CIV6: Thinking more on District Cost Scaling

[Sareln]

This is more for fun than anything else.

For reference, how district cost scaling currently works: https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/59...tion_cost/

Seems kind of weird.  District costs scale with your tech/civic progress, with the potential for a discount if you have fewer of that type of district than the average of other players.  In SP this will only come into play on district types that you've pretty much ignored, or you've been beaten to in tech by many of the AIs who have then built them, so unlikely to be much of a factor at all (probably a cheap encampment if you skip that since it seems the AI really loves to build them but that's about it).  Also district costs are locked in after you queue them.

If you could replace that scaling system with something else, what would you replace it with?

A couple thoughts come to mind; one is to have it be a pure local scaling, eg. each additional district costs more.  However, this turns into a game where the "right" move is to always build your IND district first, unless there's a compelling reason/massive opportunity cost from another district type (harbor to get boat into the water ASAP, or maybe the first of your cities to build a holy site for Great Prophet points), since the IND district will then let you build your other (the ones you actually want) districts first.

You could make district cost player-based, eg. each district costs more depending on how many of that type you've already got in your civilization.  Or make it harsher and say instead of district-types, just total number of districts.

Another thought is to throw the district production cost scaling requirement away, and instead scale the maintenance cost?  Right now it looks like empty districts all cost 1GPT, you could put together a system where the first district costs 1GPT, the 2nd costs 1 + N GPT, 1 + 2N GPT etc. This has a downside of being an AI/new player trap, where you get excited about districts but then overbuild them to your detriment.

[BRickAstley]

Also I think it helps to remember the tech unlocking progression. You'll unlock holy sites and campuses a good bit before industrial districts, so IND being the correct first move is only for each city after what, your 4th or 5th based on normal expansion?

[Sullla]

I wouldn't scale them in cost at all. The "cost" of building a district is not building something else, like a settler or a builder or a military unit or a granary/monument. Districts generally aren't that great by themselves either, unless the map provides some insane adjacency bonus. Most districts start to become strong when they get their second building: the university, the factory, the temple, etc. But there are lots of tech/civic boosts associated with the districts, so there's a pretty good tradeoff between when to stop expanding horizontally and when to start going upwards with districts. The whole scaling district cost thing is a solution in search of a problem, as far as I can tell. Let the system work on its own and stop forcing the gameplay into the direction that the designer intends.

(The one exception is the commercial district because the free trade route is too strong. I would shift the trade route to unlock on building a market, so players would have to build the district and a market and then a trader unit to get the trade route benefit. Still a powerful option but less of the one right choice we have at the moment of always going commercial and industrial districts first.)

[Fluffball]

The did it appropriately in past Civ games: Later buildings are much more expensive. So keep the campus, for example, cheap, and make the university expensive.

It doesn't make sense to have starting infrastructure be outlandishly expensive.

[oledavy]

I would generally agree with a flat cost for districts, the scaling gets really brutal really fast. You can make buildings more expensive to compensate if need be. 

Alternatively, I would not be opposed to the notion of districts scaling in cost either within each type or as a factor of the total number of districts you have. This maintains fidelity with the design decision of "the more of a thing you build the more they cost" - which I think is a solid one. 

I wouldn't worry too much about people favoring industrial districts. They come late enough in the tree that your first few districts will be campuses/holy sites. Moreover, just by virtue of producing hammers, they will always be a priority build (think of forges and factories in Civ4).

The biggest imbalance at the moment is definitely the trade route with a commercial hub. Trade routes scale really hard as the game goes on. I agree with the idea that they should be moved to the market building. This also gives harbors more of an identity and introduces the "CH for more gold but a trade route later or harbors for less gold but a trade route now" decision.

[SevenSpirits]

I agree with Sullla, though given the other systems currently in place I don't think it would be crazy for district costs to go up slightly based on how many of the the same district you've built previously. That's a bit of a tax on building lots of cities, and a bit of a failsafe against particular districts being undercosted and therefore spamworthy.

[picklepikkl]

I feel like there ought to be some degree of scaling, for the simple reason of the adjacency bonuses eventually making district yields strong even if you don't build any of the buildings, particularly because you don't need citizens to work them. The ICS potential is high (there probably is already too much reason to plant every marginal city you can, but that is a separate issue.)

[antisocialmunky]

Scaling the costs of buildings in districts is fine. Right now districts have like 2-3 different scaling systems that overlap. Just reduce to 1 and go fix UI.

[Rowain]

Doesn't the Scaling force you to make decisions which District to put where because they take some time to finish instead of mindlessly put them down in every city? I see this as one of the few points where the player has to make some decisions that matter.

[BRickAstley]

You already have that with the limit on number of districts by city size mechanic