Districts is the equivalent of 1UPT for cities. Instead of all the buildings being in the center tile, they're spread out on the city's radius (though the central tile still have buildings- we've seen granaries, & monument), with actual improvements showing and gameplay implications. ie: Wonders take up entire districts. It's impossible to build all the districts in one city. Districts themselves have themes ie: science, commerce, harbour etc. and get bonuses when placed next to certain terrain elements they have affinity to. I think each district can hold 4 buildings of a specifc theme. Which is more than enough given our known Civ upgrade path for basic buildings goes something like 1) library 2) university 3) schools 4) research labs or alternatively 1) market 2) bank 3) stock exchange
So this serves as specializing a city in more than the 'check if near river' type thing we're used to,. and adds a layer of depth to the game as an attacking force cannot simply march to the city tile, take it, and call it a day. The devs were quite explicit about fighting for control of districts, and military districts in the outskirts of a city producing the units, rather than the units coming from the city tile itself.
Now that your buildings are vulnerable on the map, enemies can selectively disable your culture/gold/science/production/whatever without being able to actually conquer your cities. This creates a defensive conundrum. You will often be forced to pick which districts to defend at the expense of others.
I think it will also add value to high movement mounted units that can penetrate and pillage districts.
A lot of universities are in their own areas separated from the downtown core. Universities as public institutions usually get its land via government grants/assistance and downtowns of cities usually don't have room.
The term 'university district' comes to mind. If anything, the urban University smack dab in the middle of the city centre are the ones that are not the norm. Though many university distrcts grow a city around them so it's easy for some to confuse that with a city housing a university. It is often the university that is the primary economic driver of these university 'towns'.
Districts is the equivalent of 1UPT for cities. Instead of all the buildings being in the center tile, they're spread out on the city's radius (though the central tile still have buildings- we've seen granaries, & monument), with actual improvements showing and gameplay implications. ie: Wonders take up entire districts. It's impossible to build all the districts in one city. Districts themselves have themes ie: science, commerce, harbour etc. and get bonuses when placed next to certain terrain elements they have affinity to. I think each district can hold 4 buildings of a specifc theme. Which is more than enough given our known Civ upgrade path for basic buildings goes something like 1) library 2) university 3) schools 4) research labs or alternatively 1) market 2) bank 3) stock exchange
So this serves as specializing a city in more than the 'check if near river' type thing we're used to,. and adds a layer of depth to the game as an attacking force cannot simply march to the city tile, take it, and call it a day. The devs were quite explicit about fighting for control of districts, and military districts in the outskirts of a city producing the units, rather than the units coming from the city tile itself.
Will it be possible to build the same district twice, in the area associated with any single city?
Will I be able to build libraries and universities in my city as well as my rural campus district? If not, will I be able to build a public transportation system between my rural campus district and my city? Or at least a road?
Will I be able to build libraries and universities on island cities? Or will island cities lose all of their relevance?
It makes no sense to fight over things like the pyramids, considering that the pyramids are gigantic grave sites. What military benefit would it serve to possess the pyramids or stonehenge, or the hanging gardens?
This new "district system" is confusing and poorly executed.
Will it be possible to build the same district twice, in the area associated with any single city?
Will I be able to build libraries and universities in my city as well as my rural campus district? If not, will I be able to build a public transportation system between my rural campus district and my city? Or at least a road?
Will I be able to build libraries and universities on island cities? Or will island cities lose all of their relevance?
It makes no sense to fight over things like the pyramids, considering that the pyramids are gigantic grave sites. What military benefit would it serve to possess the pyramids or stonehenge, or the hanging gardens?
This new "district system" is confusing and poorly executed.
As far as I know, no. . But as I outlined, most buildings in Civ only have 3-4 iterations so a district housing 4 buildings will be more than enough.
As for the military benefit of fighting over wonders, it is unknown what effect fighting over wonder districts will have as the developers haven't told us that yet and all we have are 3 screenshots and a bunch of preview and developer interviews. The effect could very well be nil. The examples mentioned were fighting over other districts built. Which will be the vast majority of districts on the map for most cities.
As for the system being confusing and poolry executed, time will tell. But you're in the minority here. It makes sense conceptually to most people posting here.
But I digrees as you've already made up your mind. Didn't you say you're waiting on Civ 7 now?
Now that your buildings are vulnerable on the map, enemies can selectively disable your culture/gold/science/production/whatever without being able to actually conquer your cities. This creates a defensive conundrum. You will often be forced to pick which districts to defend at the expense of others.
I think it will also add value to high movement mounted units that can penetrate and pillage districts.
Right and it cuts both ways. Seiges can no longer be a simple beeline to the city centre. And they are under constant threat from military camps producing units outside the city core and attacking the soft units from behind.
A lot of universities are in their own areas separated from the downtown core. Universities as public institutions usually get its land via government grants/assistance and downtowns of cities usually don't have room.
There are 85 universities and colleges on Manhattan Island. Universities, even rural ones, are rarely not located within a city or town. It makes no sense to have your university miles away from your city.
The term 'university district' comes to mind. If anything, the urban University smack dab in the middle of the city centre are the ones that are not the norm. Though many university distrcts grow a city around them so it's easy for some to confuse that with a city housing a university. It is often the university that is the primary economic driver of these university 'towns'.
Like I previous stated, there are 85 universities and colleges on the island of Manhattan. Urban universities are not only common, but appear to be more common than rural universities.
There are 85 universities and colleges on Manhattan Island. Universities, even rural ones, are rarely not located within a city or town. It makes no sense to have your university miles away from your city.
Like I previous stated, there are 85 universities and colleges on the island of Manhattan. Urban universities are not only common, but appear to be more common than rural universities.
New York is the exception though, what if there's a national wonder you can build on the city tile. Does that satisfy your needs? Besides, here in Vancouver, both our universties are out of the way. One of them, my Alma Mater, is even perched atop a mountain. So districts make perfect sense here.
I mean, we've been having these debates since Civ3 days and for me, Civ fans always understand gameplay > realism. Even if I grant you your 85 Manhattan based universities as the basis for my Civ6 game design, it would still be gameplay > realism. You seem to only want to knitpick this point because of your beef with Civ6 as a game.
Enough for what? Shouldn't a city of several million have more than one school and more than one library?
As for the military benefit of fighting over wonders, it is unknown what effect fighting over wonder districts will have. The effect could very well be nil. The examples mentioned were fighting over other districts built. Which will be the vast majority of districts on the map for most cities.
It makes no sense to fight over something like the pyramids or stonehenge though. That just seems like pretty low on the list of military targets.
As for the system being confusing and poolry executed, time will tell. But you're in the minority here. It makes sense conceptually to most people posting here.
But you having your mind made up may have something to do with the 'bias'
I fully support the concept of "districts", I just feel that they are likely to be poorly executed based on the information received so far. They seem more like something out a board game instead of a Civilization game.
Right and it cuts both ways. Seiges can no longer be a simple beeline to the city centre. And they are under constant threat from military camps producing units outside the city core and attacking the soft units from behind.
Doesn't logical urban planning dictate that cities be designed as to be easily defendable from a central location? Very little happened outside the city walls of ancient cities except for warfare and farming. The whole point of urbanization was as a survival mechanism.
I don't understand this district system or the motivation behind its design. It seems like something from Settlers of Catan or Here I Stand and not from Civilization.
@nyyfootball I've tried to answer your questions nicely but it is clear you dislike the game and you are just trolling. . Don't go around different Civ6 threads derailing them. You can stick to the one asking rhetorically if Civ is dead and leave the rest of us in peace.
I'm going to go find the ignore poster button now.
Thanks and see you in 2022.
Moderator Action: Accusing someone of trolling and announcing your use of the ignore function are themselves trolling. No matter how irritating you find another poster to be, this is not an appropriate reaction.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
nyyfootball:
Based on info, a city will have a city center, districts and "normal" improvements like mines and lumbermills. You can have multiple industrial cities for the city that churns out your warships and planes, or lots of food producing areas to support empire with food.
I think it helps the gameplay to quickly see from your and enemy's cities how they are specialized.
Also the graphics change with time, like some districts(cant remember which) will turn into these "apartment areas" or something.
Also you can make a strategic bombing campaign for example to cripple enemy's production and bomb his insdustrial areas. Also you have to think yourself which areas you want to defend more with anti-air units.
I remember reading that in WW2 Royal Air Force bombed Germany's industrial areas, but when they noticed those had most AA guns they bombarded the workers' living areas.
But clearly, as you don't like the graphic design, you have simply decided not to like any aspects of this game, and "read it like Devil reads the Bible" as a saying goes.. I could enjoy Civ V even as the English archers could reach the French across the English Channel, it's a game not a simulation.
Not trying to insult or anything, but I recommend being more open and relaxed about this, I feel the features look amazing, who cares about the graphics(of which we haven't seen in motion yet).
I fully support the concept of "districts", I just feel that they are likely to be poorly executed based on the information received so far. They seem more like something out a board game instead of a Civilization game.
Ed Beach is a board game designer. Jon Shafer, on the other hand, was a modder. It should be no surprise, then, that Civ VI takes an entirely different direction.
There are 118 universities are colleges in Chicago. Boston has 54. Houston has 29. Philly has 34. DC has 23. I can go on, but the point has been made. Urban universities are common, very common.
, what if there's a national wonder you can build on the city tile. Does that satisfy your needs?
The Coliseum is downtown Rome. The Tower of London is downtown London. The Burj Dubai is in downtown Dubai. I would be perfectly fine with national wonders" being built in their geographically appropriate locations.
Besides, here in Vancouver, both our universties are out of the way. One of them, my Alma Mater, is even perched atop a mountain. So districts make perfect sense here.
Vancouver has 28 colleges and universities actually. Alexander College, for example, describes itself as being "centrally located in the heart of downtown Vancouver, just one block from the Waterfront Skytrain station". http://alexandercollege.ca/about-us/campus-tours/
I mean, we've been having these debates since Civ3 days and for me, Civ fans always understand gameplay > realism. Even if I grant you your 85 Manhattan based universities as the basis for my Civ6 game design, it would still be gameplay > realism. You seem to only want to knitpick this point because of your beef with Civ6 as a game.
If I wanted to play a board game, I'd just go play a board game. I like Civilization because of its realism. I have long been an advocate for organic urban sprawl in Civilization. My opinion is not new.
The confusing nature of forcing rural universities and completely eliminating urban universities completely messes with the gameplay. How can I expect my citizens to be happy if they have to drive out into the countryside just to go to the only school, or to the only library, or to the only market? And that is just the citizens that can actually afford to do that. My empire would fall apart in five seconds if there was only one library miles away from the vast majority of my citizens.
Districts should be more like suburban expansions to my city and less like traditional improvements which are separate from city.
Ed Beach is a board game designer. Jon Shafer, on the other hand, was a modder. It should be no surprise, then, that Civ VI takes an entirely different direction.
I was being sarcastic. I am fully aware that Ed Beach is a board game designer and not a computer game designer. That's why I cited one of his previous board games.
I haven't even played the game yet, so I most certainly cannot pass judgement. I am only critiquing what I have read in the press releases and heard in the interviews.
Don't go around different Civ6 threads derailing them. You can stick to the one asking rhetorically if Civ is dead and leave the rest of us in peace.
Besides some coding on Civ V vanilla, Ed Beach is also lead designer of Gods and Kings and Brave New World expansions for Civ V, Conquests expansion for Civ III, all of which saved the less exciting vanilla versions in my opinion.
I say that gives me confidence to the skills of this poor board game designer.
nyyfootball:
Based on info, a city will have a city center, districts and "normal" improvements like mines and lumbermills. You can have multiple industrial cities for the city that churns out your warships and planes, or lots of food producing areas to support empire with food.
I think it helps the gameplay to quickly see from your and enemy's cities how they are specialized.
Do we know that it will be possible to build more than one of the same district in the area of influence of a single city? Why shouldn't I be able to build my factories in my city center closer to where my people live instead of out in the countryside?
Also the graphics change with time, like some districts(cant remember which) will turn into these "apartment areas" or something.
Will the districts eventually visually merge with the city, or will they remain visually separate?
Also you can make a strategic bombing campaign for example to cripple enemy's production and bomb his insdustrial areas. Also you have to think yourself which areas you want to defend more with anti-air units.
Wouldn't you still be able to do that even if my industry was located in the city? The US firebombed Tokyo in WW2 because that's where the manufacturing was located.
I remember reading that in WW2 Royal Air Force bombed Germany's industrial areas, but when they noticed those had most AA guns they bombarded the workers' living areas.
Those industrial areas were almost always located in or near a town or city. Workers need food and places to live and place to recreationalize, etc. Poor workers can't afford long commutes.
But clearly, as you don't like the graphic design, you have simply decided not to like any aspects of this game, and "read it like Devil reads the Bible" as a saying goes.. I could enjoy Civ V even as the English archers could reach the French across the English Channel, it's a game not a simulation.
I have no issues with the quality of the graphics, my issue is with the aesthetics. I am not the only one either. Also, I have always seen Civ as a simulation. I even wrote a whole post about it a few months ago.
Not trying to insult or anything, but I recommend being more open and relaxed about this, I feel the features look amazing, who cares about the graphics(of which we haven't seen in motion yet).
The graphics should reflect the gameplay, not the other way around. If the game is truly going to be a deep and complex grand strategy game, then it should look like its subject matter. Clash of Clans is good for what it is, but I am just not interested in that.
Moderator Action: Discussing the merits of the district system is off-topic for this thread. Please keep your discussions in this thread confined to analysis of the screenshots we've seen thus far (e.g. identifying the buildings that can be seen in the screenshots, the civs that are shown, etc.). There are many other threads to discuss other topics.
It's definitely Portugal - if you look closely the culture style of the city, it looks almost Gaulic, with the hay roofs; definitely seems like the generic European style for ancient/classical era.
It's more likely something East Asian. The buildings are the same as the thatched structures on the outskirts of the Japanese cities. That thatched look is probably the earliest Eastern style. As the game progresses you get the brown roofed and then the blueish roofed buildings and the older styles are pushed further out from the center. That seems the most likely to me anyway.
It's more likely something East Asian. The buildings are the same as the thatched structures on the outskirts of the Japanese cities. That thatched look is probably the earliest Eastern style. As the game progresses you get the brown roofed and then the blueish roofed buildings and the older styles are pushed further out from the center. That seems the most likely to me anyway.
If we're talking about the city with the blue/white border around it, it doesn't look East Asian at all.
And I doubt they're going for an "earlier" look than the pointed aesthetic most people associate with East Asian architecture.
Edit: Actually scratch that, the presence of these buildings in the Japanese city suggests they actually could begin in an earlier period. Of course what it might really mean is that all civilizations begin with this as their default architecture.
Well in the interview, it was stated that the blue "science district" are called campuses, I feel that that yellow districts here are going to be markets. Since they're color coded, Yellow could represent Gold so Market Districts? I don't think it would be industrial as Civ V associates production with Orange... Unfortunately that conflicts with the orange circus tents we're seeing.
If we're talking about the city with the blue/white border around it, it doesn't look East Asian at all.
And I doubt they're going for an "earlier" look than the pointed aesthetic most people associate with East Asian architecture.
Edit: Actually scratch that, the presence of these buildings in the Japanese city suggests they actually could begin in an earlier period. Of course what it might really mean is that all civilizations begin with this as their default architecture.
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.
I could enjoy Civ V even as the English archers could reach the French across the English Channel, it's a game not a simulation.
