Do you want districts to come back in Civ 7?

[Blue whale]

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.

You would need a gigantic map for that idea to work

 

[Patine]

Ultimately, much like 1UPT, the districts system in it's sprawl across the map format seems jarring - even a bit ridiculous - for a global, strategic-level game covering 6000+years, even moreso than many other unrealistic features. I think, in terms of both features, Civ1-4 has those base concepts done best, at least of what's been seen so far.

 

[criZp]

In civ6 they focused on making districts interact with terrain and making the buildings easy to identify. They gave no focus to making districts look like actual extensions of cities and I didn't like that at all. I don't want districts with civ6 design philosophy again, but if they will focus on making districts look good I'd like to see what they do.

 

[Leyrann]

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.

It's not a long stretch of time historically, but it does contain 3/8 of the ingame eras - not counting future era. So it's certainly quite relevant.

And to be honest, cities started exploding in population in the Industrial Era already, so we're really talking about half of the game here.

 

[Patine]

It's not a long stretch of time historically, but it does contain 3/8 of the ingame eras - not counting future era. So it's certainly quite relevant.

And to be honest, cities started exploding in population in the Industrial Era already, so we're really talking about half of the game here.

3/8 of the eras, but a small minority of the historical chronology, and such density of urbanization is certaily not universal, even in areas with advanced, urban civilization. Where I live in Alberta is a great example of a counter-point to that.

Thus, it certainly doesn't being a mechanic around the world, for every civ, right from 4000 BC, by any rational reckoning.

 

[Disgustipated]

I would say yes, it's one reason I loved Civ 6 as much as I did. But I'll admit it's a bit weird having them on the main map from a realism standpoint. But I'm not sure what else you could do to change that.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I'm not a fan of districts and I'm not entirely sure why people are...
To me it feels like a means to an end.

I build them because I have to but I don't feel any kind of joy from overplanning my cities just to get a tiny yield bonus, that feels tedious.
It kind of reminds me of people who play ARPGs like Diablo or Path of Exile and they spend the entire time overplanning their character to be as absolutely meta as possible.

So in other words, it feels like busywork to me and just number-gore, the worst type of gore for a video game to have
Like damn, I do numbers for a liviing, I play games to immerse and relax

 

[Leyrann]

I'm not a fan of districts and I'm not entirely sure why people are...
To me it feels like a means to an end.

I build them because I have to but I don't feel any kind of joy from overplanning my cities just to get a tiny yield bonus, that feels tedious.
It kind of reminds me of people who play ARPGs like Diablo or Path of Exile and they spend the entire time overplanning their character to be as absolutely meta as possible.

So in other words, it feels like busywork to me and just number-gore, the worst type of gore for a video game to have
Like damn, I do numbers for a liviing, I play games to immerse and relax

What I love about districts is that your city gets to expand as it grows (and beyond the graphic representation becoming a bit bigger).

Which is also why I proposed most of the things I did in my first post in this thread: Make them less essential so that you're not as limited as a player, require urban sprawl instead of allowing them to be built anywhere, scaling down their size from the current full hexagon, etc.

Civ VI introduced the concept, Civ VII can refine it.

 

[Patine]

What I love about districts is that your city gets to expand as it grows (and beyond the graphic representation becoming a bit bigger).

Which is also why I proposed most of the things I did in my first post in this thread: Make them less essential so that you're not as limited as a player, require urban sprawl instead of allowing them to be built anywhere, scaling down their size from the current full hexagon, etc.

Civ VI introduced the concept, Civ VII can refine it.

Cities don't expand that quickly and that viisibly on a global, strategic-scale map prior to the Industrial Age.

 

[jsciv69]

Instead of districts, I would like to take a page from the SimCity series, and have Zones. Or maybe have Towns that each have their own residential, commercial/business, Entertainment/cultural and Industrial Zones.

 

[Leyrann]

Cities don't expand that quickly and that viisibly on a global, strategic-scale map prior to the Industrial Age.

I was surprised with how early most districts were unlocked in Civ 6. I had expected one or two to come early, but most to only arrive later in the game.

Perhaps most of them should be unlocked only around the Industrial Era in the first place.

 

[UWHabs]

I was surprised with how early most districts were unlocked in Civ 6. I had expected one or two to come early, but most to only arrive later in the game.

Perhaps most of them should be unlocked only around the Industrial Era in the first place.

Yeah, I could see an argument that perhaps districts should mostly only start with the Tier 2 buildings. So early game, the only "districts" are maybe a holy site, an encampment, or a harbor, and then all the "specialized" campus/theatre square/commerce hub/etc... become more medieval/industrial setups.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I was surprised with how early most districts were unlocked in Civ 6. I had expected one or two to come early, but most to only arrive later in the game.

Perhaps most of them should be unlocked only around the Industrial Era in the first place.

On the other hand, a case can be made for most of them very early, even earlier than in the game for some:

Long-distance trade is evidenced from the late Neolithic and the very first city-like concentrations, so Commerical Districts should be available very early.

Several early cities, notably Uruk and Babylon, started as Religious Sites which collected permanent population later, so the Holy Site actually pre-dates cities.

The earliest attempts at Imperial States (Akkad, Assyria, Hittites, New Kingdom Egypt, Qin China) all had some form of standing army, so Encampments of some kind are also a very early potential District.

Trade by Sea and exploiting coastal waters for food and resources, building boats that were at least coastal sea-worthy has now been pushed back in places to Pre-Start of Game or early Ancient Era, so ditto for Harbors (earliest found stone jetties, piers and warehouses: 2500 BCE in Egypt, fired brick versions in India 2000 BCE)

The game already artificially limits many things that were actually done much earlier than the game allows, and that includes building Districts by specific types. I suggest (as I have before, bear with me if you've read this elsewhere) placing the bonuses and emphasis on the Buildings and Structures in the District rather than the District would allow more flexibility as to when you can get the bonuses: you could build, say, a District on the coast which allows you to put out fishing boats to exploit coastal resources (earliest net fishing: 8000 BCE in Europe) but could not build a set of Harbor structures (piers, jetties, breakwater, etc) until later, and a formal Shipyard might be a late Medieval structure (as they were in both France and England)

 

[Patine]

On the other hand, a case can be made for most of them very early, even earlier than in the game for some:

Long-distance trade is evidenced from the late Neolithic and the very first city-like concentrations, so Commerical Districts should be available very early.

Several early cities, notably Uruk and Babylon, started as Religious Sites which collected permanent population later, so the Holy Site actually pre-dates cities.

The earliest attempts at Imperial States (Akkad, Assyria, Hittites, New Kingdom Egypt, Qin China) all had some form of standing army, so Encampments of some kind are also a very early potential District.

Trade by Sea and exploiting coastal waters for food and resources, building boats that were at least coastal sea-worthy has now been pushed back in places to Pre-Start of Game or early Ancient Era, so ditto for Harbors (earliest found stone jetties, piers and warehouses: 2500 BCE in Egypt, fired brick versions in India 2000 BCE)

The game already artificially limits many things that were actually done much earlier than the game allows, and that includes building Districts by specific types. I suggest (as I have before, bear with me if you've read this elsewhere) placing the bonuses and emphasis on the Buildings and Structures in the District rather than the District would allow more flexibility as to when you can get the bonuses: you could build, say, a District on the coast which allows you to put out fishing boats to exploit coastal resources (earliest net fishing: 8000 BCE in Europe) but could not build a set of Harbor structures (piers, jetties, breakwater, etc) until later, and a formal Shipyard might be a late Medieval structure (as they were in both France and England)

yes, but the physica; urban sprawl all these districts generate in game to actually appear like that on a globla, strategic map is not seen until the Industrial Age. Cities tended to be much smsller, and, "stay within their walls," if you will, and most Pre-Industrial urban improvements should realistically, be stacked on the city core square - like is the case in Civ1-5.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

yes, but the physica; urban sprawl all these districts generate in game to actually appear like that on a globla, strategic map is not seen until the Industrial Age. Cities tended to be much smsller, and, "stay within their walls," if you will, and most Pre-Industrial urban improvements should realistically, be stacked on the city core square - like is the case in Civ1-5.

I completely agree, from a strictly 'scale' standpoint, all pre-renaissance cities should be a single tile surrounded by some kind of City Wall: I once walked most of the circuit of the classical Athenian city wall in an afternoon, so I have a a strong physical memory of what the city sizes were really like!

BUT

The sheer in-game utility of having individual buildings visible on the map in a city is just too great. I will never willingly go back to having to look up in a separate table/display what is in a city, especially when I am trying to maintain and develop a dozen or more cities in a late-middle game: I recently went back and tried a game of Humankind, in which none of the districts are differentiated or show what's inside them, and gave up before I reached the fourth Era.

Which means we either stuff everything into a single tile or allow more than one tile early. Both are, strictly speaking, compromises, but I personally prefer the latter.

On the other hand, I am firmly in favor of limitations on the number and placement of Districts, even more so than the limitations in Civ VI. Ideally ("My Perfect 4X Historical Game") early cities might have no more than 1 - 3 Districts at most until relatively late in the game, but each District could be a mixture of buildings from the various categories: commercial, religious, industrial, political/administrative, etc. That rigid differentiation in Civ VI (and the terrain adjacency bonuses, which suck like a starving leech) is one of the primary reasons that Civ VI cities sprawl so unconvincingly. I would love to see that sprawl severely reined in until the Modern Era and mocdern movement/communication allow megalopian city sprawl. There should be a massive increase in the physical size and 'footprint' of a city from the late Industrial Era on that is not possible earlier - unlike in Civ VI now.

 

[Leyrann]

Long-distance trade is evidenced from the late Neolithic and the very first city-like concentrations, so Commerical Districts should be available very early.

No, markets should be available very early. Commercial Districts can wait until the Renaissance Era.

Several early cities, notably Uruk and Babylon, started as Religious Sites which collected permanent population later, so the Holy Site actually pre-dates cities.

Holy Sites are certainly one of the districts you could justify having very early.

A related concept I actually had was that you could build certain individual buildings on the map, produced by the city but otherwise similar to improvements - the tile could still be worked, it didn't count as urban, etc. One of those buildings would be the Shrine, where later on (after unlocking it), you could place a Holy Site on top of that tile to turn it into a district.

The earliest attempts at Imperial States (Akkad, Assyria, Hittites, New Kingdom Egypt, Qin China) all had some form of standing army, so Encampments of some kind are also a very early potential District.

And Encampments would make sense by the time of the Classical Era, probably. But again, just because the concept exists that does not mean it has to be represented as a district.

Trade by Sea and exploiting coastal waters for food and resources, building boats that were at least coastal sea-worthy has now been pushed back in places to Pre-Start of Game or early Ancient Era, so ditto for Harbors (earliest found stone jetties, piers and warehouses: 2500 BCE in Egypt, fired brick versions in India 2000 BCE)

Same as with Commercial Hubs. Just because it happened, that doesn't mean you need a district for it. You need a district when something becomes large-scale.

Going through Civ VI's full list of districts, here's where I'd argue they should be unlocked (with, for the later unlocks, individual buildings associated with that theme not requiring a district):
Holy Site: Ancient.
Campus: Medieval.
Preserve: Atomic.
Harbor/Port: Renaissance.
Encampment: Classical.
Commercial Hub: Renaissance.
Entertainment Complex: Modern.
Theater Square: Classical.
Dam: Modern.
Industrial Zone: Industrial.
Water Park: Modern.
Neighborhood: Industrial.
Aerodome: Atomic.
Spaceport: Information.
Government Plaza: Classical.
Diplomatic Quarter: Renaissance.

Aquaduct and Canal should not be districts in the first place. They are lines, not blobs.

This provides the count:
Ancient: 1
Classical: 3
Medieval: 1
Renaissance: 3
Industrial: 2
Modern: 3
Atomic: 2
Information: 1

Of course, all of this is assuming districts work like they do in Civ VI in the first place. I'd personally prefer they do away with the level of themed-ness that Civ VI had. For example, there is a decent overlap between buildings that provide entertainment and buildings that provide culture. I think districts should have more to do with how things are organized in the real world, and less with the yields available in-game - those yields are just what fits the districts you're building, rather than the guide for what districts you can build.

The sheer in-game utility of having individual buildings visible on the map in a city is just too great.

It's fun, but it is insanely limiting. It becomes incredibly difficult to add new buildings where they are thematically appropriate (there's no slot for them to go) or to use asymmetrical design (e.g. a district that has not precisely three buildings in it). This is one of the biggest flaws of Civ VI imo. The need to represent every last building on the map makes the gameplay around buildings far too simplistic and severely lacks in immersion. For all that I prefer Civ VI over Civ IV, Civ IV absolutely has superior immersion, and it comes primarily from the lack of symmetry in it's design.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Leyrann: I appreciate the detailed reply and comments
BUT
They only go to verify my thoughts, which are that the way to go is Generic Districts in which any adjacency bonuses are to the individual structures/buildings and any building can be built in any District (with the exception of the City Center, which should have a requirement for some kind of administrative center - palace, governor, etc).

That way, any requirements for adding complexity to the city can be by building, and much more precise if necessary, and the complexion of the city is not limited by slots available in specific districts. You want a Commercial/Trade City, build more commercial structures without being limited by having only a single 'Commercial District'.

Total number of Districts would be limited, though, because they are what would define the total size of the city, and physical size would be very tight for the first half of the game or so: until the early Industrial Era (1700s) it was simply impossible to reach all parts of a city if it got too large, because almost all urban traffic was on foot or sedan chair (Fun Fact: many ancient/classical/medieval cities, including Imperial Rome, prohibited wheeled vehicles inside the city except at night, so they wouldn't interfere with pedestrian traffic). The Megalopolis sprawling across the continent belongs to the post-Industrial and Modern Eras ONLY and it's past time the game showed that.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Yes. and
1. All districts must be adjacent to each other, no more mountain and wood terrain adjacent bonii. it's nonsense
also adjacent bonii should be more relevant. like.. say, in Civ6 only commercial hub gives out more gold when palced next to river. same benefit should also apply with industrial district. (raw materials are shipped there and products came out of there primarily by riverboats. not even Railroads and Tarmac roads replaces riverboats completely. also before steam power, waterwheels are preferred prime movers. and even with it, frontier settlements in colonies or similiar style settlements particularly in North America still uses waterwheels for sometime more.

2. A district can be removed or relocated whenever a need arises.
3. Whenever City center builds walls or defensive buildings, all districts get the same defense characteristics too.

 

[ldvhl]

Loathe districts and absolutely will not buy or play if it has them.

 

[Leyrann]

Loathe districts and absolutely will not buy or play if it has them.

Why is that?