If Civ V had districts...

[Abaxial]

I would prefer if district would organically "grow" from the city center. If a city grows, neighborhoods are created adjacent to the city center & you have to place specialized districts adjacent to the city center. & if you want to conquer the city, you have to fight throught the suburbs until you reach the center.

The way it is now the districts are all over the place & your "city" consists of a city center in the valley, a campus in the mountains, a commercial hub down the river & an industrial district on the other side of the hills. You basically have 5+ "cities" that count as one.

So, so true.

 

[acluewithout]

I would prefer if district would organically "grow" from the city center. ... The way it is now the districts are all over the place & your "city" consists of a city center in the valley, a campus in the mountains, a commercial hub down the river & an industrial district on the other side of the hills. You basically have 5+ "cities" that count as one.

I like controlling where my districts grow. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, I wish cities sprawled more so you empire didn’t feel like a random collection of cities, coloured districts and mines.

My suggestion is to have a new improvement, ‘villages’, which provide minor adjacency bonuses to districts and adjacency to farms. Think of it like having mini-districts.

But I’d be just as happy if little villages and towns organically appeared on city tiles without actually granting any bonuses, or my cities and districts slowly sprawled into surrounding tiles. I just want my empire to look lived in.

Districts changed a strategic game, focused on interaction with other civs into a board game, where you focus on internal development and caring about where you build things and not caring about other civs.
I would trade them in an instant for a decent diplomacy and world congress system.

I want both. I don’t want to give up the builder game. But yes, I’d like more meaningful diplomacy. I think the game is happily heading in that direction though.

 

[Gamewizard]

I’ve tried to play 4 or 5 Rise and Fall games, but the terrible UI always makes me desire Vox Populi. UI and AI from VP is light years ahead of Civ 6 at the moment. Districts, policy cards, varying Great People, and the loyalty system have a lot of potential, but VP is king until modders are able to really get inside 6’s code.

 

[Athmos]

Civ 6 would still be much better by a long way.

 

[Art Morte]

I guess I'm kind of asking how important do you think districts are to making Civ VI "fun"...?

They're great fun up to a point. They feel like important decisions to make up until mid-game or so. But later in my games I'm building districts that I don't really need towards my victory condition, just because I haven't got anything else to build.

 

[Duuk]

If Civ5 was a better game, would it be a better game?

 

[Gedemon]

For my taste, if there were districts in Civ5 and Civ6, then my prefered game would be Civ4, by a large margin.

But as I say, it's a matter of taste, the best "game" of the 3 is possibly Civ6 already, it's just that for me it's a Civilization "board game", while I'd prefer to play a Civilization "computer game".

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Civ V has eclipsed Civ 6 in players on Steam again. It is pretty amazing how well that game is doing. It has something for sure.

CiV has been massively discounted in many sales on STEAM. Lots of people now have it so it isn't surprising that so many people play it. In my opinion, it is far quicker to play a full game of CiV than Civ VI. When playing GOTM, I could knock out a game in 3-4 hours. I find Civ VI takes far, far longer.

 

[Infixo]

If Civ5 was a better game, would it be a better game?

...but then it would be called Vox Populi.

 

[MrMorph]

I love Civ VI for many more things, than just districts.

• being able to build big empires is far more interesting, than sitting at 4 cities
• replaceable policy cards, makes this game so much more dynamic, than choosing some policies for the entire game
• golden eras and all those benefits that you get for ~30 turns gives many possibilities
• declaring wars with no/light warmongering penalty thanks to emergencies, protectorate wars
• possibility to pillage building like university, bank, adds depth to warfare
• pillaging building with bombers was something that I was waiting for since civ 4
• great amount of versatile civilizations
• amenities and housing is much better than happiness from civ 5
• advisors add even more depth

 

[KayAU]

I have somewhat mixed feeling about districts and the whole unstacked cities concept. On one hand, at least in the early parts of the game, placing and managing districts and other features around your cities is fun and meaningful. On the other hand, the potential for each city is a quite limited now. You can only build one of each district type in a city, and it will yield roughly the same amount of science, culture or faith regardless of how big it is. Specialists are nowhere near as useful as they used to be, and don't give you great people points. It is no secret that I am one of the people who prefer playing tall, although I agree that it was not ideally implemented in Civ 5. Basically, what I would want in Civ 6 in this regard are two things:

• Some sort of pacing mechanism for expansion, and a penalty for overextending. Rise and Fall has gone some way towards addressing this, with its loyalty mechanic and era system.
• Greater benefits for tall cities. Making a single size 32 city is much more impressive than making 4 size 8s or 8 size 4s, and should provide greater benefits.

As for 5 vs 6 in general, well...I think I still like 5 a little bit more. The viability of tall play, the policy trees, ideology and the world congress are all things I enjoyed. There is much to like about 6 as well. Carefully placing improvements and districts, policy cards, eurekas, more unique great people and city states bonuses, and the timeline are some examples. I'm hoping 6 will surpass 5 with the second expansion.

 

[acluewithout]

Bit off topic, but I think at some point Civ VI needs a way when you create a new game to adjust how hard it is to maintain happiness / loyalty etc.

I mean, it’s hardly priority no. 1. And I don’t really mind how things are now. But I can see some people might like to make expansion harder (to encourage tall) or easier (either to encourage wide or just don’t want restrictions).

Re Civ V, I find it hard to imagine giving up policy cards. I wish your government choices had more last affects, but yeah, love the policy card system.