Still a little confused about improvement vs district

[Felis Renidens]

I suppose for an ancient civilization putting the granary at the defensible government district made sense. Today a 'city center' will be one of the districts.

 

[chaosprophet]

I think it's a gameplay issue. You can't get an outside district until pop 1 + 3 = 4, so they need to have some early game buildings in the city center district.

Seems like you already can pop one district at pop 1. But even if that is the case, the only one extra district per 3 pop means you have to choose which one to get at first, and takes some time until you can build the next. Also in the very beginning of the game you won't have the tech to build any, even if you have the required pop.

So it's important to have a basic food and culture buildings without needing an specific district for that.

 

[redwings1340]

I think I like the District concept but the placement of buildings kind of bothers me. The "City Center" of any city is not the granary and the monument and the water mill. Nobody takes a vacation to the heart of London or New York or Rome or Beijing to see their majestic granaries.

Well, in 3000 BC, it probably was the heart of the city. Without the infrastructure to transport things, people will definitely live near the granary and monument.

It becomes a bit weird as time passes, and I suppose I can deal with it as long as these little buildings in the city center become a small part of the city center.

 

[Big J Money]

Please let's not let the thread mutate into another discussion on the realism of the Civ games.

I'm more leaning toward thinking districts will not be worked. Because specialists would outshine them. Actually, are we even certain whether specialists are in the game?

 

[MIS]

Seems like you already can pop one district at pop 1. But even if that is the case, the only one extra district per 3 pop means you have to choose which one to get at first, and takes some time until you can build the next. Also in the very beginning of the game you won't have the tech to build any, even if you have the required pop.

So it's important to have a basic food and culture buildings without needing an specific district for that.

My current understanding is that the city center counts as one district. You can add a second at pop = 1 + 3 = 4, third at 1 + 3 * 2 = 7 etc.

 

[chaosprophet]

My current understanding is that the city center counts as one district. You can add a second at pop = 1 + 3 = 4, third at 1 + 3 * 2 = 7 etc.

In the first gameplay video we see a city building a Campus at pop 4, while already having a Holy Site. At E3 gameplay video we see a city at pop 6, with a Harbor building an Encampment. Afterwards it open the building list and now the Holy Site is grayed out and a warning says you need 7 pop to build another district.

So it doesn't looks like the city center counts. My guess the only reason it's called a district is so you don't need to write "minor bonus from being next to other districts or the city center" in many districts adjacency bonus.

 

[Storminator]

Please let's not let the thread mutate into another discussion on the realism of the Civ games.

I'm more leaning toward thinking districts will not be worked. Because specialists would outshine them. Actually, are we even certain whether specialists are in the game?

What is the difference between a citizen working in a district to enhance is basic yield and a specialist?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[qwerty25]

What is the difference between a citizen working in a district to enhance is basic yield and a specialist?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Normally specialists give great person points. Though I think you're right. They could just move specialist assignment to the districts now.

 

[m15a]

I think I like the District concept but the placement of buildings kind of bothers me. The "City Center" of any city is not the granary and the monument and the water mill. Nobody takes a vacation to the heart of London or New York or Rome or Beijing to see their majestic granaries.

That's easy to explain - people don't necessarily visit the city center when they go on vacation. The city center is the Old City. So, for New York, it'd be the southern tip of Manhattan, where the financial district is now. People do actually visit it to see some of the historical old town - the old monuments and cemeteries. Beyond that, most of it is built over with residential and business buildings, just like most of the buildings get redrawn as skyscrapers in Civ VI.

Other cities have maintained more of the Old City and you can more clearly see the monument, watermill, granary (or where they stood). People sometimes visit them for historical reasons. Other times, the city hall has been maintained and people still work there.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Although I think if you have an old city intact it will be turned into a touristic area, government can go outside the walls. Of course some times the old parts were rebuilt. I think if you have a Roman forum in your city from the few examples I know it's just a tourist attraction today. Functioning religious building might be Medieval and perhaps a few others. But even if a city stood from ancient\classical times I don't think it will use the same infrastructure.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

City centers represent the location of power and given how important food are it make sense to put the granary near the palace because if you control the food you basically have the power over the people.

During siege, having the granary inside city walls is also a good idea.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

City centers represent the location of power and given how important food are it make sense to put the granary near the palace because if you control the food you basically have the power over the people.

During siege, having the granary inside city walls is also a good idea.

Definitely, but you're not going to have your market or your temple miles off in the countryside somewhere. They are why cities came about in the first place. Cities and villages built up around trade and the religious complexes.

But anyhow, like I said it doesn't turn me off to the concept, just struck me as odd. And like someone else said, why does Civ need to be realistic, heh.

 

[the_jeff]

Although I think if you have an old city intact it will be turned into a touristic area, government can go outside the walls. Of course some times the old parts were rebuilt. I think if you have a Roman forum in your city from the few examples I know it's just a tourist attraction today. Functioning religious building might be Medieval and perhaps a few others. But even if a city stood from ancient\classical times I don't think it will use the same infrastructure.

One of the things I liked about (was it II?) was the tourism mechanic, wherein buildings like temples and wonders, after a certain number of turns, would start to generate commerce. It would be cool to see that implemented either for gold or actual tourism now that that's a thing.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I'm wondering if citizens working in a district is akin to them being specialists.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I'm wondering if citizens working in a district is akin to them being specialists.

Considering that:
1) Specialists have always been citizens that are placed in buildings instead of tiles
2) Districts are now where buildings will be located
3) Districts produce great people points like specialists.

I conclude that yes, citizens placed on districts will be how specialists work in civ6.

 

[Polobo]

Considering that:
1) Specialists have always been citizens that are placed in buildings instead of tiles
2) Districts are now where buildings will be located
3) Districts produce great people points like specialists.

I conclude that yes, citizens placed on districts will be how specialists work in civ6.

Kinda hoping they have some way to assign more than one citizen per tile then...which makes this really just a UI design concern.

The only way this isn't just UI is if the act of working a district also results in getting the underlying tile yields.

 

[WillowBrook]

Kinda hoping they have some way to assign more than one citizen per tile then...which makes this really just a UI design concern.

The only way this isn't just UI is if the act of working a district also results in getting the underlying tile yields.

At 0:34 in the Egypt video, there's a box of info over the city center that includes "Citizens working here: 1"

This seems to imply that there could be more than one citizen working a tile. I would guess that specialists in Civ VI will simply be citizens working districts and that, depending on the buildings, more than one can work a district.

 

[Polobo]

At 0:34 in the Egypt video, there's a box of info over the city center that includes "Citizens working here: 1"

This seems to imply that there could be more than one citizen working a tile. I would guess that specialists in Civ VI will simply be citizens working districts and that, depending on the buildings, more than one can work a district.

Yeah. To clarify my point - I'm reasonably confident that the specialists will be tied to the district in such a way that if you lose the district (or its occupied) the citizen specialists cannot be assigned. But the UI could be independent of the one that we use to assign citizens to work non-district tiles, or not.

 

[Big J Money]

At 0:34 in the Egypt video, there's a box of info over the city center that includes "Citizens working here: 1"

This seems to imply that there could be more than one citizen working a tile. I would guess that specialists in Civ VI will simply be citizens working districts and that, depending on the buildings, more than one can work a district.

Interesting catch!

So my current speculation is that specialists = districts, and that the more buildings you build there will increase the number of specialists you can assign there.

Some potentially interesting gameplay considerations if we can pillage specialists!

 

[wayneb64]

Has there not been a screen shot of the city screen yet?