Do you want districts to come back in Civ 7?

Should districts come back in Civilization VII?


  • Total voters
    106
  • Poll closed .
I absolutely want them back, although they could certainly be improved (I agree the city center should be prioritized - I think if adjacency bonuses are back the city center should have the best adjacency bonus of any tile).

Maps should be enlarged, though.
 
I do like them and i think specialists should be necessary to use districts and have less districts
 
I do like that unpacking cities unlocked a more interesting set of mechanics for pillaging. The adjacency bonuses do feel a little artificial though, and to some extent it makes it so that "the map plays you" rather than "you play the map."

It does also somewhat blur the lines between tile improvements and city infrastructure. At some point I can see that line disappearing... I don't think having "farm districts" though would be terrible...
 
I've posted on this before, but here we go again.

Absolute Yes to Districts. I do NOT want to go back tot having to look at a separate table/list/screen to tell what is already built in each of my 5 - 50 cities in the late game. Put it all on the map.

But, almost everything after the basic decision to have Districts in Civ VI, I would change:

First, all bonuses are by individual building, not District. Almost all 'adjancies' are not terrain-based, but between Buidlings. Put a Market next to a Harbor, enhance both from more demand and easier access to imported goodies. Putting a Temple next to the Palace may be required for a Theocratic Government. Having a Factory next to a Harbor with Shipyard may be required to build Battleships and other Industrial behemoths.

Second, all Districts have to be adjacent to at least one other District* in the same city, and at the start of game, no district can be more than one tile away from the city center except in Special Circumstances (like, have a river flowing through the city to facilitate travel to Districts on the river). Later, improvements in Transportation Technology (road building, coaches, asphalt, MacAdam process, Steam and then Internal Combustion vehicles, etc) will allow the city to spread out, but mostly not until the Industrial Era and later. You want to build Sprawling Megalopolis, you would have to play to the Modern Eras.

* Some 'Districts' can be built detached. These are Settlements, which may eventually grow into a separate City, or join another city ('Suburbs'). They are usually built for a Specific Purpose, such as guarding key terrain (Fortress/Castle Town) or exploiting useful Resources (Mining Camp, Plantation Town, Grange, Port Town) or advance an agenda (Holy Site next to a Holy Terrain feature like a Volcano, Spring, Mountain, etc)

Third, Districts in the city start out Blank, without specialization (except for the City Center). Specialization into Campuses or Commercial Districts come from the buildings you put in the District. Never group your Science buildings in the same District, and no district will ever get the 'extra' bonuses from a Campus (that would, of course, be Not Optimal, but Not Forbidden)

Fourth, All Buildings can be Replaced. That is, the Trade District you built in 1500 BCE with Bazaar/Market, Caravanserai and Temple (which acted as a repository for Gold, so boosts Trade and Commerce) may become a Railroad District with Railyard, Freight House and/or Container Terminal in 1960 CE.

Fifth, I want Districts and Buildings related to the concept of Population and Specialists. Virtually every Building can accept a Specialist, and judicious use of Specialists should 'Specialize' a City as much as the numbers and types of Buildings in it. A Mature City (7+ Districts) rather than move/replace Buildings, should be able to move Specialists around to 'Buff' the output it needs. Mobilize for War, and a bunch of 'Specialists go to work in the Factories, Barracks, Amories, etc - and all the Specialists that used to be in Entertainment/Culture/Happiness venues are replaced by Propaganda which you hope is enough to keep tghe War Effort going. Good luck with that.

By dropping any adjacencies down to Building level and removing most Terrain-based adjacency bonuses, that makes it easy to require cities to be crammed together as they actually were for most of history - and put the city wall around the entire city, and not just a couple of Districts.

By making Districts and buildings replaceable, the constant and on-going Urban Renewal which has been a feature of virtually all cities for the past 10,000 years can be added to the game, AND the gamer has now to always be considering whether it is time to Renew parts of a city rather than try to add to it. This process, well-designed, should be important right down to the present day and near-future, when 'greening' and keeping cities both Inhabitable and Desirable (Happiness/Loyalty) may include new buildings, or demolishing or repurposing older buildings (think the rehabilitation of many old Industrial Port areas into modern upscale Neighborhoods in New York City, Baltimore, London, etc)
 
I think Districts are great, to the extent that I think they'll age the best out of everything VI introduced to the series. Bit over the top but I genuinely think that!

However, looking forward to any iteration Firaxis do on the concept. Lots of room to improve or even redesign laterally (same principle / goal but with a different implementation).
 
I think harbour, encampment and aerodrome made sense. The rest were just silly and cumbersome. In this case I think less is more.

If we get the same recycled garbage again, then I at least hope they remove the adjacency bonus that only makes sense in boardgames and mobile games where you can’t find more interesting ways to provide gameplay.
 
I've posted on this before, but here we go again.

Absolute Yes to Districts. I do NOT want to go back tot having to look at a separate table/list/screen to tell what is already built in each of my 5 - 50 cities in the late game. Put it all on the map.

But, almost everything after the basic decision to have Districts in Civ VI, I would change:

First, all bonuses are by individual building, not District. Almost all 'adjancies' are not terrain-based, but between Buidlings. Put a Market next to a Harbor, enhance both from more demand and easier access to imported goodies. Putting a Temple next to the Palace may be required for a Theocratic Government. Having a Factory next to a Harbor with Shipyard may be required to build Battleships and other Industrial behemoths.

Second, all Districts have to be adjacent to at least one other District* in the same city, and at the start of game, no district can be more than one tile away from the city center except in Special Circumstances (like, have a river flowing through the city to facilitate travel to Districts on the river). Later, improvements in Transportation Technology (road building, coaches, asphalt, MacAdam process, Steam and then Internal Combustion vehicles, etc) will allow the city to spread out, but mostly not until the Industrial Era and later. You want to build Sprawling Megalopolis, you would have to play to the Modern Eras.

* Some 'Districts' can be built detached. These are Settlements, which may eventually grow into a separate City, or join another city ('Suburbs'). They are usually built for a Specific Purpose, such as guarding key terrain (Fortress/Castle Town) or exploiting useful Resources (Mining Camp, Plantation Town, Grange, Port Town) or advance an agenda (Holy Site next to a Holy Terrain feature like a Volcano, Spring, Mountain, etc)

Third, Districts in the city start out Blank, without specialization (except for the City Center). Specialization into Campuses or Commercial Districts come from the buildings you put in the District. Never group your Science buildings in the same District, and no district will ever get the 'extra' bonuses from a Campus (that would, of course, be Not Optimal, but Not Forbidden)

Fourth, All Buildings can be Replaced. That is, the Trade District you built in 1500 BCE with Bazaar/Market, Caravanserai and Temple (which acted as a repository for Gold, so boosts Trade and Commerce) may become a Railroad District with Railyard, Freight House and/or Container Terminal in 1960 CE.

Fifth, I want Districts and Buildings related to the concept of Population and Specialists. Virtually every Building can accept a Specialist, and judicious use of Specialists should 'Specialize' a City as much as the numbers and types of Buildings in it. A Mature City (7+ Districts) rather than move/replace Buildings, should be able to move Specialists around to 'Buff' the output it needs. Mobilize for War, and a bunch of 'Specialists go to work in the Factories, Barracks, Amories, etc - and all the Specialists that used to be in Entertainment/Culture/Happiness venues are replaced by Propaganda which you hope is enough to keep tghe War Effort going. Good luck with that.

By dropping any adjacencies down to Building level and removing most Terrain-based adjacency bonuses, that makes it easy to require cities to be crammed together as they actually were for most of history - and put the city wall around the entire city, and not just a couple of Districts.

By making Districts and buildings replaceable, the constant and on-going Urban Renewal which has been a feature of virtually all cities for the past 10,000 years can be added to the game, AND the gamer has now to always be considering whether it is time to Renew parts of a city rather than try to add to it. This process, well-designed, should be important right down to the present day and near-future, when 'greening' and keeping cities both Inhabitable and Desirable (Happiness/Loyalty) may include new buildings, or demolishing or repurposing older buildings (think the rehabilitation of many old Industrial Port areas into modern upscale Neighborhoods in New York City, Baltimore, London, etc)

This is very similar to what I would like. I'd have some rule like each district can have up to 4 buildings in it, and then most buildings would gain their bonuses from what buildings are in the same or adjacent tiles, maybe. You could even have the max number of buildings increase over time in the tech tree - so it starts at maybe 3 in the ancient era, and grows up to 6 or 7 in the modern era.
 
I think it's pretty clear districts are the defining feature of Civilization 6. With Civ 7 on its way, I'm curious as to how Civfanatics feel about them. Should they become a core feature of the cities or should the franchise return to how city planning worked previously?
I don't know what would be fun but suppose that districts are more evolutionary that in Civ 6. Instead of building 3 buildings when they are unlocked, suppose you can start an industrial zone, for example, in a hex and be presented with choices as you progress through the tree as to how the industrial zone develops. Perhaps one industrial zone becomes a producer of a specific luxury or luxuries, and another produces refined oil. Another might produce stone from a quarry for walls, but in later eras for roads.

Also, suppose you don't have a limit set to one of each type of district. Suppose you could use all of your district slots on industrial zones. You might put one next to woods and get more production. Another next to luxuries. Perhaps there could be different benefits for grouping them together and connecting their resources by road or railroad.

Suppose you don't have a city center district at all. Instead, you can start a city with any specialist district type that is unlocked and doing so grants some benefits and disadvantages. Late era cities might be very specialized, being composed of many of the same district.

What if connecting districts together with rails or roads provides benefits to them. Being connected by waterways or oceans could also bring benefits to the districts. For example, connecting a refinery by railroad to an oil resource provides more refined oil or petroleum. Roads provide a certain amount too. The ocean allows as much as boat technology allows. Maybe we can have oil tankers or something. More than just one type of trade units. Stuff like this could provide strategic targets in a war, but if they went that route, we would want an easy way to provide military escorts.

Visually, it would be cool if they were identifiable. A refinery would look like a refinery, for example. A nuclear power plant would look like one. Then cities could be assessed by just looking at them.

Instead of going with fewer districts per city, you could go with more, but natural resources are important too. They are important enough that it is a hard choice to deplete them or "pave over" them. Even something like plain hills becomes more important when in the middle of a city. They have cultural value. Even natural undeveloped land around and in-between cities begin to gain cultural value as cities develop.
 
Last edited:
This is very similar to what I would like. I'd have some rule like each district can have up to 4 buildings in it, and then most buildings would gain their bonuses from what buildings are in the same or adjacent tiles, maybe. You could even have the max number of buildings increase over time in the tech tree - so it starts at maybe 3 in the ancient era, and grows up to 6 or 7 in the modern era.
My own conceptual design is for each District to have room for 5 Building Slots, but as the game progresses some buildings would take up more than one slot - a modern Factory or Steel Mill, for example, is a huge construction compared to almost anything other than a Wonder in the Ancient to Medieval periods.

Having an odd number of slots allows for a District to be 'themed' based on having a majority of a given type of building: have 3 slots occupied by Market/commercial structures, and you get the advantages of a Commercial District. Adjacency bonuses between buildings could also be from buildings in adjacent Districts, but they would be less than what you would get from grouping in a single District.

I would very much like to have at least some element of 'city planning' in the game, but it has to be very carefully done: the basic thrust of the game is Empire/Civilization Building, after all, not City Building, which takes place on a much smaller level but could have effects much wider than the individual city.

Oh, and also, by having buildings of various sizes, it opens the way for some Wonders to rightfully be placed in the city, like major Temples and entertainment venues and such, without having them take up an entire District. For instance, there's no reason the Bolshoi cannot be in a 'downtown' District near the City Center with room left over in its District for another building or two - as it is in the center of Moscow IRL.

In my view, it should be recognized that Wonders have different requirements for Access: some are worthless if they aren't regularly visited by crowds, which means they need an Urban setting. Others are 'rural wonders', so to speak, like Ruhr Valley or the Pyramids, that simply do not belong inside the city limits.
 
Maryland, despite lagging well behind a number of European countries, is actually the fifth most densely populated US state.
That sounds about right subjectively. What might not be obvious from overseas, or even to Americans who've never been to Maryland, though, is how unevenly populated Maryland is.

The "Northeast Corridor" in particular is used in context to an Amtrak line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor) which runs from Washington D.C. to New York City, the most densely populated section of the U.S., and on up to Boston. It's really the cities along that rail route that comprise a densely populated conglomeration, of the type that "infinite city sprawl" in Civ, especially earlier Civ versions, can evoke. You leave the DC metro area, before long you hit Baltimore, on a northern suburb of Baltimore you reach Firaxis's headquarters-town, it isn't much longer and you are in Philadelphia, then Wilmington Delaware, then the cities of Jersey, and then New York City. It isn't literally all contiguous city, but it's the closest equivalent to it in the U.S.

(I'd be curious how it compares demographically to, say, Amsterdam to Paris, a route I traveled once at a leisurely and not-entirely-direct pace. I'm sure NY to DC can't compete on quality of beer, but it might compete on density)

Meanwhile, western and eastern Maryland are empty. I love western Maryland, they've got mountains, forest, farms, a great place for an outdoorsy vacation. Eastern Maryland, across the Chesapeake Bay, is also fairly empty, but in a more farms/fishing/waterfront manner. DC Metro and Baltimore are the big cities, but even the mid-size ones like Annapolis, Frederick, and Hagerstown are more or less in the center part of the state.

So it means that the most densely populated counties in Maryland have densities of 530, 806, and 2375 per square kilometer, while the least densely populated are about 17 per square kilometer. Huge variations. As there are in France, the country among those you've listed that I've done the most demographic research about.

Admittedly also a pedantic point, but as a fan of Maryland, I didn't want the Internet's impression of it as being anywhere near uniform. And I suppose it supports the argument that there should be open areas, since even in a small state with two large metro areas, there are significant wide-open spaces.
 
Fifth, I want Districts and Buildings related to the concept of Population and Specialists. Virtually every Building can accept a Specialist, and judicious use of Specialists should 'Specialize' a City as much as the numbers and types of Buildings in it. A Mature City (7+ Districts) rather than move/replace Buildings, should be able to move Specialists around to 'Buff' the output it needs. Mobilize for War, and a bunch of 'Specialists go to work in the Factories, Barracks, Amories, etc - and all the Specialists that used to be in Entertainment/Culture/Happiness venues are replaced by Propaganda which you hope is enough to keep tghe War Effort going. Good luck with that.

Absolutely.
I'd add that defence buildings, like barracks, or walls, if it was re-imagined as a district, an active part of the structure of a city, could host basic city pop and 'convert' them to special units,
e.g. in barracks a civilian pop would translate to armed civilian defence forces. In the Wall district (or Bastions, observation towers, etc) would translate to military engineers and so on.

Also Great persons could be employed in districts the same way it worked in civ 4 (where spies could also Hijack them) in the city centre, giving massive boost to one or more specs
the district is adding to the city. Eg Venetians or Genoese or Dutch military engineers could transform a basic bastion wall to a Star fort. Or Newton could build the Newton University, Copernicus the Observatory, and so on, kind of re-purposing the concept of wonders themselves, including them to work as some kind of special district themselves.

I always imagine what kind of Hydro-scientist-high priests could have worked in the Pyramids... have to do some guessworks here and there... but it would be much nicer, more lively,
to be able to 'work' the wonders, not just having empire wide bonuses, or city-wide bonuses, that are passive.
Eg have three high priests as Great persons working in the Pyramid complex and you got electricity in ancient times.
A ver basic form of electricity, that could be used for chemistry-medicine project, giving a boost to more stats, like food production, or output boost to gold extraction thus commerce.
 
My own conceptual design is for each District to have room for 5 Building Slots, but as the game progresses some buildings would take up more than one slot - a modern Factory or Steel Mill, for example, is a huge construction compared to almost anything other than a Wonder in the Ancient to Medieval periods.

Having an odd number of slots allows for a District to be 'themed' based on having a majority of a given type of building: have 3 slots occupied by Market/commercial structures, and you get the advantages of a Commercial District. Adjacency bonuses between buildings could also be from buildings in adjacent Districts, but they would be less than what you would get from grouping in a single District.

I would very much like to have at least some element of 'city planning' in the game, but it has to be very carefully done: the basic thrust of the game is Empire/Civilization Building, after all, not City Building, which takes place on a much smaller level but could have effects much wider than the individual city.

Oh, and also, by having buildings of various sizes, it opens the way for some Wonders to rightfully be placed in the city, like major Temples and entertainment venues and such, without having them take up an entire District. For instance, there's no reason the Bolshoi cannot be in a 'downtown' District near the City Center with room left over in its District for another building or two - as it is in the center of Moscow IRL.

In my view, it should be recognized that Wonders have different requirements for Access: some are worthless if they aren't regularly visited by crowds, which means they need an Urban setting. Others are 'rural wonders', so to speak, like Ruhr Valley or the Pyramids, that simply do not belong inside the city limits.

Yeah, that would all be cool. A "small" wonder like Bolshoi would take maybe 3 slots, and you'd still have room for a Theatre or a Museum or something else if you want the bonus "cultural" theming. "Big" wonders like the Pyramids would still take up an entire tile. That way it still gets everything on the map, and you still have some spacing to worry about, but you have a little flexibility in planning cities.

I do think you want some way so that later in the game urbanization will give you more room. Because in the "modern" world, Hawaii is more or less still just a 1-tile island, and you should have space on there for all the basic infrastructure, plus still something more advanced. Although maybe you still have 5 "slots" in the district but once you hit Urbanization then suddenly all those tier-1 ancient era buildings now change to take up "0" building slots in a city tile. That would also let you sort of "in-fill" a city, and have modern buildings actually in the city centre rather than be forced to put them in the outskirts because the centre is "full" from the library/market/temple/etc...
 
So it means that the most densely populated counties in Maryland have densities of 530, 806, and 2375 per square kilometer, while the least densely populated are about 17 per square kilometer. Huge variations. As there are in France, the country among those you've listed that I've done the most demographic research about.

Dutch municipalities do not drop below 66 people per square kilometer outside of the islands we have in the north, four of which are below that count. In total (including those islands and the fifth inhabited island) 13/343 municipalities have a population density of less than 100 people per square kilometer. Conversely, 45/343 municipalities have a population density of over 2000 people per square kilometer and I decided I didn't want to add up all the way to over 1000 people per square kilometer. The most densely populated is the municipality of Den Haag (The Hague), which has a population density of 6861 people per square kilometer. Nine other municipalities have more than 4000 people per square kilometer.

Rotterdam is notably not very densely populated compared to other big Dutch cities at barely over 3000 people per square kilometer because the entire harbor (with a population of near-zero) is part of the municipality.
 
Yeah, that would all be cool. A "small" wonder like Bolshoi would take maybe 3 slots, and you'd still have room for a Theatre or a Museum or something else if you want the bonus "cultural" theming. "Big" wonders like the Pyramids would still take up an entire tile. That way it still gets everything on the map, and you still have some spacing to worry about, but you have a little flexibility in planning cities.

I do think you want some way so that later in the game urbanization will give you more room. Because in the "modern" world, Hawaii is more or less still just a 1-tile island, and you should have space on there for all the basic infrastructure, plus still something more advanced. Although maybe you still have 5 "slots" in the district but once you hit Urbanization then suddenly all those tier-1 ancient era buildings now change to take up "0" building slots in a city tile. That would also let you sort of "in-fill" a city, and have modern buildings actually in the city centre rather than be forced to put them in the outskirts because the centre is "full" from the library/market/temple/etc...
I see several ways city expansion could be handled.

Originally, all Districts have to be next to the City Center, basically (with a few exceptions like cities spread along a river).

In the very early Industrial Era, with hard surface roads ('MacAdam' process) and improved wheeled vehicles (coaches from Kocs in Hungary, for instance) you can extend up to one more 'ring' of Districts.

Once you have Steam, with railroads, elevated railways, and then Electricity with electric trams, subways, and other Mass Transit, there is essentially no limit to how far the city can expand.

But remember, with 5 slots per District, even the original limited city has 35 slots for Buildings. Unless you absolutely bury the city in Wonders, that's more than enough for one of each of all the basic Military, Political, Health, Commerce, Religion, and Trade structures in the current game. Unless we allow multiples of the same building in the same city (which I do not believe Civ has ever done) a greatly expanded city may be mostly Neighborhoods in the late game

So we add a bunch of Modern District/Building types, like Grain Elevators, Steel Mills, Automobile Factories, Shopping Malls, Airports, Container Terminals, Railroad Yards - all of these Industrial and post-Industrial structures have relatively huge 'footprints' and could easily be 2 - 3 slot structures each and 'suck up' most of the late game City Expansion.

Some Architectural Technologies could decrease the Footprint in slots for some structures. Skyscrapers' primary effect is that they allow up to 20 times more people living and working in office jobs on the same ground area: 5 - 8 stories was about as high as you can go with brick, even reinforced with wrought iron members, whereas the earliest skyscrapers were over 10 stories and within 20 years were over 30. If your city is limited in the amount of usable tiles around the city center, that's one way to 'stuff' more city into the same area.

Then, in the very Late Game, there's Artificial Land. Lakes, Bays, inlets have all been filled in and built over, in places like Oakland - San Francisco, Tokyo Bay, Holland, and the Middle East. Essentially, a Late Game 'Project' could allow creation of a new land tile on the coast on which almost any kind of District and Structure can be placed.

All of which should serve to provide the gamer with more choices, more decisions of importance to his Civ and Cities in the late game, which is sadly lacking in any decisions of any importance right now.
 
That sounds about right subjectively. What might not be obvious from overseas, or even to Americans who've never been to Maryland, though, is how unevenly populated Maryland is.

The "Northeast Corridor" in particular is used in context to an Amtrak line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor) which runs from Washington D.C. to New York City, the most densely populated section of the U.S., and on up to Boston. It's really the cities along that rail route that comprise a densely populated conglomeration, of the type that "infinite city sprawl" in Civ, especially earlier Civ versions, can evoke. You leave the DC metro area, before long you hit Baltimore, on a northern suburb of Baltimore you reach Firaxis's headquarters-town, it isn't much longer and you are in Philadelphia, then Wilmington Delaware, then the cities of Jersey, and then New York City. It isn't literally all contiguous city, but it's the closest equivalent to it in the U.S.

(I'd be curious how it compares demographically to, say, Amsterdam to Paris, a route I traveled once at a leisurely and not-entirely-direct pace. I'm sure NY to DC can't compete on quality of beer, but it might compete on density)

Meanwhile, western and eastern Maryland are empty. I love western Maryland, they've got mountains, forest, farms, a great place for an outdoorsy vacation. Eastern Maryland, across the Chesapeake Bay, is also fairly empty, but in a more farms/fishing/waterfront manner. DC Metro and Baltimore are the big cities, but even the mid-size ones like Annapolis, Frederick, and Hagerstown are more or less in the center part of the state.

So it means that the most densely populated counties in Maryland have densities of 530, 806, and 2375 per square kilometer, while the least densely populated are about 17 per square kilometer. Huge variations. As there are in France, the country among those you've listed that I've done the most demographic research about.

Admittedly also a pedantic point, but as a fan of Maryland, I didn't want the Internet's impression of it as being anywhere near uniform. And I suppose it supports the argument that there should be open areas, since even in a small state with two large metro areas, there are significant wide-open spaces.
Still, as I said above, quoting population denisities in certain parts of the world going back, at furthest back, to the Turn of the 20th Century, does not make much of a case for urban structures for the vast majority of a Civ game.
 
Still, as I said above, quoting population denisities in certain parts of the world going back, at furthest back, to the Turn of the 20th Century, does not make much of a case for urban structures for the vast majority of a Civ game.
Luckily for us, most of the archeological sites that encompass ancient city sites try to get a figure for the total size of the city, or built-up area, or area inside the city wall whenever they can.

Likewise, the circuit of the city wall, which is fairly easy to trace in many historical cases, is a pretty good indicator of the size/extent of the city right up until the late Renaissance.

Of course, even having a database of trhe physical size of a city area doesn't give us a good figure for the population. The density of housing can vary enormously based on an array of different factors: richer populations tend to take up more pace per person; some architectural technologies allow greater population density per square meter of ground (The Romans' use of concrete, which allowed them to regularly produce 4 - 5 story Insulae living quarters in effect at least doubled the population density of their cities where they applied that construction technique); cities occupied by pastoral groups like the Scythians or Magyars later were notoriously much larger than those occupied by more settled groups, because the pastorals tried to keep as many of their animals - especially valuable horses - in the city with them. Going entirely by ground area without many qualifications can result in wildly inaccurate population estimates.

I'm still working up a database of city areas/population estimates from archeological and historical accpunts. Will let you know what comes out.
 
Yes I liked districts and I’d like to see them sprawl even more. I think all buildings you build should be built on the map. I’d like to see sprawling cities with districts comprising your speciality buildings built around them but I want there to be far less cities in the game with large distances between to make road and rail more critical. My vision would be sprawling cities with large areas of rural land around them with small towns in between to service farms for harvesting food, timber mills in the woods, fishing huts on lakes for fish etc all built across the map giving more options for pillaging and raiding etc but also more importance to your far fewer cities.
 
Although I like the idea of districts, I think the Civ6 AI was worse than Civ5 AI because of them.
 
Top Bottom