No cultural and religious districts

Eric Guimarães

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
86
I love the way civ 6 uses more tiles rather than building farms everywhere like in civ 5...
I think the introduction of campus, industrial, commercial hub districts is very realistic (you don't see industries in the middle of the town for example)...However, I think that cultural and religious districts make no sense at all. Instead, I think the best idea to incorporate them in the game is to create "areas" (neighbourhoods) in the city administrative district where all the buildings related to them get shrinked in the city center...:blush: What do you guys think of this?
 
I like both very much. It allows a very nice specialization if you can chose to have a cultural district and a holy site. The monument gives you a basic culture yield at the city center, if you want more, you have to invest a district slot for the theatre district. Same goes for the holy site - some tile yield give you faith, but if you really want to get your faith economy going, you need to invest in some holy sites instead of possible other districts. Since the holy site is also needed for creating apostels, there is also a tactical value where you place them. I think both districts are a bit underrated. Faith is, for my current play style of the last 5 games, the second most important if not the most important yield in the game. That might sound strange, but you can build quite nice strategies around that. Would be a shame, if you could do that without special districts.
Also, the game looks so nice at it is, it wouldn't look half as nice if we cramped 9 buildings into the city center.

And as for realism, campus districts, encampments, harbors and industrial zones are indeed often separate districts in a city. There's a whole lot of exceptions though where this isn't the case at all. I also know lots of cities where commercial hubs, cultural districts and holy sites would be separate districts, but I agree that they probably are more rare. I think it boils down to how you see a district. I have no problem with how it is right now.
 
Separate districts are not always exactly right. I mean, the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben certainly would be crammed right in the middle of a city. And based on the scale, sometimes I like to think of "Entertainment Districts" not necessarily as districts within a city, but more like a city known for that. So in England, for example, maybe you would think of Oxford (or Cambridge) as being the "Campus District" for the city of London, for example.

So yeah, I think it's fine as it is. Things will get more complicated as they potentially add more districts, and I wouldn't mind other ways to give other synergies (so, for example, I wouldn't mind seeing temples or shrines potentially give amenities or culture either after a certain amount of time or with a certain policy card), but I don't really want to cram more stuff into the city centre and reduce the strategic balance on the map.
 
Top Bottom