down districts. Tearing down a district and rebuilding because it's misplaced has a cost, and is therefore to be avoided. But it's entirely possible that the player could benefit from recognizing that it's time to switch district types in a city despite the cost, and correctly identifying those situations requires skill.

I'm fine with it either way as described; it just becomes a different game based on the dev's choice. I suspect that they'll make districts permanent fixtures since teaching the AI to recognize switch situations (and ignore non-beneficial switches) would be challenging, and becomes another point of failure for the AI relative to skilled play.

 

[Callonia]

If you cannot tear down districts to make a new one in its place, then it might be possible to declare war on neighboring AI and let it march into your lands to plunder the district so you can build a new district in it's place and then destroy all the AI troops. lol

Of course this is on level of the silliness like nuking your own citizens makes your civilization happier in civ5! Happiness Bombs!

Spoiler :

I once nuked my own subjects hard enough to trigger a fast golden age to solve my economic problems.

 

[King Rad]

I don't remember the specific interview/article, but i'm almost certain that Beach or Shirk made a comment about possibly changing districts from one to another in the later game. I could see this happening as you will require certain districts early on while the city is still just a few tiles. As it expands, you may find much better areas for certain districts and/or that unlocked new types of districts make the best use of something used differently in the early game.

edit: from the IGN article: “Every city is a handcrafted, hex-by-hex layout puzzle,” adds Beach, pointing out that you’ll have to go back and reevaluate your land use choices in the late game when new options become available.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If you cannot tear down districts to make a new one in its place, then it might be possible to declare war on neighboring AI and let it march into your lands to plunder the district so you can build a new district in it's place and then destroy all the AI troops. lol

Of course this is on level of the silliness like nuking your own citizens makes your civilization happier in civ5! Happiness Bombs!

Spoiler :

I once nuked my own subjects hard enough to trigger a fast golden age to solve my economic problems.

That's assuming that a pillaged district is gone...what if it just stays there, pillaged until you repair it..unable to improve the tile in other ways.

 

[AriochIV]

So, can we destroy a district and rebuild, refocus our cities as needed?

Since tiles around a city are limited, I would think that there would have to be some option to sell/bulldoze existing districts. But in the gameplay video it seems clear that you can't choose to put a new district down over an old one (or a Wonder).

 

[Battlehelm043]

I think from what we have gleaned it might be safe to say that districts can be removed, seeing that cities build them directly per Quill18's video. It means removing them will just cost production time and build time for buildings in the replacement district.

 

[shaglio]

Since tiles around a city are limited, I would think that there would have to be some option to sell/bulldoze existing districts. But in the gameplay video it seems clear that you can't choose to put a new district down over an old one (or a Wonder).

True, but we only got to see the first 60 turns of a play through. Maybe there's an Urban Planning civic later in the Culture Tree that allows you to rezone your districts to make way for new ones.

 

[CultureManiac]

I don't remember the specific interview/article, but i'm almost certain that Beach or Shirk made a comment about possibly changing districts from one to another in the later game. I could see this happening as you will require certain districts early on while the city is still just a few tiles. As it expands, you may find much better areas for certain districts and/or that unlocked new types of districts make the best use of something used differently in the early game.

edit: from the IGN article: “Every city is a handcrafted, hex-by-hex layout puzzle,” adds Beach, pointing out that you’ll have to go back and reevaluate your land use choices in the late game when new options become available.

They have said that later in the game you may want to convert farms into more places for people to live.

 

[redwings1340]

I'm pretty sure the E3 video showed districts being torn down, and oil wells being placed on them later in the game, so I think changing districts is part of the puzzle you'll play in civ VI. Builders will probably be pretty cheap late game, so it probably won't be too big of an opportunity cost, and will provide you with a lot more options.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You don't need to tear down a district to connect a resource that pops up under it. Additionally, a lot of that video was done in an editor, so they may not have torn them down; just deleted them and placed wells on the tiles.

 

[joncnunn]

A good part of the puzzle is that several world wonders also have requirements to be adjacent to other districts. It's known that the world wonders can't be destroyed; which would mean it can't allow replacing a district unless it's going to check that there's none of those world wonders already present. (Which is one reason why I doubt this is going to be allowed at least in Vanilla.)

The simple improvements though such as farms are already known to be able to replaced with zones and world wonders.

I also note that even if allowed, replacing a zone would be extremely expensive since it would destroy all buildings present.

 

[King Jason]

I'm pretty sure the E3 video showed districts being torn down, and oil wells being placed on them later in the game, so I think changing districts is part of the puzzle you'll play in civ VI. Builders will probably be pretty cheap late game, so it probably won't be too big of an opportunity cost, and will provide you with a lot more options.

someone mentioned that this sequence could have been some kind of editor, but regardless, they were farms - not districts.

The only video evidence regarding the state of district placement in regards to new districts is that districts and wonders can be placed on top of existing improvements, but not on existing districts.

Spoiler :

The part of the video where the player is about to place an industrial district.

Whether we get the ability to destroy or move districts is currently unknown.

 

[joncnunn]

someone mentioned that this sequence could have been some kind of editor, but regardless, they were farms - not districts.

The only video evidence regarding the state of district placement in regards to new districts is that districts and wonders can be placed on top of existing improvements, but not on existing districts.

Spoiler :

The part of the video where the player is about to place an industrial district.

Whether we get the ability to destroy or move districts is currently unknown.

That same screenshot to me looks like very strong evidence that destroying your own districts isn't allowed.

It's also known that bombers can target districts in addition to the center square, so at a minimum all buildings within a district can be destroyed and it wouldn't be particularly surprising if an enemy could place the zone in a "pillaged" state (in addition to having razed the buildings there) where you'd have to repair it to restore access to any resources underneath (and being able to work the tile). What's unknown is if in addition to that can an enemy go so far as to dezone it.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

With the unpacking of cities which Civ VI ushered in, perhaps we should no longer see the cities that our settlers found as cities. Rather, we should see them as provincial administrative capitals, and the satellite districts as cities inside the provinces. Its much like how the state of California has state capital at Sacramento, but the same state's got other cities such as SD, SF, and LA.

All future game features of subsequent iterations of Civ franchise should then build on this new way of looking at cities.

 

[m15a]

Imagine what you want, but I think it's probably simpler to think of cities as large urban areas. That could be cities and the surrounding countryside, cities and their suburbs, megalopolises, etc. (depending on the time period and city size). There just seems to be more parallels to the real world than imagining a city is "California" with the city center being way off in Sacramento while all of LA is just a district.