Ed on districts in Civ7

[Olleus]

Tall vs Wide might not be a meaningful dichotomy in Civ7.

Instead we might see discussions between many-cities-few-towns and few-cities-many-towns strategies, as different ways of covering the same sized territory. Which would be nicer, IMHO, then deliberately ignoring juicy fertile land next-door because you've stacked your deck towards going tall.

 

[chaosprophet]

Here from quill18 video about playing civ 7, showing that there is at least one open building slot on the city center.

 

[Krikkit1]

But will there be citizen management on the choice of tiles like the classic Civs?

Not like classic civ
All tiles are worked

Each new pop gives you one permanent improvement (or is a specialist) which can’t be moved (and gives your city more territory)

So you can only change the output of a city by
1. building a new building
2. adding a new pop
3. changing policies/techs/religion/etc.

Not exactly sure how it will handle losing pop.

 

[Stoic]

Not like classic civ
All tiles are worked

Each new pop gives you one permanent improvement (or is a specialist) which can’t be moved (and gives your city more territory)

So you can only change the output of a city by
1. building a new building
2. adding a new pop
3. changing policies/techs/religion/etc.

Not exactly sure how it will handle losing pop.

How does this new choice seem to you? It seems to make management easier this way

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Frankly, i dislike civ going in the city builder genre direction, since civ6. If i wanted to play a city builder i will play skylines, against the storm, frost punk etc. I would much rather design my state rather than design my cities.

I partially agree with this. IMO, city building should be a mini game or limited to the capital. Something that can be optional in the Start menu. When managing an empire I feel like I should be concerned with decisions regarding the entire civilization, not localized management. I had always imagined the next iteration of Civ having a world map that looked more realistic but when clicking on a city you would zoom in and see a more detailed map of the city. Maybe even have specialized cities instead of districts to get adjacency bonuses. Although it sounds like they did this with Towns to a certain degree

 

[bv98132454]

Here from quill18 video about playing civ 7, showing that there is at least one open building slot on the city center.

To me there should be more slots in the city center than districts. For example, if a district can hold 3, the center can hold 5. The center would nearly always be the most dense zone of development, so this makes sense logically. From a gameplay perspective, this would push districts back to later in the game and would require the player to have fewer of them.

I really don't like districts and didn't like them in Civ 6 for reasons I stated earlier. Anything that mitigates them is a positive in my view.

 

[Olleus]

To me there should be more slots in the city center than districts. For example, if a district can hold 3, the center can hold 5. The center would nearly always be the most dense zone of development, so this makes sense logically. From a gameplay perspective, this would push districts back to later in the game and would require the player to have fewer of them.

I really don't like districts and didn't like them in Civ 6 for reasons I stated earlier. Anything that mitigates them is a positive in my view.

Adding +1 building slot to the city centre per urban district could be pretty cool. It would model how a city expands out, it tends to also becomes denser (and more monumental in the inside). Strategically it could be fun too. It might be fun building an urban district and leaving it empty (sacrificing a rural district in the process) just to open up a lucrative spot in the city centre with greater adjacency / stacking bonuses.

 

[bv98132454]

Adding +1 building slot to the city centre per urban district could be pretty cool. It would model how a city expands out, it tends to also becomes denser (and more monumental in the inside). Strategically it could be fun too. It might be fun building an urban district and leaving it empty (sacrificing a rural district in the process) just to open up a lucrative spot in the city centre with greater adjacency / stacking bonuses.

I always thought in Civ 6 they should have let you specialize your city core, effectively building a district on it. Just doing that would have helped the wide/tall issue.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

If I recall correctly, it was stated that the city ranged attack was removed in the Potato/Spiffing AMA

Ooh, interesting! Thank you!

 

[shaglio]

If I recall correctly, it was stated that the city ranged attack was removed in the Potato/Spiffing AMA

I wonder if city ranged attacks will be predicated upon building a specific . . . building, whether in the city center or in a district (similar to the Encampment District buildings in Civ 6). If so, that particular building might not come along until the Exploration Age, in which case the streamers would not have seen it.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I wonder if city ranged attacks will be predicated upon building a specific . . . building, whether in the city center or in a district (similar to the Encampment District buildings in Civ 6). If so, that particular building might not come along until the Exploration Age, in which case the streamers would not have seen it.

I was thinking the same thing. We've seen walls with and without ramparts. I suspect that may be what gives defensive fire.

 

[Big J Money]

The adjacency game in Civ6 was fun but super gamey and nonsensical, the fact that you got most of your yields from passive adjacency bonuses in early game was extremely bad for game balance.

I'm not sure we know that adjacency bonuses will be any less than before. I also feel that they were often overdone in Civ6, but that's not so much due to the implementation of the systems, but to the specific bonuses themselves. Many civs in 6 had unique improvements that added between 2 to 4(!) specialized adjacency bonuses. I believe there were some base civ/leader powers and wonders that added even more adjacency bonuses. They could still repeat this in Civ 7, and I hope they don't. In a way, it could be worse because we'll have each of 3 ages to solve the 'city puzzle' again... for each city.

 

[AriochIV]

Buildings still have adjacency bonuses, and it looks like they're as important as they were in Civ6, but they're more granular (and so fewer trade-offs) and you have to build your districts contiguously, so in that respect it feels less gamey and more practical.

 

[Big J Money]

My main concern is over how much that analysis-paralysis witll be better or worse than it is in Civ6. Once of my complaints with 6 is how long it takes me to complate a game compared to 5 (which was also longer than 4). While I enjoy the city puzzler aspect, I don't enjoy civ 6's version so much that I think it's worth significantly longer games. I didn't find districts to being "gamey" to be a problem, I think that was kaspergm's issue. I was just agreeing that adjacency bonuses were overused.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Tall vs Wide might not be a meaningful dichotomy in Civ7.

At PAX, Ed answered a question about tall vs wide. He said that city specialists are back in civ7. He said there are civics that increase the settlement cap to help with "wide" and also that some civs like Rome and Mongolia start with a higher settlement cap since historically, they were "wide" empires. So it seems that specialists will help with "tall" and higher settlement cap will help with "wide".

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

At PAX, Ed answered a question about tall vs wide. He said that city specialists are back in civ7. He said there are civics that increase the settlement cap to help with "wide" and also that some civs like Rome and Mongolia start with a higher settlement cap since historically, they were "wide" empires. So it seems that specialists will help with "tall" and higher settlement cap will help with "wide".

I wonder if Russia or Britain will also get higher ones in the Modern Age?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I wonder if Russia or Britain will also get higher ones in the Modern Age?

That is very possible.

 

[Olleus]

At PAX, Ed answered a question about tall vs wide. He said that city specialists are back in civ7. He said there are civics that increase the settlement cap to help with "wide" and also that some civs like Rome and Mongolia start with a higher settlement cap since historically, they were "wide" empires. So it seems that specialists will help with "tall" and higher settlement cap will help with "wide".

So there's a settlement cap, which is different to a city cap? Do we know how that works? Is it hard or soft?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

So there's a settlement cap, which is different to a city cap? Do we know how that works? Is it hard or soft?

The city cap and the settlement cap are the same thing. It's a soft cap. If you go over the cap, all your cities experience inefficiencies in yields. You can raise your cap via civics.

 

[Olleus]

The city cap and the settlement cap are the same thing. It's a soft cap. If you go over the cap, all your cities experience inefficiencies in yields. You can raise your cap via civics.

But which does it cap, the number of cities or the number of cities+towns?