Disctrict scaling too punishing

[Dargov]

Interesting that the scaling via productions costs has lead to exactly the same issue we had in Civ 5 with science but the resource has now become production instead of science.

(Science essentially scaled with science since early access to techs was the primary way of getting science, which was again multiplied up by growth)

 

[Dynamic]

Tag "GAME_COST_ESCALATION" in GlobalParameters.xml sets the scale of districts and other things.
Default Value = 1000%, so the cost should grow to the 10xBase during the game (1+9 in the formula)

 

[elitetroops]

How sure are you about the average districts? It would there seem like as soon as one person builds a district everyone else should then get the 25% discount since the average number would be .125 on an eight player map. Or do you mean the modal player?

That part is wrong, it's not if you have less than the average player has. It's if you have less of that district than the average of all your available specialty districts. Only completed districts are counted, not districts under construction.

 

[Roxlimn]

So far I have adjusted by beelining districts, placing them and coming back to them later when I have decent production to pump it out in 10 or so turns. But I find that the only districts that I bother building are commerce, harbor, industrial and the odd encampment or two. I don't even bother with campus or theatre unless I am pursuing that victory type. Maybe a centrally placed entertainment district if amenities become scarce. Non-specialty districts notwithstanding, of course.

I feel like the current meta is stifling the designer's vision. Why build that campus when you can devote that production to building another city? Each pop produces 0.7 science naturally, so 7 per 10 citizens. a campus with a library and university produces 6 science, ignoring possible adjacency bonuses (which is at best another 3 or 4 90% of the time). I'd rather expand and build another commerce hub and net another trade route and produce that science via population, than tie up a city producing a campus.

I feel like this is very excessive. You can't build the harbor everywhere. Industrial doesn't really add that much to your production unless you have a lot of Industrial City State friendlies, and even then only applies to building stuff. You only really need to spam Industrial after... the Industrial Revolution! Arguably, you shouldn't place Industrial everywhere until then so you have some flexibility in planning your network, especially if your adjacencies are going to suck.

A Campus with Isaac Newton, Library, University, and +3 Adjacency produces 11 Science - As much as a pop 14 city. If you have two of these active plus Natural Philosophy, you're looking at 28 Science - as much as you can get from 40 Population!

You can lock down a Campus early, too, since Writing comes online early. Just lock it down and come back to it once it's affordable. I mean, your core cities will be at size 10-13. That's 5 Districts. If they're inland, what are you going to do with the three other District slots? By the latter part of the game, Settlers and Campuses take about as long to build anyway in your core cities (about 3-4 turns). It's not like you're sacrificing that much cogs for it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Except
1-districts must be placed ASAP, because the cost rises the more techs you have when you place it
2-more science is bad for your empire (because of #1)

 

[Roxlimn]

I'm not seeing where that's an issue. Commercial is the only thing you need outside the Industrial Zone in one or two Cities that will be targeted by the Routes. So as soon as you're at pop 4 you can lock down a Campus and then proceed to do whatever else you were doing.

The idea that more Science is bad is reactive. More Science of the wrong kind is bad. Science beelining without production balance is bad. You can use Campuses without beelining or hardlining Science. That's a thing.

 

[player1 fanatic]

The way how district cost scaling works (based on techs and civics), districts will always be similarly expensive as best available buildings for the tech level.

This makes districts affordable in old big cities, but very difficult to build in new small cities. Thus, this scaling promotes tall over wide play.

 

[Roxlimn]

I just established a beachhead on a new Continent. Three Cities was my minimum, so I did three. I concentrated 4 Routes onto a productive city - it grew the pop and helped production. Once the IZ was up, I bought the buildings. Then the other two finished their own IZs and I bought the buildings there, too. After that they were making Districts at something like 5-10 turns. That's with only three overlapping IZs. I was in the Information Era with all techs and Civics researched. It's really not that bad.

 

[BlackWizard]

District cost should be based on era not amount of techs you have researched.

 

[Onii-chan]

It's not that bad if you just relocate your trade routes to boost the cities which need the production the most. Plus if it wasn't for the district cost increase, ICS would be way too powerful. I mean it's already strong but currently the district cost is the main soft cap. You gotta have something like that at least

It's also the main reason why the Aztecs are the most ultra-wide civ in the game if you ask me. Being able to insta-build super expensive districts in newly founded low-production cities in the lategame with 5-charge builders is crazy good

 

[megabearsfan]

Another way to possibly minimize the effect of the district scaling is to only half-finish techs and civics, then switch to something else and wait for the eureka to finish the tech for you. I've been experimenting with this in my games. As far as I can tell, the costs only scale up based on completed techs; not half-finished ones. Finish only the techs that you actually want/need. In the meantime, all your districts are less expensive to produce.

 

[RealHuhn]

Another way to possibly minimize the effect of the district scaling is to only half-finish techs and civics, then switch to something else and wait for the eureka to finish the tech for you. I've been experimenting with this in my games. As far as I can tell, the costs only scale up based on completed techs; not half-finished ones. Finish only the techs that you actually want/need. In the meantime, all your districts are less expensive to produce.

Yep, that's the way to go although it's quite annoying after the novelty wears off. I really wish I didn't have to do this sort of silly micro managing because I need to check my tech progression each time before I press "next turn". It's counter-intuitive and too much work, sadly.

 

[Sogno di Volare]

I'm not sure how to make it better but game mechanic wise yeah it feels like the district cost scaling can just jump out of nowhere and bite you. Woah how many turns now.

I am not a fan of how it works but I also get what they're trying to do. I'm not really sure how to tune it better.

 

[noontide]

Don't forget to use builders to remove forests, rainforests, and harvest any bonus resources before planting a district. Planting a district on those will make your build time much longer.

Really? I was not aware of that. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

 

[RealHuhn]

Really? I was not aware of that. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

It's part of the civilopedia but I'm 99,9% sure it's a lie.
Aside from that, you should always try to chop or harvest resources before you plant your district on that tile. You don't want to miss the boosts.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

District cost should be based on era not amount of techs you have researched.

It should probably be based on districts Placed rather than anything to do with tech/era at all (like settlers)

 

[megabearsfan]

Yep, that's the way to go although it's quite annoying after the novelty wears off. I really wish I didn't have to do this sort of silly micro managing because I need to check my tech progression each time before I press "next turn". It's counter-intuitive and too much work, sadly.

Agreed, but with the district cost scaling, it almost feels like that is (sadly) optimal strategy right now.

I'm not sure how to make it better but game mechanic wise yeah it feels like the district cost scaling can just jump out of nowhere and bite you. Woah how many turns now.

I am not a fan of how it works but I also get what they're trying to do. I'm not really sure how to tune it better.

I'm in much the same boat (see below)...

It should probably be based on districts Placed rather than anything to do with tech/era at all (like settlers)

I had suggested on PolyCast that district cost should be based on number of cities or number of previously-constructed districts. But as has been brought up previously in this thread, that can be a bad idea as well.

Tying district cost to number of districts discourages players from building anything other than the one or two optimal districts in any given city in order to keep district cost down for other cities. I suppose you could limit it to only being scaled by the number of districts already in that city only, as that would at least mean that building extra districts in one city doesn't punish all your other cities. It also parallels how amenities and housing work: failing to properly manage one city doesn't cripple all other cities.

Tying districts to the number of cities ends up behaving similarly to Civ V's global happiness, in that it puts an effective cap on the number of cities that you can found and/or conquer. Founding or conquering new cities would make the cost of districts in all cities prohibitively expensive.

The first suggestion (of scaling cost based only on the number of districts already in that one city) seems like the best alternative to me, since it seems to fall more in-line with the game's overall design philosophy of having fewer empire-wide disincentives to growth or expansion. The other alternative would be to just not scale the costs at all. Considering that the whole scaling penalty is easily avoidable by simply plopping the district down and then switching to another project suggests to me that it's probably not a worthwhile mechanic to keep, and it only adds a lot of unnecessarily tedious micro-management to the tech and civic tree. There's also already the population prereqs that act as a check on the number of districts that you can build in new cities.

The problem with removing the scaling is that it means that early-game districts like campuses and holy sites and commercial hubs become very cheap as the game goes on. So perhaps another alternative would be to just set a cost for each district based on its location in the tech tree, and then scale up the cost of all earlier districts to match the most expensive unlocked district. Districts would still get more expensive as you progress down the tech and civic trees, but you'd be more free to explore paths on the trees that don't unlock new districts. The cost of all your districts won't go up simply because you back-filled some old tech or civic - even if you back-fill a tech or civic that unlocks a district, because that district would probably be cheaper than a district that you already unlocked.

Even if district cost scaling is not removed completely, I still think that it's too punishing as it is now. So if it stays, it should at least be toned down a bit.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Tying district cost to number of districts discourages players from building anything other than the one or two optimal districts in any given city in order to keep district cost down for other cities. I suppose you could limit it to only being scaled by the number of districts already in that city only, as that would at least mean that building extra districts in one city doesn't punish all your other cities. It also parallels how amenities and housing work: failing to properly manage one city doesn't cripple all other cities.

Tying districts to the number of cities ends up behaving similarly to Civ V's global happiness, in that it puts an effective cap on the number of cities that you can found and/or conquer. Founding or conquering new cities would make the cost of districts in all cities prohibitively expensive.
.

If there are one or two optimal districts, then balance the cost by
Base + X per district + Y per district of this same type

(ideally you would try to balance the districts themselves, but that could be harder)

You could also make it a fairly smooth curve (so that cost increase isn't too much)... then have it reach a maximum
.... each district increases the cost of future others +15% (linear not exponential) until you have +900% [the 600 cost that is the current max...and would allow for 60 districts]
(amount of increase/district depending on map size, the maximum increase not depending on map size)

That way you aren't allowing 4 city strats (although you do still slow overexpansion, which is good)


The big advantage of doing it that way is there wouldn't be the "lock district cost in ASAP"..ie before I research a new tech/civic... instead you would lock in one district, before you lock in another...

 

[xamlop]

Don't build a campus before you have commercial hub/harbor/industrial zone (at least 1 or 2 of those), once you get all the production bonus you can get eveything becomes cheap and all is good.

 

[Stacked_Deck]

Yep, that's the way to go although it's quite annoying after the novelty wears off. I really wish I didn't have to do this sort of silly micro managing because I need to check my tech progression each time before I press "next turn". It's counter-intuitive and too much work, sadly.

If there was just a check box to half-fill the tech automatically I wouldn't mind it so much. I think the decision between using your science/culture efficiently with eurekas or brute-forcing your way through a tech you want has potential. But I'm in the same boat where I really can't be bothered with it as a game progresses.