Like in the last thread, first off a disclaimer: The point of this thread is not to bash on Civ6 in general, I think it’s a great game with many good elements. However, I also think it has some major flaws, and that if we don’t discuss these, we and the developers can’t learn from them and make Civ7 even better. The topic I'd like to discuss in this thread is how yields are awarded from districts and buildings in Civ6, more specifically why it is imo. A bit flaw that Civ6 operates almost solely with flat yields, as opposed to per population yields or percentage yields like in Civ5. The reason for this design choice is quite obvious, and I think the developers addressed this topic directly as well: Where Civ5 leaned heavily towards a “tall” optimal gameplay, notoriously the 4-city-Tradition approach, the developers wanted Civ6 to lean more against a wide approach. They certainly succeeded at this, to an extent that Civ6 for a while suffered heavily with ICS-strategies being viable, something that has however been fixed to some extent. Like in the last thread, I’ll try to list some specific points where I think Civ6 goes wrong with its yields approach, and some ideas to how they could be improved.. District adjacency yields: This is arguably one of the most difficult aspects to balance, because there’s here a weighing of game balance on one hand vs. fun on the other. For instance, we all know that one of the most exciting aspects of the early game is finding a superb district spot, be that an early +5 campus spot or constructing that perfect +18 industrial zone spot. On the other hand, these massive district adjacencies are fairly poorly balanced in the game as it is: You only need one or two of thee supreme campus locations to snowball to a massive lead fairly early in the game. I’m not going to suggest that district adjacencies should be taken completely out of the game (or perhaps I am? See point about districts without buildings below), but I see two ways to address the issue as it is: Progressive adjacency and adjusting tech cost scaling. By progressive adjacency I mean: Instead of having (say) those mountains provide a +5 campus bonus from turn 1, maybe we need mountains to only provide a minor bonus to start, but than have the bonus increase once you build an observatory in the city. And maybe the jungle adjacency should increase to a standard +1 bonus once you build a wildlife institute? This also plays into another of my suggestions, more alternative buildings in districts. My other suggestion is adjusting tech progression cost: If techs increase faster in cost, those initial flat yields lose value faster, which in terms will mean less snowballing. Flat building yields: Building yields, and the lack of diversity in how these are handled, is probably one of the biggest missed opportunities imo. The game has opted almost completely for the flat-yields model, and I think this works poorly in several ways. First of all, it feeds into the city spam in an unhealthy way: A library, university or research centre will yields exactly the same in a pop-1 city as in a pop-20 city, which is both illogical and poor for game balance. Secondly, it doesn’t offer strategic choices that affect other parts of the game (there’s never any consideration about: Is this city too small to merit a university?). I see two strategies to solve this: First is limitations: Make high-lever buildings require a certain population number in city - a boring, but effective solution. Second is non-flat yields: These can come in different forms, for instance; a) simple percentage yields; b) per-population yields, c) per-specialist yields, and d) per terrain/resource yields. I would like to see the game use all of these to a larger extent, and particularly for late game (tier 2 and 3 buildings) a shift from flat yields to non-flat yields would make these only viable in larger cities. Again, the idea of more alternative buildings (see point later) plays strongly into this. Distrit spam: Civ6 tried to make science less of a universal win factor, but it’s still generally if not universally true that spamming campuses will help you win. This is both a pity and a bit of a puzzle given that Civ6 has the perfect mechanism to prevent this already in the game: Area Of Effect on districts. I think this feature could have been used a lot more than it is: Districts like Campus, Theatre and Commercial could all have been AOE districts to promote district variation. Once you place a campus in one city, the benefits of placing another campus right in the neighborhood should be, if not completely absent, then at least so low that it may not justify the cost. Obviously you’d need a handle to balance this, so that you don’t just get full district or building bonus in all cities immediately, and some ways to handle this are capped yields (for instance, provide +0.2 science pr. population, but maximum +4 science) or population-served limits (basically the same, but say that a University can maximally serve 20 people). The latter approach imo. is interesting, because it would mean that in early game, one campus could serve several cities, but once cities start to grow, you’ll need more campuses to support all the population. Alternative buildings: This is a feature with huge potential that Civ6 unfortunately barely tapped into. JRN’s Urban Complexity/Districts Expanded mod series is a prime example of how this could be done, even if I don’t agree with all his design choices, but the idea here is that each district has two or even three alternative buildings on each tier. The obvious distinction is a wide vs. tall building - one that offers (lowish but instant) flat yields vs. one that offers potentially higher non-flat yields. But this feature could be applied in other directions as well. For instance, Observatory (offers/improves campus adjacency from mountains) vs. Wildlife Institute (offers/improves campus adjacency from jungles) vs. Marine Research Centre (offers/improves campus adjacency from reefs), etc. Expanding on these choices would have excellent synergy with several of the suggestions from above, for instance you could put different buildings in districts of the same kind with overlapping AOE. Districts without buildings: This is a smaller pet-peeve of mine, but: How can we get yields from a district with no buildings in it? I guess the logic is to see the district as the tier 0 building in itself, which makes sense in some cases - I can accept the “campus” granting science in its own right, and I get the “commercial hub” can generate gold even without a market (although that’s a bit thin). But how can the “theatre square” generate culture without an amphitheater there, or the industrial zone general production without a workshop? Even worse, often the flat yields of the base district adjacency will be bigger than the yields of the actual buildings, which means you may not even want to place a building there for a while. Anyway, it’s not a game breaker, but personally, I think a district should be place with no or only a very low cost, but also without any yields in itself, and that the yields be entirely linked to buildings. This again ties into the idea of buildings linking to adjacency as mentioned above in the section about flat yields. So again, feel free to share your thoughts for and against the way Civ6 handles yields, districts and buildings.