For those of you that think they removed the free amenity, they did not

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
that district yields are entirely disconnected from population
Look, most things in life do not scale in a linear fashion and they are not entirely disconnected (why does everyone have to polarise with extreme words like entirely)
Pingala scales with population in a significant manner
And who can put in those 3 scientific specialists but a big city.
Big cities can convert production to research much better than small
A 20 pop city makes 10 science from pop, a 6 pop city makes 3.
Kilwa, Amundsen, Geneva type bonuses also help Such bonuses
Rationalism was introduced to encourage larger cities, before it we did not bother even reaching 10 pop.

There are other mechanisms like CS bonuses and GS benefits that encourage wide and are as much of and perceived ‘wide problem’

war weariness being tied to pop for amenity loss is also another indication this entire VI design was for wide. You can wish for a square peg but I thing they have settled on the round hole but it certainly does not hurt to discuss it all. It’s just that they are not entirely disconnected. Bin the word entirely entirely.
 

HiRezAudio

Prince
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
535
More yields for happiness is not the answer. The game already suffers from intense yield inflation.
I agree completely.
Every new patch or DLC seems to make yields ever higher to the point where it is now possible to get absolutely insane yields - now imagine what the AI gets on Deity level!
 

8housesofelixir

Emperor
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
1,550
There is really not a big incentive to specialise your cities, you don't 'need' to have that one mega trade city with the harbor/commercial hub/city center triangle to produce gold to support the big science/culture city, or your mega industrial city doesn't really need a bunch of internal trade routes to supply food and crammed neighborhood slums to make sure it has enough population to work in the factories. Instead, all the cities end up with similar 'cookie cutter' district layouts, and the quantity of 'cookie cutter' cities is what determines success.

I completely agree. Without the idea of specialization, there isn't meaningful difference between cities: all the cities are the same 10 pop +3 adjacency Rationalism city that can survive by themselves and provide you with everything, therefore more cities - quantity - matters.

————————————————————————————

Back to the topic about amenity - similar to the 10 pop +3 situation as a result of Rationalism - many optimization-focused players I know of (those sub-t200/100 win Chinese players) concluded that amenity become more irrelevant now. Their idea is that the return of +3 amenities as of now is really not worth the investment, they will stay at 0/-1 instead since there is no penalty, just like how their cities all stay at 10 population.
Some of them even argued that there is no need to build Entertainment Complex or Colosseum in this version, as the +10% return is sincerely ineffective compare to the production invested in going for +5 amenity; moreover, EC before zoo is completely useless besides Colosseum, and they can finish the game before building a zoo.
On the other hand they do wish the +5 Ecstatic status can have a larger boost, which will be worthy of investment.

IMHO, in this case, this update of amenity is really not working as intended. Me as a casual player will invest in amenities for fun anyway, but for serious players the update can simply mean they can ignore amenity before late- to end-game now.
 
Last edited:

Myomoto

King
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
610
Look, most things in life do not scale in a linear fashion and they are not entirely disconnected (why does everyone have to polarise with extreme words like entirely)
Pingala scales with population in a significant manner
And who can put in those 3 scientific specialists but a big city.
Big cities can convert production to research much better than small
A 20 pop city makes 10 science from pop, a 6 pop city makes 3.
Kilwa, Amundsen, Geneva type bonuses also help Such bonuses
Rationalism was introduced to encourage larger cities, before it we did not bother even reaching 10 pop.

There are other mechanisms like CS bonuses and GS benefits that encourage wide and are as much of and perceived ‘wide problem’

war weariness being tied to pop for amenity loss is also another indication this entire VI design was for wide. You can wish for a square peg but I thing they have settled on the round hole but it certainly does not hurt to discuss it all. It’s just that they are not entirely disconnected. Bin the word entirely entirely.

I don't want to come off as overly pedantic, but my original complaint is that district yields do not scale with population. Yes, city yields do, due to the passive science and culture given per citizen and stuff like Pingala and Reyna's promotions. You can slot the 3 people and get another 9 science from a campus yes, but at that point in the game your empty campus on its own might pump out +40 science, and those specialists produce the same in a 10 pop city or a 45 pop one, the question is just how many good tiles the city needs to sacrifice yields from to run them.

The point is: It is possible to run an entirely effective district without spending a single point of population to harvest the yields at the moment. I personally think that is counterintuitive, and ultimately to the detriment of the game as a whole, as it in my opinion cheapens the importance of citizen assignment and population size.
 

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
and those specialists produce the same in a 10 pop city or a 45 pop one,
In the district the buildings are part of the district pedantically speaking but sure, if that’s your meaning, the only thing that affects the district itself is adjacency. A small consideration if adjacency could not be so ludicrously abused (I guess all part of the deity game)
Let’s be honest here. 4 pop city is small, 20 pop city is tall... 45 pop city is not impossible but not all that sensible either.

As an undirected comment

The bottom line is getting to a 20 pop city is not something you can sensibly do in many cities below T200 so I just wonder what is a tall city? 10? 15?
TBH I feel 10 is until quite late, sure the Khmers and Kupes os this world can do better than the average bear but we should be talking average here.
I think this iteration has done well, you can win a deity SV with one city so tall is not dead, just harder. Is that a bad thing?

I was wondering about the play mismatch. When I want a fast game I will play with just 3-6 cities because 13-16 is just a lot of work. So if you want to play a quick relaxed game you go for less cities but that’s a more thinking micro game than going wide. So you end up with the opposite of what you want, fat cities getting loads of science without the micro.
 

Datgingah

Warlord
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
259
What if specialists gained adjacency bonus on top of their base yield?

For example, a base 3 science +3 adjacency on all specialists in a cities campus. This would benefit tall cities more as they could afford to work more specialists, as well as pushing a focus as even tall cities couldn’t realistically work every specialist in every district, you’d have to pick and choose.
 

Sostratus

Deity
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Location
Minnesota, USA
What if specialists gained adjacency bonus on top of their base yield?

For example, a base 3 science +3 adjacency on all specialists in a cities campus. This would benefit tall cities more as they could afford to work more specialists, as well as pushing a focus as even tall cities couldn’t realistically work every specialist in every district, you’d have to pick and choose.
The problem with the approach, at a high level, is that the magnitude of adjacencies varies greatly by district.
Some districts, like the commercial hub, will essentially never crack 5, and is usually 2 or 3.
But you can push an industrial zone to 7-9 pretty regularly. And campuses are littered with ways to get +2 on all sorts of tiles. So then it’s like, should adjacency be a reward in itself or should it be turbo charging specialists? Should specialists have a uniform level of yield? Etc.

I am all for adjacency + specialists replacing “buildings buildings buildings” as the path to yields, it’s just recognizing how things are set up now doesn’t play well with specialists getting adjacency.
 

Myomoto

King
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
610
The problem with the approach, at a high level, is that the magnitude of adjacencies varies greatly by district.
Some districts, like the commercial hub, will essentially never crack 5, and is usually 2 or 3.
But you can push an industrial zone to 7-9 pretty regularly. And campuses are littered with ways to get +2 on all sorts of tiles. So then it’s like, should adjacency be a reward in itself or should it be turbo charging specialists? Should specialists have a uniform level of yield? Etc.

I am all for adjacency + specialists replacing “buildings buildings buildings” as the path to yields, it’s just recognizing how things are set up now doesn’t play well with specialists getting adjacency.

I mean, districts like the IZ could just have 2x the number of specialists, and they each get half the adjacency bonus (or 3x and one third). Base yields could also be tinkered with. As far as I remember, the commercial hub specialists give +4 gold, rather than the +2 district base yield you have in other districts. I know one gold is generally worth half a production, but the point is, there is already a precedent for specialist yields to vary.
 
Last edited:

Datgingah

Warlord
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
259
I mean, districts like the IZ could just have 2x the number of specialists, and they each get half the adjacency bonus (or 3x and one third). Base yields could also be tinkered with. As far as I remember, the commercial hub specialists give +4 gold, rather than the +2 district base yield you have in other districts. I know gold is generally worth half a production, but the point is, there is already a precedent for specialist yields to vary.

Further, district buildings could also add yields into the specialist as well. Maybe the bank increases the base yield specialist by 2 each, and potentially The stock exchange adds the district adjacency as well.
 

kaspergm

Deity
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
5,524
I am all for adjacency + specialists replacing “buildings buildings buildings” as the path to yields, it’s just recognizing how things are set up now doesn’t play well with specialists getting adjacency.
This all the way. Out with flat yields for buildings, and instead give only flat yields from specialists (and possibly some but not too much from adjacency). Buildings hold their weight through providing specialist and great work slots and additionally can provide multiplicative bonuses or (preferentially?) other effects.
 

Myomoto

King
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
610
This all the way. Out with flat yields for buildings, and instead give only flat yields from specialists (and possibly some but not too much from adjacency). Buildings hold their weight through providing specialist and great work slots and additionally can provide multiplicative bonuses or (preferentially?) other effects.

Potentially their production costs need to be re-evaluated if they really offer nothing but the slot, but yea, I would also like to see their yields reduced to almost nothing. Maybe a trade-off could be that their gold maintenance is reduced/turned off if the specialist slot is unoccupied.
 

Datgingah

Warlord
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
259
I think if this is done with flat specialists as the boost or adjacency ones, then tier one buildings shouldn't be unlocked on the same tech as the district. This way you have essentially 4 waves for each district.

First wave is about adjacency, which would fit the ancient/classical eras well.

Second wave comes with tier one buildings, and introduces the specialist. It doesn't have to be more then a tech/civic or two later, but that tier one building comes online too fast with the specialist in mind if this is given immediately. The building could do a flat +4 yield or something or else closer to +2 and +adjacency/3 rounded. This way even if specialists are very strong now, you're preventing that power spike from happening immediately.

Next would be tier two buildings, allowing you to two more specialists, and increasing the yields to +6 or have adjacency bonus to become adjacency/2.

Finally the last building could give you three specialists, and increase yields to +8 or have adjacency bonus become adjacency.

It would push for city specialization, a lot more, but late game prices would need to be re-balanced notably.
 

acluewithout

Deity
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
3,467
I’d be reluctant to mess with Adjacencies. They work so well already, and are so much fun to play with.

The key thing is that flat yields inherently devalue population and therefore discourage tall or fat cities. I think the game can tolerate flat yields for District adjacencies, because those yields at least are map dependent and still sort of related to population via District limits. But the flat yields from buildings, and the ability to multiple flat yields via policy cards, are where things get really hairy.

Overall, the game needs to generate more yields from pop (ideally pop working tiles or slots) rather than via flat yields. And, ideally, economies generally need to fluctuate more, so you can’t be so confident that you can just ignore / take for granted things like yields, happiness, amenities, maintenance and or (loyalty) (although, in fairness, loyalty is already a bit more dynamic overall).

Given that, my feeling is that a good rebalance that encourages fatter cities but keeps the existing Civ VI core design would be something along the following lines.
  • Keep District Adjacencies, although maybe tone down Campus adjacencies and or find a way to restrict how many Campuses a Civ can have.
  • Keep Natural Philosophy type Policy Cards, but maybe find a way to limit how easy it is to multiply adjacencies and or how many Cities these multiples apply to, so they don’t totally overwhelm population yields generally (maybe already less of a problem if you find another way to limit Campuses).
  • Mostly get rid of flat yields for buildings. Instead, have buildings do things like buffing tiles, provide other effects, or maybe provide percentage bonuses (?). That should hopefully make Specialists more important for yields.
  • Maybe buff Specialists, either directly or via policy cards.
  • Rework Rationalism type cards. These cards really cause so many problems - pushing players to cookie-cutter +3 Pop 10 cities, and just making flat yields even more important vs population. There’s probably a million ways to make these cards better. One idea I’ve been thinking about is reworking the old Work Ethic Mechanic, so you maybe get +1% to yields per district adjacency and per pop - that would keep adjacencies relevant late game, but also make Pop more valuable because it both provides a source of +% and also any yields generated by the pop gets multiplied by the %.

  • Maybe take a look at Neighbourhoods and Sewers for a balance pass. Maybe look at tech costs overall.
  • More dynamic empire management. Personally, I don’t think increasing maintenance costs are a good idea, because it really does seem like Civ VI is balanced around having large Gold and Faith surpluses. Instead, maybe amenities could fluctuate more - currently it’s really only War Weariness, Bankruptcy and be World Congress which dynamically impact Amenities, and none of those matter very often. I’m sure other things could be introduced to make Amenities more dynamic, that would then make juggling wide / tall, pop and yields more challenging.
The key tweak needed around buildings and policy cards. I’m curious whether FXS might meaningfully tweak those in one of the next couple of updates. FXS have tweaked envoys and happiness, so I’m somewhat hopeful. Guess we’ll see.
 

Nerevatar

Warlord
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
192
  • Mostly get rid of flat yields for buildings. Instead, have buildings do things like buffing tiles, provide other effects, or maybe provide percentage bonuses (?). That should hopefully make Specialists more important for yields

I love this suggestion and might mod this in myself. It works really well for endless legend and endless space 2. I believe we have modifiers for this already with stave church so should be easy to implement.
 

Myomoto

King
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
610
It's a pretty big overhaul of the game's mechanics, but I really hope they're at least considering something like this for a free optional game mode. Call it 'advanced mode' or something like that, due to the increased micro management and maybe difficulty from maintenance costs that can end up bankrupting you.
 
Top Bottom