Would you like to see "Generic Districts" in Civ 7?

Queen Theophania

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
28
By "Generic Districts" I mean districts that could hold several types of buildings not restricted by their yield, I've seen this idea mentioned in this forum and beyond and I think it has potential to improve the district system we currently have in Civ 6 on top of adding new systems such as city spread. Here I'll give my concept of what this hypothetical district could look like.

City Section:
  • +2 Housing
  • Can hold up to three buildings
  • Must be built adjacent to its appropriate City Center or another City Section district
  • Number that can be built on a city not limited by population
The City Section would replace several districts, such as the Campus, Theater Square and Commercial Hub, to compensate for this, buildings that give the same yield would gain bonuses if built in the same City Section (for example a Library would get a science boost if built on the same City Section as a University) and adjacency bonuses would be moved to the buildings themselves (for example a Market would provide extra Gold if built on a City Section adjacent to a river).

This would additionally come with a reduction of sources of Housing apart from this district, meaning that as cities grow in population they'd have to build more City Sections and thus would mechanically and visually spread. This would have to absolutely come with changes to world generation to provide for enough space for spreading cities, though I don't think maps be as big as in Humankind for example.

Finally, the City Section wouldn't replace a few districts, namely Holy Sites, Encampments, Harbors, the three engineering non specialty districts, Aerodromes and Spaceports, as they have specialized roles and realistically wouldn't be a part of a city itself or make more sense as a separate part of a city.

So, whatdya think? If you have any ideas to improve this concept I'd love to discuss them on the comments below!
 
I'm torn on this because on one hand it does make sense gameplay wise. However, I also liked the idea that we also got unique districts for several civs such as a Seowon and Acropolis to make it to where we can have fully dedicated unique theater squares and campuses to specific civs, while opening the possibility of replacement universities and theaters to other civs as well.

At the same time, I do believe that city spread should be limited, especially in the early game, and it would take a certain civic or technology later to unlock the ability to build districts away from the city center. Some districts such as the Encampments, Harbors etc., what you call non city section districts, could still be built away.
 
I would prefer this to be a modification to the district system rather than replacing the current one. I would keep all the current districts but move the tier one building to the City Section. The city section is always your "free" district, and the city would have to grow enough to get the second district which could be a specialty district.

I don't think Civ should go away from district adjacencies. Adjacencies are "too" important in some respects because they can be more valuable then buildings and power. But figuring out how to maximize adjacencies is a big part of the fun i've had with civ 6.
 
I don't think Civ should go away from district adjacencies. Adjacencies are "too" important in some respects because they can be more valuable then buildings and power. But figuring out how to maximize adjacencies is a big part of the fun i've had with civ 6.

District adjacencies resulted and results in inane"cities" that sprawl in separate and disjointed fashion across the map, that resemble no actual human settlement at any point in history.

Drop the adjacencies down one level to the individual Buildings within the Districts, not the Districts themselves. Force a city's Districts to be adjacent, provide a Special District called a Settlement or something similar that can be separate to grab territory or exploit Resources and other desirable terrain away from the 'main' City, and allow more flexibility in what kinds of Buildings can be built in each District - and IMHO we'll be much closer to how adjacencies, Districts and Cities should look and operate in the game.
 
Actually I prefer 'Building Space' systems where 'districts usage' can be determined with buildings. where one 'space' (cityscape) can have buildings of different types. Actually 'dedicated' districts aren't that common.
These are required to be dedicated
- Harbors / Seaport (where naval base is, and should be 'buildings')
- Airport

These MAY BE dedicated
1. Military district (C6-Encampment, HK-Garrison/Fort)
2. Industrial District (When did the 'dedicated' industrial district came to be? But I guess such districts existing BEFORE the Industrail Era are very rare. so often workships of diffrerent kinds weren't (and still aren't) always zoned.
2.1 Blacksmiths/ forges, carpentry workshops, pottery were usually built as Garage Industry, and therefore not zoned.
2.2 Early American 'Iron Plantations'. these never was a part of city planning. and before Bessemer steelmills they provided significant numbers of processed irons (pig irons) for other manufacturers (blacksmiths, weaponsmiths, Arsenals (Centralized weapons plant with regular productions in industrial scale--I prefer this name over Armory) etc... including RAILROAD INDUSTRY and Steam engine makers!!)
to name but a few.
3. Entertainment complex. and this includes children-friendly entertainers AND 'vice districts' full of adult entertainments and even prostitutions. (In truth the Vice Districts are 'zoned' in many countries, Not just Casino cities like Macao, Monte Carlo, Vegas. But also the entire city of Pattaya (which rebranding to Family entertainments were still not as successful as being World Brothel), Phuket, and a district of Sukhumvit (4th Alley 'Soi Nana' (ซอยนานา)), Roppongi (and maybe Shibuya) district in Tokyo, and even historical Oiran City in Old Japan (Pre-Meiji).

These are rarely 'zoned' or not even zoned AT ALL
- Commercial district.
- Aqueduct (and Roman Bath). An aqueduct built by Old Roman Empire. or even the Early Modern California cities during Spanish era, were some ten kilometers long especially 'mountain type'. While the 'bridge type' aqueducts were no longer used for waterwork systems, similiar 'roman waterworks' still in use in many parths of the world as primary water supply systems hooked to modern waterworks and water tabs.. Also I see no reasons making these a district.
 
^ Each tile should have a slot. that one building occupies one slot.
And slot count can be increased with a handful of techs (and maybe civics). Notably Skyscrapers (requires Cast Steel technology. Skyscrapers require strong steel frames to exists. and subterranean constructions.

Should 'Castle' returns as slot adding tech or civic too?
 
2. Industrial District (When did the 'dedicated' industrial district came to be? But I guess such districts existing BEFORE the Industrail Era are very rare. so often workships of diffrerent kinds weren't (and still aren't) always zoned.
2.1 Blacksmiths/ forges, carpentry workshops, pottery were usually built as Garage Industry, and therefore not zoned.
I've always envisioned the Industrial Zone, at least pre-Industrial Era, as more of a place where the guilds would meet and work.
 
I've always envisioned the Industrial Zone, at least pre-Industrial Era, as more of a place where the guilds would meet and work.

As far back as the Bronze Age there is archeological evidence for "Industrial Zones" in cities - places where masses of Pottery Kilns, copper and bronze Smelters, and textile Looms and other 'industrial' machinery were concentrated.
However, depending on the society, these 'Industrial Districts' might also be associated with Trade, Religion, or the Palace, depending on what the market was for their manufactured goods. That's why I think, at the very least, the placement requirements for Buildings should be 'loosened up' in Civ VII so that your Industrial Zone could have a Temple/Shrine, Market, or similar Non-Industrial-but-potentially-related Building in it. Adjacency Bonuses could go from having those in your Industrial Zone, depending on Civic and Social and Political (and Religious) policies in effect within your Civ - or even Unique Adjacencies for a given Civ's version of a District.
 
Yes, but maybe make it five slots. Wonders take up two slots.

I'm torn on this because on one hand it does make sense gameplay wise. However, I also liked the idea that we also got unique districts for several civs such as a Seowon and Acropolis to make it to where we can have fully dedicated unique theater squares and campuses to specific civs, while opening the possibility of replacement universities and theaters to other civs as well.

A Seowon could be a building that provides better results when a library and a shrine are present, an Acropolis can be a additional one-per-city district that provides benefits for... There's room to be creative here. I get where you are going, but I see that mainly as a challenge to refine the idea, not a basic problem.

Drop the adjacencies down one level to the individual Buildings within the Districts, not the Districts themselves. Force a city's Districts to be adjacent, provide a Special District called a Settlement or something similar that can be separate to grab territory or exploit Resources and other desirable terrain away from the 'main' City, and allow more flexibility in what kinds of Buildings can be built in each District - and IMHO we'll be much closer to how adjacencies, Districts and Cities should look and operate in the game.

Castle or Fort. Fortified Outpost. It makes sense and allows you to start one area outside your city to build out of. That however would also require bigger (as in more tiles) cities and maps. May depend on gameplay what is needed.

I kind of want to work backwards. I think buildings should be placed first (And they go in the corners of tiles) and when a tile is surrounded by say 4 buildings, that tile becomes an "Urban district", which boosts the yields from all the surrounding buildings.

Clever, a innovative way to further develop the idea. Setting down districts as in border stones does seem silly. Should be tested. Whatever works best gameplay-wise.
 
Acropolis can be a additional one-per-city district that provides benefits for...
An Acropolis should really be something we haven't seen yet but is just begging to happen: a unique City Center.
 
As far back as the Bronze Age there is archeological evidence for "Industrial Zones" in cities - places where masses of Pottery Kilns, copper and bronze Smelters, and textile Looms and other 'industrial' machinery were concentrated.
However, depending on the society, these 'Industrial Districts' might also be associated with Trade, Religion, or the Palace, depending on what the market was for their manufactured goods. That's why I think, at the very least, the placement requirements for Buildings should be 'loosened up' in Civ VII so that your Industrial Zone could have a Temple/Shrine, Market, or similar Non-Industrial-but-potentially-related Building in it. Adjacency Bonuses could go from having those in your Industrial Zone, depending on Civic and Social and Political (and Religious) policies in effect within your Civ - or even Unique Adjacencies for a given Civ's version of a District.

Tanning and dyeing industries tended to be their own special district away from everything else because they stunk even to people didn't have access to bathing everyday.
 
A Seowon could be a building that provides better results when a library and a shrine are present, an Acropolis can be a additional one-per-city district that provides benefits for... There's room to be creative here. I get where you are going, but I see that mainly as a challenge to refine the idea, not a basic problem.
That's why I'd want civs with unique districts in Civ 7 to be even more unique than they are in Civ 6. I guess in my mind I'd want to take the "generic district" idea but restrict it to unique districts, like a Seowon being able to have not only science buildings, but have the option to build a shrine as well.

An Acropolis should really be something we haven't seen yet but is just begging to happen: a unique City Center.
Greece in Civ 7 where cities can only be built on hills. That will go over well. :lol:
 
Greece in Civ 7 where cities can only be built on hills. That will go over well. :lol:
I'd just like to point out that many of Greece's colonies, especially in Asia Minor and Italy, were not built on hills but were still built around the standard polis model. :p
 
Tanning and dyeing industries tended to be their own special district away from everything else because they stunk even to people didn't have access to bathing everyday.

"Noxious Industries and Activities" - a new category of District?

In addition to tanning and dying, which were simply extremely unpleasant to live near, one of the earliest metals exploited was Lead, and the smelting and casting of it released fumes that were not just disgusting, but lethal.
There have been quite a few of the City Building genre of games that included mechanics for Dirty or Polluting activities (pig farms, soap works, tanners, dying, a Roman Garum works, etc) that reduced the desirability of the area for residences. Some sort of Minus Adjacency for such Districts next to, say, Neighborhoods or the Palace could easily be added to Civ.

I'd just like to point out that many of Greece's colonies, especially in Asia Minor and Italy, were not built on hills but were still built around the standard polis model. :p

The single geographical characteristic of all the Greek colonies had little to do with the terrain they were built on, it was the fact that they were all on or near the coast with at least a half-decent Harbor. Everything else about the placement was 'negotiable' - after all, their colonial sites included the mouth of the Don River in Russia, the Nile Delta, the nearly-arid Libyan coast of North Africa, and Marsalla (modern Marseilles) and Neapolis (modern Naples) - both so well placed they became major metropolises later - although not very Greek by then.
Having hills behind them was a 'bonus' in that it made them less accessible to any major political/military power in the interior, but it was by no means a requirement.
 
I'd just like to point out that many of Greece's colonies, especially in Asia Minor and Italy, were not built on hills but were still built around the standard polis model. :p
Well, I was specifically talking about the acropolis, which means "high city", and which were usually built on hills, irregardless if they followed the standard polis model. :p
 
Well, I was specifically talking about the acropolis, which means "high city", and which were usually built on hills, irregardless if they followed the standard polis model. :p
Oooh, ooooh, thought! The Greek leader in Civ7 can borrow Menelik's "muh hills" agenda. :mischief:
 
Oooh, ooooh, thought! The Greek leader in Civ7 can borrow Menelik's "muh hills" agenda. :mischief:
That doesn't sound like something Alexander would have. :p
Not that it fits Menelik either though. :rolleyes:
 
That one doesn't count. :p

If you go back far enough, it does. According to both Classical accounts (Herodotus, Diodorus Sicilus) and archeology, there were Greek cities in the Nile delta from the 6th - 7th centuries BCE at Naucratus, Heracleion, Sais and Heliopolis. Now, I'll grant that there is some controversy over whether they were 'real' Greek poleis or just large collections of Greek mercenaries and entrepreneurs living in Egyptian cities: Daphnae or Tahpanhes definitely was simply an Egyptian border town with a large Greek mercenary garrison.
But at least Naucratus was recognized by contemporary Greeks and Egyptians both as a Greek city "chartered" as such by Pharaoh Amasis II (570 - 526 BCE) as a safe place to settle a bunch of obstreperous Greek mercenaries (they had fought for his rival in the civil war that brought him to power). Originally, from archeological evidence, an Egyptian settlement, it was governed after Amasis II as a Greek city in Egypt, with apparently, Heracleion later established as a better port facility for it (Heracleion, being on a sinking coast, disappeared under water and has only recently been rediscovered, so archeological evidence from it is still being recovered)
Not, by any means, a traditional Greek colonial establishment, and unlike many Greek colonies always subject to 'local authority' (in the form of the Egyptian Pharaoh and Army) for anything beyond its internal affairs (for instance, there is evidence of an Agora, but not of any external independance from Pharaonic diplomacy) - but that wasn't without precedent elsewhere, either: most of the Greek colonies established on the northern shores of the Black Sea wound up subservient to the local Scythians there, and the Greek city states in Asia Minor ended up under the Lydians and then the Persians.

IF Civ VII adds the concept of Ethnicity to the populations of cities and Civs and City States on the map, then the intriguing fact that many 'foreign' cities remained culturally and linguistically Greek for centuries after they were supposedly part of another Civ wold need to be addressed: the sheer Persistence of Greek culture and language is phenomenal. Ottoman Constantinople probably the best example, since it was a predominantly Greek-speaking city until the early 20th century, over 5 centuries after becoming Ottoman'!
 
Top Bottom