Civ 7 Ideas-Wonders as Disticts

ManoftheHour333

Warlord
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
176
So as we wait what is hopefully just a year or so until Civ 7 comes out, I wanted to discuss one idea I've had regarding one of the most frustrating things about Wonders in Civ 6-that they take up an ENTIRE tile. It's just so irritating to me that you have to play the game like surgery to space out each parts of your city to account for these massive projects. And the best part is...often times wonders don't even give all that much (i.e. they feel less impactful/ to fight over). For some like Petra and Chicken Itza, just placing them reduces the amount of tiles they improve! It's just so inefficient and forces you to over-plan cities so much. I know some people like that, but I think a healthy backpedaling is needed.

Enter districts. So I think it's safe to say that, for the most part, districts are here to stay. They're dynamic and add a lot to gameplay. And yeah while they adjacency bonuses is another consideration when building cities, it doesn't prevent you from building the district so it's great. Interestingly, most wonders are REQUIRED to be placed next to a district...hmm...

So, hear me out, why can't wonders just *be* the district? For example, the Great Library could be a campus with a free library. And as you build more and more science buildings, they're just added into the background of this "science district" (campus). The Eiffel Tower could be a cultural district (theatre square) with smaller buildings to amplify culture right below. I think another good "city-planning" aspect could be that, while each wonder/district can be built on an existing district, there could be a reducing in price for forethought and building the district outright. So, if the city doesn't have a theatre square, they could produce the Eiffel Tower at it's normal price but if it did have one already, they could "rebuild" their TS for a slight increase in production cost. So now you have a choice...build the district and reap the accrued benefits throughout time, or wait for a specific wonder and build it more cheaply. I also think that the "requirements" of the wonder could remain as well...most wonders near districts require buildings in that district (i.e. a market). I would redo these requirements to make them all things that are city-specific (i.e. Big Ben (Commercial Hub) could require the city have a factory in it's Industrial Zone, Forbidden Palace (Government Plaza) could require the city have medieval walls, etc.) while not tile or individual district specific. While this does make it so that each city could only have ~5-8 wonders...I personally think that's enough. One thing I'll give the weird Civ VI single-tile wonders is that it prevented one city building EVERY wonder in the game like in Civ V. I just think VI took it a bit too far...and wide.

Now for some wonders, this would be rough/ wouldn't work. The Pyramids or Machu Pichu could perhaps be imagined as a Holy Site and Commercial Hub respectively but it'd be tricky. And that's ok! If a few wonders have to eat up a whole tile but provide an incredible bonus, that would be worth it. I just think that the vast majority of wonders could be reimagined as "better" districts-combining function, reducing map clutter, and making it easier to find some f***ing cows near my commercial hub...

My list of all Civ VI wonders with what I'd see them as:

Alhambra-Encampment
1. AS Scott Research Station-Campus
2. Angkor Wat-Neighborhood (Would be an earlier version of one in addition to the population boost)
3. Apadana-Government Plaza
4. Big Ben-Commerical Hub
5. Biosphere-Neighborhood
6. Bolshoi Theatre-Theatre Square
7. Broadway-There Square (Or something new like a "Downtown" (Late-game tourism?) district...we could 8. use some more variety)
8. Casa de Construction-Government Plaza
9. Chicen Itza-Holy Site
10. Colosseum-Entertainment Complex
11. Colossus-Harbor
12. Cristo Redentor-Holy Site (Or a case could be made for free-standing)
13 Eiffel Tower-Theatre Square
14. Estadio de Maracaná-Entertainment Complex
15. Etemanaki-Campus
16. Forbidden City- Government Plaza/ Diplomatic Center
17. GG Bridge- We should have a bridge district...but otherwise would be free-standing
18. Great Bath-Early public service/hospital district?? Or even an EC...could be a lot of things...
19. Great Library-Campus
20. Great Lighthouse-Free-standing next to a harbor of any kind
21. Great Zimbabwe-Commerical Hub
22. Hagia Sofia-Holy Site
23. Hanging Gardens-Could be an early public service/hospital district...otherwise a Diplomatic Quarter replacement
24. Hermitage-Theatre Square
25. Huey Teocalli- Entertainment Complex
26. Jebel Berkal-Government Plaza
27. Kilwa Kisiwiani- Diplomatic Quarter
28. Kotoku-In- Holy Site
29. Macchu Pichu-Free standing or Commercial Hub
30. Mahaboodi Temple-Holy Site
31. Mausoleum of Halicarnnassus- Government Plaza
32. Meenakshi Temple- Holy Site
33. Mont St. Michel-Holy Site but would have to be coastal or a floodplain
34. Oracle-Theatre Square
35. Orszaghaz- Diplomatic Quarter
36. Oxford Uni- Campus
37. Panama Canal- Canal? Already does this lol...
38. Petra- Commercial Hub
39. Potala Palace- Diplomatic Quarter
40. Pyramids- Free standing with big builder bonuses, or, a holy site. Or...many an early industrial zone?
41. Ruhr Valley- Industrial Zone
42. St. Basil's Cathedral- Theatre Square
43. Statue of Liberty- Harbor (Or free standing?)
44. Statue of Zeus- Encampment
45. Stonehenge-Holy Site
46. Sydney Opera House-Theatre Square that can be built on coast! Would that make it finally useful?
47. Taj Mahal- Government Plaza
48. Temple of Artemis- Holy Site...or an early neighborhood?
49. Terra Cotta Army- Encampment
50. Torre de Belem-Harbor
51. University of Sankore-Campus
52. Venetian Arsenal- Encampment or Industrial Zone...either way should allow for this district and it's buildings to be placed on the coast!

Anyways...that's my idea. Thanks for coming to this TED talk
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,596
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Districts are simply an artificial construct to differentiate between 'country' and 'city' tiles. Wonders as a group include constructions of wildly different sizes, ranging from single buildings like the Temple of Artemis to an entire city (Angkor Wat) to an entire region (Ruhr Valley).

It seems to make no sense to me, then, that all Wonders should take up the same amount of space.

In addition, the Real Life placement of Wonders varies from Urban to Very Rural. Some require to be placed in an urban setting, because they require that the maximum number of people have access to them: temples are the best example of this 'class' of Wonders. Others are in very isolated, separate settings, like Macchu Pichu or Mont St Michel or simply take up more space than any normal city, like Ruhr Valley (which includes several separate cities, by the way) or the Panama Canal.

So it makes no sense to say that all Wonders belong in Districts and all Wonders take up exactly one district's worth of space. These kinds of rules/limitations are simply compounding the artificiality of the District concept.

Instead, let's make use of one of the things Civ VI got right about Districts - as urban establishments, they can and should contain Buildings that define and reinforce the bonuses and advantages you get from them. Take that a step further, and make the Buildings different sizes within the tile/District.

So (and I'm largely repeating what I've posted before on this subject), every District has 'slots' for 6 Building Sites. Most early Buildings will take up 1 Site (Palace might take up 2 from the start, because it should be the most imposing structure in the city). Later Buildings, like Cathedrals, Factories, Parks, etc might take up 2 or even 3 sites.

Wonders would be a special type of Building, in that some of them must be, and others can be, built in Urban Districts, and they take up 2 or more sites when built. Some might take up the entire District, like Oxford University, Great Library or Forbidden City, all of which were/are sprawling complexes of many buildings and constructions.

Still other Wonders would be built in non-Urban environments, and there they would (if we want to keep the Wonder Mechanics similar throughout the game) be built in separate non-city Districts called Settlements (City/Urban Districts would be required to be in contact with each other - no distended classical 'cities' consisting of scattered districts), which could be separate towns, resource sites (like a Mining Town or King Ranch-type Pasture) or Holy Sites like Stonehenge, the Delphic Oracle complex or Mont St Michel.

Districts, or extending cities across several tiles of the basic map, seem to be the 'Latest Thing' in 4X gaming, since they have appeared now in Civ VI, Endless Legend, Humankind and Old World. But if we are going to keep them in Civ VII, let's make the most flexible use of them, instead of using them as a strait-jacket, 'one size fits all constructions' for our cities and see how much flexibility and reflection of historical realty we can get out of them.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,093
Location
Texas
I think I fall into the camp where I'd rather them be super buildings inside the district, then outright replacing the district themselves, or similar to how they are now. Either way they should give the wonders bonuses with more of an impact when built.

For example:
Oxford University when built in a campus gives you at least the bonuses of a library and university in addition to other abilities and the
Terracotta Army when built in an encampment gives you at least the bonuses of both a barracks and a stable.
 

bene_legionary

Warlord
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
108
Wonder buildings make more sense, I think, and they are more seamless than wonder districts; especially because most of the wonders are really big buildings and not districts. For example, if you don't manage to build it, you get the equivalent of that building for free (Oxford University -> University, Oracle -> Shrine, for example). That also limits the amount of wonders that could be built in a city; you can't have both Sankore and Oxford in your city now because they both replace universities. Although, I like the trade-offs and opportunity costs and civ really has very few of them that matter.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,374
Location
Alberta, Canada
I'm not a fan of civ 6's implementation of districts as a concept, but I agree they are here to stay, for better or for worse.

I also am of the same opinion as @Alexander's Hetaroi that wonders should be buildings within a district or city square, and not consume an entire tile themselves. I don't agree that they should replace base buildings, because that would create a conflict with civs and their unique components. The solution to this would be to have wonders give free copies of that base building in the city, and for the wonder to replace the base building's model graphically. So for instance, the Flavian Colosseum could give a free Arena as soon as it is built. If you're playing the Aztecs, and have a unique Tlatchli replacement for the arena, the Colosseum gives you a free Tlatchli, but instead of having a Mesoamerican ballcourt in your entertainment district on the map, it looks like the Colosseum.

One caveat to this system would be that you would have to tie all or most world wonders to base buildings so they have a slot to occupy graphically in the district. This might mean that wonders would be limited by the number of building classes in the game that they replace, or that wonders of the same base building type would have to be mutually exclusive in a city so they don't cause a graphical glitch. I imagine the temple slot would become quite a hot commodity in towns, since that would be the natural replacement for a lot of the things we consider "wonders"

regarding the fluctuating scale of wonders, I think that's more an argument to say that there shouldn't Be a Ruhr Valley wonder, and that wonders should be singular pieces of architecture, rather than things the size of cities themselves.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,093
Location
Texas
One caveat to this system would be that you would have to tie all or most world wonders to base buildings so they have a slot to occupy graphically in the district. This might mean that wonders would be limited by the number of building classes in the game that they replace, or that wonders of the same base building type would have to be mutually exclusive in a city so they don't cause a graphical glitch. I imagine the temple slot would become quite a hot commodity in towns, since that would be the natural replacement for a lot of the things we consider "wonders"
I think the simplest solution might be to have an extra slot per district that a potential wonder could go to. On the topic of temples being a hot commodity there always the fact that maybe certain temple wonders, like the Mahabodi Temple or Hagia Sofia, would specifically needed to be built in a Holy Site in a city where a religion was founded.

regarding the fluctuating scale of wonders, I think that's more an argument to say that there shouldn't Be a Ruhr Valley wonder, and that wonders should be singular pieces of architecture, rather than things the size of cities themselves.
I agree and I believe that a Ruhr district would be better suited for a unique for Germany than a world wonder, solely because I do believe that we did have too many wonders to choose from in the game once we got to the end. Then again what's actually being represented is the Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex which is only one site in Essen, Germany. Ruhr Valley fits better in the game. :)

Of course, there are some things such as Chichen Itza or Angkor Wat which even though they refer to the whole city, you can easily make them out to be the actual main temple complexes of the city. I think the hardest to make into a wonder is the Great Wall of China, which should be in the game somehow. If it comes back as a unique improvement for China though that's one thing we don't have to worry about.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,374
Location
Alberta, Canada
I think the simplest solution might be to have an extra slot per district that a potential wonder could go to. On the topic of temples being a hot commodity there always the fact that maybe certain temple wonders, like the Mahabodi Temple or Hagia Sofia, would specifically needed to be built in a Holy Site in a city where a religion was founded.
Civ 6 had slots for 1 worship building. Civ 5 had belief buildings as follower beliefs, and some wonders gave 1 of those buildings for free. Perhaps you could see a return to giving free belief buildings in civ 7, with 2-3 slots for worship buildings in holy site districts, and wonders built in the cities have priority for their models occupying those slots, over default Cathedral/Mosque etc.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,596
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Civ 6 had slots for 1 worship building. Civ 5 had belief buildings as follower beliefs, and some wonders gave 1 of those buildings for free. Perhaps you could see a return to giving free belief buildings in civ 7, with 2-3 slots for worship buildings in holy site districts, and wonders built in the cities have priority for their models occupying those slots, over default Cathedral/Mosque etc.

Historically, most of the founding and spread of religions was not under government control - just the opposite in many cases.
So in Civ VII I would hope that the least we could see would be 'automatic' Religious Buildings going up from the population/religion rather than you, the personification of the government. You should also see religions being founded in your territory or spreading to your population and affecting your population's relationship with other religions, populations, governments (including, of course, Yours) without any official Gamer/AI intervention. It would help to acknowledge what the game sadly misses now:

Sometimes Stuff Just Happens and You Have To Deal With It.

- which should be the basic credo of any historical 4X game design, IMHO.

There should also be religious Bonuses and Maluses related to how individual Leaders relate to religions - some had very close and 'profitable' relations with Religion, others not so much, so the relationships could be as 'personalized' as the game designers want to make them.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,374
Location
Alberta, Canada
Buh?

the vast, vast VAST majority of the time temples etc. have been constructed, it has been by the state.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,596
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Buh?

the vast, vast VAST majority of the time temples etc. have been constructed, it has been by the state.

ONLY when the religion and the State became intwined or synonymous. Try to find a case where a state paid to build a temple for a religion not sanctioned by or controlling that state (theocracy): there were no temples to Anahita or Ahuza-Mazda built by either Greek or Roman states, no temples to Zeus or Jupiter built by the Achaemenids or Mauryans.

And even God Kings like the Egyptian pharaohs had to keep to the existing religious doctrines, as the example of Akhenaton shows: unlike Civ VI, you did NOT have control of your religion as a ruler.
 

ManoftheHour333

Warlord
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
176
So firstly, I'm in the camp against having wonders be buildings. If we're uniformly trying to give more weight/ make building them more of a fun competition then it'll be super anticlimactic to be like "oh look, my university is slightly bigger now". The one plus I give Civ VI's wonders is that it does seem to make them feel grand to construct...even the ones with lame bonuses. Reducing them down to buildings or as a part of a district "slot" (A concept that I think would only cause more system bloat...district placement being so rigid is enough in that department) would just make them even less impactful. Yeah it would make sense...but it wouldn't achieve the goal of making better wonders.

I also am of the same opinion as @Alexander's Hetaroi that wonders should be buildings within a district or city square, and not consume an entire tile themselves. I don't agree that they should replace base buildings, because that would create a conflict with civs and their unique components. The solution to this would be to have wonders give free copies of that base building in the city, and for the wonder to replace the base building's model graphically. So for instance, the Flavian Colosseum could give a free Arena as soon as it is built. If you're playing the Aztecs, and have a unique Tlatchli replacement for the arena, the Colosseum gives you a free Tlatchli, but instead of having a Mesoamerican ballcourt in your entertainment district on the map, it looks like the Colosseum.

This doesn't really get around the unique conflict unless like @Alexander's Hetaroi later says, add another slot. So...why can't you just make the whole district the wonder? That district provides the bonus and you can still be able to build all the buildings in it. In some cases, wonders make provide "free" buildings even. Nothing unusual there...And as you go up through the tech tree the wonder districts, which are designed around the wonder, just get more buildings added to it. If we're talking artwork-wise, you'd only need to make the base district and the normal district buildings (I'd imagine it'd look different lol) with any permutations being around civ-uniques.

The other major bonus I could see is that district wonders could allow you to place districts in unique places (Like putting TS or IZ on water with the Sydney Opera House and Venetian Arsenal respectively. Or, Machu Pichu allowing for a CH on a mountain). I also think it'd make for PLENTY of tradeoffs...I've already mentioned that building a district wonder could be an added production cost to your original district (i.e. wait for the wonder to have production or build outright to get earlier district yields) as well as the fact that you'd only be able to build 1 wonder of each district type per city.

Whichever way you slice it I think that bringing wonders down to the building level is the wrong move in making wonders more fun to actually build. Furthermore, as discussed, many wonders aren't just buildings but entire cities or massive complexes. So, despite being in the minority (Apparently lol) I would take the middle road here and make them districts. Good chat about it though as I respect the slot idea...I just think it'd be imperfect to fitting the mold that wonders should be.
 

ManoftheHour333

Warlord
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
176
ONLY when the religion and the State became intwined or synonymous. Try to find a case where a state paid to build a temple for a religion not sanctioned by or controlling that state (theocracy): there were no temples to Anahita or Ahuza-Mazda built by either Greek or Roman states, no temples to Zeus or Jupiter built by the Achaemenids or Mauryans.

And even God Kings like the Egyptian pharaohs had to keep to the existing religious doctrines, as the example of Akhenaton shows: unlike Civ VI, you did NOT have control of your religion as a ruler.

Hmm kinda like religion should be a big bonus for Civs, but not a victory condition...I never understood why they added the religious victory (And made it dreadfully dull) when, despite a few zealots, nobody nowadays is trying to convert the world. It's just silly and one the the biggest downsides to Civ VI IMO. Civ V, disd religion so much better despite the less investment/focus.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,093
Location
Texas
Buh?

the vast, vast VAST majority of the time temples etc. have been constructed, it has been by the state.
Things such as temples and shrines could still be built by you the player. I imagine the specific worship buildings: cathedral, mosque, synagogue etc., could randomly pop up depending on the religion without control. Maybe you need to adopt a state religion in order to control it that way.

So firstly, I'm in the camp against having wonders be buildings. If we're uniformly trying to give more weight/ make building them more of a fun competition then it'll be super anticlimactic to be like "oh look, my university is slightly bigger now". The one plus I give Civ VI's wonders is that it does seem to make them feel grand to construct...even the ones with lame bonuses. Reducing them down to buildings or as a part of a district "slot" (A concept that I think would only cause more system bloat...district placement being so rigid is enough in that department) would just make them even less impactful. Yeah it would make sense...but it wouldn't achieve the goal of making better wonders.
If they stay the size of regular buildings, I agree I wouldn't like it. They should at least fill up more slots such as like I said Oxford could fill the role of both a library and university and it be represented on the map that way.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,374
Location
Alberta, Canada
The problem with them being districts is the same problem as them being building slots, but worse: in both cases there are finite placements around a city for the wonder model, but if there isn’t a correct district plot in civ 6 you’re screwed; you can’t build the wonder. Whereas, if the wonder occupies a building slot, if there is a conflict then the wonder could still be built, but just not appear on the tile. It’s purely cosmetic. I care a lot more about whether I can build a wonder in a city I want to build it, than I care about staring at it on the map 50 turns later. I will get my little video/wonder splash, and the bonuses for the wonder regardless. I also don’t see why such a system would cause any concern about larger wonders. You could have wonders that are act as unique districts as well, but then they wouldn’t add to clutter because you could build your other buildings inside them. ie, Angkor Wat could be a Holy Site, and change all your district buildings in that 1 city to the southeast Asian art set instead of your culture’s default.

For example, if the Great Library of Alexandria and the House of Wisdom in Baghdad are both wonders whose model occupies the library slot if built, then if you already have 1, and are trying to build the other, the newer one could be shown on the tile. It is just a model, and a wonder in the city list then. It doesn’t occupy map space.

This goes hand in hand with my other criticism of the civ6 district system, that it is too complicated, and has too many different, specific adjacency bonuses that overcomplicate the matter. Endless Legend had an elegant city district system that introduced the concept to 4X and I was shocked at how bad Firaxis mucked it up by adding so many different districts with such varied adjacency requirements. It’s especially bad in the context of civ’s use of tile improvements, where all these fiddly bonuses belong; not on the city tiles themselves. They created two parallel tile systems that cannibalize each other's mechanics to the detriment of both.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,596
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Hmm kinda like religion should be a big bonus for Civs, but not a victory condition...I never understood why they added the religious victory (And made it dreadfully dull) when, despite a few zealots, nobody nowadays is trying to convert the world. It's just silly and one the the biggest downsides to Civ VI IMO. Civ V, disd religion so much better despite the less investment/focus.

I've always felt that Religion should be something that happens to you rather than something you 'make happen' - you should be reacting and trying to make the best of the Religious Effects, not commanding them.
As for Victory Conditions, Religion should be part of a Cultural Victory, since religion tends to be a large part of the culture of any group, rather than a separate Victory Condition all by itself and independent of any other culture in the Civ.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,093
Location
Texas
As for Victory Conditions, Religion should be part of a Cultural Victory, since religion tends to be a large part of the culture of any group, rather than a separate Victory Condition all by itself and independent of any other culture in the Civ.
I agree. It would also be easy to do considering religious tourism is already a part of the game, not to mention that many early game wonders are already tied to religion.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,434
I've always felt that Religion should be something that happens to you rather than something you 'make happen' - you should be reacting and trying to make the best of the Religious Effects, not commanding them.
As for Victory Conditions, Religion should be part of a Cultural Victory, since religion tends to be a large part of the culture of any group, rather than a separate Victory Condition all by itself and independent of any other culture in the Civ.
And 'State Religion' came to exists because the founder emerged 'on his own', very few 'religions' were founded 'on state orders' (and not so many founders were also runs the country and government. AFAIK only TWO known founders also have secular executive title; Moses who lead Hebrews out of Egypt into The Primised Land held the title BOTH Leader of the Hebrews AND The Prophet, And after God gave him The Ten Commandments Stele, he was tested with his faith when God also sent a golden ox statue to the tribe he leads (not really sure but God expressed his anger through Moses this time). And several centuries later, Muhammad of Mecca. Many Founders were either a nemesis to the existing ruling class; Jesus of Nazareth is a prime example to what transitions from Pantheons to Religion isn't smooth but a rough, tough, and so often bloody. The Teachings of Jesus earned an ire BOTH to various Judaist sects (Pharises is his prime enemy) including the Church (Who runs The Temple of Jerusalem, Dome of The Rock occupies the site now), and Olympian worshipping Romans, both of which decided to put him to the Big Wooden Cross. Same also went to Muhammad but he also made himself Leader of Arabian faithfuls to escape Mecca and found Medina as The First City of Islam because his teachings offended the Pantheon Church to the core.

Most Leaders TOOK existing religions AS THEIR OWN after their respective elements within their domains adopted these religions, but DID NOT CREATE ones. In 6th Century BC various kings, princes, and presidents of The Sixteen Mahajanapatas heeded Buddha (Formerly Siddhata Gautma, himself was a member of Ksatriya caste came from a formidable warrior tribe) because his religion had beaten Old Vedas Pantheon and became Number One in what's now India at that time, in addition those leaders wanted to overcome strangleholds imposed by Vedas sorcerers and priests. Same as Constantin I of Roma several centuries later who became Christian after so many Emperors before him tried to hold them off to no avail.
 

ManoftheHour333

Warlord
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
176
Things such as temples and shrines could still be built by you the player. I imagine the specific worship buildings: cathedral, mosque, synagogue etc., could randomly pop up depending on the religion without control. Maybe you need to adopt a state religion in order to control it that way.


If they stay the size of regular buildings, I agree I wouldn't like it. They should at least fill up more slots such as like I said Oxford could fill the role of both a library and university and it be represented on the map that way.

(Sorry for quoting your post with this novel...trying to respond at large to a few people XD)

If they go the way of the "slot" system like you're suggesting, then I think it could work and also be something worthwhile. But to avoid the system bloat of having to arrange slots within districts too now...adjacent bonuses should be either cut, or severely reduced. It'd just be too much to think about...especially if one is playing multiplayer (Civ VI just isn't as fun in multiplayer due to all the systems IMO). At the very least, their importance should be reduced since in the high-hammer cost world of Civ VI, it feels that districts that have no adjacency bonuses aren't worth building which always felt lame to me. I would rather buff my districts by building buildings/wonders in them (Or having the districts be wonders XD) and adding social policies/cards...I think that feels more natural than scouting for land near a mountains constantly to plop down a district 3 from a city 3 tiles away. It gets repetitive and boring...reducing variability in gameplay.

I've beens saying for a long time that districts should have more requirements so that you're cities more naturally expand...I never understood how you could just buy 3 tiles to the west of the CC and then place down a campus. It defeats the purpose of the choice (i.e. settle near a good district location vs. a good strategic location) if you can be so flexible in your district placement. I would axe the major adjacencies and make everything like Japan's ability-compact cities that reward you with bonuses should you place cities together in strategic clumps...so that you can have masses of districts in your "urban zones" and then use the rest of the tiles for improvements. The main rule would be that, with the exception of the CC, each district much be bordered by 2 other districts. So you would have the option to build out your cities in a specific direction, but it still clumps them together which is...well it's how cities work! Very few cities have a row of farms in-between their main campus area and industrial zones...And since districts in this hypothetical scenario would still be tied to population, having a high population would allow for more districts, giving your compactness-related bonuses/playing tall more value yield-wise AND allowing you to expand into areas to get adjacency bonuses through interacting with other cities' sprawling districts (Your own or other players!). I think that would be more naturally true to cities, and more dynamic in how you interact with your own cities (And other players). It'd be a much common way to gain yields a'la the IZ bonuses with aqueducts and dams...those triangles are so wonderful to make so why can't more districts be like that?

To make this easier, I'd also add a fair number of non-yield districts that could help with the expansion of cities but not be restricted by population (Allowing for some flexibility if the city has no food etc.). I think a public works district (i.e. better aqueduct, a hospital/health district, a social services district (police and fire etc.) and a tourism-centric downtown district would give PLENTY of options for city building, benefitting tall play styles without the need to think about adjacencies constantly. Since you're always going to have districts near each other due to that 2-adjacent restriction, you just want to build them all close together compactly and get passive bonuses (That again, can be boosted by buildings and policies). I think it'd be simpler and more elegant overall...


But bringing this ALL around, in this case, a slot system (Something I've seen tossed around) could be viable for most wonders. I still think that some larger/trickier wonders could be districts...particularly if they allow you to build that district in a unique tile type (i.e. coastal industrial zone with Venetian Arsenal) or without a certain requirement (i.e. Chichen Itza could be a theatre square able to be built anywhere on rainforest). But the point of all of this is that with the slot system, I think a total overhaul of the district system to simplify the bonuses would be best...it'd just be too much to have to worry about where (i.e. make sure you get the maximum adjacency) and when (i.e. make sure woods is cleared first) to build districts AND then what exactly is in them for the game to be fun. If you like micromanaging then go for it but IMO Civ is about too many things as it stands and streamlining Civ VII somehow is a goal to think about.
 

ManoftheHour333

Warlord
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
176
I agree. It would also be easy to do considering religious tourism is already a part of the game, not to mention that many early game wonders are already tied to religion.

Hmm...kinda like how in Civ V religion helped really only with cultural victories and so cultural civs always hardlined religions? IMO religion felt so much simpler and natural in that game. In Civ VI even the Great Prophet system makes it feel you have control of when someone is "enlightened"...which makes it feel hella cheap when you "buy" a GP with faith...I know it was done to make the RV more accessible but it just didn't work. Passive religion hurting/boosting your bonuses is enough to spark wars...and feels more apt historically. The late game tourism from previous religious conflicts could be an easy way to transition someone into a more natural cultural victory...those two should just be connected through bonuses and that's it. Cut the RV and add an economic victory, or just make the diplomatic victory not completely terrible lol
 
Top Bottom