Specialize cities by building districts of the same thing

[AriochIV]

Was hoping to resurrect this thread. It doesn't sound like cities will be allowed to build two districts of the same type. SHOULD they be allowed to though? Was curious about this GalCiv comment -- why was that system so bad?

They shouldn't for the same reasons you can't build 27 Libraries in a city in any of the previous Civilization games: it's very difficult to balance, and doesn't make much sense logically (if one Library is sufficient to serve a city, what benefit are you really going to get from 26 more?).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They shouldn't for the same reasons you can't build 27 Libraries in a city in any of the previous Civilization games: it's very difficult to balance, and doesn't make much sense logically (if one Library is sufficient to serve a city, what benefit are you really going to get from 26 more?).

That depends on building design.

% bonuses or per pop bonuses= bad for duplication.

Flat bonuses or 'slot' bonuses (like specialists) are good for duplication.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

You could balance infinite available buildings by halving the added yield each time. Most cities could benefit from 2, perhaps 3 copies of the same building in a system like this; after that the benefit would become too marginal compared to the hammer cost. If you wanted a tall empire with only a few cities though, then you could build 3-4 of some buildings. Combined with powerful policies that boost a limited amount of cities, you could conceivably balance tall vs wide play in this way (you'd have to be very careful about it and do a lot of balance passes though). If anything, it'd be interesting to see such a mod in action (I doubt it's been made for Civ V, given how tall play already dominates in it).

Based on the Japanese UA, we can reasonably speculate that while we cannot build multiple districts in the same city, adjacency bonuses do stack between districts that are 'owned' by different cities (the Japanese UA would be too marginal were this not the case). So clusters of districts which give bonuses to each other will likely become the norm, at least in areas where terrain considerations do not force deviations from this pattern. It's interesting that this encourages a tight spacing of cities, whereas the need for space for wonders and districts pulls in the other direction of having the max 37 tiles available for each city. I suspect that the placement of our cities will become a more pressing puzzle than ever before; many a dotmap will be scrawled with the game's in-game tool(!) in the wee hours of many a dark winter night!

 

[Acken]

Because most of your planets have only one purpose. Due to % modifier per improvement on top of adjacency bonuses gal civ heavily favors specialisation. You have your money planets your production ones your research one etc.

It kinda kill the idea of terrain dependence and careful planning of a single planet.

At least the last time I played it that is.

Instead a system where you limit availibility is more interesting and easier to balance. If some district require some conditions to be available youll have to look for them. Specialisation will come from stacking conditions rather than spamming.
Theyre district idea so far is sound im just worried some of them will be often skipped while others will appear in all cities.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

The science and cultural districts will be built in most cities eventually, I'd imagine. The tech and civic trees are too important to ignore if you can help it. In the early game you might forego them, say, in a dedicated military city, but sooner or later you'll add one or both of them. This may be true of some other districts as well. It will be interesting to see how the governments and wonders will interact with the districts. I can imagine a situation where it makes sense to e.g. go all in on happiness wonders and policies, and get to ignore building the happiness district in alĺ cities, thus freeing up tiles for more farms or other districts. Etc etc... Can't wait for more detailed info on all these thingies!

 

[Magil]

The science and cultural districts will be built in most cities eventually, I'd imagine. The tech and civic trees are too important to ignore if you can help it. In the early game you might forego them, say, in a dedicated military city, but sooner or later you'll add one or both of them. This may be true of some other districts as well. It will be interesting to see how the governments and wonders will interact with the districts. I can imagine a situation where it makes sense to e.g. go all in on happiness wonders and policies, and get to ignore building the happiness district in alĺ cities, thus freeing up tiles for more farms or other districts. Etc etc... Can't wait for more detailed info on all these thingies!

That depends, I have a feeling you might need the aqueduct district to reliably grow past a certain point, and the entertainment district might be necessary for similar reasons. If you've got a military pump with a harbor, entertainment complex, aqueduct, encampment, industrial zone... might not be room for a campus or cultural center, even quite late!

Since amenities and housing seem directly tied to growth, I imagine those are the districts that will be most widespread. Maybe not, but growth has historically always been quite important in the Civilization series, such that food has almost always been the best yield.