Features blocking district placement.

[Kyro]

How many of you have discovered perfect locations for a harbour only to have your plans foiled by reefs?

Yes Reefs. What is their purpose in game balance really that they tend to conveniently appear in extremely inconvenient places? To foil adjacency bonuses? To block Polder Placement? To ensure the coast will never be too productive?

That and the luxuries and strategic resources that appear at perfect locations for campus/holy site districts. There really should be a code that prevents this it totally ruins the experience of planning like a speck of dung on a delicious cake.

+5 Science for a campus? Nope let's have tea instead ! Some excessive iron sounds pretty good too.

That or players should be able to build districts over them at a designated price. Removing them entirely as with jungle and marshes seem perfectly fair too.

The question at the end of the day is whether the devs want to prevent players from accidentally removing important resources or faciliate better planning by players by removing the guard against careless mistakes like these.

The extra quantities of strategic/luxury resources already doesn't matter much at all in Civ 6 I don't see any justifiable reason why they too cannot be removed.

 

[Vandlys]

My strongest dislike in this genre goes to "Horses". Strategic, in the information era? Seriously... We can't move horses...

Natural parks should be made easier to place, so horses, incense etc would give you an extra bonus to tourism, since you preserved the land.

 

[Cerilis]

Come to think of it, shouldn't reefs give at least minor adjaceny bonuses to campuses?

 

[Archon_Wing]

Reefs are one of the worst additions in R&F for sure.

I also think you should be able to build over luxuries and strategic resources. Losing the yile yield is already enough of a penalty.

 

[historix69]

Maybe all resources and non-"natural wonder" features should be harvestable ...

 

[Rosty K]

Maybe all resources and non-"natural wonder" features should be harvestable ...

No, you just need to be able to build things over them. When you build over an undiscovered resource and later discover it - you get a district, and you get a resource, so it should be the same after it's been discovered.

I don't mind not being able to build on reefs and such. Adds some flavor, and you know, things shouldn't always be easy. The only complaint about these things is it should be made very clear in the civilopedia that you can't build on them.

 

[Kyro]

No, you just need to be able to build things over them. When you build over an undiscovered resource and later discover it - you get a district, and you get a resource, so it should be the same after it's been discovered.

I don't mind not being able to build on reefs and such. Adds some flavor, and you know, things shouldn't always be easy. The only complaint about these things is it should be made very clear in the civilopedia that you can't build on them.

That implied definition of "difficulty" is disturbing because it suggests that any form of feature in the game so long as it opposes the player would count as fair game even if it directly contradicts the purpose of existing features.

Having high adjacency bonuses for building districts in the best spots is rewarding players for being able to plan their cities around them. Blocking those spots isn't any sort of challenge because it is punishing players for using the very skill they are encouraging and offering no workaround whatsoever.

This therefore constitutes as a contradiction of game features and is truly sloppy.

 

[Rosty K]

That implied definition of "difficulty" is disturbing because it suggests that any form of feature in the game so long as it opposes the player would count as fair game even if it directly contradicts the purpose of existing features.

Having high adjacency bonuses for building districts in the best spots is rewarding players for being able to plan their cities around them. Blocking those spots isn't any sort of challenge because it is punishing players for using the very skill they are encouraging and offering no workaround whatsoever.

This therefore constitutes as a contradiction of game features and is truly sloppy.

You know the reef is there from the start, so you plan your city elsewhere, simple.

 

[Kyro]

You know the reef is there from the start, so you plan your city elsewhere, simple.

And devs shouldn't encourage a feature in a game and then directly undermine it at the same time . Simple. Your solution is no solution but simply a "suck it up" reaction that does not consider the inherent flaw in the design.

 

[Archon_Wing]

You know the reef is there from the start, so you plan your city elsewhere, simple.

What kind of flavor is really added, when the solution is just to declare that spot trash and not settle on it? What happens if this is your first city? We already have desert, tundra, and snow, and it doesn't help there's ways of making these things useful.

Other terrain features like marsh and jungle can provide some intrigue in gameplay because you can develop technologies to deal with them and even in the case of crap like floodpains have an inherently higher yield plus a pantheon to balance out their uselessness. And at the very least it gives Egypt something. The reef does nothing of the sort and coastal tiles already have a number of inherent restrictions.

 

[UWHabs]

I like reefs since they do add a little variety to the coast, but would agree that you should be able to build over them at a cost. Maybe even if it was just a simple punishment for building over it, like -5 culture or -1 amenity for the city that builds over it. Enough that I won't do it for no reason, but if I want to be anti-environmentalist, I should be able to do it if I really want to.

 

[nzcamel]

I think it makes sense that neither strategic nor luxury resources can be harversted. They are too valuable to allow a war monger to come in and strip the land of them while those cities are under their control. But I think the issue raised in this thread is certainly genuine. I remember in my very first game of VI not being able to build a HS in the only space next to Mt Everest due to flippen silk!

I think the answer is that you can build over strat or lux resources (and reefs), and you loose the extra yield they give to the tile; but you still keep having the use of them for happiness, trade, or units; just as you do with a strategic resource that appears after you've built a district on it's spot.

 

[historix69]

I think it makes sense that neither strategic nor luxury resources can be harversted. They are too valuable to allow a war monger to come in and strip the land of them while those cities are under their control. But I think the issue raised in this thread is certainly genuine. I remember in my very first game of VI not being able to build a HS in the only space next to Mt Everest due to flippen silk!

I think the answer is that you can build over strat or lux resources (and reefs), and you loose the extra yield they give to the tile; but you still keep having the use of them for happiness, trade, or units; just as you do with a strategic resource that appears after you've built a district on it's spot.

That's a problem of the simplistic game design that a world run by one player only needs 1-2 of each resource while the same world with many players needs 1-2 of each resource for each player. A more realistic approach that multiple copies of a luxury provide more amenities for a bigger nation or that a biger military force requires more resources for building/maintenance would solve this.

 

[nzcamel]

That's a problem of the simplistic game design that a world run by one player only needs 1-2 of each resource while the same world with many players needs 1-2 of each resource for each player. A more realistic approach that multiple copies of a luxury provide more amenities for a bigger nation or that a biger military force requires more resources for building/maintenance would solve this.

Well, not necessarily as a smaller empire may be all the more incentivised to destroy resources while they occupy someone else's land.

I tend to prefer deeper reality (which is why I prefer IV and VI over V); yet the complaint about how strategic resources have been dumbed down -by only one or two being required- rings a bit hollow from the POV that they were about the only thing given that layer of micromanagement in V. It was jarring to me, as the rest of the game doesn't operate on that level of detail. Even the more complicated IV & VI don't operate on that level of detail.

It's simple - let them be built over by districts; but have them still supplied to the owner of the district. They loose the extra tile yield, so it doesn't come at no cost.

 

[kb27787]

I agree with the sentiment that districts should be buildable over resources. In fact I wish they would make it such that certain luxuries gave major adjacency bonuses to certain districts when built on them...

Incense and wine for holy sites
Silver, copper, and strategics for IZ
Whales, furs, ivory for campus (after conservation, if needed) etc.

 

[tedhebert]

I have no problems with it... Sure, it's annoying... but the rules are the same for everyone, so the AI also has to work around it, so... At least you see them... not like those hexes where unseen future strategic resources stop you from building something !!!

 

[Kyro]

I think it makes sense that neither strategic nor luxury resources can be harversted. They are too valuable to allow a war monger to come in and strip the land of them while those cities are under their control. But I think the issue raised in this thread is certainly genuine. I remember in my very first game of VI not being able to build a HS in the only space next to Mt Everest due to flippen silk!

I think the answer is that you can build over strat or lux resources (and reefs), and you loose the extra yield they give to the tile; but you still keep having the use of them for happiness, trade, or units; just as you do with a strategic resource that appears after you've built a district on it's spot.

The problem is the quantity of resources doesn't really matter in Civ 6 anymore. Just 1 Copy allows you to build as many as you like and there's often a lot more available than is necessary. Which means the original reason for such a prevention pretty much no longer exists. The issue of warmongers removing them from play as part of an elaborate plot to maintain dominance is moot because if someone has that much control over another player he/she pretty much won already and need not resort to such means especially when you need to inculcate the building of multiple cities in your invasion to actually establish such a monopoly.

Besides, if the devs wanted to they can simply only temporarily remove those resources from play when a district is built over them and have them reinstated once the city in question is razed.

From what I see the function to prevent Natural Wonders from appearing next to specific terrain already exists, I don't see how the same cannot be applied to features that cannot be removed. Although I totally agree with the simplest answer.

 

[historix69]

From the point of game rule consistency, it would be best if you could place districts over resources and get the resource.

The current situation where you can place districts on not discovered resources and use the resources later, but cannot place districts on discovered (researched) resources feels inconsistent and wrong. The fact that districts cannot be removed is one of the reasons why players have no disadvantage when placing districts on resources.

 

[KingCheops]

We just got Food Markets and Shopping Malls so why not expand on that new mechanic? Allow an expansion to a coastal resort or neighborhood that is next to a reef for a "diving spot" which provides +1 amenity. Or maybe an expansion for campus universities that is a reef research station in a city that has a reef that provides +1 research on each reef. I'd also like to see Ski Chalets for neighborhoods next to mountains that provides +1 amenity.

 

[nzcamel]

I have no problems with it... Sure, it's annoying... but the rules are the same for everyone, so the AI also has to work around it, so... At least you see them... not like those hexes where unseen future strategic resources stop you from building something !!!

No, you can build over unseen strategic resources. That is one of the main points here.

The problem is the quantity of resources doesn't really matter in Civ 6 anymore. Just 1 Copy allows you to build as many as you like and there's often a lot more available than is necessary.

Well, that's not true off the bat.

Which means the original reason for such a prevention pretty much no longer exists. The issue of warmongers removing them from play as part of an elaborate plot to maintain dominance is moot because if someone has that much control over another player he/she pretty much won already and need not resort to such means especially when you need to inculcate the building of multiple cities in your invasion to actually establish such a monopoly.

Well if you're correct there was also no need to stop people from chopping outside their borders. Of course some people would chop more than just trees! It's just a good insurence policy, esp in multiplayer.

Besides, if the devs wanted to they can simply only temporarily remove those resources from play when a district is built over them and have them reinstated once the city in question is razed.

From what I see the function to prevent Natural Wonders from appearing next to specific terrain already exists, I don't see how the same cannot be applied to features that cannot be removed. Although I totally agree with the simplest answer.