Civ 7 Speculation: Fundamental changes.

[8housesofelixir]

I'd much rather change districts to be outlying specialized towns and cities to be regional administrative center. The map size just don't support the notion of a city sprawling over even an inner ring, let alone a whole middle and outer ring too.

I am into this point as well. It seems that Civ used to have this notion of "City Center as Administrative Centers", but VI's idea of Districts turns everything into a City again. I would like to see how a larger-scaled civ game - with every "City" effectively a "Province" - work out.

Most of you want to remove that added aspect because you don't like its visual look. All it will lead to is even more effortless city-spam as now even the little planning required is gone. Why bother planning anything, just slap the city somewhere, multiply all benefits, all good. I really like Civ 6's District system more than Civ V's clicking things in the list simulator, even If it's just small step into better things. And once again I think we're reaching the territory of ruining gameplay aspect for historical realism, at which point let Rome auto-lose the game come Medieval Era... For history.

It is too early for a slippery slope argument. I don't think anyone is arguing for "removing Districts and return to V's list of buildings", and I don't see how "more interesting District rules" can successfully lead to "let Rome collapse" in a single argument.

IIRC the problem is: Is adjacency access and planning adjacencies good ideas? Yes. Are these ideas being implemented in a very sensible way? Not really. We still cannot say whether a District is a "City District" or an "Outlying Specialized Town" after 4 years of playing, not to say that even with the idea of adjacency access, currently "city specialization" is still at a bare minimum, a min-max player can still plop +3 Campus in every single city and turns every city a College Town. And also how some well-placed Improvements can out-yield a District, etc. - it is really anti-thematic and not well-flavored. If anything, we need better districts, and better districts is what we are brainstorming here.

 

[Jeppetto]

That seems wholly unrelated to what a lot of us are saying, and mostly you raising straw men for the sake of bashing everyone else in this thread.

Planning should matter. Adjacencies should matter. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. But the flavoring of those districts should not ne the gross nonsense that it is right now, where a single city with all its neighborhhod takes up half of Europe.

I didn't bash anyone with the original post, I am not saying you want the game to be dumb, but that it is inevitable result of trying to make districts more realistic this way so that they don't span so much space. If you spent less time antagonizing me and more time reading it, you'd notice you literally prove my point with the last sentence. You don't like the visual aspect that one city takes half of Europe (which is already questionable as I don't know what map you're using with such small Europe), but how do you want to preserve the diversity of adjacencies tied to map and also make districts small enough for realism, so that their "flavouring" is not "gross nonsense" to you?

IIRC the problem is: Is adjacency access and planning adjacencies good ideas? Yes. Are these ideas being implemented in a very sensible way? Not really. We still cannot say whether a District is a "City District" or an "Outlying Specialized Town" after 4 years of playing, not to say that even with the idea of adjacency access, currently "city specialization" is still at a bare minimum, a min-max player can still plop +3 Campus in every single city and turns every city a College Town. And also how some well-placed Improvements can out-yield a District, etc. - it is really anti-thematic and not well-flavored. If anything, we need better districts, and better districts is what we are brainstorming here.

The two last points are complete contradictions, though.

The problem is that worth of District can be improved in two ways, more bountyful adjacency rules so that they don't get "out-yielded by improvements" or better buildings. If you want to empower their adjacency yield potential, that will lead to the opposite of what most people here want - more disconnected Districts. Nothing prevents you from making realistic cities by placing Districts in clusters adjacenent to each other, you even get +1 per two adjacent Districts. The problem is that you lose value, because Campus is at its best as lone monastery surrounded by Moutains (reaching +12 Science that way before Natural Philosophy), Theater Square is best being the Square amidst Wonders etc. More adjacency options, better high yield potential, less inclination to make District clusters and more inclination to have them all over the place like towns. And increasing value of District through adjacency literally worsens your point "a min-max player can still plop +3 Campus in every single city and turns every city a College Town." as it makes it even easier to reach such status in any city you wish.

Now the opposite point: Adjacency should be more restricting so that you avoid the "+3 Campus in every single city and turns every city a College Town.". This cripples Tall extremly, If it's hard to make adjacency useful, you simply don't bother, you capitalize on value of buildings, placement matters less and you get more worth from spamming cities as even Campus with worse adjacency won't be problem If you spam enough of them. Pre-buff IZ didn't make people think more strategically about where to place it, most people straight up ignored it and considered it not worth and devs had to buff the everliving spirit out of it.

What I was responding to in this thread are suggestions to make Districts more clustery. This means removing enormous part of the planning, making it so that each city has only one worthy District, leading into minimal planning of "City has Moutains, gonna be Campus city, for other Districts I will make different city", leading once again to simple city-spam. Given that I was accused of bashing, seems like I have to re-iterate this thread's posts I responded to:

What I think Civ 7 should do would be to have a separate 3 rings inside the city "center" which would be used for districts/wonders in order to make the cities not seen so spread out.
The other tiles around the city would be best saved for the improvements like normally and previous versions.

This requires to be elaborated. What would be the "tiles" of the inner rings, what would determine them, how would they maintain the diversity of current adjacencies? Would you still found city on Flat Desert tile and then the inner 3 rings are all Flat Desert? Would it be random thus making pre-planning redundant? Would it still place Administrative Center on the tile, claim 3 rings restricted to Districts and Wonders only and then claim 1 additional ring (and potentionally grow into two additional rings beyond that) for Improvements, leading into Cities even more enormous, which Evie complains about?

Here I fail to see how to achieve that 1) it doesn't look too convoluted (with basically two maps, one where City takes one tile plus 3 rings of Improvements, one representing 3 inner rings), 2) that City doesn't take entire Continent (Center plus 6 rings) or 3) that there's still smart planning prior to founding the City (so you know exactly what Terrain the rings will have). In this case, the current Civ 6 System seems better to me. Only 3-ring cities, already prior to founding the City you can see where you could place Districts and Wonders, what advantages it gets (coast, river defense) etc., looks simple without having to play 4D chess.

If this suggestion meant City plus 3 Rings on upper map with 3 Inner Rings on city map without Terrain Importance in City Map or one related to city placmenet only (city is adjacent to Moutain, was founded on desert etc.), I see huge removal of most strategy behind District planning and big step towards Civ V style, just more graphically appealing as Buildings are not just circular icons but 3D models.

In addition, I am not a huge fan of far-away Districts, and the current Civ VI cities don't look like a "Provincial Capital" either, so I cannot really say these Districts are "outlying specialized local towns". Therefore, similar to the food extraction, I think that Districts should be limited to the 1st ring of the City Center before the invention of Mass Transit. Limited District placements can also work towards City Specialization - since you cannot plop every single District in every single city, you really need to plan out what each city is actually for.

This one is the major reason I was accused of slippery sloping, straw maning and bashing.

Limiting Districts to 1st Ring only (for most game) is EXTREME limitation of planning. As you said, there's practically non-existent chance you will get good Campus, good TS and good CH in one city this way. Instead, you get more cities. So you replace planning of Campus near Moutains leaving space for possible Wonders that would be adjacent to TS and leaving space for River-adjacent CH, possibly attempting to keep them all triangular for +1 adjacency and for better Spy Protection into City has Moutains nearby - I'll slap Campus there, City has Strategic Resources nearby in ring - I'll put IZ there, the rest is just spamming as many cities as possible to cover multiple bases. How is this not removing city-planning in favor of city-spamming? Also how is this better than limiting Districts to Pop Milestones, causing wide-based small cities to be less district-diverse, which at least doesn't punish Tall?

I agree the specific numbers of Pop Limits and adjacencies are bit off, but that requires numerical balance, not complete rework of the mechanic into something which I simply fail to see as something else than less emphasis on giving thought into placing the City correctly and more emphasis into placing as many cities as possible, each having very minimalistic rules of "what does it have most of, moutains, strategics, wonder potential?" or even more simple like "that one has NW, that one's a HS". Mind you, ironically, the priority planning due to Pop Limit does cause the planning of whether city is placed to often be minimalized into it (for example, my last point with NW), but even then If you want to go Tall you can use the 3-ring reach to place it with better diversity of adjacencies. Locking it behind late tech cripples it needlessly.

And as to my Rome point: Why is this being suggested? Because of gameplay? The +3 Campus in each city point is one and came very late (only after I allegedly "slieppery-sloped"), most of points I've found here are purely about visuals and flavours. If you want to rework something so harshly based on that, yes it does get into territory of historical accuracy over practical gameplay.

You brought the point it doesn't seem like the Provincinal Capital to you, which I'd like you to elaborate more about what would you change so that it does look so, as that I find much more reasonable change, to change how one looks at these without changing the existing system so invasively. I myself often think of Cities in Civ 6 as Regions or Provinces due to their size (I did the same in Civ V). The question is: What would make you think of it that way and accept far-away Districts (as I've tried to explain above, they inherently must be far-away to maitain diversity of planning)?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This requires to be elaborated. What would be the "tiles" of the inner rings, what would determine them, how would they maintain the diversity of current adjacencies? Would you still found city on Flat Desert tile and then the inner 3 rings are all Flat Desert? Would it be random thus making pre-planning redundant? Would it still place Administrative Center on the tile, claim 3 rings restricted to Districts and Wonders only and then claim 1 additional ring (and potentionally grow into two additional rings beyond that) for Improvements, leading into Cities even more enormous, which Evie complains about?

Here I fail to see how to achieve that 1) it doesn't look too convoluted (with basically two maps, one where City takes one tile plus 3 rings of Improvements, one representing 3 inner rings), 2) that City doesn't take entire Continent (Center plus 6 rings) or 3) that there's still smart planning prior to founding the City (so you know exactly what Terrain the rings will have). In this case, the current Civ 6 System seems better to me. Only 3-ring cities, already prior to founding the City you can see where you could place Districts and Wonders, what advantages it gets (coast, river defense) etc., looks simple without having to play 4D chess.

If this suggestion meant City plus 3 Rings on upper map with 3 Inner Rings on city map without Terrain Importance in City Map or one related to city placmenet only (city is adjacent to Moutain, was founded on desert etc.), I see huge removal of most strategy behind District planning and big step towards Civ V style, just more graphically appealing as Buildings are not just circular icons but 3D models.

There's no reason why adjacency bonuses still couldn't play a part the way I would implement them.

Basically you take the city center currently now and give at least two rings( or three but looking at it that might be too much )inside the city center to place districts and wonders. This would help the idea that well districts aren't sprawling across the map but inside your city and walls.

I attached a condensed version of my idea. You see at the top there is a mountain and the rainforest to the north of the city where there would be a good location to put a campus while to the south of the city there is a river flowing around it into the ocean which is great to put your commercial hub and harbor district down there.

 

[Jeppetto]

I attached a condensed version of my idea. You see at the top there is a mountain and the rainforest to the north of the city where there would be a good location to put a campus while to the south of the city there is a river flowing around it into the ocean which is great to put your commercial hub and harbor district down there.

I am afraid I still don't quite get it. So the Campus is adjacent to Rainforest and Moutain? Are the Chichen Itza and Machu Pichu supposed to represent those, with the Campus tile being sort of the line in-between (thus projecting the adjacent tiles partially onto City Map)? Or are they supposed to be beyond that and I presume Moutain above Campus and Rainforest above Chichen Itza? How is either BH or Big Ben adjacent to River when I'd imagine the River would be projected below Aqueduct, Pyramid and the Encampment? Or at least in-between Aqueduct and Eiffel Tower. What I don' understand are exactly the rules of projection. For example, I am mainly confused where the River would flow in the city Projection. By my logic it should be kept on the bottom-most edges, much like with the City Center on the World Map.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am afraid I still don't quite get it. So the Campus is adjacent to Rainforest and Moutain? Are the Chichen Itza and Machu Pichu supposed to represent those, with the Campus tile being sort of the line in-between (thus projecting the adjacent tiles partially onto City Map)? Or are they supposed to be beyond that and I presume Moutain above Campus and Rainforest above Chichen Itza? How is either BH or Big Ben adjacent to River when I'd imagine the River would be projected below Aqueduct, Pyramid and the Encampment? Or at least in-between Aqueduct and Eiffel Tower. What I don' understand are exactly the rules of projection. For example, I am mainly confused where the River would flow in the city Projection. By my logic it should be kept on the bottom-most edges, much like with the City Center on the World Map.

Considering it is for a hypothetical civ 7 not all the adjacencies would be the same for Civ 6 though you are right that the river would be on the bottom. Yes I tried to position it the best way that the campus would be near the rainforest and mountain at the top while Chichen Itza could be built near a rainforest and Machu Pichu built near a mountain.
Seeing it in game would be easier.

Also I'm hoping that the Aqueduct would start near the source of a river and then the graphics to go over other districts to provide growth, housing, freshwater etc.

Lol I forgot Big Ben does need to be adjacent to a river in Civ 6 so yeah I guess it would need to go near the bottom.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A lot of interesting discussion here, which is how, hopefully and eventually, we eventually get new ways of implementing the game - or at least influence the Design Team into producing new ways of making the game elements work.

1. I agree, keeping the District Adjacencies leads inevitably to 'disjointed' cities in which each individual District is placed so as to claw out the best adjacencies. Limiting all Districts to being adjacent to another District or the City Center (the Humankind approach) and keeping the District Adjacencies means many districts will have few or no adjacencies at all - which will really frustrate the City Planners in our ranks.

2. Making a separate City Map has the major drawback that it takes the city planning Off The Map, and IMHO one of the best things Civ VI did was put as much of the game onto the game map as possible by unfolding the city into Districts. Refolding the Districts back into the City Center is on the game map, I think, a backwards step.

Historically (which, of course, you KNEW I was going to bring up sooner or later) cities changed size dramatically in the Industrial Era when mechanical transport (subways, automobiles, railroads, etc) became available. Less known is the fact that even more efficient horse-drawn transport (better roads, better wagons) extended the limits of Boston by 2 miles' radius between 1850 and 1872 CE, which effectively Quadrupled the area of the city. Add to this the older tendency of cities to spread along any waterway (as London along the Thames, Rome along the Tiber, New York along both the East and Hudson Rivers), and 'city radius' can be realistically varied enough to accommodate more than one City Center District on the game map.

The key to this, I think, is to 'drop' the Adjacency and other Bonuses down to the Buildings within the District, and to allow more buildings in each District so that the complexity and potential benefits of meticulous planning remain without requiring the Districts to sprawl across the map like mercury droplets on a plate. That way, a 'historical' limitation of 1 tile radius could still be worked with in the Ancient/Classical/Medieval Eras. Especially if we also make Buildings Upgradable and Replaceable, so that you can, if you desire, keep on 'fiddling' with your Districts throughout the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

2. Making a separate City Map has the major drawback that it takes the city planning Off The Map, and IMHO one of the best things Civ VI did was put as much of the game onto the game map as possible by unfolding the city into Districts. Refolding the Districts back into the City Center is on the game map, I think, a backwards step.

I agree that districts are a great point of the game.

I never thought of the implementation as a backwards step though. I was thinking it more along the lines of how I, and others feel, that yes a lot of the districts on the map even though they look nice they do sometimes feel disjointed and unconnected from the rest of the city like how in order to get to the Commercial Hub and Theater Square you would sometimes have to walk through farms and mines.

If they do take the approach of Humankind though where most districts need to be built near the city center it could work with maybe a few exceptions like the Military Encampment. If they keep the adjacency bonuses the same though it would mean you would need to settle nearer to mountains for your religious sites and campuses.

 

[Jeppetto]

Considering it is for a hypothetical civ 7 not all the adjacencies would be the same for Civ 6 though you are right that the river would be on the bottom. Yes I tried to position it the best way that the campus would be near the rainforest and mountain at the top while Chichen Itza could be built near a rainforest and Machu Pichu built near a mountain.
Seeing it in game would be easier.

Also I'm hoping that the Aqueduct would start near the source of a river and then the graphics to go over other districts to provide growth, housing, freshwater etc.

Lol I forgot Big Ben does need to be adjacent to a river in Civ 6 so yeah I guess it would need to go near the bottom.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense Another question, though: What would be the adjacencies of the inner circle? Would the Holy Site still have some connection to the Moutain or would it be on plain meaningless tile and it would have to satisfy itself with being adjacent to two districts (If Administrative one counts)?

BTW Boris described much better my fears - I think keeping the game on single map makes it much easier to read certain things (whether enemies have potential to build certain Wonders, how close to that potential they are [do they already have the district in place or do I still have time to contest], whether they are already building it) required for planning and reaction.

The key to this, I think, is to 'drop' the Adjacency and other Bonuses down to the Buildings within the District, and to allow more buildings in each District so that the complexity and potential benefits of meticulous planning remain without requiring the Districts to sprawl across the map like mercury droplets on a plate. That way, a 'historical' limitation of 1 tile radius could still be worked with in the Ancient/Classical/Medieval Eras. Especially if we also make Buildings Upgradable and Replaceable, so that you can, if you desire, keep on 'fiddling' with your Districts throughout the game.

The question is specifics to this? I was thinking about this long ago, though all I could think of was something along the lines that certain adjacency enhances certain building (Campus adjacent to Moutain can build Observatory, Agrarian District adjacent to River has access to Watermill etc.) and that still seems like too little to me. I think putting the adjacencies to Building would solve district spam, (as now Campus itself wouldn't provide the +3 effortlessly, one would need to invest into say Observatory which would claim +1 Science per adjacent Moutain) but wouldn't probably solve that Districts restricted to first ring will cause the city to have less value. I do like the idea of more flexible buildings, though, If the Districts theirself could migrate, but that might get into too much micromanagement.

If they do take the approach of Humankind though where most districts need to be built near the city center it could work with maybe a few exceptions like the Military Encampment. If they keep the adjacency bonuses the same though it would mean you would need to settle nearer to mountains for your religious sites and campuses.

And that's a problem IMHO, because it puts less value on individual city and promotes a lot of cities. Which, mind you, is good wide concept, I think we already had the conversation that Italy could have the ability that they may only build one District per city but get more benefits from them, basically building network of City-States, but it further kicks Tall away and I find Tall vs Wide a good traditional gaming concept for many different games of many different genres.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I never thought of the implementation as a backwards step though. I was thinking it more along the lines of how I, and others feel, that yes a lot of the districts on the map even though they look nice they do sometimes feel disjointed and unconnected from the rest of the city like how in order to get to the Commercial Hub and Theater Square you would sometimes have to walk through farms and mines.

Make Districts real "Outlying Specialized Towns" and City Center "Provincial Capital" then, which I firmly support. Fewer cities, but each city is an abstraction of a much larger territory.

@Jeppetto - to be honest, in an ideal world, I want to see "Districts next to City Center" AND "Outlying Specialized Towns in the rural areas" happen together, if the map size allowed. I am not arguing against adjacencies, Districts next to City Center can have their unique adjacency rules as well, as @Boris Gudenuf suggested.

(I'm a firm supporter of the ideas of the City Lights mod, their unique "Lingyi" expansion was my suggestion, and the mod provided more interesting implementation of adjacency bonuses, as well as the idea of "Urban Cities vs Rural Cities", which I think is a good direction on this idea. It will be more favorable to a Wide play though, for city specialization naturally require more cities, although I would consider ＜8 cities as Tall, which is enough for city specialization.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Make Districts real "Outlying Specialized Towns" and City Center "Provincial Capital" then, which I firmly support. Fewer cities, but each city is an abstraction of a much larger territory.

OR be more flexible (again, borrowing from Humankind) have both Settlements that are Sub-City tiles separate from cities (Humankind's 'outposts') and Districts that are part of the city both economically and geographically. The Settlement could not attach a district, but could 'exploit' Resources within a 1 tile radius and economically 'feed' the nearest city or possibly All cities within a certain radius - the length of which would vary with the transportation technology and terrain as the game progresses.

This mechanic would also allow for 'organic' growth outside and in addition to the city: a Settlement built to exploit, say, a Silver resource which attracts enough population to become a City Center, or the Silver access allows the nearest City to build a Mint which adds an Gold/Trade Bonus to your entire economy.

The Settlement concept could also be used to justify those 'Districts' that are frequently naturally historically separate: Holy Sites or Military (see all the 'Monastery Towns' like Armagh, or the modern German city of Mainz, which started as a Roman Legionary Fort/Encampment) and allow the exploitation of Resources outside the (now more limited) 'radius' of the cities themselves early in the game: like the Laurion silver mines also mentioned earlier, which were at the far end of the Attic peninsula from Athens, bu still extensively exploited in Classical Era.

. . . The question is specifics to this? I was thinking about this long ago, though all I could think of was something along the lines that certain adjacency enhances certain building (Campus adjacent to Moutain can build Observatory, Agrarian District adjacent to River has access to Watermill etc.) and that still seems like too little to me. I think putting the adjacencies to Building would solve district spam, (as now Campus itself wouldn't provide the +3 effortlessly, one would need to invest into say Observatory which would claim +1 Science per adjacent Moutain) but wouldn't probably solve that Districts restricted to first ring will cause the city to have less value. I do like the idea of more flexible buildings, though, If the Districts theirself could migrate, but that might get into too much micromanagement.

Can't give you all the specifics, because I'm still working out concepts and specifics to everything: I want the Perfect 4X Historical Game in some form or another, an I don't think it's anywhere near on the horizon yet.

But, to take 'Campus' as an example. There would be no Campus District. I would keep, except for the required City Center District, most of the other Districts that are part of the city generic (see above: Holy Sites or Military Encampment/Maneuver Areas would be non-adjacent 'Districts' that are Dedicated Settlements). Each District could have up to 5 Building Slots in it. One slot might be occupied by a Temple (religious). From the Ancient Era, in that same District you could build a Temple School which would give a Science bonus, since it is a training area for literate scribes. IF that District also has a Craft Workshop in it, or there is one in the adjacent District, you get a further Science Bonus because now the men (and women) working with their hands may also be literate and able to spread new techniques faster by writing them down.
Still later in the Medieval Era the Temple School might be replaced by a Monastic Quarter which also gives a Science bonus and also a Production Bonus - or the entire Temple replaced by a Madrasah or other 'Unique' Building giving both Religious and Scientific/Literacy bonuses.

Other possible Buildings that could produce 'Science' bonuses by being 'clustered' in a District or adjacent Districts might be:
Library - (Ancient)
Academy (Classical)
University (Medieval)
Technical College (Industrial)
Public Library (Industrial)
Research Park (Information)

Note that some of these are Upgrades or Replacements, as the Public Library for the Library, the University for the Temple School. Also, some are not exclusive: you could have a Technical College (like, say, MIT) and a University (Harvard) in the same City, and later add a Research Park in the same city (probably in a separate District, since such a 'building' would be big enough to take up most of a District by itself).
They would all, however, take up space also required for Population ('Neighborhoods', represented by residence Buildings like Insulae, Tenements, Apartment Blocks, High-Rises, or Future Era Arcologies) and other Buildings, so not every city could be 'Science Specific'. BUT when you make the room you could produce something like the UCLA (University) CalTech (Technical College), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Research Park) combination and see Science from that city skyrocket.

 

[8housesofelixir]

OR be more flexible (again, borrowing from Humankind) have both Settlements that are Sub-City tiles separate from cities (Humankind's 'outposts') and Districts that are part of the city both economically and geographically. The Settlement could not attach a district, but could 'exploit' Resources within a 1 tile radius and economically 'feed' the nearest city or possibly All cities within a certain radius - the length of which would vary with the transportation technology and terrain as the game progresses. This mechanic would also allow for 'organic' growth outside and in addition to the city: a Settlement built to exploit, say, a Silver resource which attracts enough population to become a City Center, or the Silver access allows the nearest City to build a Mint which adds an Gold/Trade Bonus to your entire economy.

If implemented well enough this design can be even more flexible than Humankind.

But, to take 'Campus' as an example. There would be no Campus District. I would keep, except for the required City Center District, most of the other Districts that are part of the city generic (see above: Holy Sites or Military Encampment/Maneuver Areas would be non-adjacent 'Districts' that are Dedicated Settlements). Each District could have up to 5 Building Slots in it. One slot might be occupied by a Temple (religious). From the Ancient Era, in that same District you could build a Temple School which would give a Science bonus, since it is a training area for literate scribes. IF that District also has a Craft Workshop in it, or there is one in the adjacent District, you get a further Science Bonus because now the men (and women) working with their hands may also be literate and able to spread new techniques faster by writing them down.
They would all, however, take up space also required for Population ('Neighborhoods', represented by residence Buildings like Insulae, Tenements, Apartment Blocks, High-Rises, or Future Era Arcologies) and other Buildings, so not every city could be 'Science Specific'. BUT when you make the room you could produce something like the UCLA (University) CalTech (Technical College), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Research Park) combination and see Science from that city skyrocket.

I would imagine this particular design as a District-Building version of the Great Work Slots in VI.

I genuinely like it (I think I will change my signature for it lol), it can be a fun mini-game by itself, as well as making cities more customizable - it's like every city has its own RPG skill tree - which can open up a new route in city management mechanisms (I'm all-in into planning specialized cities).

FXS should really design a future Civ game using this idea.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ok, that makes a lot more sense Another question, though: What would be the adjacencies of the inner circle? Would the Holy Site still have some connection to the Moutain or would it be on plain meaningless tile and it would have to satisfy itself with being adjacent to two districts (If Administrative one counts)?

I put the Holy Site there because it would be adjacent to two different districts and I didn't put the city near any woods or natural wonders either. Yes the Administrative district would be like a city center and count. Of course the more I think about it maybe the Administrative district should be completely different from the city center.

I suppose I could have put it where the Industrial Zone was but I wanted to highlight building that at least next to a mine. Also a Theater Square would go good on the tile between the Administrative district and the Encampment being next to two wonders as well.

 

[Ryansinbela]

What do you think of my categories in my doc

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What do you think of my categories in my doc

I like the ideas behind them but maybe there are a little too many different types of buildings. I do like a choice of exclusive buildings in districts like between a barracks or stables and I think it could be carried over in Civ 7 to even more districts. Here's what I would like to see:

Administrative Center: City Center
Palace (for capital city)
Monument
Granary/Water Mill
Courthouse

Diplomatic Quarter
Embassy
Consulate

Govt. Plaza (Similar buildings to what we have now)

Aerodrome:
Hangar
Airport
International Terminal/Airfield Base

Medical Facility:
Apothecary
Hospital
Public Clinic

Campus:
Library
University
Chemical Research Lab/Physics Research Lab/Biological Research Lab

Commercial Hub
Market/Caravansary
Bank
Stock Exchange

Entertainment Complex
Arena
Zoo/Aquarium/Circus
Stadium

Holy Site
Shrine
Temple
Worship Building

Industrial Zone:
Workshop
Factory
Coal Power Plant/Oil Power Plant/Nuclear Power Plant

Harbor:
Lighthouse
Shipyard
Navy Port/Cargo Port

Military Encampment
Barracks/Stables
Armory
Military Academy

Destination Resort: (Pure Tourism District that doesn't rely on culture or Great Works)
Hotel
Casino/Theme Park

Theater Square:
Amphitheater
Art Museum/Archaeological Museum
Opera House/Broadcast Center

Neighborhood:
Public School/ Cinema/ Shopping Mall/ Supermarket/ Police Station/Fire Station

Waterworks?:
Aqueduct
Dam/Canal
Sewer

 

[Evie]

Map scale just doesn't work with the notion of districts as city neighborhoods. They have to represent outlying establishments to make sense.

And most of the districts do work if you use them that way: harbor (Ostia to Rome), Encampments (military bases are cities in their own rights), Holy Sites (Armagh and other monastery towns; Delphi to the main greek cities, etc), even campuses (lots of universities are distinct college towns), etc. Industrial and airport are a little harder to manage, but still doable, becsuse they tend to be their own concentrated thing on the city outskirts; and city sized installations in their own rights. Neighborhhod can be renamed to Town (as in a suburban town, like the civ IV improvement) and fit just fine. Entertainment too, so long as we focus it on large venues (country clubs, golfs, zoo) that require lots of space, and think of the stsdium in term of olympic villages rather than pro sports.

Culture and commercial are the real troublemakers here, because they're the ones that historically tend to be very close to the core city, and inseparable from it. What they could be turned into or replaced with, I'm not sure. Government plaza too. Probably still manageable though. Make rhe commercial square a Market Town, for example.

One possibility would be to allow the central town to be a district in its own right, with all the usual district rules and adjacencies - you would select wich district when building the city. Then the city centre could get both the general buildings and those pertinent to its district type. That would represent well the fact that not all cities have the same kind of core.

 

[8housesofelixir]

And most of the districts do work if you use them that way: harbor (Ostia to Rome), Encampments (military bases are cities in their own rights), Holy Sites (Armagh and other monastery towns; Delphi to the main greek cities, etc), even campuses (lots of universities are distinct college towns), etc. Industrial and airport are a little harder to manage, but still doable, becsuse they tend to be their own concentrated thing on the city outskirts; and city sized installations in their own rights. Neighborhhod can be renamed to Town (as in a suburban town, like the civ IV improvement) and fit just fine. Entertainment too, so long as we focus it on large venues (country clubs, golfs, zoo) that require lots of space, and think of the stsdium in term of olympic villages rather than pro sports.

Just to add that College Town is a relatively modern phenomenon. The majority of Medieval European Universities, Islamic Madrasas, and East Asian Confucian Academies were not far away from a major town (there are some exceptions, for instance, some Seowon are in the rural areas and don't have a supporting settlement - you can understand them as academic manors - and that's why they have a "better not next to other districts" rule in both Civ VI and Humankind). Entertainment Complexes are similar, country clubs and Olympic villages only happened in the last 200 years; Colosseum was in the very middle of Rome for a reason.

I agree with Harbor and Holy Sites, they are probably the most "outlying" "districts". Holy Sites can also provide Housing and Food which makes them small towns by themselves.

For Commercial Hubs, you may understand them as outlying Market Towns or sites for trade fairs (cf. the cottage-town of Civ IV), but trade fairs wouldn't normally develop into banks and stock exchanges. I would suggest bring back IV's cottage-town (similarly, V's trading post, or VI's trading dome) as early Gold generation improvements (if follow VI's game rule) or settlements (if follow HMK's game rule), and make Banks/Stock Exchanges into @Boris Gudenuf 's "Customizable Districts" for stronger unique effects in mid to late game.

 

[Jeppetto]

Culture and commercial are the real troublemakers here, because they're the ones that historically tend to be very close to the core city, and inseparable from it. What they could be turned into or replaced with, I'm not sure. Government plaza too. Probably still manageable though. Make rhe commercial square a Market Town, for example.

I renamed in my moded game Theater Square into Oldtown, sort of reference into historical preserved district of a city (not sure If english has that term too), because I also like to think of Specialists there as Historians (I liked Civ V's separation of Writer/Artist/Musician, but given that Civ VI united them again I don't like the term Artist as it's already used for one of the groups). Oldtowns I saw were never really big enough to be outlying towns, but they were often separated and with visible distinction of style of buildings. In my town the castle grounds are still separated by after renovations more contemporarily looking wall, but you still get the feeling of being inside big court containing old-fashioned well, Turso's Wedding Palace and Castle with even restaurant with historical-looking entrance etc.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I renamed in my moded game Theater Square into Oldtown, sort of reference into historical preserved district of a city (not sure If english has that term too), because I also like to think of Specialists there as Historians (I liked Civ V's separation of Writer/Artist/Musician, but given that Civ VI united them again I don't like the term Artist as it's already used for one of the groups).

At least in North America we use the word "Downtown" to refer to those types of areas. Though even though they are historic areas usually where the original town, or city, started they are more similar to what the city center would be rather than a theater or museum districts that do exist in some cities.

 

[Evie]

Nonetheless, I would push for the inclusion of college towns and the ilk because we cannot have districts that represent core parts of the main cities (the map scale just doesn't work with it). If we don't do it that way, then we should move the corresponding buildings to the city centre, and that, as Jepetto pointed out, would destroy the entire game of district adjacencies by putting far too much emphasis on the city centre.

Plus, ultimately, a game that covers 6000 years of history is going to take shortcuts to keep gameplay simple, and this is an acceptable shortcut.

In that light, any district that can be justified based on different historical models as an outlying town, should be. College towns by that name may be a recent phenomenons, but towns and cities centered around the existence of a local college...well, the intertwined history of Oxbridge and their respective towns isn't exactly a recent phenomenon, and they would definitely, at the Civ VI scale, constitute Campus Towns. Market Towns can, in the same vein, be interpreted as outlying towns with a more commercial bend.

For the idea of the main city being specialized too, I already suggested the idea of the main city being able to chose a district when first constructed; the main city function as both a city center and that specific district. So some urban centers would function as both urban centers and universit-focused towns, but others wouldn't be.

Alexander's Hetaroi - whiel both oldtowns and downtowns are definitely part of the city centre in most North American town, they do tend to be distinct parts of it, in my experience. Le Vieux Montréal (the old town) is distinct from Downtown Montréal, for example. Same with Québec City, or Ottawa for that matter.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Alexander's Hetaroi - whiel both oldtowns and downtowns are definitely part of the city centre in most North American town, they do tend to be distinct parts of it, in my experience. Le Vieux Montréal (the old town) is distinct from Downtown Montréal, for example. Same with Québec City, or Ottawa for that matter.

I'm not sure about in Canada but here in the U.S. I never really hear about cities referring to special places called oldtowns. At least in small towns the historic places are called downtowns.
Either way I think we're talking about the similar things which I feel are a little different from what a district with theaters and museums would include.