[R&F] Why does the late game lack production?

[AmazonQueen]

I think having factories and powerplants give housing and amenities benefits makes sense. Factories lead to more commercial and consumer goods, which improves (material) happiness (hence amenities), makes closer living more possible (housing), and more people will want to live in the city because more jobs from the factory (so housing again). Powerplants mean electricity, which again creates more (material) happiness and allows people to live together even more closely (housing).

I don’t think housing actually represents “accommodation”. It represents health, desirability of living somewhere etc. I get people don’t want to live next to or in a factory or power plant. But they do like living in cities that have jobs, cheap goods and reliable electricity.

I think the mistake is the one eyed focus on hammers which the IZ and IZ buildings have.

I agree with factories providing amenities because most of what they produce isn't tanks or bombers, its tv sets, barbie dolls etc, luxuries.
On the other hand I do think housing represents accommodation, hence neighbourhoods. People still have to live somewhere even if they don't have a job.

Agreed. I think IZs need a buff because they’re currently just not fun. But it won’t fix the underlying problem with production.

What I find interesting though, is that some people seem to be positioning the problem as being more about the cost of late game “things” and or a lack of late game “things” that are worth building. I hadn’t thought of it that way, which is a very interesting thought.

Even in Civ II where Leonardo's Workshop upgraded a lot of stuff automatically I think I built more units than in Civ VI. It might not be the whole solution but making upgrading units more expensive and maybe having more units that can't be upgraded to would help.

 

[acluewithout]

On the other hand I do think housing represents accommodation, hence neighbourhoods. People still have to live somewhere even if they don't have a job.

Maybe. But I'm pretty sure no one is actually living in your Granary or Sewer.

Neighbourhoods get housing based on Appeal. I don't think having nice views actually creates any more accommodation. I think the link with Appeal, is because nice views mean the Neighbourhood is more desirable, so more people want to live there.

 

[kaspergm]

I agree with factories providing amenities because most of what they produce isn't tanks or bombers, its tv sets, barbie dolls etc, luxuries.
On the other hand I do think housing represents accommodation, hence neighbourhoods. People still have to live somewhere even if they don't have a job.

Well yes, but that ties into another big wish of mine: I want to see coorporations return, where you can actually produce stuff in your factories. Right now we have great merchants giving us toys, jeans and perfume, but what if this was changed so that these were instead products you could produce in your factories, assuming you had the necessary resources available? A feature like that has been on top of my wish list since Civ5, and that would definitely give Industrial Zones a completely new purpose!

I do think the whole electrical revolution is completely neglected in the game, however. Power plants could tie into other mechanisms than just production. If power plants provided electricity to all districts within their range, giving the respective districts a boost to their yields - say, +2 to the base yield of the district - this would be a pretty massive boost. This could also apply for neighborhoods, i.e. +1 or +2 housing if electricity is available. This is definitely something I could see make sense. Also, we need to have different sources of power, so we can have coal plants (cheap but creates pollution - if such a feature is not introduced, this could translate into negative housing and/or happiness), nuclear plants (expensive), solar plants (requires desert), hydro plants (requires water source), wind power (requires hills), ...

I definitely see perspectives for an upcoming expansion in both these areas.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Maybe. But I'm pretty sure no one is actually living in your Granary or Sewer.

Neighbourhoods get housing based on Appeal. I don't think having nice views actually creates any more accommodation. I think the link with Appeal, is because nice views mean the Neighbourhood is more desirable, so more people want to live there.

No but better food storage, healthier environment supports a higher population, having a factory requires one but doesn't support it.

 

[UWHabs]

I am strongly against this kind of balancing approaches. It may make the game more balanced, but it will also completely kill immersion for me. It's not like people live in factories and power plants, and it's certainly not like people are happy to have factories close to them. And considering the whole health and pollution aspect, Industrial Zones should give negative housing, if anything.

Personally I am a strong proponent of specializing the districts in their specific branch, and balancing them as such. As I see it, the reason why Industrial Zones are currently underpowered is because: a) Upgrading units is many times more economic than building new units because late game units are too expensive, b) gold is generally readily available and can be converted into production through governors, c) chopping + Magnus makes production available by other more effective means than through Industrial Zone benefits and d) late game buildings are generally irrelevant for victory which reduces your needs for late game production. On top of this, fairly low benefits of industrial zone buildings.

Of course one can make Industrial Zones more attractive by giving them all sort of other yields, but that is treating the symptom rather than treating the problem.

This.

The biggest problems I see why production feels useless:
1. Gold is too valuable. Too many times I can build an army in the ancient era, and then never build another unit the rest of the game, and still conquer the world.
Solution: Units need a complete rework. To me, they should be a lot cheaper to build, a lot more expensive to upgrade, and have a much higher maintenance cost. The fact that upgrading is 2-3x cheaper than buying a unit from scratch, and then on top of that is made even cheaper after that by a policy card is just horrible. Lots of ways to solve this: have a supply system where you get like 4+x free units, where x=# of encampment buildings you have, and after that units are like 5x more expensive than they are now. Upgrading should cost much closer to actually buying a unit, to the point where you should only be upgrading your veteran troops. Units should probably be cheaper to build, too, so that you are encouraged to delete old troops and built better ones. This would also change how you attack, too, I would be much more willing to go on suicide runs with guys.
2. Science is too strong. It's always been too strong in every civ game. I don't know how to fix this, since you don't want to go too far the other way, but it's still too easy to throw a campus down in every city and watch the science roll in
Solution (partial): Part of the issue is that the policy cards are skewed towards having many copies of the same district. For example, I run the cards to get bonus science, it's best if I have a campus everywhere. But there's no bonus for going "wide". There should be a policy card like "the best district adjacency of each type in your empire is doubled", so I get the max bonus by building a variety. Another possible solution would be to change T2/T3 buildings of every type to be regional buildings like with industrial zones. So sure, now my university will give science to 4 or 5 cities instead of just 1, it also means that it's not a huge bonus to building a new campus in another city that already falls under the overlap.
3. New cities are too disadvantaged. In civ terms, NY would never have happened, since it's virtually impossible for a city founded thousands of years after others to overtake it to the point of being competitive.
Solution: Part of the problem is that districts are too expensive in new cities. I really believe that district costs should not be a function of tech level, but should be a function of how many of them you have in your city and in your empire. So if I want to build a Harbor first in a city, it should be the same cost on turn 50 as it would be on turn 250 if it's the first harbor in my empire
4. The point is to finish the game, not to build a beautiful empire
Solution: None. I mean, this is simply a function of the game. I'm a perfectionist, so I'm the type of person where if I know I'm finishing the game in 20 turns, often times I'll still start building the library in a city because damn it, they should have one. Mathematically, I probably should have been running a project there before, but it just makes it so pretty to finish all the buildings I can in a city. And that's just the nature of the beast - a research lab will almost certainly never pay itself off, because there's just not enough turns left in the game to make it last. Same reason why chopping becomes way too valuable - if I'm less than 100 turns away from finishing a game, then I definitely should be chopping a forest for 120 production rather than building a lumbermill for 1 per turn. It's just straight math, not even factoring in that production now > production later.

I think even the simple change to units (reduce cost to build, increased maintenance, increased upgrade costs) could have a massive impact on balancing the game. Suddenly you have a reason to have late game production, and maybe it becomes worth it to focus there.

 

[Sostratus]

But I'd like to hear more about your views on possible adjustments to production and the impact they would have. For instance, would it make game better/worse to add another production boost to mines in late game - at Steel or Chemistry, for instance?

If you have a production problem, you need to add more sources of production or expand existing ones. There's a ton of ways to do this, including just outrighting giving population production. But Civ6 is a game, which we play because it's fun and interesting. I think any production solution should be looked at with the game mechanics: we don't want to just give away production, we want it to be a reward, something you can achieve with a series of overlapping mini-goals and 'just one more turns.' So, and this ties in with @acluewithout 's posts, this would probably mean fleshing out things like a railroad system or aerodromes. That would give us something to build (a reason to want production) and something to benefit from (a reason to be rewarded with production.) Other systems, whether it's a revamp of global trade, or fundamentally new types of policy cards, etc., could also apply here.

While content for content's sake is usually a bad idea, the benefit of EG a railroad network would be that you can leverage the abilities it gets you to do the things we are angry take so long right now- cities could get up to speed quicker, wonders don't need to take 25 turns, and so on.

- A big question (which a few posts have hinted at) is “what should mid and late game cities actually be building?”. You need an answer to that in order to answer “do mid late game cities lack production?”. I feel like they lack production, but I personally don’t have a clear idea what cities should be building late game (other than science parts if you’re going for a science victory). Mostly I just buy units and buildings with gold (and quite enjoy that).

What I find interesting though, is that some people seem to be positioning the problem as being more about the cost of late game “things” and or a lack of late game “things” that are worth building. I hadn’t thought of it that way, which is a very interesting thought.

Perhaps I could have been more explicit drawing it out in my first post, but- people also often remark that the late game is boring. The usual cry is that there isn't anything to do. In the early game, we have few options but we need to expand. In the mid game, we have all the infrastructure available. In the late game, we've already built our infrastructure and expanded. The fun part of the game is over. The reason to ask if this production issue is a game problem is insightful: what are we supposed to use it on? Of course, there are many ways to play, and certainly many games where whole regions of the map can be settled and built up in the late game. World wars to be fought- these efforts require a lot of production. But if it's just a few marginally useful wonders and a spaceport, well, that's not very exciting.

I think the mistake is the one eyed focus on hammers which the IZ and IZ buildings have

With the way districts are set up, I think it's okay to have the IZ be a hammers only district; but inherently, spending hammers to get something is different from spending hammers to get more hammers. Eventually I'll work out some kind of "Grand Unified Theory of Civ6" to better measure resource balance... but we don't want another release harbor district that just sort of sucks. I actually think a policy card like "factory towns" or "worker barracks" that grants housing for IZs/factories would be a great industrial card.

In general I think it's unreasonable to expect new mid/late game cities to produce like old cities. I tend to use later cities for dos ific purposes such as gaining specific resources or providing a haven for healing units in a war or giving naval access to a part of the map

Late game cities can grow extremely fast if they have a nice chunk of farms to work and some neighborhood space. Sure, maybe your capital will be leading the race to 30 pop, but seeing a 20 pop city you founded in the industrial era is not a difficult feat. The hard part is actually building the districts to make it useful. Well, I guess you can just play aztec We often don't realize during most of the game that our core cities don't have the big food surpluses a later one can, and they often rub up against the housing cap (remember, growth is halved when you get within 1 citizen of the "we are short on housing" notification.) My point is, while I often use new cities the same way you do, they won't take three eras to get to size 10 or 15.

 

[acluewithout]

@Sostratus Excellent post as always.

I agree the real issue is that the late game is boring. Having more production late game won’t solve that by itself. More production late game really only makes sense if there’s something to build, and a reason to build it.

...but we don't want another release harbor district that just sort of sucks.

I think Harbours are actually pretty good value. But more importantly, they’re a lot of fun. It’s fun getting good gold adjacency, and then fun turning that adjacency into hammers with a shipyard, then potentially adding in more gold to existing resources via a sea port. Then there’s a trade route, housing, and you can even boost science a little with them via specialists or massively via dedications. I think a harbour (at a very high level) would actually be a pretty good model for the IZ ( i.e. not just a straight / one yield only).

No but better food storage, healthier environment supports a higher population, having a factory requires one but doesn't support it.

Maybe it’s not as direct a relationship, but I think having factories (and certainly powerplants) does boost your economy in a way that could be represented by housing. The factory produces things that make denser living more viable, and the factory creates jobs which incentivises people to live in the city.

But there’s also a gameplay element. If IZ buildings gave housing and amenities, that would give you more citizens to work more mines etc., which would then give you even more hammers.

Well yes, but that ties into another big wish of mine: I want to see coorporations return, where you can actually produce stuff in your factories. Right now we have great merchants giving us toys, jeans and perfume, but what if this was changed so that these were instead products you could produce in your factories, assuming you had the necessary resources available? A feature like that has been on top of my wish list since Civ5, and that would definitely give Industrial Zones a completely new purpose!

I’m sorry, and I know quite a few people really want mechanics along these lines, but I really hope we don’t see corporations return like this. I think the previous representations of corporations really miss the point of companies historically. And I think trying to represent the vast mass of consumer goods we now have through getting or making specific comnsumer items ends up underwhelming. I don’t have any great ideas for how to represent corporations (as I think this would require massively rethinking how finance / capital works in the game), but for consumer goods I’d rather just have flat amenities and housing points. A more abstract approach to consumer goods feels more immersive to me.

But you’re dead right about electricity. I’d go further, and argue what Civ has really missed is the whole energy / power thing completely - starting with horses at one end (basically, cars and trucks and engines that run on grass and make little baby cars, trucks and engines for free) through to nuclear power.

....I actually think a policy card like "factory towns" or "worker barracks" that grants housing for IZs/factories would be a great industrial card.

I like these ideas. I also like the idea of Tier 3 governments maybe leveraging Tier 2 and 3 buildings more, with your government maybe boosting things like factories, universities, research labs and stock exchanges. In the end, there are obviously multiple ways to buff IZ / IZ buildings and production more generally.

I just think any buffs or reworking should also make the game more strategically interesting (ideally without creating even more disconnected mechanics).

I think there is a good case for buffing IZ and IZ buildings, and production in general. But there is still a more fundamental issue about making the late game more fun and meaningful.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

1. Gold is too valuable. Too many times I can build an army in the ancient era, and then never build another unit the rest of the game, and still conquer the world.
Solution: Units need a complete rework. To me, they should be a lot cheaper to build, a lot more expensive to upgrade, and have a much higher maintenance cost. The fact that upgrading is 2-3x cheaper than buying a unit from scratch, and then on top of that is made even cheaper after that by a policy card is just horrible. Lots of ways to solve this: have a supply system where you get like 4+x free units, where x=# of encampment buildings you have, and after that units are like 5x more expensive than they are now. Upgrading should cost much closer to actually buying a unit, to the point where you should only be upgrading your veteran troops. Units should probably be cheaper to build, too, so that you are encouraged to delete old troops and built better ones. This would also change how you attack, too, I would be much more willing to go on suicide runs with guys.

Strongly agree on all of these points. There should be no cost difference whatsoever between upgrading and building a new unit: carrying forward the XP is benefit enough for upgrading.

New military units should be cheap as dirt up to an infrastructure limit set by your encampments, encampment buildings, and the level of your walls (since they also represent a permanent military facility and need a boost). After that, you want to build a bigger army to go a-warring, it's going to cost you (but not the AI on higher difficulty levels, who can have an infrastructure bonus). Give the Palace an infrastructure boost so you start with some capacity and City States can maintain a reasonable army.

2. Science is too strong. It's always been too strong in every civ game. I don't know how to fix this, since you don't want to go too far the other way, but it's still too easy to throw a campus down in every city and watch the science roll in
Solution (partial): Part of the issue is that the policy cards are skewed towards having many copies of the same district. For example, I run the cards to get bonus science, it's best if I have a campus everywhere. But there's no bonus for going "wide". There should be a policy card like "the best district adjacency of each type in your empire is doubled", so I get the max bonus by building a variety. Another possible solution would be to change T2/T3 buildings of every type to be regional buildings like with industrial zones. So sure, now my university will give science to 4 or 5 cities instead of just 1, it also means that it's not a huge bonus to building a new campus in another city that already falls under the overlap.

Strongly agree with making Universities and Research Labs, Museums and Broadcast Centres work on the regional system. That would highly nerf putting Campuses everywhere except in places with great adjacency bonuses. It would also slow down research, which would help the game in many ways.

I'd also like to see a bigger penalty for researching ahead of era techs/civics, and a bigger boost for researching techs/civics already known by civs you've had contact with. There would still be a benefit to being the leader, but keeping everyone closer should improve the competitiveness of the late game.

3. New cities are too disadvantaged. In civ terms, NY would never have happened, since it's virtually impossible for a city founded thousands of years after others to overtake it to the point of being competitive.
Solution: Part of the problem is that districts are too expensive in new cities. I really believe that district costs should not be a function of tech level, but should be a function of how many of them you have in your city and in your empire. So if I want to build a Harbor first in a city, it should be the same cost on turn 50 as it would be on turn 250 if it's the first harbor in my empire

This is dead easy. When you found a city in the Industrial era, that city starts with the same initial infrastructure that a new city gets when you play a game that starts in the Industrial Era. Same for a city in the Medieval Era, the Atomic era, etc. The coding is already there in the game based on the game start era and works well.

4. The point is to finish the game, not to build a beautiful empire
Solution: None. I mean, this is simply a function of the game. I'm a perfectionist, so I'm the type of person where if I know I'm finishing the game in 20 turns, often times I'll still start building the library in a city because damn it, they should have one. Mathematically, I probably should have been running a project there before, but it just makes it so pretty to finish all the buildings I can in a city. And that's just the nature of the beast - a research lab will almost certainly never pay itself off, because there's just not enough turns left in the game to make it last. Same reason why chopping becomes way too valuable - if I'm less than 100 turns away from finishing a game, then I definitely should be chopping a forest for 120 production rather than building a lumbermill for 1 per turn. It's just straight math, not even factoring in that production now > production later.

Settler through Prince is for playing a relaxed game and having fun. King through Deity is for finding the difficulty level that challenges you. Every prior version of Civ has appealed to both types of player. Why, suddenly, has Civ 6 abandoned the players who want to be challenged? The most likely reason, to me, is there was a conscious decision that they want as many players as possible to be able to earn the Steam achievement for winning on Deity.

PS Great post, @UWHabs.​

 

[acluewithout]

Upgrading should cost much closer to actually buying a unit, to the point where you should only be upgrading your veteran troops. Units should probably be cheaper to build, too, so that you are encouraged to delete old troops and built better ones.

No discount on upgrades would be a step forward. I think experienced units should also cost more to upgrade, and provide additional gold and or culture when you delete them.

I also think some units lines should stop at earlier eras. e.g. ranged should just stop at cannons. Knights should not upgrade to Tanks. That way certain unit lines would become obsolete, forcing you to make more units.

You should also not be able to keep units for earlier eras hanging around for so long. One way to do this would be to have unit maintenance costs depend on your tech level, not the tech level of your unit. So, you’re paying full whack to keep warriors hanging around in your Industrial Era Civ.

Another possible solution would be to change T2/T3 buildings of every type to be regional buildings like with industrial zones. So sure, now my university will give science to 4 or 5 cities instead of just 1, it also means that it's not a huge bonus to building a new campus in another city that already falls under the overlap.

This is a very good idea. Universities and Labs giving a regional science bonuses would be great. Research labs could maybe also allow regional science bonuses to stack and or give discounts to projects.

While we’re at it, I think maybe Stock Exchances should be regional as well (at least unless FXS is going to introduce more complex finance mechanics - I mean, flat gold from Stock Exchanges is pretty lame).

When you found a city in the Industrial era, that city starts with the same initial infrastructure that a new city gets when you play a game that starts in the Industrial Era. Same for a city in the Medieval Era, the Atomic era, etc. The coding is already there in the game based on the game start era and works well.

This is an interesting suggestion. The game already does this a little with Ancestral Hall and that Dedication that lets you start with 4 pop. I think what you’re suggesting would need some boundaries otherwise it would be overpowered, but I also think some way to auto start with some buildings would be good.

Another suggestion (which I think I’ve made before, possibly in this thread) is giving new cities mid / late game some value beyond just more districts. That way, mew cities would have value, even if your weren’t going to prioritise more districts. I find it very odd that even a relatively big city is sort of useless beyond its monument or ability to pick up regional yields if it doesn’t have districts.​

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

This is a very good idea. Universities and Labs giving a regional science bonuses would be great. Research labs could maybe also allow regional science bonuses to stack and or give discounts to projects.

While we’re at it, I think maybe Stock Exchances should be regional as well (at least unless FXS is going to introduce more complex finance mechanics - I mean, flat gold from Stock Exchanges is pretty lame).​

Now that I've thought about this, why aren't all Tier 2 and Tier 3 buildings regional in effect? Doing this would:​

• Introduce some rule consistency into the game, making it easier for new players (district + first building: this city, second + third building: regional effect. Okay, got it.)​
• Solve the problem with Tier 3 buildings: if a Research Lab added Science to every city in range, it becomes a viable option to running a Campus project.​
• Encourage you to find the ideal spot to put each type of district, rather than simply maximizing the number of districts most relevant to your victory objective.​
• Encourage central mega cities, whose buildings can reach the greatest number of other cities. So instead of the ideal landscape being a series of 10 Pop cities, now you have a reason to invest in housing and amenities for well positioned cities, so they can have more districts and therefore more regional effect buildings radiating out from them to the hinterland.​

While we're at it, I'd keep the Tier 2 buildings at range 6, but require a city to have a population of at least 4 to get the benefit of the building.

I'd make Tier 3 buildings range 12, but require a city to have a population of at least 7 to get the benefit of the building, and then give the city a bonus of +1 of the relevant building yield for every additional 3 population above that. Now the cost of Tier 3 Buildings make sense relative to their potential impact, you only need half as many of them as you do of the Tier 2 buildings, and they have an offsetting benefit to cover off them not getting a City State bonus (with said City State bonuses either halved or moved to the district/Tier 1 level).

 

[kaspergm]

Some really great posts being made here.

1. Gold is too valuable. Too many times I can build an army in the ancient era, and then never build another unit the rest of the game, and still conquer the world.
Solution: Units need a complete rework. To me, they should be a lot cheaper to build, a lot more expensive to upgrade, and have a much higher maintenance cost. The fact that upgrading is 2-3x cheaper than buying a unit from scratch, and then on top of that is made even cheaper after that by a policy card is just horrible. Lots of ways to solve this: have a supply system where you get like 4+x free units, where x=# of encampment buildings you have, and after that units are like 5x more expensive than they are now. Upgrading should cost much closer to actually buying a unit, to the point where you should only be upgrading your veteran troops. Units should probably be cheaper to build, too, so that you are encouraged to delete old troops and built better ones. This would also change how you attack, too, I would be much more willing to go on suicide runs with guys.

I'd be a pretty big supporter of this idea with one big "IF": If we make upgrading units as expensive as buying new new units, we should be able to upgrade a unit through production as well. I imagine something like: You bring an existing unit to an Encampment, and when you choose to upgrade the unit, the unit will be stationed there for a number of turns equivalent to the production time of a new unit, while the city will be "producing" the new unit. So upgrading through production basically means you produce a "new" unit, but it is born with the promotions of the old unit.

2. Science is too strong. It's always been too strong in every civ game. I don't know how to fix this, since you don't want to go too far the other way, but it's still too easy to throw a campus down in every city and watch the science roll in (...) Another possible solution would be to change T2/T3 buildings of every type to be regional buildings like with industrial zones. So sure, now my university will give science to 4 or 5 cities instead of just 1, it also means that it's not a huge bonus to building a new campus in another city that already falls under the overlap.

Now that I've thought about this, why aren't all Tier 2 and Tier 3 buildings regional in effect? Doing this would:​

• Introduce some rule consistency into the game, making it easier for new players (district + first building: this city, second + third building: regional effect. Okay, got it.)​
• Solve the problem with Tier 3 buildings: if a Research Lab added Science to every city in range, it becomes a viable option to running a Campus project.​
• Encourage you to find the ideal spot to put each type of district, rather than simply maximizing the number of districts most relevant to your victory objective.​
• Encourage central mega cities, whose buildings can reach the greatest number of other cities. So instead of the ideal landscape being a series of 10 Pop cities, now you have a reason to invest in housing and amenities for well positioned cities, so they can have more districts and therefore more regional effect buildings radiating out from them to the hinterland.​

While we're at it, I'd keep the Tier 2 buildings at range 6, but require a city to have a population of at least 4 to get the benefit of the building.

Wow, this idea is BRILLIANT. I don't know why I haven't seen this idea been brought forth before, but this would be an amazing way to control the impact of spamming campuses. I even think this can be easily modded. This is totally something I'd be looking into.

 

[acluewithout]

Now that I've thought about this, why aren't all Tier 2 and Tier 3 buildings regional in effect?​

I think FXS could do more with regional effects. And I think Universities and Research Labs are good candidates for regional effects.

But if every T2 and T3 building [for all the different district types] had [a regional] effect, I think it would make the game boring and be counter productive. You'd just have one city with all the districts, and then spam cities around it to maximise [all] the yields [eg gold, science, culture]. It's hard enough resisting doing that every game with Colloseum. Basically, you'd just end up with one winning strategy again.

I think there are some other mechanics that could be played around with between different buildings, to keep things interesting ; e.g.

- Some Buildings only having Regional Effects if certain Policy Cards are used.

- Some Buildings providing Yields based on how many districts are in a city (that might encourage neighbourhoods).

- Some Buildings providing Yeilds that scale based on Government Tier or Government Type or Population.

- Buildings that boost %projects etc.

- Buildings that let you access better or unique projects.

Edit: square brackets for clarity.​

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

But if every T2 and T3 building had that effect, I think it would make the game boring and be counter productive. You'd just have one city with all the districts, and then spam cities around it to maximise yields. It's hard enough resisting doing that every game with Colloseum. Basically, you'd just end up with one winning strategy again.
​

I disagree. You already spam as many cities as you can into your available space (or at least, this is already the most efficient approach - why would you resist doing that with the Colosseum???). So nothing changes on that front.

The big difference is that each of those smaller cities now has more incentive to build a district with high adjacency bonus, rather than building another Campus/Theatre Square/Holy Site depending on your victory objective. Right now, if going Science, you should always build another Campus, even if the city gets no adjacency bonus. That's because you want to get another Library and another University.

Now, maybe you'd still do that with this change, just to get the extra Library, but you'd need to weigh the cost of that district knowing you're only getting a Tier 1 building and not the Tier 2 building, so it lowers the relative value of spamming Campuses, which is one of the key points @UWHabs raised.

I do think that a minimum population for the city to benefit from the regional building would be good, to keep you from capping your smaller cities at Pop 2 to avoid needing any amenities for them.
​

 

[acluewithout]

I disagree.

Fair enough. I'm still not sure I agree, but I think I can see where you're coming from.

To be clear, I'm in favour of Universities and or Research Labs having a regional effect. Maybe something like the Stock Exchange too (although maybe you'd need to slot a card for that or something, or maybe even that's too many regional buildings - dunno). I just wasnt excited about the T2 and T3 buldings for all the different districts having regional effects, e.g. Military Academies, Sea Ports, Banks, Art Museums etc...

You already spam as many cities as you can into your available space (or at least, this is already the most efficient approach - why would you resist doing that with the Colosseum???). So nothing changes on that front.

I like the Colloseum and packing in cities around it is indeed the optimal way to use it. But it gets boring doing that every game. If I find good strategy, I play around with it for a while, but then afterwards I tend to avoid that strategy to see what else works. Colloseum is a great way to maximise or boost culture, but it's fun trying other approaches or even seeing how you fair with low culture. That's all I meant.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I like the Colloseum and packing in cities around it is indeed the optimal way to use it. But it gets boring doing that every game. If I find good strategy, I play around with it for a while, but then afterwards I tend to avoid that strategy to see what else works. Colloseum is a great way to maximise or boost culture, but it's fun trying other approaches or even seeing how you fair with low culture. That's all I meant.

Fair enough.

I think this may be a distinguishing feature of people who enjoy Civ 6 (I believe from past comments that applies to you). The game is well designed, I think, to allow people to try out lots of different strategies.

Personally, I like my variety to come from being forced to adapt my strategy to in game events. I was really excited by Civ 6's promise that you'd have to "play the map". Not building the Colosseum, not placing my cities close together, doesn't interest me. Figuring out how best to place my cities on this map, that's enjoyable. Figuring out whether it's worth trying to go for the Colosseum this game, how to make sure I get it before the AI, where should I spend my scarce resources instead if I think the AI will beat me to it, etc. Those decisions were fun for me in past iterations of the game. The joy of "yes, I got it!" The frustration of "Argh! I didn't. Now what plan B gives me the best chance to win this game?"

 

[Archon_Wing]

I don't think science buildings should be buffed besides the Research lab because it is trash. If we buff them, we're going to end up not building other districts anyways. Libraries and Univeresities are already more than beneficial for their cost as they get buffed by the Great People so much. This is another reason why IZs lag behind-- Great Engineers are by and far inferior. But in any case, I think campuses will be built anyways.

The other thing is too many regional effects would encourage even more city spam, and that already is so much of a thing.

In any case, I want to type out the other changes I'd make to the districts, though they weren't concerned with the topic of production at hand. I guess it needs to interact as a whole

Entertainment District

Entertainment Districts also give +2 loyalty to the city
Arena-- +2 Amenities, +1 Culture to this city
Zoo-- +2 Amenity to all cities in range, +1 Amenity to this city for each camp owned by this city, +2 Amenities to this city for each National Park owned by the city.
Stadium-- +2 Amenties and +4 loyalty to all cities in range. +4 tourism and +1 Amenity to the city if it is pop 10 or higher, +1 amenity, and 10% tourism to the city if it is pop 20 or higher, and +10% gold, 2 amenities to all cities within range if the city is pop 30 or higher.
Maracana-- +2 amenties to all cities. All cities on the continent Maracana is on that are ecstatic receive +10% to all yields. Removed Stadium requirement, only requires Entertainment Complex.

This is pretty obvious. Entertainment buildings take forever to appear, and +1 amenity from zoos is downright sad. The concept of the stadium is great though, but needs to do more. Maracana probably still won't matter, but at least it'd seem more like a trophy.

Harbor
Lighthouse: +2 food and 1 gold to all sea resource tiles owned by the city, on top of whatever exists.
Shipyard: Also add +10% production to ships
Seaport: Also add 10% food to the city.

Colossus: Also add +1 production to all coast tiles owned by this city
Great Lighthouse: Also add +4 combat strength to naval units on all ocean and coast tiles owned by this city

I honestly think Harbors are fine the way they are. They don't get used that much, but work fine when needed. Maybe Great Admirals could be buffed though.

Theater Square

Art Museum and Archaeological Museum-- +4 Culture
At Cultural Heritage, Great Works +2 gold (stealth buff England low key)
Broadcast Center-- +20% culture to this city. +2 loyalty to all cities within range

Bolshoi Theatre-- +20% culture, Offers 2 Civics of your choice and 1 random inspiration.
Broadway-- Also, +50% culture. This city receives gold and tourism equal to twice this city's theater district adjacency bonus.
Hermitage-- +100% culture from Great Works of Art in this city. When a Great Artist is recruited, these yields are doubled for 5 turns and receive a random inspiration. +100% Great Artist points from this city.
Sydney Opera House-- +100% culture and tourism from Great Works of Music in the city. When a Great Musician is Recruited, these yields are doubled for 5 turns and receive a random inspiration. +100% Great Musician points from the city.

Theater Square buildings are already really good at what they do, but tourism is one note. Yea I know the suggestion the Broadcast Center is a bit sketchy with overlap, but I really doubt that will cause anyone to spam Broadcast Center, and I just like it for some flavor.

The cultural wonders though, are all kinda crappy except for Bolshoi, and the randomness from that is no fun either. I think making them city specific would allow for some fun for tall players, especially with Reyna but won't affect strategy in the long run. You might even build them for a non-cultural victory

Campus

Research Lab-- Also +10% science, +2 Great Scientist points (Actually I was too lazy to type it, but all t3s need more great people points)

Oxford University-- 1 Free tech of your choice, and 1 random tech, +50% science to this city.
Amundsen-Scott-- Also, 100% science to the city it is built.

As I've implied before, Campus buildings are more than fine because of the countless great person boosts they get. Only Research labs really need any love, and Oxford while good, could be better since we don't really have a "Science CIty" in this game.

Amundsen-Scott is actually rather good already; it's just that it's hard to build. Buffing the all city bonus I think would be too crazy, but so an additional local bonus would be nice for the city you wasted a settler on. Overall, I'm against buffing science on a grand scale for the most part as it will inevitably lead back to the status quo.

Commercial Hub

Bank-- Also +1 Gold to each land tile that has a yield of at least 1 gold already
Stock Exchange-- Also +20% gold to this city, and -10% to gold purchases from this city

Well, while some Merchants can be buffed, I actually think Commercial hubs are in a good place but the later buildings don't really have any utility besides a bit more gold and that often doesn't matter. The Stock Exchange is particularly pathetic, but overall I think the hub and its associated wonders are fine for what they do despite not necessarily being "meta" Hopefully nerfing science/culture projects will already put them into contention. I also think Big Ben is too ... wait no.

Oh whoops, I forgot Holy Sites existed

Holy Site

Shrine-- Also +2 faith if this city is of your majority religion
Temple-- Also provides gold equal to the Holy Site's Adjancency bonus. This is doubled if the city follows the religion you founded.
Worship Buildings -- All provide +20% faith and -10% off faith purchases in addition to what they do already.

Mahabodhi Temple-- Also, Cities that you convert for the 1st time gain 100% faith for 10 turns.
Kotoku-in-- +50% faith to the city, this city can produce warrior monks
Potala Palace-- Also doubles your current faith stockpile. Acts as a Holy City for Religious Pressure if the city is of your religion. (must be founded by you)

What can I say? You either build Holy Sites or you don't so you should be able to rewarded for investing in a religion. In particular the Worship buildings aren't really that great especially for the faith they cost. There's actually some good religious wonders in the game like Hagia Sophia and Mt. Michel so I left them alone though Kotoku-in is so hilariously bad. And yes, I know Potala Palace isn't really a religious wonder, but it sucks and I think it should be buffed.

Overall, I actually really doubt the fastest players would change their playstyle at all, and even those these wonders look OP on paper, I have a feeling it's still going to be beaten by optimal players running my (nerfed) projects. But for those people that want to drag on the game a bit or if the AI gets better, it may at least make the late game less boring. As long as the AI isn't able to actively threaten you past t50, it really won't matter what I write.

 

[acluewithout]

Fair enough.

I think this may be a distinguishing feature of people who enjoy Civ 6 (I believe from past comments that applies to you). The game is well designed, I think, to allow people to try out lots of different strategies.

Personally, I like my variety to come from being forced to adapt my strategy to in game events. I was really excited by Civ 6's promise that you'd have to "play the map". Not building the Colosseum, not placing my cities close together, doesn't interest me. Figuring out how best to place my cities on this map, that's enjoyable. Figuring out whether it's worth trying to go for the Colosseum this game, how to make sure I get it before the AI, where should I spend my scarce resources instead if I think the AI will beat me to it, etc. Those decisions were fun for me in past iterations of the game. The joy of "yes, I got it!" The frustration of "Argh! I didn't. Now what plan B gives me the best chance to win this game?"

It's not quite as stark as that. I do adapt to the map / situation. It's more, if I find I'm repeating the same strategy over and over again, then I try something else.

I find almost any strategy let's you win. The challenge is usually to win efficiently and or within constraints.

Colosseum is always great and I can always get it. Particularly now with Magnus chops. So, I try to find other ways to adapt to the map.

I don't think science buildings should be buffed besides the Research lab because it is trash. If we buff them, we're going to end up not building other districts anyways. Libraries and Univeresities are already more than beneficial for their cost as they get buffed by the Great People so much. This is another reason why IZs lag behind-- Great Engineers are by and far inferior. But in any case, I think campuses will be built anyways.

The other thing is too many regional effects would encourage even more city spam, and that already is so much of a thing.

In any case, I want to type out the other changes I'd make to the districts, though they weren't concerned with the topic of production at hand. I guess it needs to interact as a whole

Entertainment District

Entertainment Districts also give +2 loyalty to the city
Arena-- +2 Amenities, +1 Culture to this city
Zoo-- +2 Amenity to all cities in range, +1 Amenity to this city for each camp owned by this city, +2 Amenities to this city for each National Park owned by the city.
Stadium-- +2 Amenties and +4 loyalty to all cities in range. +4 tourism and +1 Amenity to the city if it is pop 10 or higher, +1 amenity, and 10% tourism to the city if it is pop 20 or higher, and +10% gold, 2 amenities to all cities within range if the city is pop 30 or higher.
Maracana-- +2 amenties to all cities. All cities on the continent Maracana is on that are ecstatic receive +10% to all yields. Removed Stadium requirement, only requires Entertainment Complex.

This is pretty obvious. Entertainment buildings take forever to appear, and +1 amenity from zoos is downright sad. The concept of the stadium is great though, but needs to do more. Maracana probably still won't matter, but at least it'd seem more like a trophy.

Harbor
Lighthouse: +2 food and 2 gold to all sea resource tiles owned by the city, on top of whatever exists.
Shipyard: Also add +10% production to ships
Seaport: Also add 10% food to the city.

Colossus: Also add +1 production to all coast tiles owned by this city
Great Lighthouse: Also add +4 combat strength to naval units on all ocean and coast tiles owned by this city

I honestly think Harbors are fine the way they are. They don't get used that much, but work fine when needed. Maybe Great Admirals could be buffed though.

Theater Square

Art Museum and Archaeological Museum-- +4 Culture
At Cultural Heritage, Great Works +2 gold (stealth buff England low key)
Broadcast Center-- +20% culture to this city. +2 loyalty to all cities within range

Bolshoi Theatre-- +20% culture, Offers 2 Civics of your choice and 1 random inspiration.
Broadway-- Also, +50% culture. This city receives gold and tourism equal to twice this city's theater district adjacency bonus.
Hermitage-- +100% culture from Great Works of Art in this city. When a Great Artist is recruited, these yields are doubled for 5 turns and receive a random inspiration. +100% Great Artist points from this city.
Sydney Opera House-- +100% culture and tourism from Great Works of Music in the city. When a Great Musician is Recruited, these yields are doubled for 5 turns and receive a random inspiration. +100% Great Musician points from the city.

Theater Square buildings are already really good at what they do, but tourism is one note. Yea I know the suggestion the Broadcast Center is a bit sketchy with overlap, but I really doubt that will cause anyone to spam Broadcast Center, and I just like it for some flavor.

The cultural wonders though, are all kinda crappy except for Bolshoi, and the randomness from that is no fun either. I think making them city specific would allow for some fun for tall players, especially with Reyna but won't affect strategy in the long run. You might even build them for a non-cultural victory

Campus

Research Lab-- Also +10% science, +2 Great Scientist points (Actually I was too lazy to type it, but all t3s need more great people points)

Oxford University-- 1 Free tech of your choice, and 1 random tech, +50% science to this city.
Amundsen-Scott-- Also, 100% science to the city it is built.

As I've implied before, Campus buildings are more than fine because of the countless great person boosts they get. Only Research labs really need any love, and Oxford while good, could be better since we don't really have a "Science CIty" in this game.

Amundsen-Scott is actually rather good already; it's just that it's hard to build. Buffing the all city bonus I think would be too crazy, but so an additional local bonus would be nice for the city you wasted a settler on. Overall, I'm against buffing science on a grand scale for the most part as it will inevitably lead back to the status quo.

Commercial Hub

Bank-- Also +1 Gold to each land tile that has a yield of at least 1 gold already
Stock Exchange-- Also +20% gold to this city, and -10% to gold purchases from this city

Well, while some Merchants can be buffed, I actually think Commercial hubs are in a good place but the later buildings don't really have any utility besides a bit more gold and that often doesn't matter. The Stock Exchange is particularly pathetic, but overall I think the hub and its associated wonders are fine for what they do despite not necessarily being "meta" Hopefully nerfing science/culture projects will already put them into contention. I also think Big Ben is too ... wait no.

Oh whoops, I forgot Holy Sites existed

Holy Site

Shrine-- Also +2 faith if this city is of your majority religion
Temple-- Also provides gold equal to the Holy Site's Adjancency bonus. This is doubled if the city follows the religion you founded.
Worship Buildings -- All provide +20% faith and -10% off faith purchases in addition to what they do already.

Mahabodhi Temple-- Also, Cities that you convert for the 1st time gain 100% faith for 10 turns.
Kotoku-in-- +50% faith to the city, this city can produce warrior monks
Potala Palace-- Also doubles your current faith stockpile. Acts as a Holy City for Religious Pressure if the city is of your religion. (must be founded by you)

What can I say? You either build Holy Sites or you don't so you should be able to rewarded for investing in a religion. In particular the Worship buildings aren't really that great especially for the faith they cost. There's actually some good religious wonders in the game like Hagia Sophia and Mt. Michel so I left them alone though Kotoku-in is so hilariously bad. And yes, I know Potala Palace isn't really a religious wonder, but it sucks and I think it should be buffed.

Overall, I actually really doubt the fastest players would change their playstyle at all, and even those these wonders look OP on paper, I have a feeling it's still going to be beaten by optimal players running my (nerfed) projects. But for those people that want to drag on the game a bit or if the AI gets better, it may at least make the late game less boring. As long as the AI isn't able to actively threaten you past t50, it really won't matter what I write.

I'd maybe quibble with some points here or there, but basically this all sounds good to me.

I think the idea with Universities and ranged effect is that the University itself would have much lower flat science. You'd only really increase it by having its radial effect hit multiple cities. Because regional effects don't stack, you actually end up with less science. I'm not sure if this really favours wide or tall empires overall - I'm guessing tight packed tall ones. Also not sure how this would work with policy cards.

I'm guessing FXS will tweak IZ and tier 2 buildings in the next expansion. Maybe even if a patch ahead of the expansion. If they do, there are plenty of good directions they could go in based on the suggestions here.