Ed on districts in Civ7

[Binkov]

Adjacency bonuses are still in the game, so i am not sure city building will be any less complex. If also we get additional bonuses for building type grouping (that's essentially a specialized district) and more than 2 buildings per district in later age (again 3 buildings per district as in civ6) it will be very similar to amount of choices we had in civ6.

Maybe with over building you'll have fewer buildings but given that basic yields are still there, i am sure there will be some further analysis going on, do i overbuild or do i use that marsh/desert tile for the new buulding?

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.

Whole bonus adjacency game seems like a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Atlas627]

I like the idea that districts are now more flexible and individual buildings matter.

Also an interesting quote from the same article:


So each city can potentially have three civ-unique special districts.

Perhaps 3 per player, if captured cities keep old unique districts and can build new ones...

 

[AriochIV]

Perhaps 3 per player, if captured cities keep old unique districts and can build new ones...

I think that's unlikely, but anything is possible at this point.

 

[Stoic]

But so the buildings act as a kind of fusion of yields? Could I put a barracks and a temple on one tile?

 

[Haig]

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

 

[Krikkit1]

But so the buildings act as a kind of fusion of yields? Could I put a barracks and a temple on one tile?

Yup, each building produces its own yield. They might get more bonuses with different combos.

 

[The_J]

But so the buildings act as a kind of fusion of yields? Could I put a barracks and a temple on one tile?

It was mentioned somewhere that you can have 2 buildings on a tile, and that there'd be some synergies, so you'd make more logical choices than barracks and temple.
At least I think that is what I remember.

 

[Siptah]

It was mentioned somewhere that you can have 2 buildings on a tile, and that there'd be some synergies, so you'd make more logical choices than barracks and temple.
At least I think that is what I remember.

You are correct. But I assume you need the city to grow a pop in order to be able to place a building on a „new“ tile?

 

[Krikkit1]

You are correct. But I assume you need the city to grow a pop in order to be able to place a building on a „new“ tile?

Not really
The city starts with 6 unimproved tiles in its control.

You can put a building on any one of the unimproved tiles next to the city. (possible restrictions may apply)

Each population allows you to improve one of the tiles, claiming the adjacent tiles.

(finishing the building might let you claim adjacent tiles, didn’t see that part)

 

[AntSou]

I once made a suggestion regarding Districts, that the type shouldn't be pre-set but develop naturally.

I thought about tiles having three spots, and you'd be allowed to put any three buildings, but you'd get extra bonuses by having certain combinations of buildings (e.g. adjacent observatory and university, shipyard and market, farms and mill).

I wonder if it will work like that, or if buildings are direct replacements.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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

Sadly not yet, but I'm with you in that hope.

 

[King Flevance]

Adjacency bonuses are still in the game, so i am not sure city building will be any less complex. If also we get additional bonuses for building type grouping (that's essentially a specialized district) and more than 2 buildings per district in later age (again 3 buildings per district as in civ6) it will be very similar to amount of choices we had in civ6.

Maybe with over building you'll have fewer buildings but given that basic yields are still there, i am sure there will be some further analysis going on, do i overbuild or do i use that marsh/desert tile for the new building?

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.

Whole bonus adjacency game seems like a step in the wrong direction.

I also am not excited for adjacency bonuses now that they require your districts to touch and you have to manage both rural and urban in the same way. It would help a bit if rural didn't not have a "touch" requirement. However, that is speculation on my part since I can't see the whole system. I think adjacency bonuses could work so long as they aren't too picky. (E.G. Universities grant +1 science per , , or in adjacent districts or even simply +1 science per urban district adjacent. But just stacking science is boring and a pain in the butt.) Most likely the overbuilding aspect is going to be as simple as wanting to overbuild your university on the same district you built your library due to the obvious yield benefit so it won't have much choice involved. Having districts be flexible with bonuses considering the strict "have to touch" rule would probably help IMO. You shouldn't have to work too hard to get good value out of your builds. You should have to simply pay attention to avoid not screwing yourself out of those benefits, if that makes sense. If there is only 1 optimal build pattern, it isn't flexible.

I do like the idea of districts in any game so long as they are a better aesthetic tile upgrade. At the end of the day they are just tile improvements like farms and mines. The biggest problem for me is when they visually wash each other out like in Humankind. The old farms and mines system made it easy to look at 1 tile and know what you had built in there. I think districts are definitely more of a desire to represent your empire's growth and so I see them as more an aesthetic choice than strategic - but strategy is certainly being interwoven. I much prefer that each population grants a new district rather than 6's model. I like that you can specialize however you want - provided it has flexibility and doesn't end up being cookie cutter build pattern for every city as I mentioned above.

 

[bv98132454]

I also am not excited for adjacency bonuses now that they require your districts to touch and you have to manage both rural and urban in the same way. It would help a bit if rural didn't not have a "touch" requirement. However, that is speculation on my part since I can't see the whole system. I think adjacency bonuses could work so long as they aren't too picky. (E.G. Universities grant +1 science per , , or in adjacent districts or even simply +1 science per urban district adjacent. But just stacking science is boring and a pain in the butt.) Most likely the overbuilding aspect is going to be as simple as wanting to overbuild your university on the same district you built your library due to the obvious yield benefit so it won't have much choice involved. Having districts be flexible with bonuses considering the strict "have to touch" rule would probably help IMO. You shouldn't have to work too hard to get good value out of your builds. You should have to simply pay attention to avoid not screwing yourself out of those benefits, if that makes sense. If there is only 1 optimal build pattern, it isn't flexible.

I do like the idea of districts in any game so long as they are a better aesthetic tile upgrade. At the end of the day they are just tile improvements like farms and mines. The biggest problem for me is when they visually wash each other out like in Humankind. The old farms and mines system made it easy to look at 1 tile and know what you had built in there. I think districts are definitely more of a desire to represent your empire's growth and so I see them as more an aesthetic choice than strategic - but strategy is certainly being interwoven. I much prefer that each population grants a new district rather than 6's model. I like that you can specialize however you want - provided it has flexibility and doesn't end up being cookie cutter build pattern for every city as I mentioned above.

My main problem is that they often make playing wide the definite best way to play because they take up more space on the map than buildings did before Civ 6. Space is much more limited for a tall civ, putting them at a distinct disadvantage. Something they could have done to help this a little bit is to have wonders not take up tiles, but it appears that they didn't do that.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

My main problem is that they often make playing wide the definite best way to play because they take up more space on the map than buildings did before Civ 6. Space is much more limited for a tall civ, putting them at a distinct disadvantage. Something they could have done to help this a little bit is to have wonders not take up tiles, but it appears that they didn't do that.

I see your point but, personally, I just love wonders on separate tiles.

 

[Stoic]

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

 

[chaosprophet]

Can we build buildings on the city tile itself? How many? Is it like any other urban district (except you get it for free) or fundamentally different?

I believe some videos showed you can, albeit one of the two starting slots for the city center is the palace(?), but then it may be only for the capital.


I'm curious about how exactly urban and rural go. From some videos I saw it seemed like you could only build a urban over a rural, but in others it seemed like an urban was created as separated. Considering the number of rural districts is limited to the population size, if it is always a replacement then would probably take a bit before making a new district for building would be worth it, as the yields from a building seems much weaker than rural yields for really good tiles.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Sadly not yet, but I'm with you in that hope.

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

 

[King Flevance]

My main problem is that they often make playing wide the definite best way to play because they take up more space on the map than buildings did before Civ 6. Space is much more limited for a tall civ, putting them at a distinct disadvantage. Something they could have done to help this a little bit is to have wonders not take up tiles, but it appears that they didn't do that.

Building tall vs. wide has multiple interpretations so please forgive me if I am misunderstanding something. But I think the ambiguous nature of districts should help alleviate some of your issues there - though not all. I can see how 6's system is disastrous for that as I have ran into that problem myself in 6. More buildings and/or more combinations of adjacent bonuses could further fix this issue I think.

I actually do like wonders requiring a tile to themselves though as they are so powerful. I don't like the needing a specific type of tile like desert. Pyramids of Giza should be allowed on tundra or grassland. Real Estate definitely needs to be flexible with districts.

 

[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.