This assumes that science will be as crucial in VI as in V. We don't actually know if this district will be as, more or less important than any other district. Without more information we also don't know if the location of your civ or cities (i.e. map features) and/or your desired victory condition will affect this.
Science has pretty much always been important in Civ, I would be very surprised if it was any different in VI. If there's a science penalty for every city I do feel as though we'll probably be forced to build a campus in every city, most likely. But I'd be happy to be wrong on that one.
Science has pretty much always been important in Civ, I would be very surprised if it was any different in VI. If there's a science penalty for every city I do feel as though we'll probably be forced to build a campus in every city, most likely. But I'd be happy to be wrong on that one.
I think that's wishful thinking, but so long as you can't outright ignore culture (which you can easily do in BNW after finishing Tradition), they'll have changed the game. Also, if getting culture from City States is harder, or at least takes real effort, they will have made internal culture production an actual thing to prioritize. Which hopefully will be cool.
Yes, but if there is no culture penalty pr city, it's still different than teching. Also the basic culture building do not need to be constructed in a district. But it's quite possible that you would want to build a theater square in all cities anyway,
Yes, but if there is no culture penalty pr city, it's still different than teching. Also the basic culture building do not need to be constructed in a district. But it's quite possible that you would want to build a theater square in all cities anyway,
We don't know about penalties yet. I also not sure if borders grow with culture now. With culture district being totally optional it would make sense to tie border growth with something more universal.
I think you get monument because culture still grow your borders but I may be wrong about that. We don't know how science and culture is generated, as far as I know there is no improvement that give a base yield of science and culture making these resource hard to produce for most civs and thus civs that get unique improvements seems to have significant advantages in producing culture.
Culture do unlock buildings, units and wonders so it is not something you can ignore. It is important to know how eurka/insperation effects the gameplay, if you can use these well then you may not need that much raw output.
Great people could be seen as a third tech tree although they are similar to wonders as well and from what I have heard you can get great people with gold and faith as well as production (projects).
I think you get monument because culture still grow your borders but I may be wrong about that. We don't know how science and culture is generated, as far as I know there is no improvement that give a base yield of science and culture making these resource hard to produce for most civs and thus civs that get unique improvements seems to have significant advantages in producing culture.
With unique improvements - they take precious tile space, so they have to produce significant output to be valuable. Also, some late-game common improvements like national parks could provide culture as well.
It is worth to note that many districts and their buildings give great people points. By focusing on a single district you may be able to pick several great people in a single cathegory but at the same time you may have to pay alot for these great people while splitting the points over several cathegories may mean a lower average price per great person.
I don't think it necessarily follows that campuses will be "required" in every city if science costs scale with number of cities. Culture costs scaled more dramatically than science costs in Civ V, but it was still common to have cities with only a monument for culture. Science buildings were a top priority in every city not because of scaling costs but because science was the most important yield in the game.
I don't think it necessarily follows that campuses will be "required" in every city if science costs scale with number of cities. Culture costs scaled more dramatically than science costs in Civ V, but it was still common to have cities with only a monument for culture. Science buildings were a top priority in every city not because of scaling costs but because science was the most important yield in the game.
I don't think it necessarily follows that campuses will be "required" in every city if science costs scale with number of cities. Culture costs scaled more dramatically than science costs in Civ V, but it was still common to have cities with only a monument for culture. Science buildings were a top priority in every city not because of scaling costs but because science was the most important yield in the game.
Sure, there are a lot of stuff we don't know that might affect the balance in huge ways.
One thing I'm very curious about is what's been mentioned about trade route yields being affected by district diversity. So maybe it will pay off to have a city without a campus district to maximize trade route yields even if tech turns out to be as important as before. Maybe we get the answer to this in gameplay videos already this week (although yields will probably be rebalanced until release and beyond).
I don't think it necessarily follows that campuses will be "required" in every city if science costs scale with number of cities. Culture costs scaled more dramatically than science costs in Civ V, but it was still common to have cities with only a monument for culture. Science buildings were a top priority in every city not because of scaling costs but because science was the most important yield in the game.
Exactly, and science has pretty much always been the most important yield in the game (if you discount food, which I'd argue was more important even in V). Culture was nice in V, but you notice that for vanilla+G&K ICS reigned supreme despite the penalty, because it really wasn't -that- important.
But there are other factors to consider. Whether or not science buildings are important in every city depends on how science is calculated. In Civ IV (at least in a normal cottage economy), science buildings were not all that important in every city because you might not push every city towards commerce (which was the base yield that determined science output) and science buildings mostly boosted science by a % of your base output rather than flat yields. Your military/production centers would not produce much science and therefore science buildings were not necessary there. In V, the base science yield was largely population, which is important in every city, so every city wanted science buildings just because they were worth it. If science comes only from flat yields, it will also be important to place a campus in every city.
Since the commerce slider isn't coming back, I'm still leaning towards science penalty per city = campus in every city. Hell, even without a science penalty, it may still be necessary to have a campus in every city, if science comes either from flat yields or population. It just may be that culture is equally important, but that doesn't really mean science won't be important still.
It is worth to note that many districts and their buildings give great people points. By focusing on a single district you may be able to pick several great people in a single cathegory but at the same time you may have to pay alot for these great people while splitting the points over several cathegories may mean a lower average price per great person.
Along this same line, remember that everybody has access to the same great person. Once that one has been acquired, then the next one will cost more. So if everyone is trying to get the same type, and in fact does continue to purchase/acquire the same type, then the cost will keep going up for this type while others will stay lower. What we don't know is how much each GP will increase over the previous one. So while concentrating on a single category will definitely continue to inflate the cost, and even more so if other civs are also concentrating on that category, until we know more about this we can't really say how this will play out in a game.
So overall, if you build a production/military focused civ, your tourism will be quite low. But I hope, you still can defend yourself a bit, if you play on a big map and want to achieve a domination victory, I hope not that the farest away civ can rush their tourism and beat you easily, only because you cant reach them in time, even if you are clearly leading.
If you failed to build culture to defend yourself from tourism, and failed to assess the threat that a culture/tourism-focused Civ poses to you, I'd say that that Civ very much earned its victory over you.
You should have tried rushing for them instead of leaving them for last, or you should have slowed down your expansion and stopped focusing on production/military alone to compensate for your lack of culture.
Production/Military shouldn't be the only way to win.
If you failed to build culture to defend yourself from tourism, and failed to assess the threat that a culture/tourism-focused Civ poses to you, I'd say that that Civ very much earned its victory over you.
You should have tried rushing for them instead of leaving them for last, or you should have slowed down your expansion and stopped focusing on production/military alone to compensate for your lack of culture.
Production/Military shouldn't be the only way to win.
I'd say it depends on how fun culture/tourism game is. Fun gameplay elements are those where advantage is gained through active action, not some automatic "pressure".
- Tactical combat with 1UPT is really fun.
- Religion game could be quite fun if more emphasis will be put in religious units (i.e. inquisitors) play instead of automatic religion pressure.
- Archaeology could have some fun, since it's playing the map, but in BNW diplomatic aspect of it was really weak.
- Collecting pieces of art to maximize tourism is the least fun part of the game, IMHO.
If culture/tourism play will stay roughly the same as in BNW, but tall will not be that overpowered, I see no interest in playing this part. And having to defend against enemy tourism pressure will be quite annoying.
I agree. The theming bonus in Civ V was the most annoying part of the game for me. Micromanagement for very little benefit. I would hope they automate it if they keep it for Civ VI.
Exactly, and science has pretty much always been the most important yield in the game (if you discount food, which I'd argue was more important even in V). Culture was nice in V, but you notice that for vanilla+G&K ICS reigned supreme despite the penalty, because it really wasn't -that- important.
But there are other factors to consider. Whether or not science buildings are important in every city depends on how science is calculated. In Civ IV (at least in a normal cottage economy), science buildings were not all that important in every city because you might not push every city towards commerce (which was the base yield that determined science output) and science buildings mostly boosted science by a % of your base output rather than flat yields. Your military/production centers would not produce much science and therefore science buildings were not necessary there. In V, the base science yield was largely population, which is important in every city, so every city wanted science buildings just because they were worth it. If science comes only from flat yields, it will also be important to place a campus in every city.
Since the commerce slider isn't coming back, I'm still leaning towards science penalty per city = campus in every city. Hell, even without a science penalty, it may still be necessary to have a campus in every city, if science comes either from flat yields or population. It just may be that culture is equally important, but that doesn't really mean science won't be important still.
Not just that, but despite their stated goal of toning down peaks because players would restart if there were no peaks in sight, it will likely still overcentralize city planning.
On the plus side, this would be the first Civ where mountains don't illicit a groan, much like deserts in Civ 5.
I like that Culture and its Civics tree are now sort of a parallel tech tree though.
This is really the sort of change that Culture needed to be something worth investing in.
Science was always universal in past Civ games for either a warlike or peaceful playstyle.
Gold was universal for both in terms of solvency or having liquid assets on hand to be flexible.
Culture... it's a lot less intangible in terms of benefit. Civ 4 Culture was useful in a lot of ways, but I primarily remember using it in the sense to Culture Bomb conquered cities via Great Artist or to grow a BFC quickly in a new city.
Civ 5 Culture was obviously important because of Social Policies but mentally, but I've built up so much mental resistance over the years from Civ 4 & Rev to assigning any focus to Culture.
With a Civics tree though now, I'm down for it, and it clicks now in my head just how important Culture is now.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
