Ed on districts in Civ7

[Disgustipated]

My main concern with districts is the illusion of choice. You are always going to want to put your civ specific cultural buildings in the same district. You could put them in separate districts, but why would you? Combining them gives you that unique district. And I suspect the same is true for other buildings as well. The only option perhaps, is opportunity cost. In that you may be waiting for tech to unlock before you can place a building, so you have to leave a building slot empty and eat up another tile for another urban district to place another building and then later fill in those empty slots for the adjacency bonuses. We'll see how that goes.

I'm guessing because of the ages mechanic, that we can overwrite buildings in districts. So that shouldn't be an issue. And I'm guessing districts can be taken out even during the age transition.

 

[Atlas627]

My main concern with districts is the illusion of choice. You are always going to want to put your civ specific cultural buildings in the same district. You could put them in separate districts, but why would you? Combining them gives you that unique district. And I suspect the same is true for other buildings as well. The only option perhaps, is opportunity cost. In that you may be waiting for tech to unlock before you can place a building, so you have to leave a building slot empty and eat up another tile for another urban district to place another building and then later fill in those empty slots for the adjacency bonuses. We'll see how that goes.

I'm guessing because of the ages mechanic, that we can overwrite buildings in districts. So that shouldn't be an issue. And I'm guessing districts can be taken out even during the age transition.

Each of those buildings, and the district itself, give different bonuses, several of which seem to be adjacency-based. It is possible you won't get much use out of the district bonus and instead would get more value out of the buildings being separated (or only 1 being built in that city at all).

 

[SupremacyKing2]

You could put them in separate districts, but why would you? Combining them gives you that unique district.

There could be other adjacency bonuses that you get from putting the buildings in separate districts so that there is a decision between getting the unique district or getting some other bonuses.

 

[AriochIV]

Also against the opportunity cost of the adjacency bonus that a different building in that slot would bring.

 

[acluewithout]

I very much like the new district / building system.

I also like the idea of overbuilding buildings they way it’s being presented - the previous buildings remain but are less super charged, meaning you have to decide whether to keep investing / reinvest or pivot.

I very much like the idea of unique ‘quarters’. That sounds very cool.

My only worries are:

1. Capping game to two districts, with two building, is underwhelming. Hopefully new district with more building lots open up in later Eras - I’m happy ditching the ‘campus’ and ‘theatre’ districts, but would love to see Harbours, Encampments, Industrial Zones, and maybe Government Districts make a return.

2. I’m still not loving the idea of how ‘improvements’ work. I loathed how turning hills into mines worked in Civ 6, and all the similar false choices around that sort of thing, but I do think some sort of choosing between improvements is important to Civ’s
gameplay loop.

3. I’m still not pumped about city size tied directly to pop and population working all tiles - again, choosing which tiles to work feels key to Civ’s game loop. And it never created any micro issues for me, because you had the option to just set resource priority +lock tiles.

 

[AriochIV]

I very much like the new district / building system.

I also like the idea of overbuilding buildings they way it’s being presented - the previous buildings remain but are less super charged, meaning you have to decide whether to keep investing / reinvest or pivot.

I very much like the idea of unique ‘quarters’. That sounds very cool.

My only worries are:

1. Capping game to two districts, with two building, is underwhelming. Hopefully new district with more building lots open up in later Eras - I’m happy ditching the ‘campus’ and ‘theatre’ districts, but would love to see Harbours, Encampments, Industrial Zones, and maybe Government Districts make a return.

2. I’m still not loving the idea of how ‘improvements’ work. I loathed how turning hills into mines worked in Civ 6, and all the similar false choices around that sort of thing, but I do think some sort of choosing between improvements is important to Civ’s
gameplay loop.

3. I’m still not pumped about city size tied directly to pop and population working all tiles - again, choosing which tiles to work feels key to Civ’s game loop. And it never created any micro issues for me, because you had the option to just set resource priority +lock tiles.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "capping game to two districts."

2. This is not confirmed, but I think it's very likely that you will be able to choose between different improvements in some cases. There are at least two unique improvements that we know of that can go on the same terrain as other default improvements (notably Farms), so unless you're forced to always use the unique improvement, then you're probably allowed to choose. The UI looks like it could support it, as there is room to show two possible improvement icons instead of just one.

As an example, the Caravanserai can go on Desert or Plains. If you're not able to choose improvements, that would mean you can never place any other kind of improvement on Desert or Plains. And the Hawlit "must be placed on flat terrain." It's hard to believe that you could never place any other improvement on any flat terrain.

3. Bonus food provided by Towns appears to be a major factor in the maximum size of cities. It seems very likely that your largest cities will want to specialize away from food production and depend on imported food.

 

[acluewithout]

…

1. I mean there are only two types of districts, urban and … er, the other one. Can’t think of the name right now.

2. You might be right - hope so.

3. Agreed. I’m happy to ‘wait to see’ on this aspect of the game.

 

[AriochIV]

1. I mean there are only two types of districts, urban and … er, the other one. Can’t think of the name right now.

Rural districts are tiles with improvements on them that are being worked by city population; they don't have any buildings on them, other than the improvements.

Your Urban Districts will depend on what buildings you put in them, and there are combinations of buildings that give them special bonuses. For example, if you put both of your civilization's unique buildings in the same district in becomes a unique Quarter with special bonuses. And it was hinted that if you put, say, two Science buildings or two Gold buildings in the same district, you get additional bonuses.

So it appears, at least, that it's a much more flexible system.

 

[King Flevance]

Rural districts are tiles with improvements on them that are being worked by city population; they don't have any buildings on them, other than the improvements.

Your Urban Districts will depend on what buildings you put in them, and there are combinations of buildings that give them special bonuses. For example, if you put both of your civilization's unique buildings in the same district in becomes a unique Quarter with special bonuses. And it was hinted that if you put, say, two Science buildings or two Gold buildings in the same district, you get additional bonuses.

So it appears, at least, that it's a much more flexible system.

This is something that I hope more depth or choice has been added as it could still hold just an illusion of choice rather than actual flexibility. I suspect it probably hasn't had too much depth poured in yet but I could be wrong and I am hopeful that 7 will grow into it over time even if I am right. For example, as you describe, the obvious choice here is to always stack your districts and make them either a market district or science district whenever you can. Market building + market building will probably yield a bonus 1-3 for instance. It would be cool though to see combinations where putting market + science building have it yield a bonus +2 and +1. Or maybe +1 +1 and +1. (Or +1 ,, etc. basically, an odd bonus outside commerce and science.) In this way the bonus is not lost or wasted for not doing it the only optimal way, it is just a less specialized bonus due to a less specialized choice. Which creates a new valid option that may warrant using different combos intentionally.

The illusion of choice has always plagued Civ's core tile improvement mechanics. There is typically always a best option regarding your upgrades. This leads to all of our discussions about "bad starting locations" which essentially means crappy basic terrain to improve. One thing I enjoy about the district idea is you can make it so that the basic terrain is less of a determining factor for how good your starting location is. (Though not irrelevant) Luxury and strategic resources are always going to pull at this. However, if the tile yield itself is a simple 1-3 yield unimproved but adding a district will increase that yield by 3-6 up to 6-9. Then what you put on the tile is more relevant than what the tile is. But now we run into the problem of how many options do I have? IMO every tile in the game should have at least 3-4 options of relatively equal weight. Deserts and tundra should not suck for anything non-food related. Getting a basic yield of 0-2 is already a huge drawback. Especially if a city has 6ish bad tiles like this to work with. That would be 6-18 missing resource yields right off the jump. This can be very punishing for a circumstance you did not choose as the map generator handed it to you - and now a lot of the terrain surrounding you (more tundra/desert) is similarly missing yields due to the way the map is (and should be IMO) generated. I know we are going for a certain abstract level of realism in Civ but making all starts viable despite realism seems like something that could make every new game exciting instead of "screw that, I am restarting". A "bad start" should feel like that this game is 'not worth restarting over' it just simply is 'going to be a bit different' than my last game.

I don't know, I could spout ideas all day but I have very little actual information so far, plus any information now is also subject to change by February. Then it will also be subject to change with every patch and every expansion. I am not convinced the new system will have flexibility, but I think districts are a good way make tile improvements have versatility and even be able to build upwards on them for specialization. They hold a lot of potential, for sure. How you describe rural districts is interesting as I had thought they also were able to get buildings. It would be nice to see them get upgrades as well like a barn, or a field, or a granary, greenhouse, etc.

 

[AriochIV]

This is something that I hope more depth or choice has been added as it could still hold just an illusion of choice rather than actual flexibility.

We won't know for sure how the Quarter bonuses are impactful until we play it, but one difference is that buildings have different adjacency bonuses, so in putting two Gold buildings in the same district you may be giving up one of those adjacency bonuses (as well as the opportunity cost of the building that would have better bonuses in that slot). And for the Unique Quarter, taking the Romans as an example, the two unique buildings are a Gold and a Happiness building with different adjacency bonuses; do you put both in the same Quarter, or each in a Gold-focused and Happiness-focused Quarter, or each in the place that maximizes the building's own adjacency bonuses?

 

[King Flevance]

That does make it sound a bit more promising. I am a little eager to follow along with a Civ game's lifecycle again. I hope this game has an enjoyable launch.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And for the Unique Quarter, taking the Romans as an example, the two unique buildings are a Gold and a Happiness building with different adjacency bonuses; do you put both in the same Quarter, or each in a Gold-focused and Happiness-focused Quarter, or each in the place that maximizes the building's own adjacency bonuses?

If I'm not mistaken, don't you have to place the two unique buildings on the same tile to make the unique quarter? At least from the screenshots we've seen a Roman Forum contains both buildings, as well as Egypt's Necropolis contains both of their unique buildings as well.

 

[bbbt]

I wonder if the district "theming bonuses" exist for almost all combos of buildings or only like types (two science buildings, etc).

I like the 'overbuild' mechanic. I wonder, if like for ancient+ walls in 6, there will be the equivalent to a tourism or cultural bonus for say carrying over ancient era buildings to the modern era.

 

[AriochIV]

If I'm not mistaken, don't you have to place the two unique buildings on the same tile to make the unique quarter? At least from the screenshots we've seen a Roman Forum contains both buildings, as well as Egypt's Necropolis contains both of their unique buildings as well.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that you don't have to. The Unique Quarter provides a certain bonus, but that bonus can be weighed against the bonuses of other types of Quarters and the individual buildings' adjacency bonuses.

(I think that the term "Quarter" applies to any "themed" district with 2 buildings in it, be it a Unique Quarter or a Science Quarter, etc.... though I'm not 100% sure this nomenclature is correct.)

The Unique Quarter bonuses that we know of look pretty substantial, but we don't know what the other type of Quarter bonuses are.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that you don't have to. The Unique Quarter provides a certain bonus, but that bonus can be weighed against the bonuses of other types of Quarters and the individual buildings' adjacency bonuses.

(I think that the term "Quarter" applies to any "themed" district with 2 buildings in it, be it a Unique Quarter or a Science Quarter, etc.... though I'm not 100% sure this nomenclature is correct.)

The Unique Quarter bonuses that we know of look pretty substantial, but we don't know what the other type of Quarter bonuses are.

Ok. I was unaware that placing two buildings on a tile possibly created any type of quarter.

 

[Atlas627]

Ok. I was unaware that placing two buildings on a tile possibly created any type of quarter.

2 buildings of matching type.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Has it been mentioned anywhere do cities have a ranged attack? I hope its removed.

This part of the combat over-haul that was introduced in V.
Ai would not build units bc now cities can defend themselves.
Ai will not be able to capture other cities with single units with sneak attacks.
Cities with HP has to go also, not just ranged attack.
An empty city with a wall is still an empty city.
I can grab a ladder and enter it.

They said starvation by sieges is now working...
What is the part about ranged attacks that bother you the most?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

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.

Soft cap is nonetheless a cap... and historically inaccurate... Rome will be unhappy if someone in Palmyra got eaten by a Lion? Delusional non-sense. Pekin would revolt, or suffer any kind of bias if a new village in Xinjang got razed to the ground by some marauders??? Hilarious. Untill modern times, every city worked as a City State. Italy was all about City States up untill unification in the late 1800. And still today, the English Commonwealth, it's all on your own... it's just the laws, the common code... but if a city fails... there is no mother land coming to your aid... Democracy... it's something else entirely from Athenian times to modern times... Modern Democracy will try to redistribute wealth, happiness, etc, in all of its cities... Athenian times...
slaves were part of the society... completely different view of the government... A League made of city states... with virtually no limits...

Only Civ III city Cap got it right. That is, ONLY the more distant city-exceeding natural expansion power, will suffer increased corruption. Not unhappiness. Just corruption. Build a colosseums and a police station, throw a couple of dissidents to the Lions or jail. Problem solved. Warriors max 10 turns. Workers max 10 turns. Settler Max 30 turns. Production in the worst most corrupted cities in III was light years better than your 2nd city in VI at times... this lead to settlers spamming, accusations...
and thus the nerfing came... yet it seems there is no end to the well of the new arrivals requests for an easier time...
more nerfs... more caps... there will be an end to this ever???

 

[Krikkit1]

Soft cap is nonetheless a cap... and historically inaccurate... Rome will be unhappy if someone in Palmyra got eaten by a Lion? Delusional non-sense. Pekin would revolt, or suffer any kind of bias if a new village in Xinjang got razed to the ground by some marauders??? Hilarious. Untill modern times, every city worked as a City State. Italy was all about City States up untill unification in the late 1800. And still today, the English Commonwealth, it's all on your own... it's just the laws, the common code... but if a city fails... there is no mother land coming to your aid... Democracy... it's something else entirely from Athenian times to modern times... Modern Democracy will try to redistribute wealth, happiness, etc, in all of its cities... Athenian times...
slaves were part of the society... completely different view of the government... A League made of city states... with virtually no limits...

Only Civ III city Cap got it right. That is, ONLY the more distant city-exceeding natural expansion power, will suffer increased corruption. Not unhappiness. Just corruption. Build a colosseums and a police station, throw a couple of dissidents to the Lions or jail. Problem solved. Warriors max 10 turns. Workers max 10 turns. Settler Max 30 turns. Production in the worst most corrupted cities in III was light years better than your 2nd city in VI at times... this lead to settlers spamming, accusations...
and thus the nerfing came... yet it seems there is no end to the well of the new arrivals requests for an easier time...
more nerfs... more caps... there will be an end to this ever???

Each “city state “ that is part of the empire has their own interests and things they want the empire to do for them. If there are more cities, there are more different demands on what the empire can do for them…whether in cold hard cash or recognition for the local elites. And some of those demands become self contradictory. Once the empire reaches a certain size, the fact that the emperor is spending his time in the cities in the West makes the Cities in the North more uneasy. The promotion of a Southerner at court makes Easterners uneasy.

I would say the cap is accurate, I will be more likely to revolt if the empire isn’t doing what I want (I may be less likely if there are a lot of troops from that big empire nearby…. but If my city was paid special attention to I would also be less likely to revolt.