I hope that you're right, and that if they do exist, there'll be enough of them. It'd be boring and annoying to have to pick the same policies in every 'wide' game, simply to mitigate the effects of a mechanic that the game could've done without with (imo).
One thing I forgot to mention earlier was that although unique districts apparently do not add to the costs of other districts, they are affected by them, so their price will go up (albeit much more slowly).
Do you think the same cost factor is being applied to Settlers? We know they get more expensive as you build more, could they be tied to the same variable, so that the cost is actually based on Districts + Cities, not just the number of Settlers built?
Good question, I don't think there's any way to know at this point, but I would expect so. If you're losing cities with many districts you're falling behind anyway, no reason to doubly penalize you with rebuilding.
is the suggestion that each district per city goes up 10% or per civ?....if it is per civ at 10% increases 4 districts per city for 16 cities would get you to 27,000 production for that last dist (problematic for wide )....doesn't sound realistic so hopefully it is by city or some other mechanism to mitigate the cost
It gets to about 1000 at at 30 districts, then rapidly shoots up from there:
Spoiler:
(spoiler for largish image)
But keep in mind that Unique Districts will remain very reasonable to spam in every city given that they're half off (and Japan is looking even better now with three types of half-price districts!).
All good questions, no one knows at this point. Not really any way to tell. The one thing I can tell you is that I highly doubt that a district can be outright destroyed (without razing a city, anyway) so the scenario in the second paragraph won't be an issue.
I find it very likely that this cost will get to a prohibitive point... and then you'll get a civic that is -75% production costs for districts! Or something of that nature. The the cost will balloon to impossibilities again before another huge discount through a policy or tech or building
I hope that you're right, and that if they do exist, there'll be enough of them. It'd be boring and annoying to have to pick the same policies in every 'wide' game, simply to mitigate the effects of a mechanic that the game could've done without with (imo).
Whoa, that district math looks brutal. I will never understand why the designers of a civ game are so intent on stopping the players from building cities...
This rapidly increasing cost in districts is bad and immersion busting, IMHO.
Why would a city on the frontier be burdened with extreme costs in developing itself just because some of the core cities in the Empire are full of districts?
Hopefully there is more information on the subject that they haven't revealed yet. That or some person who is good at balancing things can make a good mod when the game comes out.
This seems to suggest that taking well developed cities is much preferable to building them out yourself. We'll have to see how effective any checks on warmongering are, but it sure seems like war will be a better way to get lots of cities and districts than building them yourself.
Whoa, that district math looks brutal. I will never understand why the designers of a civ game are so intent on stopping the players from building cities...
I'm guessing it'll end up that you can either have a few tall cities with numerous districts or a wide empire with a lot of specialized cities that have only 2-3 specific district types (i.e a few mountain cities with science and faith districts, military district empires on the edge of your empre, etc.).
I really think this idea could make the curve tolerable as long as the discount is strong enough. Won't this essentially be required if we're going to put up multiple neighborhoods in each city during late game anyway?
I really think this idea could make the curve tolerable as long as the discount is strong enough. Won't this essentially be required if we're going to put up multiple neighborhoods in each city during late game anyway?
I think it was only the E3 video that showed multiple neighborhoods per city. Every instance we have seen them since (primarily First Looks) have only had one per city. I'm just saying we shouldn't take it as the law of the land.
Its probably not exponential, if its anything like the math in civ 5 for tiles, policies, and food, then it is
Extra cost =n*C+(n*k)^p
n=number districts
The others all constants
Hold your horses guys. I really think we should wait here and see.
In the meantime, go and check Yogscast. Do we know if they play same build as Quill? I checked them briefly, but district cost seem to randomly jump in their game. One part is especially funny - at one point all districts in second city cost 76 production (Part 3, around 7.00), and couple minutes later all cost 90 production (around 15.00). In between, they did nothing relevant, and they still have 2 cities and 1 campus it capital (which cost 64 btw).
So there is either some bug, or some other factor (or I am missing something).
EDIT: Next campus costs 105, next commercial hub costs 112. It has to be very funny formula
EDIT2: Next district costs 119, but in the 3rd city already, which they founded couple turns ago. So city center doesn't seem to count in their game.
First district they build is Encampment in 2nd city which costs 90 production, at that time they have 2 cities and Holy Site + Campus in the capital. Then they start Commercial Hub in capital, which costs 97. Another one is Holy Site in 3rd city, which ALSO costs 97 (to be exact, that Commercial Hub production is stopped at that time, but once it is resumed and finished, Holy Site production time does not change). Next district, which they didn't start building, would cost 105.
To sum it all up, there is really hard to find any common pattern. It seems really messy, all we know is that price goes somehow up.
So far I haven't seen a policy that directly decreases costs of something, they only increase production output of cities towards a specific goal, but they exist for districts too, the only one known is Veterancy for Encampments. If there are 5-6 districts per city, then 30 districts are about 6 cities? That would agree with what the devs said about new Tall, that it would be about 6-10 cities. That's still far better than Civ V's 4 cities and if you want a really wide empire, play as Aztecs or (probably) Germany. I doubt that Germany free districts will not raise the costs, it seems this ability only refers to population limits, but Germany has Hansa, it will give you a lot of production to build anything you want. Also, the benefits of a district do not remain constant, there are a lot of policies that double their adjacency bonuses, like Natural Philosophy, there are also some that add additional yields to districts, like Meritocracy, all of that makes Culture really important in the game.
Now, I am confused... does the cost for districts go up per empire or per city. In other words, if I build a district in my first city, does the cost go up for the first district that I build in my second city? Personally, I think that it would be better if it was per city (i.e. the first district built in a city is the same and goes up per city).
Now, I am confused... does the cost for districts go up per empire or per city. In other words, if I build a district in my first city, does the cost go up for the first district that I build in my second city? Personally, I think that it would be better if it was per city (i.e. the first district built in a city is the same and goes up per city).
To be honest, I'm not liking the sound of that. Maybe it won't be as bad as it seems like it would to me. Or maybe it will be changed by final release. If not, and it becomes a problem after release to the GP, I'm sure that they would address it relatively quick in a patch.
1. It will push deep city specialization. It's better to build something in existing district than to build a new district.
2. Production in cities tend to grow in time and probably faster than the cost of districts. The only problem is the newly founded/conquered cities, but that's another reason to delay building too many districts in core cities.
3. It will be very important to have a lot of builders to maximize core output for new cities. Also, chopping/cropping looks like very important mechanics for those new cities.
4. Unique districts tend to really shape the civilizations which have them.
England is probably underestimated as it may spam their unique Harbors and have a lot of naval trade.
Germany could be a powerhouse from midgame, as having Hansa in every city solves the district problem.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)....doesn't sound realistic so hopefully it is by city or some other mechanism to mitigate the cost
}
