Wonders vs Districts

[indradiva]

The new installment creates apparently a dichotomy not previously seen in the series. Districts and Wonders will compete for limited space in the cities. One consequence from this will be that there will be no wide or tall strategies in their classical sense, but rather wonder-heavy and district-heavy strategies we can speak about. This is because tall typically relied on Wonders and NWs, but with NWs gone and limited space, tall will have to expand more while constructing every Wonder it can. As a consequence, it will build less Districts. So I think this new wonder-heavy strategy will come in place of classical tall. On the other side, wide relied on buildings, so now it will create many cities with Districts and occasional Wonders.
The game design seems to support this by creating some civs better suited to one the two strategies. China, Egypt and France seem to be made wonder-heavy, judging from their uniques. Egypt, however, is more flexible because it gets bonuses to Districts, too.
Japan, Brazil and Aztecs, on the other hand are suited to district-heavy strategy. Again, Brazil seems to be more flexible than the other two, because it can make good use from GP points from Wonders and the Oracle is always welcome, too.
America and England can go either way, they are strategy-neutral.
These are my thoughts on it. Maybe they are too early and as more civs are revealed I might reconsider them. And now I would ask you, dear forum members, to share your opinions on this subject.

 

[King Jason]

As districts are already tied to population growth, and with wonders often having very specific build requirements, I don't really see them affecting each other all that much in reality. In fact, many wonders are tied to districts themselves as requirements.

Honestly, with all the information we have now, I would wager that it will be a rare thing to have any one city that has more than say... Six wonders. 6 seems about right. There are 12 districts in the game and a city can work 36 tiles.

Even if you double my estimate and say it's reasonable that any one city could have all the requirements to place 12 wonders. That still allows 12 tiles to work with if the city also attempted to place every district.

Basically, in short; Wonder spam seems pretty much gone entirely. At least in the context of spamming wonders in a single city. I don't really foresee much conflict between districts and wonders apart from the opportunity cost of losing a shot at a wonder by building a district first.

 

[Amrunril]

As districts are already tied to population growth, and with wonders often having very specific build requirements, I don't really see them affecting each other all that much in reality. In fact, many wonders are tied to districts themselves as requirements.

Honestly, with all the information we have now, I would wager that it will be a rare thing to have any one city that has more than say... Six wonders. 6 seems about right. There are 12 districts in the game and a city can work 36 tiles.

Even if you double my estimate and say it's reasonable that any one city could have all the requirements to place 12 wonders. That still allows 12 tiles to work with if the city also attempted to place every district.

Basically, in short; Wonder spam seems pretty much gone entirely. At least in the context of spamming wonders in a single city. I don't really foresee much conflict between districts and wonders apart from the opportunity cost of losing a shot at a wonder by building a district first.

To be fair, very few cities are likely to actually have 36 workable tiles. Then again, 12 districts and 12 wonders are very generous estimates as well (I'd guess even 6 wonders in a city would be quite remarkable), so the overall point still stands. The raw number of tiles around a city seems unlikely to be a major constraint until fairly late in the game. Population limits, production and terrain suitability are likely to be much more important limitations.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Food is a much easier resource to produce in Civilization VI so you will no longer need to farm everything opening up tiles for other development.

We don't know exactly how specialists works but we can assume that again we will not need as many tile improvements.

That mean you can have alot of districts and wonders without hurting your economy.

 

[indradiva]

As districts are already tied to population growth, and with wonders often having very specific build requirements, I don't really see them affecting each other all that much in reality. In fact, many wonders are tied to districts themselves as requirements.

Honestly, with all the information we have now, I would wager that it will be a rare thing to have any one city that has more than say... Six wonders. 6 seems about right. There are 12 districts in the game and a city can work 36 tiles.

Even if you double my estimate and say it's reasonable that any one city could have all the requirements to place 12 wonders. That still allows 12 tiles to work with if the city also attempted to place every district.

Basically, in short; Wonder spam seems pretty much gone entirely. At least in the context of spamming wonders in a single city. I don't really foresee much conflict between districts and wonders apart from the opportunity cost of losing a shot at a wonder by building a district first.

With wonder-heavy I didn't mean wonder spam, that is hardly possible with all the requirements now. What I meant is wheather wonders are your focus or not. 6 wonders in one city, 6 wonders in another is a good example of wonder-heavy strategy in Civ 6. And yes, district-heavy will differ from classical wide by caring about poulation growth while building more cities than wonder-heavy.

 

[King Jason]

With wonder-heavy I didn't mean wonder spam, that is hardly possible with all the requirements now. What I meant is wheather wonders are your focus or not. 6 wonders in one city, 6 wonders in another is a good example of wonder-heavy strategy in Civ 6. And yes, district-heavy will differ from classical wide by caring about poulation growth while building more cities than wonder-heavy.

I think I understood you but I still don't feel a sense that attempting to build 6 wonders per city, i.e. a wonder-heavy strategy, will have a significant impact on the construction of districts apart from the already obvious which do you build first, which is something that existed anyway.

Basically, I just don't see the dichotomy. You aren't going to build every district in a city, and you aren't going to build a huge amount of wonders in every city, ergo they shouldn't really affect each other.

Except for in situations such as, for example, if that "Hill adjacent to a mountain" required for the Potala Palace just so happens to be the best spot in your city for a Campus. This doesn't mean you can't build the campus, it just means you need to decide between the wonder or the campus adjacency bonus. Though even in this case I think the decision doesn't seem that hard to make.

Furthermore, Districts seem to increase in costs the more of them that you have. So Wide equating to more districts doesn't exactly mesh with the potential reality of gameplay. The wider you go, the harder it becomes to fill your cities up with the appropriate amount of districts. I remember one game where a district cost just as much as a wonder in one city.

So in a city where those costs are the same that's kind of a no-brainer. Build the wonders first because you never lose the chance to build districts.

 

[indradiva]

I think I understood you but I still don't feel a sense that attempting to build 6 wonders per city, i.e. a wonder-heavy strategy, will have a significant impact on the construction of districts apart from the already obvious which do you build first, which is something that existed anyway.

Basically, I just don't see the dichotomy. You aren't going to build every district in a city, and you aren't going to build a huge amount of wonders in every city, ergo they shouldn't really affect each other.

Except for in situations such as, for example, if that "Hill adjacent to a mountain" required for the Potala Palace just so happens to be the best spot in your city for a Campus. This doesn't mean you can't build the campus, it just means you need to decide between the wonder or the campus adjacency bonus. Though even in this case I think the decision doesn't seem that hard to make.

Furthermore, Districts seem to increase in costs the more of them that you have. So Wide equating to more districts doesn't exactly mesh with the potential reality of gameplay. The wider you go, the harder it becomes to fill your cities up with the appropriate amount of districts. I remember one game where a district cost just as much as a wonder in one city.

So in a city where those costs are the same that's kind of a no-brainer. Build the wonders first because you never lose the chance to build districts.

Well, wonder-heavy would not need many cities, because wonders will provide big and/or global bonuses, ergo not that many districts would be required. For a wide empire, costs are not really a problem due to all gold and production they get from trade routes. And it's also easy to keep the costs in check by not REXing, but rather by careful expansion, relying on district adjacency bonuses. So, the concurence between wonders and districts might be mild, but it's still there.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Culture districts get a huge adjacency bonus from wonders so if you want to be the cultural superpower you want alot of wonders.

 

[King Jason]

So, the concurence between wonders and districts might be mild, but it's still there.

The point is there is no inherent dichotomy. Wide does not mean non-wonder focused and Tall does not mean wonder focused. If "tall" even makes a meaningful return. Wonder-heavy strats don't equate to less districts and district heavy strats don't imply less wonders. None of the info I've seen implies any sense of mutual exclusivity and the division of playstyle that you're suggesting. I think it will be a rarity that "building every wonder you can" in a city is going to translate to an inability to produce the appropriate amount of districts in that same city.

You're correct in your assertion that smaller civs that are wonder-heavy may have less of a need to go wider due to all of their bonuses, but again this does not come at the cost to the districts in their cities. Further, while it may mean they don't need to go wider, there's nothing to suggest they wouldn't benefit any further than if they weren't a smaller, wonder-focused empire.

I see no evidence to suggest differing "wonder-heavy" vs "district" heavy styles of play, in the realm of Specialist economy vs Cottage economy from Civ4 or Tall vs Wide in civ5; The two will compete slightly within a given city, but this competition seems largely negligible.

 

[mrwho]

This is the first I've heard about national wonders being gone. That's really disappointing. I don't see why they'd do that.

 

[joncnunn]

This is the first I've heard about national wonders being gone. That's really disappointing. I don't see why they'd do that.

Natural consequence of Wonders & Districts both taking up a tile (and more multi-tile Natural Wonders); there just wouldn't be places left for a city to build National Wonders.

Also note that while Civ IV used a limit of 2 National Wonders in a given city to encourage specialization that Civ VI is already using Districts to encourage city specialization; there are population based limited on how many districts a given city can have.

 

[Haggbart]

This is the first I've heard about national wonders being gone. That's really disappointing. I don't see why they'd do that.

I think there are two reasons. One is that there is going to be so much other stuff to build, especially with districts and wonders competing with tile improvements for space around your cities. If national wonders wouldn't take a tile on the map they'd just be a regular building you could only build one of, kinda underwhelming. However, national parks are confirmed to be in the game, but the mechanics thereof have not been explained yet.

The second reason is that usually national wonders require certain conditions to be met. Typically X amount of Y building or Y building in all your cities. If they're going to encourage expansion and city specialization, national wonders woudn't really fit in with that.

If the devs later find out they want more options for small empires, they might decide to include some NWs in an expansion, but I'd rather they found a new design that fit in better with cVIs districts and city specialization.

 

[King Jason]

Though they could reinvent the Nat wonders requirements instead of having it be building-spam, since that doesn't really jive well with the district system.

Instead it could involve something like capping off particular city specializations. Such as requiring A National College to be adjacent to both a campus and a theater district. While the Herioc Epic must be adjacent to a Theater District and an Encampment. Stuff like that.

I think there are interesting ways they could be tackled, but personally - I never cared for them. I won't miss them at all.

 

[m15a]

I think National Wonders could still support city specialization and to some extent expansion by being super-boosts to particular districts and their respective yields. Like, Oxford University can be a full tile building that has to be built adjacent to a campus and adds to that campus's science yield. There could also be a restriction like only 1 or 2 national wonders per city, although tile constraints already places that sort of limitation.

Although that sort of national wonders system would be okay, it might be a little dull since, even though it'd super-specialize cities, it'd just be like a weak wonder that every civ builds at some point. Maybe there could be an additional constraint which makes it so not every civ builds all national wonders. Or maybe national wonders can all tie into a non-build system (e.g., spying or trade).

 

[tedhebert]

In my mind, National Wonders have always been a unnatural way to impose Tall over Wide... never liked them, glad to be rid of them !

 

[x2Madda]

If "tall" even makes a meaningful return.

I think this is an important point, will tall even be viable in Civ6?
With wonders taking up real estate that could be used for districts or useful tile improvements, how much worth will a tall city have by itself?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Small empires in civilization VI have been said to be around 5-10 cities.

 

[StrideColossus]

I think there are interesting ways they could be tackled, but personally - I never cared for them. I won't miss them at all.

Me neither: I found the NC in ciV particularly uninteresting - you *had* to build it at some point in every game (at least on higher difficulties) whether you wanted to or not, the only vague decision was build it early or later - not a fun game mechanic.

Perhaps they'll come in an expansion and/or DLC with a more interesting strategic focus.

 

[indradiva]

I think this is an important point, will tall even be viable in Civ6?
With wonders taking up real estate that could be used for districts or useful tile improvements, how much worth will a tall city have by itself?

One thing is obvious: a Tall civ can support more Districts per city. Or, you can concentrate on Wonders and make excessive population to specialists in your remaining Districts.

 

[Haggbart]

One thing is obvious: a Tall civ can support more Districts per city. Or, you can concentrate on Wonders and make excessive population to specialists in your remaining Districts.

No doubt big cities can support more districts, but so far there doesn't seem to be so many mechanisms that will prevent you from having MANY big cities. So it won't necessarily be tall or wide like in CiV where you had tradition SP-tree, a whole bunch of powerful NWs and a lot of culture and science penalties that discouraged you from going wide. Talking about tall and wide doesn't really make sense unless they're mutually exclusive.