Poo Pooing Districts :(

[dunkleosteus]

There is so much I love about civ 6. The diplomacy, combat, terrain, and so much more. I remember when I disliked the graphics yet they grew on me. After all this time and patience though, I still can't wrap my head around districts. I mean, from a gamey perspective, sure, it makes terrain important for building placement but I just CAN'T get past this burning question: why the heck am I spreading out my city? The walls only surround the city centre and encampment. It's probably the worst possible design for a city! Simply imagine how these citizens would have to USE these districts. Do you want to go to the amphitheatre? Walk 100 km through farmland to get there. Most of the city is completely exposed. No, that's not how cities are designed. They are built utilitarianly. Everything is as close as possible in a rough circle.

Very soon after I get civ 6, I will begin work on a mod that changes district mechanics so that every district must be adjacent to either another district or the city centre. There will be an unbroken path of "city" connecting any two districts. This is sadly the only way I can compromise with this mechanic.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

There is so much I love about civ 6. The diplomacy, combat, terrain, and so much more. I remember when I disliked the graphics yet they grew on me. After all this time and patience though, I still can't wrap my head around districts. I mean, from a gamey perspective, sure, it makes terrain important for building placement but I just CAN'T get past this burning question: why the heck am I spreading out my city? The walls only surround the city centre and encampment. It's probably the worst possible design for a city! Simply imagine how these citizens would have to USE these districts. Do you want to go to the amphitheatre? Walk 100 km through farmland to get there. Most of the city is completely exposed. No, that's not how cities are designed. They are built utilitarianly. Everything is as close as possible in a rough circle.

Very soon after I get civ 6, I will begin work on a mod that changes district mechanics so that every district must be adjacent to either another district or the city centre. There will be an unbroken path of "city" connecting any two districts. This is sadly the only way I can compromise with this mechanic.

The district IS the city.

Each district is a city full and complete with people who live there, education, industry, culture, commerce, etc.

The different city=districts in your empire are specialized in what they contribute to the rest of your society. The "city center" district is a regional capital, if that falls, the whole area falls.

essentially a civ6 city is closer to a US state than a US city... and not some small state like Vermont, more like Texas=1 city (Houston=Harbor District...Dallas/Austin/San Antonio all would be different districts in the Civ6 city of Texas)

 

[Plus Ultra]

Oh, this again.

Plenty of threads dicussing this issue in circles mate, probably better to join those rather than create a new one.

 

[criZp]

Because it's gonna be fun. Finally you can put other stoff on the map than a million farms and mines.

 

[Ovarwa]

Easier to walk 100km to a district than for an archer to shoot an arrow 100km.

Combat in Civ is sillier than ever! Yet it's one of the things you love, even though it has the same problems.

*not* a simulation

 

[Haggbart]

There is so much I love about civ 6. The diplomacy, combat, terrain, and so much more. I remember when I disliked the graphics yet they grew on me. After all this time and patience though, I still can't wrap my head around districts. I mean, from a gamey perspective, sure, it makes terrain important for building placement but I just CAN'T get past this burning question: why the heck am I spreading out my city? The walls only surround the city centre and encampment. It's probably the worst possible design for a city! Simply imagine how these citizens would have to USE these districts. Do you want to go to the amphitheatre? Walk 100 km through farmland to get there. Most of the city is completely exposed. No, that's not how cities are designed. They are built utilitarianly. Everything is as close as possible in a rough circle.

Very soon after I get civ 6, I will begin work on a mod that changes district mechanics so that every district must be adjacent to either another district or the city centre. There will be an unbroken path of "city" connecting any two districts. This is sadly the only way I can compromise with this mechanic.

So leaders living for 6000 years is okay as long as we shorten the walking distance to the amphitheater?

 

[dunkleosteus]

Oh, this again.

Plenty of threads dicussing this issue in circles mate, probably better to join those rather than create a new one.

Are there? My bad.

The district IS the city.

Each district is a city full and complete with people who live there, education, industry, culture, commerce, etc.

The different city=districts in your empire are specialized in what they contribute to the rest of your society. The "city center" district is a regional capital, if that falls, the whole area falls.

essentially a civ6 city is closer to a US state than a US city... and not some small state like Vermont, more like Texas=1 city (Houston=Harbor District...Dallas/Austin/San Antonio all would be different districts in the Civ6 city of Texas)

I wish that were so, but it is not to be. Too much of the design shouts "city!" And not "state!", to name a few, we have only one market in each city, one sewar system, one library, one workshop. True feeder cities would need these basic infrastructure buildings in addition to their own unique contributions. Theres essentially a suburb district as well, which once again makes the city a metropolitan area, not a state.

In a world of cars and trains, this isn't terrible. This isn't a game about cars and trains though, its a game that spans 6000 years and that needs to be taken into account.


With that aside, I was thinking that many districts would do well to have adjacency bonuses to other districts in a mod that requires all districts be adjacent. Buildings like the sewar should increase in cost based on the number of districts.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Easier to walk 100km to a district than for an archer to shoot an arrow 100km.

Combat in Civ is sillier than ever! Yet it's one of the things you love, even though it has the same problems.

*not* a simulation

Surely, we admit that combat opperates on a different scale than the map itself. My issue is that spreading out the city makes the city behave poorly in combat. Cities are not built with their guts spilling over the countryside, ripe for raiding and pillaging.

Additionally, a city is built over a span of at most a few miles or kilometres. The time to walk from any point in the city to another cannot exceed an hour or two or the city dies. That's just how cities worked. Armies marching for days to meet in battle isn't unheard of.

 

[Lucius_]

Many districts do have adjacency bonuses to other districts (as well as the city center)...

 

[magha77]

The district IS the city.

Each district is a city full and complete with people who live there, education, industry, culture, commerce, etc.

The different city=districts in your empire are specialized in what they contribute to the rest of your society. The "city center" district is a regional capital, if that falls, the whole area falls.

essentially a civ6 city is closer to a US state than a US city... and not some small state like Vermont, more like Texas=1 city (Houston=Harbor District...Dallas/Austin/San Antonio all would be different districts in the Civ6 city of Texas)

Maybe more like metropolitan areas around a particular city...although the I get the concept, I agree that even with mental backflips that it still doesn't make sense

 

[Bonci]

Yeah I feel you on that, I too am more on the "historical simulation crowd" side. At least the majority of other "gamey" concepts model something real, but splitting cities like that does not model anything...

Well, luckily we'll have modding

 

[Ryika]

Cities have never been built as full fortresses, critical elements, such as most of the farmland, has always been vulnerable in the past, purely because of the fact that it's literally impossible to build a wall around all of if and then defend it efficiently.

That's rather close to what we see in Civ VI, just that you have districts that are exposed instead of important infrastructure and villages that would be pillaged irl. It's quite an abstraction, but imho it works pretty well as what it is meant to be, and hopefully it will fulfill its role as a mechanic that forces you to be somewhat proactive even as the defending player.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Are there? My bad.


I wish that were so, but it is not to be. Too much of the design shouts "city!" And not "state!", to name a few, we have only one market in each city, one sewar system, one library, one workshop. True feeder cities would need these basic infrastructure buildings in addition to their own unique contributions. Theres essentially a suburb district as well, which once again makes the city a metropolitan area, not a state.

In a world of cars and trains, this isn't terrible. This isn't a game about cars and trains though, its a game that spans 6000 years and that needs to be taken into account.


With that aside, I was thinking that many districts would do well to have adjacency bonuses to other districts in a mod that requires all districts be adjacent. Buildings like the sewar should increase in cost based on the number of districts.

There is also a population of 1-50... these are abstractions... there is not one 'marketplace building" most of the market activity is in this one area (where you invested in improving the market activity), one Major monument, one Major region of factories.*

*also note factories now boost the production of all city centers in 6 tiles, not just the one that built it.

If you really want to have it done right each city should have a pop of 1-100,000,000,000 and each building should use a pop of somewhere between 1 and 10,000... there should be approximately 1,500,000,000,000 land hexes in the game (each should hold one building, representing about 10m by 10m..some buildings would take multiple tiles) buildings should all have road access to a road tile or empty tile.

Each unit of population should have an age, levels of religious devotion, levels of civ loyalty, technology list, cultural list....occasionally they would come with a new tech/civic idea (based on the job they were assigned), and it would change their behavior..but that tech/civic would get lost when they died unless they transmitted it to someone else.

The ridiculousness of that is exactly why it is easier to think of this "city" with "districts" actually being a fairly broad region with multiple points that contribute to it. the buildings/districts are representations of what is "really" happenining... so the "city" of Texas or (on a world map) the "city" of France for that matter, doesn't bother me much.

 

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Surely, we admit that combat opperates on a different scale than the map itself.

Surely we admit that it's utterly silly for an archer to have greater range than a tank.

My issue is that spreading out the city makes the city behave poorly in combat. Cities are not built with their guts spilling over the countryside, ripe for raiding and pillaging.

Palo Alto is utterly undefended! Ripe for plunder!

Arrrh!

Anyway,

Ken

 

[dunkleosteus]

I'm not here to argue about ranged combat. That discussion was in 2010 when civ V came out.

 

[MistyRonin]

I have always thought that Civ cities represent a province, a big city as it's capital and then little towns / villages around.

If you check through most of history only the cities had main services, unlike the villages that depended on them (that even happens nowadays f.i. here in Finland where only the capital of the municipality has services like healthcare or registry, and then the other villages inside are or industrial areas, residential areas, commercial areas/malls, harbour, etc. they are really spread out).

During the ancient to medieval eras, the walls only protected strategic areas of a province (usually towns where there were granaries, etc.), but there were many other left without protection like monasteries and their surrounding buildings, peasants villages, etc.

 

[dunkleosteus]

I agree, only the core city features were located in the city centre. Unfortunately, this includes things such as amphitheatres or arenas, markets, factories, etc. Civ V did a fine job of representing rural areas with farms and other improvements.

 

[MistyRonin]

I agree, only the core city features were located in the city centre. Unfortunately, this includes things such as amphitheatres or arenas, markets, factories, etc. Civ V did a fine job of representing rural areas with farms and other improvements.

I'm not sure in Toronto, but in many countries in Europe, you can easily find markets at the outskirts, specially when talking about the industrial markets and big shopping malls (a mall is after all a market with diff shops, my city's malls are in a range of 2-6km from the city).

The market case is specially curious as, usually they were found in the crossroads of the nearby cities, and some even became proper cities themselves.

Same happens with the main stadium / arenas (my city's hockey arena is at 4 km from the city itself).

And industrial zones in my city can be found in a range of 2-15km from the city itself (and all inside the city/municipality area).

And you can easily find far away ports in ancient times (Ostia - Rome, Piraeus - Athens).

In Sweden for instance you find the university/campus towns of Lund or Uppsala dozens of kms from the cities (Lund from Malmö and Uppsala from Stockholm).

I remember in Barcelona that one of the biggest theatres, the Musical one, is quite far from the city centre (also the Grec one).

To me the district representation is pretty much spot on. Of course it doesn't apply to all possible cities of all possible cultures, but pretty much...

 

[Mustakrakish]

The city representing a state with districts being smaller specialised cities DOES work. Your arguments about some buildings being built in only "one city" are easily adressed. When you build sewer system, you're not building it in "one city", you're building it in the whole state. Same with other vital buildings. You probably have small libraries in other cities too, you just have the most important biggest one in your "campus city" etc etc.

As for walls, visit any European city of significance and some smaller ones. Where there are walls, they are where city center used to be, they don't encompass the whole damn city. And there sure are lots of small cities / towns without walls. Walls themselves should not be thought of as just walls (they give you ranged attack, not a small thing), it's a military division/regiment/ whatever (I'm BAAAD with military words) and those definitely are NOT present in every damn city/town, but in important places such as area "capital" and military base/town.

I'm giving you ideas / tools to fix or at least bandaid your immersion. It's your job to ignore it

 

[Josephias]

Are there? My bad.


I wish that were so, but it is not to be. Too much of the design shouts "city!" And not "state!", to name a few, we have only one market in each city, one sewar system, one library, one workshop. True feeder cities would need these basic infrastructure buildings in addition to their own unique contributions. Theres essentially a suburb district as well, which once again makes the city a metropolitan area, not a state.

In a world of cars and trains, this isn't terrible. This isn't a game about cars and trains though, its a game that spans 6000 years and that needs to be taken into account.

With that aside, I was thinking that many districts would do well to have adjacency bonuses to other districts in a mod that requires all districts be adjacent. Buildings like the sewar should increase in cost based on the number of districts.

Jezz... it's a simplification. Even with the old design, why did the city have only one market? or one library?. As commented, take it as you command regions, with an administrative hub (needed to reap the benefits of all the región), and specialised people concentrations, that may or not may form part of the city (adjacent districts) depending on the terrain needs.

I mean, even in ancient times, Pireus (Harbor) was 10km from Athens (tough this would quite count like an adjacent district). Ostia (yes, it has appeared as a city, but could count as Rome's harbour) was 30 km. Canterbury and Oxford could be London's Holy Site and Campus since middle ages, and are nearly 100 km from it. Alcala made the same function for Madrid, and its 35km away. Fairgrounds (your comercial hub) need not to be inside the city, as you would like to have space to expand with new businesses. Same with workshops that would extend out of city walls (even if citizens ran back to the administrative center for defense).

So, there would probably still be small markets in the Administrative center for your citicens, but your "big" market (where merchants from outside the city gather for Business-to-Bussines may be in a next village with enough space to handle big caravans). In the same way, there may be churches in your city, but maybe the clergy of your religión as sought for a more secluded monastery in the mountains for meditation and training of new priests. Surely there are schools and teachers in the city center, but maybe a more quiet village near the forest has been selected as a place where research can be made without interruption: when you are building something in your cities is not a "house in the street" versión of the building, but an high-scale complex or network of infraestructura, that may be centered in a tile different tan the one of the city, but that does not mean its reach or effect is limited to that tile. Just needs a bit of underestanding the simbology of it.