Why civ 6 falls flat... districts.

[Roxlimn]

I'm not even sure why it needs work. You need military to survive. Once you can survive, you need districts to push your tech and infrastructure and trade network. How else would we structure that to make any kind of sense? Build military to boost your infrastructure? Build infrastructure only and still make it through? Only build military and nothing else?

 

[Victoria]

I am not sure I have ever built more than 2 campuses and normally 1 now. Equally entertainment is low on my scale.
I do however build a LOT of harbors and when you go settle somewhere else there are some key things to consider.

1. If on a coast without fresh water your city will never be blinding and a granary far outweighs a lighthouse.
2. Population is not important for what I call phase 3 cities. They are just final expansions for various strategic reasons rather than building a mother city. Phase 2 cities are the first you make on your stretch out and they should 90% of the time be on river mouths or other fresh water and the other 10% of the time they are early phase 3 strategic builds because of 2-3 amenities in reach you do not have or a fantastic defensible position near a grumpy Greece or
3. If going for a tourism victory then phase those pretty beaches would be great for tourists or those mountains for a national park. Neither requires population

If you are going science then likely and most sensible your expansion is for fast population and you would only go for fresh water.
If going for war, your expansions are equally not really for population

People still seem a bit phased by housing and amenities. You get no negatives for red housing messages but if you build too much housing and run out of amenities you certainly do get negatives and not very nice ones.

If I do build districts in phase 3 cities its normally and normally always a 20-30 turn harbor I cannot be bothered rushing with gold. The trade route will come eventually.

 

[manu-fan]

I think you're right about one thing OP. I don't specialize my Cities. They all get Commercial and Industrial. Then later Campus, and either Holy Site or Theatre Square depending on victory.

 

[Roxlimn]

I think you're right about one thing OP. I don't specialize my Cities. They all get Commercial and Industrial. Then later Campus, and either Holy Site or Theatre Square depending on victory.

Why prioritize Holy over Industrial, though? Unless you get insane adjacency (like with Germany) or lots of Industrial City States and you're planning on heavy building, Industrial doesn't get you much you can't get from just working tiles. On the other hand, early Holy Sites do get you improved Tourism later on, and even aside from the broken Reliquaries Tourism win, they can also get you Housing or Production depending on which religion the AI gives you, or if you decide to get one yourself. They're definitely more effective that Aqueducts for cities with fresh water if you get Religious Community and you can put them anywhere.

In general, I don't get the point in rushing Industrial over the other districts unless Factories are about to come online. What's the big benefit?

 

[Shorlin]

I think you're right about one thing OP. I don't specialize my Cities. They all get Commercial and Industrial. Then later Campus, and either Holy Site or Theatre Square depending on victory.

Yes, this is the one valid point. Trade routes/production is too powerful (industrial/commerce/harbour), religion in general (bar a few civs)/theatre squares are too weak (holy site/theatre square).

The only strategic decision left is which cities specialize in military (encampment/aerodrome).

 

[steveg700]

In theory these could be a neat idea However:

A. Your city has so many tiles that you never have to choose between building districts or working the land.

This is just another instance of people saying things as if they were absolutes which are actually not. Many times, I settle cities close together, and they contend with each other for space. Yes, I do often feel pinched.

B. Districts were designed to make cities more specialized, however due to requiring a large amount of production the map placement for cities is even more restrictive than it was before. You can't rush a lighthouse/harbor on your low production coastal city for extra food and trade. Now you have to build a harbor district over 30 turns before you can leverage the ocean resources.

Agreed here. Districts simply cost too much to produce given that they are largely just containers for buildings to come later. I mean, right now this forum is seeing posts calling certain civ's OP just because they can build a district at half cost.

Maybe the production costs of districts should start low and then each additional one ramps up the cost incrementally.

 

[Shorlin]

In general, I don't get the point in rushing Industrial over the other districts unless Factories are about to come online. What's the big benefit?

-Hammers are that strong a yield
-Beelining the tech that unlocks IZ gives your mines (+1prod). Its a very strong tech path because you get both CH and IZ very early in game
-You want an IZ in most/all cities anyway so place one down early for lower district cost

 

[UWHabs]

I think there need to be more ways to promote a diversity in play - maybe a simple change would be for internal trade routes, instead of getting yields based on the districts present in the target city, you got yields based on the (unique) differences between the districts in the 2 cities? Then if I have one city that has IZ/CZ/Harbor, and another city that has IZ/CZ/Holy Site. there's only 2 "unique" districts, so you would only get the trade route bonuses for harbors and holy sites in that case. Whereas if you have a different pair that has IZ/CZ/Harbor vs Holy Site/Campus/Theatre, there's now 6 unique districts between those cities, so that trade route would be way more valuable. So if you want to plop down the same districts in every city, you basically ruin your internal trade route yields because of it.

 

[Victoria]

To me its about maximum effect an polarization is pointless and dull IMO.

To explain, I want to build a something worth 100 prod.

I can build a couple of factories close and reduce the build from 20 turns down to 5 turns
Or I can go OP on the prod and get it down to 2 -3 turns.

The 5 turns is fine to me, yeah Ruhr valley is a bit strong but the more OP you go with prod, the less return IMO.
Equally the production routes things is great but naturally the more cities you stack to the less return you get.

I am still learning though and its all interesting stuff, every view must be considered and everyone has different tastes.

For example having a specialized food city, naturally with a good production trade root but it can equally feed the poorer cities and speed grow if need be. Hmmm a food city sounds like a cool option I might have to try.

Thats what I do, screw what is best, tinker and have fun. I built a big industry combo once, never again.

 

[Shorlin]

I think there need to be more ways to promote a diversity in play - maybe a simple change would be for internal trade routes, instead of getting yields based on the districts present in the target city, you got yields based on the (unique) differences between the districts in the 2 cities? Then if I have one city that has IZ/CZ/Harbor, and another city that has IZ/CZ/Holy Site. there's only 2 "unique" districts, so you would only get the trade route bonuses for harbors and holy sites in that case. Whereas if you have a different pair that has IZ/CZ/Harbor vs Holy Site/Campus/Theatre, there's now 6 unique districts between those cities, so that trade route would be way more valuable. So if you want to plop down the same districts in every city, you basically ruin your internal trade route yields because of it.

Another option would be to bring back national wonders. With a powerful enough effect and creative restriction/requirements, you will be planning super specialized cities from the start of game.

 

[Amrunril]

I disagree strongly with the OP. The district system is probably Civ Vi's greatest improvement over Civ V (though the civics system and revamped city states and great people are serious competitors). Yes, there are balance issues, especially with production costs that need to be addressed in future patches, but even with these issues, city planning is more interesting than it has been in any past edition.

In theory these could be a neat idea However:
A. Your city has so many tiles that you never have to choose between building districts or working the land.

You may not run out of tiles in an absolute sense (unless packing cities tightly), but that isn't necessary to create interesting trade offs. There are plenty of times when you'll want to do two different things with the same tile. Maybe the ideal spot for a district is also the tile that would complete a farm triangle. Or maybe it would require clearing a bonus resource or a riverside forest. Maybe you have to choose between a natural wonder's yield boosts and holy site adjacency bonuses (or neighborhood appeal). The fact that your citizens will probably have marginal tiles to work somewhere else doesn't make these choices any less difficult or less interesting.

Districts could've been a great way to balance out production, commerce, and food. Each of the 3 basic resources could build different districts. Instead they do the opposite, making commerce even weaker than it was, and food and production even more important.

This is more of a quibble, but commerce isn't really a basic resource, and hasn't been one since the shift from riverside gold to trade routes in Civ V. It's much more akin to science, culture and faith, (generated in small quantities by resources but primarily a product of city development) than it is to food and production (generated by most tiles and many improvements and used to develop cities). Food and production are both essential to developing districts (the former to increase the cap and the latter to actually build them), though I will concede that the balance between the two is probably off at the moment.

Another Nice addition would be to make districts work in a similar way as cottages in civ4 eg they get better over time. This would make build order of districts more significant and also give player Nice military vs. Infrastructure choices in early game.

Others have pointed out buildings and policy boosts, but I think the most relevant mechanic here is great people. They may not directly boost yields Civ IV style (though the few that enhance buildings come pretty close), but they do provide a clear incentive to build districts early and in many cases allow early districts to provide permanent boosts to their respective game elements.

 

[Joch]

I have to admit that at first, I did not like the district system which I found unduly complex and cluttered up the map.

But as I get more use to it, I have grown to like it. It adds another level of planning to your civilization. You are not forced to build them everywhere. I find you can get by with just 1 harbor, Holy Site and encampment for you entire Civ, unless you are going for a specific type of victory. Planning where to exactly put them is also intriguing.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I also like the district system in theory, but...

1) I agree with OP that each city has too many tiles. I tend to pack my cities as closer together as possible and even so, even building quite a few districts and wonders, I never run out of tiles to work. Maybe if cities grew faster? Or maybe if you couldn't build districts on terrible land like desert or snow?

2) In practice, you always want the same districts everywhere--a commercial hub, a harbor if coastal, an industrial zone, and whichever district matches your preferred victory type (Campus/Holy Site/Theater Square). You can basically replicate this in every city. Of course, you can mess around with stuff like Entertainment Complexes or whatever and still win, but you're certainly being suboptimal if you do. If district costs scaled by # built, rather than this awful tech-scaling system, maybe this wouldn't be the case.

 

[Roxlimn]

-Hammers are that strong a yield
-Beelining the tech that unlocks IZ gives your mines (+1prod). Its a very strong tech path because you get both CH and IZ very early in game
-You want an IZ in most/all cities anyway so place one down early for lower district cost

Hammers are a strong yield. If the IZ is only going to give me +3 hammers, why would that stack up well against +4 Science at a time when I only have 26 Civ-wide? That's more than a 15% increase in Science globally, for the same cost. Of course, it would be better if I had Industrial City States on the map, but having Science City States on the map skews the comparison even more - because then that Campus I'm building would have +6 value minimum in the capital, and possibly +6 anywhere and +8 in the capital, without any other buildings in it. 3 local hammers is worth more than that? How? What are we doing with these three hammers?

Lots of players say that Science is a bad yield. That's not true. It's bad when you're behaving like a Civ 5 player and you're just teching without any consideration for the rest of your yields. So long as you're balancing tile development, hammer yields, and Science, it's good.

And that's even considering that your IZ is going to have +3 hammers. Germany has a leg up here because its Hansas are worth more, but in some cases, you're forced to place that IZ in a location that's not even worth that much. Sometimes it's just +1 hammer. Why is +1 hammer in one city worth more than +8 Science?

 

[GhostSalsa]

Districts simply cost too much to produce given that they are largely just containers for buildings to come later. I mean, right now this forum is seeing posts calling certain civ's OP just because they can build a district at half cost.

Maybe the production costs of districts should start low and then each additional one ramps up the cost incrementally.

For my part I'm turned off by the idea of creating districts with hammers in the first place. It makes no sense to me, like if in a farming game you used your farm's lettuce bushels to make a pig-pen, it hurts my lil brain…

Districts (aside perhaps from encampment) should just unlock as you successfully grow each city's economy imo, and growing economies should require a balanced approach to money, health, culture; it makes you engage with the cities as "resource and people machines" that grow extra abilities on their own.

I agree w the OP that districts turn me off right now

 

[mnf]

If the IZ is only going to give me +3 hammers, why would that stack up well against +4 Science at a time when I only have 26 Civ-wide?

Those hammers are worth more not because of any qualities of production, but the detriments of teching faster. The faster you tech, the slower your empire can finish all the districts you want or need. So while Science is not "bad", it is detrimental to your empire until you have all the core districts in your core cities up and running.

You still want those Campuses and Theater Squares, but only after that first round of expansion and build-up is finished. Before you get to that stage, replacing 3 hammers with 8 science is not just losing 3 hammers, but turns and turns of your full city production over the entire empire, because you'll be spending a lot more turns building those districts.

That's why I agree that district scaling on tech/civic tree doesn't feel right.

 

[Roxlimn]

I think you guys aren't calculating or managing your production all that well. Science IN GENERAL will increase your district costs. As a net effect, science THAT INCREASES YOUR PRODUCTION will decrease it, so long as you invest in enough Builders to improve your tiles and have enough Districts in your core cities to muscle up. It is not detrimental to get Apprenticeship, Machinery, or Industrialization. In fact, the sooner you get Factories, the faster you'll get all your Districts up to max. And whatever you do, getting Apprenticeship and Machinery ASAP is advisable for getting production up. So in that situation, getting your Campus up to get to Machinery faster is better than relying on IZs and Apprenticeship alone.

These general adages really don't help that much in forming specific decisions, and it might be the case that many people are just getting turned off from Science now for all the wrong reasons without thinking about it in the specifics, just like they also didn't think about production before and were getting insane build times. Same kneejerk, different direction.

So in this specific comparison, why is +3 hammers worth more than +4 Science? Is it because you don't have a Commercial Hub up yet in that city? If you have the Commercial Hub up already, then what else are you going to build in it that's worth +3 Hammers more than +4 Science?

 

[mnf]

Science will increase district cost, not in general, but it just will. And in the early eras before we get Apprenticeship, science is not going to do anything for production. Yes, it sounds beneficial to get Apprenticeship and Machinery asap, but at that stage of the game, these factors make me delay those Campuses:

• I want those Settlers out there building new cities.
• I want those Entertainment Complexes to keep expanding.
• I need those Builders to improve the land so my cities can grow to build those districts.
• I need those Commercial Hubs so I have money to buy better tiles for my citizens, and the internal trade routes from the Trader matches my goals for this stage of the game.
• I want the Industrial Zone asap (else what's the point of virtually bee-lining Apprenticeship?) at minimized cost, so the IZ is usually my third district for core cities and the first district for my newer cities.
• A neighbor or two is having funky ideas and I may be distracted for a while churning out those Archers to fight off their horde of warriors.
• Machinery is only going to help individual cities that have access to forests, and often I will also need food tiles to support those lumber mills (we're not always blessed with grassland forests everywhere), meaning I need the pop, the entertainment, the housing, etc. And it's easy enough (with Eureka moments) to get Machinery without any Campuses.
• Having Campuses up first at pop 1-7 means my district costs inflate at a faster rate for a longer time than if I build those Campuses at pop 10.

It just happens that by not prioritizing science, everything lines up so well. Yes I could rush those Campuses and get all the tech unlocked, but I'm not going to have the population to build those districts I want, so I end up letting the cost inflate continually because my Campuses are still pumping out that science, and the increases in production due to science (Apprenticeship +1 to mines/quarries, Lumber Mills, even Factories) are not going to double my production to offset enough of the cost inflation.

I believe most players have tried their first game or so focusing on science and built all those sweet Campuses. I did exactly that in my first game, and districts became expensive as hell. Then when it was found from the code that district costs scale on the number of techs/civics researched, we all experimented delaying science, and the result was much more favorable than when we focused on science.

So in the end it's about lining up the acquisition of Apprenticeship with the growth of your empire so that the moment you get Apprenticeship, you can lock down those IZs in more of your cities, while not gimping your empire growth in the mean time by not expanding due to not wanting to use up the allowance for an Entertainment Complex or gimping the economy because you built Campuses instead of Commercial Hubs and Traders. As I said, it's not purely that +3 hammers is better than +4 science, but that the +4 science didn't help me as much as I thought it would.

I may try another game prioritizing those Campuses, seeing how I understand the game much better now, but I really doubt it will turn out better.

 

[Roxlimn]

How about not mindlessly rushing or spamming anything? That seems to work. You make a campus in a nice location. IZs in other locations. I dunno. I DO get Campuses and I can keep up with the district costs fine, it seems like.

 

[mnf]

I do lock down campuses in nice locations, but I won't go back to finish them until much later. The point was to avoid the early cost inflation. Other than that, nobody's really saying science is bad, I think.