If not stronger no need to spend a second tile on it and it should not be in the game.
If stronger it will be abused and should not be in the game.
Anyway it will not be in the game.
If not stronger no need to spend a second tile on it and it should not be in the game.
If stronger it will be abused and should not be in the game.
Anyway it will not be in the game.
I think it makes the map more important if you need to think well when making a city so you would, for instance, also leave space in a mountain range for another city, than the easier option, get one city deep on it and build multiple science districts.
The best argument that I can think of against allowing multiple copies of districts is that it would be boring/unfun - the city would spend all its time just building science districts and the buildings in them. Might as well just have terrain be irrelevant and put the city on a civ5-style "convert science" process. Remember academy-spam in BE? No decision-making whatsoever.
The best argument that I can think of against allowing multiple copies of districts is that it would be boring/unfun - the city would spend all its time just building science districts and the buildings in them. Might as well just have terrain be irrelevant and put the city on a civ5-style "convert science" process. Remember academy-spam in BE? No decision-making whatsoever.
If science is unbalanced, then they should balance science v culture/faith/production/gold.
Instead of Forcing you to build non-science districts, they should make it something you Want to do (in certain circumstances)
They seem to be doing that for culture (super cultured spear beats low culture tank)
Armies might help production/gold compete with science (Rifle Armies are basically expensive Infantry...if they x2 total strength for 3 units)
And if your empire with 5 science districts/city (most of which are poorly placed) is easily overwhelmed by one with an overall balance of well placed districts (some are 5 science districts, some 5 culture, some 3 production 2 gold, etc). Then there is no worry about mindlessly repeating districts.
Frankly, I think people are over-valuing science from buildings. This isn't Civ V. There is a whole new secondary tech tree that runs on Culture, plus you can cut any tech time in half through alternate means.
That means culture is just as important, and achieving Eureka Moments can make up for a lot.
I don't think a spearman with all the culture will beat a tank. You might be able to produce tons of musketeers and cannons and get bonuses and maybe wear down a few tanks. If you have rifleman then numbers and bonuses might do the work for you even better. If you have no tech at all the tank will win (but I suppose you will have culture-tree-units, maybe knights because chivalry is a civic maybe even better units, so even an only-culture civ should not get to spear vs. tank)
I don't think a spearman with all the culture will beat a tank. You might be able to produce tons of musketeers and cannons and get bonuses and maybe wear down a few tanks. If you have rifleman then numbers and bonuses might do the work for you even better. If you have no tech at all the tank will win (but I suppose you will have culture-tree-units, maybe knights because chivalry is a civic maybe even better units, so even an only-culture civ should not get to spear vs. tank)
Well the point was 5 well placed culture districts should be able to beat 5 poorly placed science districts
That could be through massive culture bonuses to units(or to their numbers)
It could be through cultural units
And/Or
It could be through 'free science' for less advanced civs (if you are in contact with some one with 12 more techs than you, get 1 free random tech)
I think they want you to keep your culture and tech trees about equally developed.
We do not know how the district buildings work, like some of them could give resources depending on how large the population in the city is like library does in Civilization V, we do also not know how important the special projects are, maybe most of your production will go towards the special projects as getting great people may be very very important in Civilization VI.
If buildings focus on yield per citizen, large cities could become extremely strong because they will produce everything in large amounts.
You'll probably have 2 good placed science districts, 2 good place culture districts shared among your cities, and a few more if you have an okay location for them because some is better than none. It's like building a library in every city and amphitheater in most and manufactory in all and walls near the border. And since a campus is just a pre-library science building that you put on a map you'll only have one per city.
It'll probably be a mix of the two, at least it would make the most sense.
"I already have 2 well placed Cultural Districts and I could do with some more science, but that new City also has a really good space for another Cultural District, and no good Space for a decent Science District. Will stacking more Culture be more beneficial than getting my lackluster Science up by a mediocre amount?"
Ideally Diminishing Returns make it so that you want somewhat of a balance overall, but if your area is really leaning towards one yield, then stacking can be efficient up to a certain point.
Such a system would truly make it so that every time you play the game you end up with a new "optimal" set of Districts.
But of course that's no argument for Multiple of the same district in the same city, that should still be avoided because of the balance issues of allowing almost unlimited stacking.
what if buildings of districts be tied to required population?
Say, you have a science district - it would take 1 pop to have a "working" library, 1 pop to have a "working" university and so on...
you can build whatever you want, but to have it "on", you would need population assigned to it... just as you have pop assigned to improvements as "workers"...
Or is it too much?
Then maybe only districts as a whole to have this requirement.
It'll probably be a mix of the two, at least it would make the most sense.
"I already have 2 well placed Cultural Districts and I could do with some more science, but that new City also has a really good space for another Cultural District, and no good Space for a decent Science District. Will stacking more Culture be more beneficial than getting my lackluster Science up by a mediocre amount?"
Ideally Diminishing Returns make it so that you want somewhat of a balance overall, but if your area is really leaning towards one yield, then stacking can be efficient up to a certain point.
Such a system would truly make it so that every time you play the game you end up with a new "optimal" set of Districts.
But of course that's no argument for Multiple of the same district in the same city, that should still be avoided because of the balance issues of allowing almost unlimited stacking.
what if buildings of districts be tied to required population?
Say, you have a science district - it would take 1 pop to have a "working" library, 1 pop to have a "working" university and so on...
you can build whatever you want, but to have it "on", you would need population assigned to it... just as you have pop assigned to improvements as "workers"...
Or is it too much?
Then maybe only districts as a whole to have this requirement.
But of course that's no argument for Multiple of the same district in the same city, that should still be avoided because of the balance issues of allowing almost unlimited stacking.
There are only balance issues with repeated districts per city if
1. The buildings (including the base district) give a % or total city population dependent boost to yield that gets duplicated (easy alternatives: % boosts are only to the district output or duplicated buildings only give flat bonuses.. you get +50% if you have A research lab, +4 science per each research lab)
2. The districts/resources themselves are imbalanced (which is a problem on its own)
I can see a slight restriction (someone with 4 pop and a Faith district could only build 1 district and it was a different type)..perhaps you need 3 pop per copy of a district (so for 2 science you need 6 pop, but for 1 science 1 culture you only need 4 pop)
The UI is present for multiple population working tiles (citizens working tile:1 has been displayed)...
which makes me think "specialists" has been replaced by population working a district tile (which is sort of nice because there was no difference between a Factory Engineer and a Windmill Engineer.. all I care about is how many Engineers/Engineer slots do I have)
So I think
The district and its buildings provides some base yield ?? (requires at least 1 population working the tile?)
They allow up to ?? population to work the tile
Each population working the district produces ?? yield
With ?? determined by the buildings in the district and its placement (and techs, civics, policies, etc.)
There are only balance issues with multiple districts per city if
1. The buildings (including the base district) give a % or total city population dependent boost to yield that gets duplicated (easy alternatives: % boosts are only to the district output or duplicated buildings only give flat bonuses.. you get +50% if you have A research lab, +4 science per each research lab)
2. The districts/resources themselves are imbalanced (which is a problem on its own)
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that those are the only situations where there can exist balance issues, but I strongly disagree. Stacking Flat Yields more than one should be able to causes problems by itself.
Take Civ5 as an example, imagine you could build 5 Workshops in one city. You'd end up with a LOT more extra production than you should have, simplifying the production of things like wonders. Get more wonders and you practically get "more of everything". Such a strategy could very easily get out of control very quickly.
In that case it may be a good idea to let the cities grow a bit. So granary first and then I can do both in a short time (unless I need an encampment too). Getting to 6-7 pop can be a problem in badly placed cities or in early game. I suppose unless you go wild with expansion you'll have a few districts in your main cities (Border towns and mining colonies might only have one or two, or maybe even none).
You want more of everything. Production can be invested into special projects which you can maybe do over again and the other stuff is always good to have as well.
The thing is that it may be a dimishing return to focus to much in one area.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that those are the only situations where there can exist balance issues, but I strongly disagree. Stacking Flat Yields more than one should be able to causes problems by itself.
Take Civ5 as an example, imagine you could build 5 Workshops in one city. You'd end up with a LOT more extra production than you should have, simplifying the production of things like wonders. Get more wonders and you practically get "more of everything". Such a strategy could very easily get out of control very quickly.
If building 5 Workshops (say they Didn't give the +10%, but only the +2) meant that you could build any Marketplaces, Libraries, Monuments, or Barracks in the city.. then it wouldn't be imbalanced
Essentially at X tech level/population you get 5 flat yields per city size X, this would let you choose what they are
The Super Workshop city would be nice for building Wonders, and unexperienced military units, but you would need a science city to be able to reach the techs (and your science cities will need some local workshops)
You wouldn't have totally unlimited stacking... districts have limits on where they can be placed, population limits on when they can be built in a city
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.
