The district system

[Stilgar08]

I don't want more mechanics. I want better mechanics. Arbitrarily adding more and more and more is just lazy. I like the core idea of districts, they just appear to have been poorly executed. it makes not sense to have things like universities and theaters so far away from my city, especially without penalties. There should be a penalty for building districts further away from your cities.

What about industrial areas in RL? What about suburbs? What about satellite towns? What about military encampments outside of city limits? All of the above are pretty good resemblances for districts in RL, don't you think? I find it a bit harsh to say it's badly implemented while not having played a single turn...

And when it comes to widespread cities with farms/mines/uninhabited fields inbetween: To me that is pretty common. Not every big city is like NY or Kairo...

The freemium effect.

Don't think so. Civ Rev (never played it and don't want to) is a different piece of cake as CiV or CivIV are/were. One of the biggest flaws of CiV vanilla was indeed that it tried to appeal more to beginners. After GnK and BNW not so much anymore, IMO. And CivVI has most of it implemented from vanilla... This combined with the fact, that there's still much more to the game mechanics we don't know yet makes me much more hopeful than you are.

It should require that the player partake in active creative problem solving.

and what makes you think that this is not the case? I mean apart from your personal opinion? From all I read and listended to so far (which is a lot for such a short amount of time since announcement) that is exactly what they're trying to do; Forcing the player to think and to make interesting decisions (to solve a certain situation)! Even the "dumbed down casual game" CiV was highly recognised as being a very intelligent educating game. It even got a lot of awards for it!

to be honest, seems like a way to generate controversy and provoque other forum members just for the sake of it.

well played, Plus Ultra, well played!

 

[Haggbart]

It adds to the logicalness of the gameplay, especially considering the game's subject matter. It dumbs down the game by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Even if this is not true of true of most players of Civilization (especially Civ Revolution), those who frequent this site like Civilization because of its rich, deep and complex gameplay. Keeping track of my cities' progress is the whole fun of the game.

Civilization should not be an easy or casual game.

Also it seems like Civ VI is introducing more needless micromanaging by eliminating automation. This just removes Civ further from reality and makes it even more of a God game.

I'm trying to process the fact that you think keeping track of the number of libraries in each of your cities adds a meaningful stratigic gameplay layer, while complaining that automation (I guess you mean of workers/builders) is gone.

That makes no sense to me.

 

[historix69]

But in my thinking, city walls definitely should surround the whole city area. Or at least those areas where they are built (which would be a - completely hypothetical - new game concept just invented by me at this moment ).

City walls surounding many tiles might also require many units as garrison.
In most Civ games you can build fortifications on empty tiles which work like a wall when occupied by a unit ... think of the Maginot Line or the Siegfried Line.

 

[Dunkah]

I'm pretty sure they said City walls surrounds the city center and the encampment district only. Other than the Great Wall improvement which was totally different, this was what I had heard mentioned on Quill18's video.

So it appears there won't be any protection for the other Science, Culture and Religion districts etc.

Those will need to be protected by your armies.

 

[MrRadar]

This Gamestar article http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/civilization-6/artikel/civilization_6,53802,3272988.html (in German) gives some more info about districts.

It seems, that the number of districts per city will depend not only on the available space, but also on the number of citizens. At least at the beginning of the game, you'll need three more citizens every time you want to build a new district.

Districts unlock building of certain units and buildings in that city, besides they could bring other benefits.

For example, a military camp gives the city an extra shot at the besiegers. After a district has been built, you can order a certain project in that city. For example a project in the religious district will generate additional faith.

If I understood correctly, they promised further facts in much detailed article on 22 June.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This Gamestar article http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/civilization-6/artikel/civilization_6,53802,3272988.html (in German) gives some more info about districts.

It seems, that the number of districts per city will depend not only on the available space, but also on the number of citizens. At least at the beginning of the game, you'll need three more citizens every time you want to build a new district.

Districts unlock building of certain units and buildings in that city, besides they could bring other benefits.

For example, a military camp gives the city an extra shot at the besiegers. After a district has been built, you can order a certain project in that city. For example a project in the religious district will generate additional faith.

If I understood correctly, they promised further facts in much detailed article on 22 June.

I don't think anything of this is actually new, except for the date of further info.

 

[Browd]

That is completely unrealistic and illogical. Why would a city with millions of residents only have one library and one supermarket?

I, for one, am unaware of any game in the Civ series (or popular Civ mod for that matter) that allowed a player to spam multiple instances of any building in a single city. Yes, in real life cities have multiple libraries, pubic schools, universities, markets, banks and every other building you can build in the game. Why is that even remotely relevant to design of a strategy game like Civ VI?

If you can build multiple instances of any building in a city, why settle more than one city? You just irritate the AI, have to spend more on militarry to defend a spread-out empire and complicate your game. If in Civ VI (or any other strategy game I can think of), you could build or buy 17 libraries, 12 universities, 15 markets and 8 banks in a single city, you would throw game balance right out the window (among other things, you dramatically reduce incentives to utilize the "eXpand" piece of what it means to be a 4X game). Frankly, while invoking "realism", it sounds like what you really want an "uber-Tall" option in the game (which, as an aside, might turn One City Challenge into "easy mode"). Um, no thanks.

Civilization should seek to educate those who play it. There is so much potential to teach about history and sociology and economics and politics and environmental science and geography, etc. Civilization should not be a casual game.

This sort of elitism is neither helpful nor relevant. You can play Civ for whatever purpose you like, but I've never played Civ to learn more about the Achaemenid Persian empire, or the historical importance of stable trade routes and reliable media of exchange. No one should deride those who want to play Civ without any ambition or expectation that they will learn more about history or sociology or economics or politics or environmental science or geography. It is sufficient that they want to play a challenging game that forces them to think creatively about how to solve problems and deal with unexpected challenges. So, the only part of this I agree with is your statement that:

It should require that the player partake in active creative problem solving.

That is the hallmark of a good strategy game, and has nothing to do with learning about sociology or environmental science.

 

[nyyfootball]

I, for one, am unaware of any game in the Civ series (or popular Civ mod for that matter) that allowed a player to spam multiple instances of any building in a single city.

Why would it be considered "spam" to adhere to your city's resident's basic needs? A single supermarket is hardly sufficient to serve a multi-million resident city.

Yes, in real life cities have multiple libraries, pubic schools, universities, markets, banks and every other building you can build in the game. Why is that even remotely relevant to design of a strategy game like Civ VI?

Civilization's subject matter is human civilization. The goal should not be to distort reality, but to depict it in a faithful and logical manner. Civilization is not a board game.

If you can build multiple instances of any building in a city, why settle more than one city?

For the same reason that human civilizations in real life expanded beyond the reaches of a single city. Resources are limited and political, economic and social stability are often fostered by unified institutional structures.

You just irritate the AI, have to spend more on militarry to defend a spread-out empire and complicate your game.

Having you university situated far away from your city complicates the game. How am to expect my citizens to be happy or productive if they have to spend time and effort commuting out to the rural countryside just to educate themselves?

If in Civ VI (or any other strategy game I can think of), you could build or buy 17 libraries, 12 universities, 15 markets and 8 banks in a single city, you would throw game balance right out the window (among other things, you dramatically reduce incentives to utilize the "eXpand" piece of what it means to be a 4X game).

How do? Equilibriums are relatively easy to achieve in complex simulations. How can a single supermarket feed millions of people? It seems to me that only allowing one of each building to be built in each city kills balance, not the other way around.

Frankly, while invoking "realism", it sounds like what you really want an "uber-Tall" option in the game (which, as an aside, might turn One City Challenge into "easy mode"). Um, no thanks.

I want the developers to stop transforming Civilization into a board game. Civilization is an empire manager which reflects the reality of human history, not an abstract board game. If I want to play a board game, then I'll go play Settlers of Catan.

This sort of elitism is neither helpful nor relevant. You can play Civ for whatever purpose you like, but I've never played Civ to learn more about the Achaemenid Persian empire, or the historical importance of stable trade routes and reliable media of exchange. No one should deride those who want to play Civ without any ambition or expectation that they will learn more about history or sociology or economics or politics or environmental science or geography. It is sufficient that they want to play a challenging game that forces them to think creatively about how to solve problems and deal with unexpected challenges. So, the only part of this I agree with is your statement that:



That is the hallmark of a good strategy game, and has nothing to do with learning about sociology or environmental science.

Ignoring large aspects of human civilization in a game whose subject matter is human civilization only serves to dumb down and complicate. Civilization should not ignore reality, but embrace it. Some of the best things about past Civ games were their simulations of social interaction and ecological interaction. I loved random events and seeing how my populace would react to ecological events. I loved seeing how intra-state conflict would influence the direction of my empire and how it sees itself and the world around it.


Civilization should not turn its back on being an educational game. I do not want to see Civilization become a populist opiate.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I, for one, am unaware of any game in the Civ series (or popular Civ mod for that matter) that allowed a player to spam multiple instances of any building in a single city. Yes, in real life cities have multiple libraries, pubic schools, universities, markets, banks and every other building you can build in the game. Why is that even remotely relevant to design of a strategy game like Civ VI?

There was one. The Final Frontier scenario allowed you to build more than one building in a city. However that was because a city actually represented the whole solar system and each planet got its own buildings. Also since it was mostly space there were no tile improvements so it was the only way to build up yields generated by the city.

Now if someone wants more banks for money and factories for production in one city and have it be based on population there is an option. Tile improvements! You can build many trade posts and workshops and use them as your population rises.

Also, specialists. Although I was disappointed with the handling of specialists in civ 5 and Beyond Earth. In 5 they were more limited and in BE they were less than an afterthought, not balanced to compete with any other options.
Don't know what if anything they are doing with specialists. You can get great people points from districts and the interface for cities is an overlay on the main map so I don't know where specialists could be hiding.

 

[malekithau]

I like what I've seen of the districts system so far. It probably helps that I've never actually thought of the area around cities as the actual city but a more like a province or state. I would like to see urban sprawl as the city expands. Slow growth of the central city as it expands into the hinterland with housing popping up around the various districts depending on what they are. Make it a little more organic rather than a bunch of unlinked icons.

I'm hoping it is a great game because I really cannot stand BE and Civ5 , good as it is, is getting stale.

 

[Dunkah]

I suppose in reality each district and neighborhood could be interpreted as a suburb of the city itself.

I'm holding judgement at just how it looks, on the graphics themselves till I see further shots of a sprawling city. The idea of having the color codes interrupts the immersion a bit but the game-play factor seems to outweigh that by far.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I suppose in reality each district and neighborhood could be interpreted as a suburb of the city itself.

I'm holding judgement at just how it looks, on the graphics themselves till I see further shots of a sprawling city. The idea of having the color codes interrupts the immersion a bit but the game-play factor seems to outweigh that by far.

I think that's a good analogy. Some cities do have, like, Banking Districts and Jewelers Districts and stuff, but it's just as apt to consider things like Silicon Valley which is its own thing, but also a satellite of San Francisco or the Harvard MIT area near Boston or the hoards of bureaucrats who live in Alexandria, Virginia outside Washington DC.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Thank you, damnyankees!
I just came here to the civfanatics to raise exactly this concern... and *blam!* the second post in this thread mentions exactly this!

The districts are visually very distinct due to unique models and typical colorization.
I REALLY think (and hope!), that some overlapping city-houses should be introduced in order to "glue" them together (just like forests blending over adjacent tiles) - they definitely wouldn't harm the readability!

From the screenshots and videos, I feel like I've seen a few instances were the houses from the city center appear to be spilling over into the adjacent tiles. I agree that this is a must, especially when cities get much larger in the middle to late game, to keeping the map visually appealing and make all those disparate tiles actually "feel" like a city.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I have noticed houses spilling out from the city centers along the Hex borders.

 

[ehecatzin]

That thing about walls only covering the military and city district is really odd, perhaps they plan on adding further fortifications as a military project?

-Build military district
-build walls (protects city and military district)
-build project "City walls" (it covers all districts)

The interesting part of this system is that if your city keeps growing out of the city walls you'd have to order a new proyect to cover those as well, it could be interesting in that it grows more organicly and creates oportunities for well timed raids.

It could also make wall UB interesting, imagine the Babilonian UB wall covering the whole city the first time you build it, it would make rushing Babylon really hard without proper siege.

 

[Gali]

Its not that odd. There has been a repeated emphasis on the necessity of defending districts. In one of the articles Ed beach brought up cavalry pillaging them. They are both a mechanic to combat Ics and a means to force people to defend space. They let bombers attack them to simulate strategic bombing and force spread AA coverage. And units with AA support detachments don't have anti-tank support leaving them vulnerable to armor.

They are trying to create more space and unit roles by spreading the defense out. It also buffs the AI by significantly increasing the damage its sprawling armies do on the approach

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't consider it odd. Medieval cities' walls usually only encompassed the wealthy. The poor would have to enter the walls for protection while their homes were pillaged.

 

[ehecatzin]

I don't consider it odd. Medieval cities' walls usually only encompassed the wealthy. The poor would have to enter the walls for protection while their homes were pillaged.

But there where such a thing as city walls, perhaps a city wall project could be unlocked depending on government type? That way you could get the fortification that best suits your strategy.

Like say Republics giving you the city walls but weaker military districts (defense wise) or feudalism giving you really strong city and military districts but no city wall (and it could model a feudal city better, castles and citadels).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

But there where such a thing as city walls, perhaps a city wall project could be unlocked depending on government type? That way you could get the fortification that best suits your strategy.

Like say Republics giving you the city walls but weaker military districts (defense wise) or feudalism giving you really strong city and military districts but no city wall (and it could model a feudal city better, castles and citadels).

It's been indicated that the Chinese can build the Great Wall as a tile improvement around their borders, so I kinda doubt there would be a building with a similar role.

And like the other person said, they want to give you tactical dilemmas about prioritizing defense of your districts.

 

[ehecatzin]

It's been indicated that the Chinese can build the Great Wall as a tile improvement around their borders, so I kinda doubt there would be a building with a similar role.

And like the other person said, they want to give you tactical dilemmas about prioritizing defense of your districts.

If that's the case I hope each military district can have a degree of specialization, so the ones closer to the city center are more focused on unit generation and outer ones can be focused on castles and fortification.