1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

No Growth and District Production Craziness: I'm Sad watching my "winning" empire

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Nick31, Oct 24, 2016.

  1. Nick31

    Nick31 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages:
    421
    I included my first review thoughts in other threads, but I wanted to focus on 2 things that have really killed my enjoyment of Civ VI: My sweeping empire that stutters to grow or to build districts.

    Like many, I want to, above all things enjoy my empire-building experience when playing Civ. And I'm stunned at how out of balance VI is in its penalties to a successful builder. I've now "won" on Emperor and Immortal, but I'm so flabbergasted at how unpleasant it is to win. The game opens with that beautiful, arching score, and I want an empire to match. A beautiful, growing empire... and instead I'm stuck with dwarf cities that tech fast but can't build anything. I can't even buy districts with gold (except with Aztec workaround).

    I want to be able to see a growing/thriving empire, and instead I see an empire that simply cannot grow. Even with builder spam, farm-spam, tile-buying splurges, you simply cannot go tall at a rewarding pace in this game. And since there is no food carryover building, every time you hit your housing cap (i.e. get within 1 of the cap and lose 50% of growth), you can't catch back up when you expand it some.

    And so, this game feels like a continued cycle of "on to the next city" to see some growth (or at least to 10-pop)... but then you see the district costs in your new cities and you're stunned. You can buy buildings but not districts, so you can't even buy anything! The Aztecs can at least use builder charges, but then you're playing wack-a-mole, as your big cities with their industrial districts crank out builders for 100 turns, while you rush build districts everywhere. I either choose to conquer my neighbors, or I'm "building" an empire with Serfdom builder charges. It's like whipping your empire into existence.

    If I'm in a minority here, so be it, but I'm stunned that a game with so many Cool Mechanics (I mean, really great ideas for Civ) is so downright unpleasant to play once you're passed turn 150. It's an exercise in grim misery to try to finish out a science victory with its massive production "end turn" parade, and the choice to either go on an AI killing spree or simply watch your stunted growth cities stay below 15 all game.

    I need Civ to be "fun" for a tall builder. I like that I can randomly settle a new city by a NW whenever I want, I like that Settlers are increasingly expensive to build, and I like that wide play is encouraged. But you if you take away height, if all my cities are dwarf cities that I micro in tight bundles to overlap industrial districts and sit like a checkerboard with no height, then where is my sense of grandeur? I understand makning it "hard" to grow, but these housing caps have gone beyond that.... did they playtest this game and think: "Wow, look how great it is to be at turn 200, have 2-3X science of the AI, and have these dwarf cities?" Did they think "look how great the map looks without a single size 20 city Anywhere on the Map?"

    I simply can't play this game right now. I need to enjoy my empire, and I simply can't. It makes me sad that a game with so many fun mechanics, and a development team that clearly spent years coming up with cool systems, ultimately decided to make such an unbalanced game. Finishing a game of VI feels like Sisyphus pushing a builder up a hill.

    I want a feeling of success, of building a beautiful Civilization. And It's not here. And I don't understand why no one at Firaxis, why Sid Meier himself, doesn't see that it's missing. And how sad that is.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2016
    Reg Pither likes this.
  2. Brianstorm

    Brianstorm Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    181
    The rising district costs seem to be discouraging wide and tall play at the same time. I have a feeling the district/wonder/production issue will be fixed very quickly.
     
    IcyAngel likes this.
  3. gax2013

    gax2013 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    Agree with the OP. I play on marathon and the only city wich produces something in acceptable times has the Ruhrgebiet and several mines. Marathon is supposed to be slow,but thats a bit too much, especiall with the long wait between turns.
     
  4. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,334
    I disagree... I think it is intentional (like the % increase in tech/policy costs for civ5)

    Its meant to force you to Industrialize, as that is the only way to keep up (Production rules Civ6, like Science rules..basically all other civs)
     
  5. chazzycat

    chazzycat Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,904
    tall is dead...long live wide...

    no but seriously, there doesn't seem to be any good reasons for going "tall". For one, it just puts a hard limit on your GPP generation not having many districts. So yes, get your growth by expanding. You're going to need more cities/districts anyway.

    As far as district cost in new cities, I haven't really noticed this myself. Both my games I've expanded to ~10 cities and built new districts in the new cities very easily. Get a builder to the new city, get a few improvements while building a monument/granary and getting an internal trade route going. THEN start on districts and they should be pretty quick.
     
  6. oakdragon

    oakdragon Stagnating amongst the Siliconians Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    487
    Location:
    San Jose, CA, USA
    Not that I think it's quite "missing" myself, but I think the reason it's not the focus is that most people seem to want to build huge empires and conquer everything. If you focus on putting production into new cities or military, you don't have production to spend on the cities you have already. I think the growth handicaps are only there to keep making steamrolling empires from being too easy to build.
     
  7. Steinernein

    Steinernein Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    13
    Internal trade is massive, I think you can get over 5 food and production per route. So, if you're going wide you should have plenty of traders up and running.
     
  8. leonvr

    leonvr Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    37
    On marathon districts are not quick I had a city on size 10 and the first district was still been built ( I bought the sewer, monument, and granary ). Its a real issue on marathon. Where is the enjoyment if district take so long and can't be sped up, except by the small bonuses from trade routes ( that is the real issue ) Hopefully this gets fixed soon.
     
  9. Brianstorm

    Brianstorm Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    181
    Maybe, I think people are underrating one or two hammers and other things of that nature. But lots of Wonders seem to be going unbuilt even by AI, which makes me think even if it's designed that way, there's some kinks to be worked out
     
  10. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    I am sure there are a lot of tweaks incoming. Wide is the new 4 city tradition and it is even more dominant. Personally I like the change. I don't think you should be able to sit on 4 cities and defeat my 20 city empire.
     
  11. zagosya

    zagosya Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2014
    Messages:
    77
    May be it's the game speed. I tried my first game on standard and was like wow - 27-30 turns on a district in a decent city is way too much. Now I'm playing quick only
     
  12. GhostSalsa

    GhostSalsa Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    1,010
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    The OP isn't strictly about playstyle preference, or whether tall has to be as viable as wide: it's about the inherent let-down of not seeing your early city dreams flower into mega-metropolises. It's about not being able to hand-craft your own "world wonders," when every city is a hamlet. Not that CiV population standards have to be pasted over to VI, just that there was an intuitive majesty to full-grown cities in that game which made the late game a satisfying payoff to the hard slog of early and middle
     
    Nick31 likes this.
  13. spfun

    spfun King

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    Tall isn't completely dead per say, you just need to play as Kongo. I just finished a 5 city game as Kongo and i had 3 30+ size cities by turn 260 when I won. Archaeological Museums when themed give 12 food 12 production 24 gold 18 culture 18 tourism! And the Mbanza district is so good as it comes earlier and gives 2 food 4 gold without needing to be worked and the palace in the capital has 5 slots so a potential 10 food 10 production 20 gold there!

    Kongo are my favorite for playing Tall which is still my preferred play style even if its not optimal anymore.
     
  14. redwings1340

    redwings1340 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,408
    Location:
    Maryland
    I think we all are vastly underestimating the power of tall. Settlers cost a population point, and district cost increases are annoying. Sure, its early, but in my current game, I had a river capital (my first river capital), and because of a surprise war by Kongo, I started zerging out units instead of creating settlers when I reached political philosophy, and now my capital is a 12 pop paradise that can create a horseman in one to two turns. With all this production, I'm planning on just conquering my empire before expanding to the rest of the continent. I might end up with a lot of cities, but I think in general, waiting until you're at your housing limit to create settlers might be a good play. My early game feels better just by waiting this little bit, and with two conquered cities and a captured spanish settler, I'm not behind at all.
     
  15. Sansa_Stark

    Sansa_Stark Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2016
    Messages:
    531
    District costs in new cities are absolutely ok imo. In Civ5 you were punished for new cities, in Civ6 you are not, but you just can't expect those cities to be like your core cities. Later cities are meant to grab land, luxuries, strategic resources and 2-3 most useful districts. I don't see a problem with this.

    And yes, cities won't be that tall in middle game in Civ6, I don't think it is the end of the world. If you really mind it, make sure you rush neighborhoods and you can have your 30 pop cities again...
     
    lamaros likes this.
  16. juanpavo

    juanpavo Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Love this line. :lol:
     
    Nick31 likes this.
  17. lamaros

    lamaros Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    208
    I'm not sure what people are expecting? Maybe I'm expecting less than others.

    If you only have 3-4 cities and don't spam each district in all of them then they can indeed grow quite tall.

    I've had 3-4 20+ population cities which all had 4+ districts, and another 3-4 7-15 population cities with 1-2 districts. With good regional bonuses and investment those core tall cities are all top producers of in gold, culture, science and hammers. The smaller cities are more specialized, often only producing well in 1-2 areas.

    I think early game getting 1-3 core cities in good spots and building selective districts with good return is the way to go if you want to go tall. As you move through the ages you add the other districts as you open up more buildings and get more return from them, and settle or capture specialization cities with only 1-2 districts.

    The only real barrier in the game is that hammers are a hard barrier for districts in every city. Special cities can get around hammer loss by buying buildings, but there's no real way to address getting a key district in an area other than Aztec builders or chopping wood.

    Otherwise I think the system works pretty well to make people choose between tall cities or a lot of broad medium ones.
     
  18. Zenstrive

    Zenstrive Ocean King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    913
    Gender:
    Male
    yeah, districts need to be able to be bought by gold, or we are forever stuck with wide empires of resource towns (small city with nothing on it but surrounded by farms, mines, pastures, and plantations).

    I think in the end, If this keep on, all of my cities will just crank out builders and settlers
     
    Nick31 likes this.

Share This Page