[GS] How do you use Industrial Zones after the changes?

[Sostratus]

The new patch changes to IZs seem to have been met with a somewhat mixed reaction.
While IZs have certainly had their potential raised, it's also much less straightforward than the old mine + quarry rules.

I spent a lot of the past week playing with the new IZ and updating my Hansa placement guide to be much more comprehensive. But I wondered how enthusiastically people are embracing the new system.

Do you enjoy playing with the new adjacency rules? Why or why not? Have you come up with any ways to take advantage of the new system that spark joy? If you've turned away from using IZs because of the changes, what's turning you off? Please share!

 

[darkace77450]

Do you enjoy playing with the new adjacency rules? Why or why not?

Yes and no. Yes because the new rules offer more flexibility and because I find the decision to chop wood and rainforest tiles a tougher one to make. No because my +3 and +4 adjacency bonuses have turned into +1s and +2s, and I'm getting less mileage out of Craftsman than I used to.

 

[Sostratus]

No because my +3 and +4 adjacency bonuses have turned into +1s and +2s, and I'm getting less mileage out of Craftsman than I used to.

Do you find yourself using the Aqueducts or Dams to boost your IZs to compensate? Each one counts for +2 now, so even a triangle of IZ-AQ-District is +3 minimum. (And withthe addition of strategic resource adjacency, getting next to two strategics that are mined also grants +3: +1 for each resource, and +1 for the two mines on them!)

 

[acluewithout]

@Sostratus Well. You probably know my thoughts.

I'm building them in triangles with my City Centre an an Aqueduct. I can them usually get a few extra Adjacencies from a quarry and a few mines or Lumbermills or maybe a Government Plaza. That gets me about +4 to +5 without having to mess around too much.

I'll then try to get in a Campus or other District, so I can use some of that production on projects. I could maybe get a Dam in somewhere, but haven't go that to work yet.

The adjacecies are still a bit low for me. And I certainly wouldn't build more than one. (I'm also playing with England, so not getting the crazy adjacecies that say Japan could get.)

Having the Aqueduct is good though, because it encourages me to have the IZ in a City with good food and production, and have population to work the productive tiles.

I've also held off really diving back into the game, because it sounds like there might soon be another patching fixing England and maybe tweaking a few other mechanics.

 

[UWHabs]

I don't build a lot of green districts, so I'm not getting huge adjacencies. I'm also not sure if it's the cheaper buildings, or increased production on lumber mills and mines, but part of me still isn't sure you get a ton of bonuses from factories.

And yeah, it might be my territory, but I haven't noticed much in the way of IZ adjacencies. I had to force myself to plan out to get a +4 with a dam, but outside of that I think I only have one +3 in my empire.

I think if green districts were more valuable (ie. housing was more useful), that would help. Maybe next game I'll try settling one off rivers more often, and try to plan things out so that one aqueduct can get bonuses for 2 industrial zones. Maybe even find a spot to get an aqueduct/dam combo nearby each other to guarantee a +5 or higher IZ.

 

[Sostratus]

I'm building them in triangles with my City Centre an an Aqueduct. I can them usually get a few extra Adjacencies from a quarry and a few mines or Lumbermills or maybe a Government Plaza. That gets me about +4 to +5 without having to mess around too much.

I too have found this is a pretty effective setup with most civs that don't have anything special going for them. The aqueduct is just so bread and butter for IZs now. Quarries are a big feature for me and usually that leaves a spot or two for mines/lumbermills districts so round out another point.

Is your aversion to placing two cities in close proximity what keeps you from trying something ambitious like a 2 AQ 2 IZ diamond? If so, I have some 1 city examples in my guide update - a single city can get a +9 IZ all by its lonesome.

 

[acluewithout]

One odd bit is I'm looking at River City Location much more as potential production locations than for Commercial Hubs. That's a good change.

I too have found this is a pretty effective setup with most civs that don't have anything special going for them. The aqueduct is just so bread and butter for IZs now. Quarries are a big feature for me and usually that leaves a spot or two for mines/lumbermills districts so round out another point.

Is your aversion to placing two cities in close proximity what keeps you from trying something ambitious like a 2 AQ 2 IZ diamond? If so, I have some 1 city examples in my guide update - a single city can get a +9 IZ all by its lonesome.

Yes, I'm not a huge fan of smooshing cities together unless playing Japan etc.

Getting an Aqueduct and some improvements up doesn't seem a bad investment, but trying to get in a Dam as well feels a bit much. Feels like a lot of set up, for what is initially about as much production as a mine.

 

[Sostratus]

I think if green districts were more valuable (ie. housing was more useful), that would help. Maybe next game I'll try settling one off rivers more often, and try to plan things out so that one aqueduct can get bonuses for 2 industrial zones. Maybe even find a spot to get an aqueduct/dam combo nearby each other to guarantee a +5 or higher IZ.

This is interesting. Since a green district ends up being worth +2 for an IZ, +4 under craftsmen, and +8 with a coal plant, does framing the Aqueduct as a +8 production, +2 housing district (equal to a fully complete encampment!!) make it seem more valuable? or is the weighting on the value before industrialization trump it?

I had to force myself to plan out to get a +4 with a dam, but outside of that I think I only have one +3 in my empire.

Do you not normally like to plan out districts much? If so, consider looking at the guide link in the OP/my sig. While it's targeted to Germany, there's some obvious crossover for everyone else if you simply take out the CH and use the same principles. I used to find planning very hard until i learned to use a few templates and do light tweaks to handle the situation as needed.

One odd bit is I'm looking at River City Location much more as potential production locations than for Commercial Hubs. That's a good change.

I used to care not so much about rivers either. Now they are like the promised land of milk and honey. I don't even care about flood yields now, they are subverted by river infrastructure!

 

[UWHabs]

This is interesting. Since a green district ends up being worth +2 for an IZ, +4 under craftsmen, and +8 with a coal plant, does framing the Aqueduct as a +8 production, +2 housing district (equal to a fully complete encampment!!) make it seem more valuable? or is the weighting on the value before industrialization trump it?


Do you not normally like to plan out districts much? If so, consider looking at the guide link in the OP/my sig. While it's targeted to Germany, there's some obvious crossover for everyone else if you simply take out the CH and use the same principles. I used to find planning very hard until i learned to use a few templates and do light tweaks to handle the situation as needed.


I used to care not so much about rivers either. Now they are like the promised land of milk and honey. I don't even care about flood yields now, they are subverted by river infrastructure!

Old habits die hard, but yeah, thinking of an aqueduct as having at least 4 future production definitely makes it more tempting to build. I do hate building cities off of any water, since growth is stunted from turn 1. But if you can get the granary up early plus a couple farms/plantations, you can get a city to size 4 which should be enough tiles to work to be able to build things fairly quickly.

I don't plan out districts a lot. Although to be fair, my current game is basically almost entirely Tundra region Canada game with Dance of the Aurora, so not my "normal". It's basically "throw holy sites anywhere, since +5 or +7 doesn't really matter" and then put a commerce hub somewhere on a river, since I don't care about trying to get a single extra adjacency point out of it. And being in tundra, most cities are barely getting to their 3rd districts, at which point it's more just getting any district out that you can. And because there's not a lot of food, even less reason to want aqueducts. And then add in crippling blizzards, and my 2nd city being right next to a volcano that went megacolossal twice already on me, and no, I haven't been planning things out too much

But yeah, about the rivers, my best IZ spot is on a river. Dam and a niter tile gives at least +3, and if I were really planning things out I would definitely be thinking about other ways to turn the river into a production powerhouse. Some better planning for sure could maybe have turned that into a monster.

 

[Sostratus]

I do hate building cities off of any water ... most cities are barely getting to their 3rd districts

The aqueduct's placement rules were eased pretty greatly early on (it used to have to be on the same side of the river if you were on one, iirc. Now you can cross over it.) You get +2 housing even if the city is already on fresh water. About 85% of my cities are on fresh water, and 100% have AQs. The real reason though is placing cities on rivers usually means they are close enough for their AQs to overlap!

Speaking of district #s... since you can place any green district without regard to your district cap, you can actually lay down all the AQ, dams, canals you want the turn you found a city. (Military engineers being able to rush all of them also helps for getting things running.)

 

[acluewithout]

I don't think City Centre + Aqueduct + District on a river is optimal, but I do think it's still pretty okay if you're playing a longer game. It is a district for Adjacencies and other things, it doesn't count to your Adjacency cap, it's relatively cheap, and +2 housing is good. There's also a Eureka and a potential synergy with Water Mills if you have bonus resources and with Magnus's Surplus Logistics promotion.

I'm not sure I'd build them in a 100% of my Cities but they are a viable strategy in fresh water cities.

Dams are much better again but much more of an investment.

I haven't played with Craftsman much. If I have only one IZ, then using up a valuable card slot for another +4 hammers is not hugely enticing. Although, I get it's value is more from then also stacking it with the Coal Plant.

 

[Zenstrive]

Honestly, not much changed in how I play with it.
I simply try to circle my capital with IZs that has factory, including one in the capital. The capital will supply the power to them, they will supply the productivity to Magnus Integration.

 

[ezzlar]

The big production boost from IZ for me has always been the adjacency bonus. The buildings are expensive and provide low yields (but I still build them if the adj bonus of the IZ is high enough to provide that expensive production). Now however the bonuses from mines and lumbermills are almost non-existant. A 4 mine IZ used to be a nice +4 adj district before policy cards, now it´s only +2.

Instead I am building them around AQ and strategic resources. That´s a +3 adj and then I might get a district adj as well and they turn out functional. But far from the majority of the cities have them now. And I am a builder player.

 

[Sostratus]

Honestly, not much changed in how I play with it.
I simply try to circle my capital with IZs that has factory, including one in the capital. The capital will supply the power to them, they will supply the productivity to Magnus Integration.

Are you trying to maximize the adjacency of the IZs with the new rules? Or do you just figure Magnus will give you the powerful city you need?

 

[Sostratus]

Instead I am building them around AQ and strategic resources. That´s a +3 adj and then I might get a district adj as well and they turn out functional. But far from the majority of the cities have them now. And I am a builder player.

Have you considered building 2 cities 3 tiles apart, and fitting a diamond shape of AQ-IZ/IZ-AQ between them? That alone guarantees +5 to both IZs. There's a lot more you can do - consider looking at the update I posted on my guide (in my Signature/in the OP.) It works on most rivers, and is pretty easy to fit with resources. I'm a huge builder and always end up with tons of AQs, dams, canals, whatever it takes for my IZs!

 

[Zenstrive]

Are you trying to maximize the adjacency of the IZs with the new rules? Or do you just figure Magnus will give you the powerful city you need?

Well, somewhat, but I am not pushing it. Industrial Zones are usually the third district I build on each city before or during industrial. So priorities usually goes to the Holy Site and Campus adjacencies while trying to avoid building in volcanoes perimeter.

 

[King of Prussia]

i don't recall the last time i even built an aqueduct. I don't really need the housing if i am on a river or coast which most of my cities are. If i do need the housing, i am typical amenity capped. Around the time i have sewers/neighborhoods, i have the amenities to grow again.

maybe i will try and force myself to build a few. I would rather save those tiles for wonders, districts, or just other improvements.

as for IZ in general. I like that chopping is more of a decision now. With that said the adjacency for me is lower, so i am not sure i gained much. I still don't build coal or oil plants because i tend to not have the resources for both my military and for factories. There just isn't enough resources spawned around me for that. Especially Oil. the power it provides per unit isn't high enough. Nuclear on the other hand is worth it. Perhaps if less units(like infantry) required oil or the power gain per unit was increased, i would think about using those factories.

 

[Sostratus]

i don't recall the last time i even built an aqueduct. I don't really need the housing if i am on a river or coast which most of my cities are. If i do need the housing, i am typical amenity capped. Around the time i have sewers/neighborhoods, i have the amenities to grow again.

maybe i will try and force myself to build a few. I would rather save those tiles for wonders, districts, or just other improvements.

As I mentioned to UWHabs above, if you are willing to invest in craftsmen card, an aqueduct next to an IZ ends up being worth 4-8 production and 2 housing. This is better than a full military encampment (7 prod, 2 housing.) Especially if you make a diamond shape with 2 cities, you're already at +5 on both. You can even get up to +9 with one city, if you're so inclined. (See my updated guide link in the OP or in my signature for demonstration.)

I still don't build coal or oil plants because i tend to not have the resources for both my military and for factories.

Power plants provide their yield & auras even if they don't produce power, or you don't have any fuel for them. So unless you are trying to save it for a battleship fleet, go nuts with the coal plants. I do agree about the oil though. It's completely useless to burn for power, too many units need it.

 

[Zenstrive]

How do you show yields for each district all the time?

 

[m_mus]

I do really like the new rules for adjencies when it comes to IZ's. It demands more thinking in advance instead of the old "where are three hills?" and balancing the potential downsides of 'wasting space' by - for example - placing an IZ between city centre, aquaduct and a dam on floodplains I'd normally use otherwise.
I also like that it gives me a greater incentive to actually bother building the green districts.