SO sick of districts

[not active]

Is anyone else annoyed like hell by the new district system?

The greatest fun in civilization 5 was for me to create single mega cities, improving the lands around and have a wide trading network. The One-City-Challenge was my total favorite option.

Now in civilization 6 it's all like NO SUITABLE LOCATION HERE; CAN ONLY BE BUILT ON FLAT LAND; REQUIRES RIVER; OH NICE STARTING POSITION YOU GOT THERE ... TOO BAD, YOUR DESIRED WONDERS CAN'T BE BUILT HERE

I couldn't finish a single game yet, micro-managing more than 3 cities is an absolute hassle for me. I quit most of the times duing mid-game. Everything feels forced, districts are greatly restricting me from playing the way I'd like to.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

The main problem with the actual content (i.e.: throwing out the UI issues, bugs, and other annoyances) is that there's a fine-line between thinking ahead and having to write out a map on a seperate sheet of paper for building one lousy wonder.

I have no problem or complaint with having to know the tech order and build order to get to something I want in time. I also have no problem with Civ 6 adding the need to have an open tile to put stuff on, as well as no issue with just a little bit extra meta- of having to think in advance of how to lay-out my city for the best adjacency bonuses.

But when it comes to the wonders, it gets *really* tedious for a few of them. The worst offender might be the Great Zimbabwe wonder... it needs something like:

* Flat land
* Next to a Commercial District with a market place
* Next to a pasture improvement

Annnnnd that is where I start to have to literally draw out a map, over a hundred turns in advance, to make sure I don't accidentally build some other wonder or district in the one magical spot where I could put Great Zimbabwe. That is, if I have such a place to even begin with.

And while that might be the worst of the worst, it gets pretty brutal for a few others, too: anything that needs to be built on water can be a pain, often having to be built over the top of a bonus resource (since many aquatic wonders need to be next to the Harbor, which is best built next to bonus water resources).

Again, I have no problem with districts for the most part.

But the changes for wonders are extreme. While Civ V had a handful of wonders requiring special conditions (Petra needing the city to be next to or on a desert, for one), Civ VI has a slew of wonders requiring conditions, sometimes requiring *multiple* conditions that aren't easy to meet without dumb luck.

The wonders, which are a sizable part of the fun of the game, are just ridiculously tedious at times.

Lastly, certain key early wonders (Stonehenge coming to mind right now) have conditions that need a river, or stone, or some other thing that you might not spawn with. IMO, almost none of the early wonders should have conditions that need to be met to be able to build them... with such conditions in place, some wonders are completely luck for all intents and purposes.

Honestly, take away about 75% of the conditions required to build all wonders before the Industrial Era, and the wonders become fun again.

But as it is, it's pretty rough to play Civ VI and feel compelled to re-roll a start simply because after 15 minutes of analysis, prior to turn 2, I end up realizing that I have no way of building my Ruhr Valley without having to forego two other things or adjacency bonuses that I had planned on.

The great Zimbabwe is a funny one...I agree with you, to a point.

However, you don't need a map. You have only one concern when placing a commerce district. "Can I build a great zimbabwe?" If milk, then set commerce 2 squares away with a flatland square in between.

Zimbabwe only helps you if you have a large number of bonus resources at your city. Otherwise, it provides nearly no net bonus for you. The reason I give the game a "pass" on this is because you have to have an ideal city with lots of bonus resources to even want to strive for it.

[BladeSe7en [ICON_RESOURCE_FURS]]

Originally posted by SIlverblade-T-E:

Originally posted by Wintyr:

You know your disctrict share bonuses with others citys if they are withen 6 squares of it making you able to build stuff crazy fast

wrong, as far as I know
they share bonuses from *certain buildings*
usually the last or 3rd building in the series such as power station or zoo, iirc
so you wont get those bonuses for a HELL of a long time.

also, by 6 hexes do they mean from city centre, from boundary or the district housing the building?
#1 or #3 really limits the bonus because you rarely ever should have cities that close. or your district may well be too far away

You are wrong on all accounts. It is extremely useful to have cities close together. The regional effects from industrial zones and entertainment complexs are applied from the district to a neighboring city center up to 6 tiles away. It's easy to get city production up above 200 hammers. Highest production so far I've gotten was 252.

[JTL]

I dislike the Districts too, but for another reason.
They are halfassedly made. Why ? Because they are not well Implemented in their Design.
Harbour and the Ocean is a good example. The Ocean is a Bread Busket for Costal Cities,
but in this Game its a Wasteland. The District could change that, but does not.
Maybe Mods will ?
Industrial is a District, but why not Mines or Quarrys ?
Farms should also be ones. If not Farms then something like a Well that gives Farms fresh Water for Farming in Deserts and so on.
Wounders should be made in Districts, thats why there are Districts. Maybe not the bigger ones like the Pyramids but the Oracle should be a District WW. Most WW are only smal Buildings which need to be Placed in Ditricts.
Districts should not have a 1per City restriction to encourage Specialization.

BTW: France does have Dozens of WW like Eifel Tower, Arc de Triumpf, Versailes and so on.
Most Nations do have lots of them.
And in this Game is Paris = France. There is no Country Side anymore, only Cities.

[JTL]

Island Maps are mostly Useless, because of less Land for District Placement and or WW.

[Leegh al Gaib]

The district system is part of the reason I LOVE Civ VI, it is one of the defining features that seperates it from other Civ games. The planning is what makes the decision-making process more interesting and fun, and has always had some complexity in 4X strategy games. Try to think of Districts as Great Person Improvements that simply provide additional benefits in the form of yields, housing, amenities, worker slots etc.

The problem I've noticed with all these complaint threads is that they approach Civ VI with a Civ V mindset. It's not the game that's wrong, it's the way you look at it that is. Forget about the way you played V and adopt and adapt a different gameplay style for VI. Just because it has 'Sid Meier's Civilization' in the title doesn't mean it will be a carbon copy of it's predecessors.

[SIlverblade-T-E]

the time to build districs needs to be MASSIVELY reduced, by at least 1/2
You spend as much damn time doing that than actually building anything *useful* :/

[Darkwing]

Geography determines destiny.

[synthphase]

So it's been a few months since this post. Do all of you feel the same way still? I agree with the op, and for my humble argument I'll just drop this here:

District Cheat Sheet [imgur.com]

The problem with that graphic is that THAT is your micromanagement for Civ 6. A separate document! If you're a super experienced player, you might have all this in your head. But that's not the point of the discussion.

The point is not that you can't learn Civ 6's districting system, the point is that it is a system that is invisible graphically to you as a player.

There are no GUI elements that show you that an adjacency bonus exists, ahead of actually trying to build a wonder or a district. So if you're okay with stuff working behind the scenes and understand it, that's fine, but the fact is there is no graphical way of planning a building strategy in this graphical strategy game.

It's not a bad mechanic, it's the graphic design of the mechanic that sucks. It'd be like making an RPG without a map and expecting modern gamers to keep a pen and paper handy and draw their own maps.

[Martin]

Yep, still feel the same way as op a year on. Districts are both annoying and fun. For me at least, I can understand some of the objection, but my current game I have 23 cities and have no issues micro managing them. I am in 1st place in research by several era's. Have a dozen of each district and get all the great people.

But I do feel they are poorly designed, like the encampment "MUST" be 2 hex's away.. why?? There's no reason why it can't be next to your city.

The bonus from putting a science district next to a mountain really isn't important, unless you can get a +3 or +5.. a few of those and the + stacking has some significance, otherwise you're just as good building them on tundra or desert tiles. Put them on land that you can't use anyway.

Also the continuing rising cost per district.. if it costs 200 production to produce one, then it should still cost 200 to produce the second, in fact, it should cost less to produce the second, given you have better knowledge of construction from building the first one.

Firaxis have made a Civ version that is essentially a consolised arcade version of the idea of civ. I play it purely as a combat game, I am now immune to the continual "you're a warmonger" ai spill. I am a warmonger, my religion is always called the warmongers, I don't bother with casus wars.. I just wipe out one civ after another. I don't make peace.. Then when I've had my fun I exit the game and restart a new map.

I play Civ the way I want to play it, not how the devs want me to.

[Vibby]

Originally posted by synthphase:

So it's been a few months since this post. Do all of you feel the same way still? I agree with the op, and for my humble argument I'll just drop this here:

District Cheat Sheet [imgur.com]

The problem with that graphic is that THAT is your micromanagement for Civ 6. A separate document! If you're a super experienced player, you might have all this in your head. But that's not the point of the discussion.

The point is not that you can't learn Civ 6's districting system, the point is that it is a system that is invisible graphically to you as a player.

There are no GUI elements that show you that an adjacency bonus exists, ahead of actually trying to build a wonder or a district. So if you're okay with stuff working behind the scenes and understand it, that's fine, but the fact is there is no graphical way of planning a building strategy in this graphical strategy game.

It's not a bad mechanic, it's the graphic design of the mechanic that sucks. It'd be like making an RPG without a map and expecting modern gamers to keep a pen and paper handy and draw their own maps.

I used to love districts, by now they are tedious and I have just started playing Civ V again for the simplicity.

[Lemurian1972]

Originally posted by Martin:

But I do feel they are poorly designed, like the encampment "MUST" be 2 hex's away.. why?? There's no reason why it can't be next to your city.
.

This one's simple. Players (and the AI) must have the option to take on each bombardment position one at a time, if they choose. If they're allowed to be right next to each other that decreases the available hexes by a lot, and increases the more dangerous overlap areas.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Lemurian1972:

Originally posted by Martin:

But I do feel they are poorly designed, like the encampment "MUST" be 2 hex's away.. why?? There's no reason why it can't be next to your city.
.

This one's simple. Players (and the AI) must have the option to take on each bombardment position one at a time, if they choose. If they're allowed to be right next to each other that decreases the available hexes by a lot, and increases the more dangerous overlap areas.

Yeh it's called a fortification.. that's why they're made. To restrict attackers.. Should also be able to build a ring of them around a city.. then you'd need to take at least one of them out just to cap the city.. that would at least offer some challenge.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

I love the districts.. one of the key things I prefur about civ6

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

The reason why they have rising costs is that it's basically the only way to deal with having numerous cities (to balance out the great people of smaller citied civs).. while some may argue it isn't realistic.. it is balanced.. one of the main issues is that science and culture don't rise in cost when you have more cities (which I get why.. realistically.. and in terms of player happiness).. but it's a great inbalance for people who just want to focus on a small well built city to contend with larger players.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

Originally posted by Martin:

Originally posted by Lemurian1972:

This one's simple. Players (and the AI) must have the option to take on each bombardment position one at a time, if they choose. If they're allowed to be right next to each other that decreases the available hexes by a lot, and increases the more dangerous overlap areas.

Yeh it's called a fortification.. that's why they're made. To restrict attackers.. Should also be able to build a ring of them around a city.. then you'd need to take at least one of them out just to cap the city.. that would at least offer some challenge.

Building a ring would be a bit ridiculous.. but you certainly can get a few in at key spots like chokepoints with the assistance of mountains and coast.