Civ VII Districts

[luca 83]

my. Idea is: a province for example the Loire with defined borders and a whole series of characteristics. Meadows, fields, mountains, rivers, deserts, etc: provinces are established by building cities and irrigating and making roads

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think cities and districts are intrically linked : I think cities should be build X (to be determined... ideas ?) tiles of another city directly in the production queue, the game showing a wonder-like city being build slowly turn after turn in the choosen place. That would make 1) Cities faster built, without the settlers moves 2) Civilizations growing organically, without Loyalty system needed anymore. 3) Allow for colonization with Settlers but at a greater cost, both time and productive. (you need to make your colonist move across the map ; plus its build costs more than building a nearby city)
So, cities would basically act as districts act now, with possibly a better range. (but not necessarily)

As to districts, they could be inside 3 tiles radius, representing the city center and suburbs. Yes, but what about farms, lumbermills, mines, plantations, camps will say you ? Well, they could be outside the city center & suburbs, within X tiles range (the same than the construction of other cities ?) of the city center center. Obviously, you could still have them inside you city center & suburbs, but it would take space and you may want to replace them in the long run. Not to mention forests that could interfere and that you would have to chop.

Now the country : how do you claim it ? Probably the same as before, with culture and gold, the center (3 tiles radius) being claimed automatically at the city founding in its entirety.*

Only downside : Earth map and TSL map would look like fantasy. Except if we decide to increase dramatically the scale of the map, with huge what I have yet to name "no man's lands" between civs. Downside of this : travel times, unless we increase unit movements for a yet more silly tactical game. Unless units to have travel movement points and tactical movement points, those last being "activated" inside the zone of control of another enemy unit. Not sure at this point whether the ZOC would act as a movement penalty still or just activate tactical movement. (I think of the second actually)

* Considering the vastness of such lands, probably the culture would grow packs of tiles by packs of tiles, let's say 3 by 3. Problem : how do you improve them properly, considering they are quite far from your centers ? Well, let's just make builders have travel movement, and on top of that as if they would benefit from Civ6' golden age monumentality : that would speed up considerably you improvement capacity to your new needs.

PS : on top of that, that's a little off-topic but still complete my vision about a Traditionnal Civilization (as opposed to the vision I proposed in my signature), you might be able to upgrade your units anywhere, even in enemy territory. I know it sounds weird, but not in the case of a game of Civ' scale. (wars taking centuries) Why will ask you ? To limit as much as possible the lags between production and foundation/use, for gameplay purposes.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I thought about this a bit more, and I think the multi-tile district idea with building slots I suggested earlier is just too complicated. Instead, I'd like to see districts get removed and replaced with "tags". Each building should occupy a whole tile and be given a tag like "education" if it's a library or a university, "entertainment" if it's an arena or a zoo, etc. The tags can be used for determining adjacency bonuses, so naturally, you'll want your library and university next to each other. In essence, you'll be able to create a multi-tile campus district when you place multiple education buildings, but you'll have the freedom of not placing them next to each other.

Furthermore, I think a lot of the distinction between buildings, wonders and improvements should be erased. This means that everything occupies a single tile, acquires a set of tags, and is built through a city project and not by a builder.

One implication of this change will be that it will be more satisfying to construct buildings. Currently, when you build a factory, not much changes graphically. You just get better numbers. For me, one of the most satisfying things about Civ 6 is that, at the end of a game, I can look at the empire I've built, with all of the districts, wonders and improvements and appreciate it for what it is because of all the planning and execution I've done throughout the game. Buildings contribute very little to this experience because I can't really see them.

With regards to improvements, the change will make the game simpler, which I think is generally a good direction for the game, as it is already very complex. There are many more aspects of real world I hope the franchise will attempt to express, and the game will naturally become more complex as it includes new features. The game should look to alleviate unnecessary complexity, and I don't think there's a good justification for the complexity this distinction between buildings and improvements entails. Getting rid of builders will mean it will be easier for new players to learn the game and for the AI to play it, and there will be fewer units to clutter the map and ask for your command each turn.

Treating wonders like buildings will also have some interesting implications. Many of the wonders in the game can be considered to be special versions of buildings. The Great Library is a library, Colosseum is an arena, Panama Canal is a canal, etc. Instead of building a library, if available, you can choose to build the Great Library. If another player finishes it before you do, you'll end up with a library instead, assuming you've contributed enough production to get at least a library. The Great Library should have all of the properties of a library (e.g. education tag, science yield) plus its special set of effects as well as a "wonder" tag. This change will make some placement requirements redundant. You'll no longer be required to have an arena next to the Colosseum, because the Colosseum is an arena. The Colosseum is an example of a wonder that I've found the AI rarely builds. I suspect this is because of its placement requirements, and this change will be AI-friendly, which I believe is generally a good thing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I thought about this a bit more, and I think the multi-tile district idea with building slots I suggested earlier is just too complicated. Instead, I'd like to see districts get removed and replaced with "tags". Each building should occupy a whole tile and be given a tag like "education" if it's a library or a university, "entertainment" if it's an arena or a zoo, etc. The tags can be used for determining adjacency bonuses, so naturally, you'll want your library and university next to each other. In essence, you'll be able to create a multi-tile campus district when you place multiple education buildings, but you'll have the freedom of not placing them next to each other.

I feel like this will clutter the map even more than it already is, which is what I and many others do not want.

One implication of this change will be that it will be more satisfying to construct buildings. Currently, when you build a factory, not much changes graphically. You just get better numbers. For me, one of the most satisfying things about Civ 6 is that, at the end of a game, I can look at the empire I've built, with all of the districts, wonders and improvements and appreciate it for what it is because of all the planning and execution I've done throughout the game. Buildings contribute very little to this experience because I can't really see them.

This is literally the best game to see the individual buildings because they are out of the city center already in the districts.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I feel like this will clutter the map even more than it already is, which is what I and many others do not want.

I don't understand what you mean by this. In Civ 6, it's suboptimal to leave tiles unoccupied. The game encourages you to fill up as many unused tiles as possible with improvements, and you're allowed to spam certain types of improvements in a given city. This is one of the things I don't like about the game, and the changes I'm proposing would make it so that there's more variation in what you get to place on each tile. It's the same tile you'd be filling up with a mine or a colossal head, but instead you'd fill it with a building you'd only build probably once in that city. I don't see how that would make the map more cluttered. Also, I personally enjoy seeing my cities fill up as the game goes on, and I'm surprised to see that this might not be a popular opinion. Is there a topic here somewhere where people talk about this?

This is literally the best game to see the individual buildings because they are out of the city center already in the districts.

The districts have the same outlines every time you build them, and when you construct buildings, they appear in designated locations on a tile. What I want is more control. I didn't choose to put my art museum where it appeared. I simply decided which tile the theatre square district should go, and the game decided where the museum should go. Also, buildings are significantly smaller than improvements, but is there any reason why something like a farm or a quarry, which I can place multiple times in a city should be more prominent than buildings I can have only one copies of?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't understand what you mean by this. In Civ 6, it's suboptimal to leave tiles unoccupied. The game encourages you to fill up as many unused tiles as possible with improvements, and you're allowed to spam certain types of improvements in a given city. This is one of the things I don't like about the game, and the changes I'm proposing would make it so that there's more variation in what you get to place on each tile. It's the same tile you'd be filling up with a mine or a colossal head, but instead you'd fill it with a building you'd only build probably once in that city. I don't see how that would make the map more cluttered. Also, I personally enjoy seeing my cities fill up as the game goes on, and I'm surprised to see that this might not be a popular opinion. Is there a topic here somewhere where people talk about this?

Cluttered might be the wrong word to use, and what I really mean is this seems like it would graphically make the cities look more disjointed and spaced out which is what I, and others, would personally like to avoid.

The districts have the same outlines every time you build them, and when you construct buildings, they appear in designated locations on a tile. What I want is more control. I didn't choose to put my art museum where it appeared. I simply decided which tile the theatre square district should go, and the game decided where the museum should go.

I'm fine with shaking up the way districts are, including diversifying the building selections and placements.

Also, buildings are significantly smaller than improvements, but is there any reason why something like a farm or a quarry, which I can place multiple times in a city should be more prominent than buildings I can have only one copies of?

I mean to be fair farms or quarries in real life mostly have multiple buildings located in them, so they are in fact bigger than the average building.

 

[rocksinmypath]

Cluttered might be the wrong word to use, and what I really mean is this seems like it would graphically make the cities look more disjointed and spaced out which is what I, and others, would personally like to avoid.

I have to say I don't really share this concern, so I'm having difficulty understanding what people mean by disjointedness. But how would you feel if the city centre district was also divided up into individual buildings as well? So, what we know as city centre in Civ 6 could take up 3-4 tiles, and since city centre buildings tend to be available early in the game, naturally, the city centre will be the most prominent "district" in a city, until you're able to construct more buildings. Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but making districts (I guess buildings now) give regional amenities with radius of effect expanding as the game progresses can deter players from placing buildings far away from the city centre, and I don't think switching away from districts necessarily conflicts with the objective of making cities look more compact. The system can be designed so that certain buildings that people really need to be close to give amenities (e.g. shrine, library), and those that don't need to be close don't provide amenities (e.g. farms, mines, barracks).

 

[bene_legionary]

I don't like the city centre district but it makes everything so neat. If I had my way settlers would found commercial hubs or industrial zones; or just generic districts which are specialised; instead, and the city and graphics would evolve from that. The original district is the city centre where the city management screen is. However I don't see why individual buildings should be built on hexes like improvements and districts, and I'd rather have wonders be built in districts too. I haven't played Humankind, but they make me think of Humankind's cities, and I really don't like how Humankind's cities sprawl.

The worst two generic improvements, the fort, missile silo and airstrip, are no more than a few buildings themselves, and have their own (not very good) districts. I think that the player is encouraged to find a balance between districts and improvements, and that's good, but there could be more with the synergies in between improvements, districts and specialists. For example, farms. They're an afterthought because on most tiles they occupy they're better off being a district or another improvement (usually like unique improvements), but giving them an adjacency bonus to commercial hubs makes them more relevant and represents trade and taxes.

I don't think that a library should take up the same area as a farm (on the scale of things, considerably larger), the scale would be too far off even for Civ, and improvements like the Fort, Airstrip and Missile Silos show that. Perhaps that problem could be solved with having more improvements per tile, it makes much more sense on scale but it might be too much for the game...

I'm also worried about district bloat. Towards the end of Civ 6's updates I felt like there were too many districts. Limited options is great, but when there's so many mediocre or marginally useful districts to choose from that I always pick 4 out of 19 districts for every city; the rest aren't given very much thought about. Diplomatic Quarter and Government Plaza are the worst two for me, they might as well not exist. I'd rather have less districts per population, so choosing a district is more crucial for specialising your cities, and less districts. Now you might say that they could become buildings; but I think generic districts are better. Generic districts means there's another layer of specialisation to your city, in fact it could also bridge the gap between wide and tall strategies if it's made well; a district with all science-focused buildings would be more efficient in producing science than a district that has a science-focused building, a gold-focused building and a culture-focused building, and buildings provide adjaencies instead.

To be fair, the builder is a weird unit. It could be part of the city building screen but I also don't like the city building screen either. The builder could do everything the city building screen does but that's too much micromanagement. Where does it end?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I have to say I don't really share this concern, so I'm having difficulty understanding what people mean by disjointedness. But how would you feel if the city centre district was also divided up into individual buildings as well? So, what we know as city centre in Civ 6 could take up 3-4 tiles, and since city centre buildings tend to be available early in the game, naturally, the city centre will be the most prominent "district" in a city, until you're able to construct more buildings. Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but making districts (I guess buildings now) give regional amenities with radius of effect expanding as the game progresses can deter players from placing buildings far away from the city centre, and I don't think switching away from districts necessarily conflicts with the objective of making cities look more compact. The system can be designed so that certain buildings that people really need to be close to give amenities (e.g. shrine, library), and those that don't need to be close don't provide amenities (e.g. farms, mines, barracks).

I agree that certain things, whether they be buildings or districts, at least needs to be able to be close to the city center, at least early game. Once you reach Industrialization, and in fact urbanization where neighborhoods pop up, would be those places where buildings could be placed farther away.

I'm also worried about district bloat. Towards the end of Civ 6's updates I felt like there were too many districts. Limited options is great, but when there's so many mediocre or marginally useful districts to choose from that I always pick 4 out of 19 districts for every city; the rest aren't given very much thought about. Diplomatic Quarter and Government Plaza are the worst two for me, they might as well not exist. I'd rather have less districts per population, so choosing a district is more crucial for specialising your cities, and less districts. Now you might say that they could become buildings; but I think generic districts are better. Generic districts means there's another layer of specialisation to your city, in fact it could also bridge the gap between wide and tall strategies if it's made well; a district with all science-focused buildings would be more efficient in producing science than a district that has a science-focused building, a gold-focused building and a culture-focused building, and buildings provide adjaencies instead.

I'd still like for the each district to be specialized, if only to allow civs with possible unique districts to be less rigid. The best example I can think of right now is a Korean Seowon. It was a campus in Civ 6 that only produced science, however in real life they also housed shrines and focused learning more on writing and literature to prepare for the national civil service exams. So in Civ 7 it could be a "scientific campus" district that produces culture instead and can also build a religious building, along with other science buildings (library, university etc.).

To be fair, the builder is a weird unit. It could be part of the city building screen but I also don't like the city building screen either. The builder could do everything the city building screen does but that's too much micromanagement. Where does it end?

An idea that I had was every time your pop grows by one that citizen can be moved and assigned to a tile effectively merging builders and citizens. That citizen will be able to create an improvement to work on or go into a building such a shrine, library etc. to become a specialist.

 

[jsciv69]

Do you guys really want Districts back?

For me it feels like they really slow down the pace of the game by forcing players to plan ahead and what not.
I know it sounds weird, but think about playing Civ online, with friends, or just when you don't want to spend ages on one game.

In Civ 5, and perhaps arguably the older Civ games, the focus is more on the grander strategy;
Rather than microing all the different minute elements of the game (Builders, Governors, etc.)

I think it's within Paradox's best interests to tone down the excessive micro going from Civ6 to Civ7, and part of that might be, rightfully so, the Districts.

This is a very short thread, because I don't have too much time to elaborate (sorry!) but you guys get the idea

PS> I think that unstacked Wonders are not so bad, but Districts, and all of their adjacency combinations are just so damn tedious...

If the District System does return. It should have a couple modifications.
Some of the Districts can be consolidated. For instance. Theatre and Entertainment should merge into one District. Culture and Religion can be another consolidation. Science and Industrial, Health/Emergency and School, Central and Military, Coastal and Housing/Residential can remain as individual zones. I would construct these in a manner modeled after the SimCity game series. Complete with road and highway systems. And extra emphasis on public transit especially for the later era's. Just a suggestion

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Holy Sites are a good example of where districts could change for the better. While there are many religious precincts we can look to for inspiration, there are plenty of other instances that can point us to a more decentralized approach. Using Boris' suggestion of generic building slots, shrines, places of worship, and religious schools could take up a slot each, perhaps in the city center or next to a Seowon as the Companions has pointed out.

In fact, imagine if the Korean ability includes synergy for shrines placed in Seowons. When one thinks of all the churches the Soviets destroyed in Moscow alone, it would be reasonable for the Russian ability to include one onion dome per district! Perhaps beliefs could further modify how often and where religious buildings would be allowed. An added effect would be making major holy sites less common.

On a side note, I quite like how Albro designed the boroughs in City Lights. If you are not familiar, there are different boroughs for the Classical, Renaissance, and Modern Eras with unique infrastructure and urban burdens including amenities and maintenance (there is more to discover in the mod than this). Integration of a boroughs-style city design could be interesting to see, with core urban districts tied to era and capable of supporting distinct infrastructure.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Holy Sites are a good example of where districts could change for the better. While there are many religious precincts we can look to for inspiration, there are plenty of other instances that can point us to a more decentralized approach. Using Boris' suggestion of generic building slots, shrines, places of worship, and religious schools could take up a slot each, perhaps in the city center or next to a Seowon as the Companions has pointed out.

Holy Sites are an interesting district because they are filled with buildings that you would think would go in the center of cities, such as shrines and temples, but their adjacency bonuses come from unimproved woods, mountains, and natural wonders making them more like monasteries.

In fact, imagine if the Korean ability includes synergy for shrines placed in Seowons. When one thinks of all the churches the Soviets destroyed in Moscow alone, it would be reasonable for the Russian ability to include one onion dome per district! Perhaps beliefs could further modify how often and where religious buildings would be allowed. An added effect would be making major holy sites less common.

One possible solution is to make it to where "Holy Sites" are special religious district in the cities where a religion has been founded, and other religious buildings go somewhere else.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Well, you certainly remind me of some of the nuance they aimed for with the remote adjacency bonuses. Perhaps the monastery and some shrines could retain the forest and mountain adjacencies.

I like the idea that the Holy Site could be reconfigured as an extra district for the holy city, but otherwise not commonly available.

The building slots and boroughs offer potential synthesis for wonders that could act as holy sites. Stonehenge (ancient) could have the minimum number of slots but serve as a Holy Site with a special project available. Luxor (ancient) if we are willing to conflate with Karnak could have double slots and river adjacency/placement. Mount Athos (medieval) would be freely placed on a mountain, have mountain and coast adjacency, and provide a boost for monasteries. Angkor Wat (medieval) would be freely placed on flatland, provide freshwater, and serve as a borough as well. Huey Teocalli (medieval) would be placed on a lake tile or adjacent land tile, double as a borough, and probably provide economic yields.

Other religious wonders might be better suited to buildings in a given slot, but these came to mind as potential Holy Sites that could live up to their specialization.