Screenshot analysis!

[Browd]

Still makes for potentially difficult choices: plant a district on a crappy tile, with no (or few) adjacency bonuses, or plant the district on a tile with an attractive base yield and alternative improvement, but gain juicy adjacency bonuses. Decisions, decisions....

 

[Haggbart]

I'm not trying to rationalize it with flavor. I think it has gross gameplay implications. I don't have to choose between farming/building on nice lands, because I'll just purposely put all my districts on crappy lands and all of my improvements on good land. Tada, no decision to be made, since its so straightforward.

Sure, you could do that. But there are things like resources and adjecency bonuses to consider as well, as well as placement rules for wonders. So you'll have to chose, which means there WILL be decisions to be made.

 

[King Jason]

It doesn't remove choice in "some scenarios" any more than the randomized map will always remove choice in "some scenarios" because of how map dependent city planning is going to be.

If you have a city radius with two connected mountains to put a campus next to. On one side (+2) is a grassland, on the other (still +2) is a desert. Sure, no brainer - put it on the desert.

Now, a different city - to the east are two tiles of mountain for +2 for your campus. To the west is a semi-circle of 4 mountains for +4. No brainer, your campus goes in the semi-circle. This would be a no-brainer even if districts granted the base yields.

The map defining your city placement is going to be filled with as many no-brainers as it will likely contain hard choices.

 

[Metecury]

Is it my impression or have they changed the look of spearmen and pikemen in the latest build?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Qu6GqPsNI



The same happened with swordman I think. They are probably changing the models a bit to please those unhappy with the art style.

 

[Atlas627]

Still makes for potentially difficult choices: plant a district on a crappy tile, with no (or few) adjacency bonuses, or plant the district on a tile with an attractive base yield and alternative improvement, but gain juicy adjacency bonuses. Decisions, decisions....

Yes, it does swap out some decisions (which good district tile do I want) for different ones (do I want the good district tile even though I might want it to be a normal tile).

But it also straight up removes some decisions (oh theres no reason not to put the district on that good district tile thats barren otherwise) in comparison to (is the barren tile worth the district bonus).

Perhaps I need to rework my thinking. Maybe this one is just a flavor issue to me after all, because I think the natural tradeoff should be using a barren tile rather than using a useful tile?

Sure, you could do that. But there are things like resources and adjecency bonuses to consider as well, as well as placement rules for wonders. So you'll have to chose, which means there WILL be decisions to be made.

Right, I'm not implying that there will never be any choice ever. I'm saying that there are now cases where the decision is obviously made for you. Some of those cases exist. I don't think they do if the district tile keeps its base yield. You're always weighing the district vs the improvement, because both are options. If improvement isn't an option, the district CAN become a no-brainer if all other district spots are tied.

 

[Atlas627]

It doesn't remove choice in "some scenarios" any more than the randomized map will always remove choice in "some scenarios" because of how map dependent city planning is going to be.

If you have a city radius with two connected mountains to put a campus next to. On one side (+2) is a grassland, on the other (still +2) is a desert. Sure, no brainer - put it on the desert.

Now, a different city - to the east are two tiles of mountain for +2 for your campus. To the west is a semi-circle of 4 mountains for +4. No brainer, your campus goes in the semi-circle. This would be a no-brainer even if districts granted the base yields.

The map defining your city placement is going to be filled with as many no-brainers as it will likely contain hard choices.

Yes, but the randomization of the map is creating as many good choices as it is non-choices.

This rule is creating more non-choices than good choices, because the map is already assumed to exist.

I'm not saying that this rule completely overrides everything else in the game, I'm saying that this rule, in comparison to not-this-rule, is detrimental in SOME cases. In all other cases, its a non-issue.

 

[King Jason]

I should add that I personally like the change because it makes Tundra and Dessert cities more viable so long as you at least have modest terrain. The sprawling nature of city's would otherwise mean that it's even harder to settle in difficult terrain than previous games.

Housing is still a huge concern so no one will be settling in the middle of a desert without a river or oasis anytime soon. But I think if you have river, floodplain, and a few good resources you shouldn't be limited in your ability to put a city in that spot.

If the game was designed in such a way that base yields were factored into district output then putting a city on that dessert river would be difficult as it's districts would be sub-optimal. This way, the rivers can actually support the sprawl of the city.

Yes, but the randomization of the map is creating as many good choices as it is non-choices.

This rule is creating more non-choices than good choices, because the map is already assumed to exist.

That doesn't compute with me - the randomization of the map is directly responsible for every time you have a good grassland spot for a campus and an equally good desert spot for your campus and therefore would always pick the desert. So in the grand design of that map that's +1 no-brainer choice. Just like when it spits out a semi-circle of mountains. The first thought someone is going to have when they look at that is "campus. quickly." Unless the entire region sucks for a city.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I should add that I personally like the change because it makes Tundra and Dessert cities more viable so long as you at least have modest terrain. The sprawling nature of city's would otherwise mean that it's even harder to settle in difficult terrain than previous games..

Actually that is the only reason I don't like the change. Desert/Tundra cities Should be less viable.

I think it makes good sense to ignore the base terrain yield, but a district (or city) on a Desert/Tundra spot v. a Grassland/Plains should get a penalty (probably to housing)

 

[King Jason]

Actually that is the only reason I don't like the change. Desert/Tundra cities Should be less viable.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant more viable than past games. In the scope of civ6, clearly a 36 tile city in a primarily desert area is going to be less viable than a 36 tile in a primarily grassland area.

In past games you needed truly remarkable spots or to do something stupid like build petra. Now it seems you could make a modest city so long as you have a river and some land to farm - which seems more accurate to me.

Also we know that desert produces no appeal, so there's that.

 

[Haggbart]

On a related note - are there any evidence that districts connect cities to water (lakes, oceans or rivers) for the housing bonus? Or do you need your city center to be adjacent to get any housing bonus from water sources?

 

[Atlas627]

I should add that I personally like the change because it makes Tundra and Dessert cities more viable so long as you at least have modest terrain. The sprawling nature of city's would otherwise mean that it's even harder to settle in difficult terrain than previous games.

Housing is still a huge concern so no one will be settling in the middle of a desert without a river or oasis anytime soon. But I think if you have river, floodplain, and a few good resources you shouldn't be limited in your ability to put a city in that spot.

If the game was designed in such a way that base yields were factored into district output then putting a city on that dessert river would be difficult as it's districts would be sub-optimal. This way, the rivers can actually support the sprawl of the city.

Honestly, I do agree that it is a nice side-effect.

That doesn't compute with me - the randomization of the map is directly responsible for every time you have a good grassland spot for a campus and an equally good desert spot for your campus and therefore would always pick the desert. So in the grand design of that map that's +1 no-brainer choice. Just like when it spits out a semi-circle of mountains. The first thought someone is going to have when they look at that is "campus. quickly." Unless the entire region sucks for a city.

You said that this one rule is no worse than the map's randomness inherently creating some situations that are so awesome that they are no-brainers. I say that that is an unfortunate side effect of having randomization, and there is no better way to create the whole spectrum of choices while avoiding the bad extremes.

This particular rule, in comparison to its obvious alternative, swaps one spectrum for another. That by itself is not a problem. As people point out, it creates different tradeoffs. But the new spectrum does have no-brainer extremes while the other one didn't.

 

[King Jason]

On a related note - are there any evidence that districts connect cities to water (lakes, oceans or rivers) for the housing bonus? Or do you need your city center to be adjacent to get any housing bonus from water sources?

City center needs to be adjacent. The only district that works like you described is the aqueduct which is specifically for that purpose. It seems particularly narrow too because the aqueduct needs to be adjacent to both the city center and the source so it extends the distance you can settle away from fresh water by one - however, it does seem to turn mountains into fresh water sources, which is pretty huge.

As far as I can tell, the only housing that districts other than aqueducts and neighborhoods offer come in the form of their buildings. Even then I can only think of two that we know of - University and Barracks.

 

[Cyon]

That's the job of the aqueduct I think. Which begs the question of cities already connected to fresh water can build any aqueducts? Do aqueduct district have any buildings?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

That's the job of the aqueduct I think. Which begs the question of cities already connected to fresh water can build any aqueducts? Do aqueduct district have any buildings?

Yes, Aqueducts have Sewers at the very least.

 

[King Jason]

Yes, Aqueducts have Sewers at the very least.

Have we confirmed that sewers are built in aqueducts and not in neighborhoods or city centers? I thought the Sewers-in-aqueducts thing was a guess.

 

[Atlas627]

That's the job of the aqueduct I think. Which begs the question of cities already connected to fresh water can build any aqueducts? Do aqueduct district have any buildings?

The Aqueduct seems to give Housing regardless of your original fresh water conditions.

We know from the Marbozir video that you can build Aqueducts if your city is already on fresh water.

We know from early screenshots that at least the Sewer is in the Aqueduct. I assume there's also a Hospital. Medical lab? All giving more housing?

Which is also what the Neighborhoods are doing, so idk

 

[King Jason]

I didn't think we've seen any shots of a sewer. This is honestly the only thing I remember connecting them to aqueducts when they were first spotted:

The Eureka boost for the Suffrage civic is "Build 4 Sewers." Sounds like a building that would go in the Aqueduct district.

I'm not going to bother looking myself since I'm involved with other things at the moment. Plus I don't really care - I just didn't have that on my list of things that were actually confirmed. I'm Sure Arioch can correct me anyway.

We know from the Marbozir video that you can build Aqueducts if your city is already on fresh water.

I'd be curious if the Aqueduct provides just a flat +2 to housing or if when actually giving a city access to fresh water, it adds +5 or +7. Five for the fresh water source, and/or an additional two for the aqueduct as Marbs is getting despite being on fresh water already.

I suppose I would assume it's +7. Or I guess +6 (+4 and +2) if the base housing of a city with no water is 1 instead of 0.

 

[Atlas627]

I'd be curious if the Aqueduct provides just a flat +2 to housing or if when actually giving a city access to fresh water, it adds +5 or +7. Five for the fresh water source, and/or an additional two for the aqueduct as Marbs is getting despite being on fresh water already.

I suppose I would assume it's +7. Or I guess +6 (+4 and +2) if the base housing of a city with no water is 1 instead of 0.

You might be right. 2 housing for a whole district, especially one with such strict requirements, might not be much. Then again, all other districts provide nothing without adjacencies. Just slots for buildings.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I didn't think we've seen any shots of a sewer. This is honestly the only thing I remember connecting them to aqueducts when they were first spotted:



I'm not going to bother looking myself since I'm involved with other things at the moment. Plus I don't really care - I just didn't have that on my list of things that were actually confirmed. I'm Sure Arioch can correct me anyway.




I'd be curious if the Aqueduct provides just a flat +2 to housing or if when actually giving a city access to fresh water, it adds +5 or +7. Five for the fresh water source, and/or an additional two for the aqueduct as Marbs is getting despite being on fresh water already.

I suppose I would assume it's +7. Or I guess +6 (+4 and +2) if the base housing of a city with no water is 1 instead of 0.

There's a sewer icon visible in I believe the civic tree. Looks like a tunnel.

 

[King Jason]

There's a sewer icon visible in I believe the civic tree. Looks like a tunnel.

Yeah I know the sewer is in the game, it appears to come with sanitation.

I just thought that, given the boost requirement of that tech, it's more likely a Neighborhood upgrade. It makes way more sense to require neighborhood districts than aqueducts.