Civilization 6 introduced a radical departure from its predecessors with the “unstacking” of cities through the district system. This mechanic, forcing players to specialize their urban centers and plan for adjacency bonuses, became a cornerstone of modern Civ strategy. But what if this pivotal feature never existed? Imagine a Civilization 6 where cities are once again self-contained entities, their power and function growing inward rather than outward. This isn’t a simple return to the mechanics of Civilization 5; it’s a reimagining of the entire game, a thought experiment that forces us to reconsider the very nature of city-building, expansion, and victory itself.
Analysis on forums shows that the district system, while initially divisive, is now largely seen as a triumph of game design. It adds a layer of spatial puzzle-solving to city management and creates a more visually interesting and strategically diverse map. However, a vocal minority of players, particularly those with fond memories of Civ 5’s “tall” playstyle, have often wondered if the game would be better without it. Mods like “No More District – A Fine Experience in Civilization Six” and “No More District++” on the Steam Workshop are a testament to this desire, offering a glimpse into an alternate reality where the familiar district UI is absent. This guide will delve into that alternate reality, exploring the cascading effects of a district-less Civilization 6 and offering a comprehensive analysis of how the game’s core systems would need to adapt.
The City Core: A New Nexus of Power
In a district-less Civilization 6, the City Center would become the undisputed heart of every urban area. Instead of being a mere starting point, it would be the central hub for all buildings, specialists, and resource yields. This fundamental shift would have a profound impact on how cities grow and function.
The Return of the “Tall” Empire
The most immediate consequence of removing districts would be the resurgence of the “tall” empire as a viable, and perhaps even dominant, strategy. According to the player community, the district system inherently favors “wide” empires with many cities, as each new city can build a new set of districts, leading to exponential growth in science, culture, and other yields. Without districts, the incentive to found a multitude of cities would be diminished. Instead, players would be encouraged to focus on developing a smaller number of highly populous and well-developed cities.
A popular strategy would likely involve a return to the “four-city tradition” of Civilization 5, where players would aim to establish a core of four powerful cities, each with a massive population and a full complement of buildings. These “mega-cities” would be the engines of the empire, responsible for generating the vast majority of its science, culture, and production.
Reimagining Buildings and Yields
Without districts to house them, all buildings would be constructed within the City Center. This would necessitate a complete overhaul of the building system. The tech and civics trees would need to be rebalanced to accommodate a new progression of buildings, and the production costs of these buildings would need to be carefully calibrated to prevent runaway growth.
Many professional gamers suggest that a system of “building slots” could be introduced, where each city would have a limited number of slots available for buildings. The number of slots could be tied to population, with larger cities having more slots. This would force players to make strategic choices about which buildings to construct, creating a new layer of decision-making.
Furthermore, the concept of adjacency bonuses, a cornerstone of the district system, would need to be completely rethought. One possibility is that adjacency bonuses could be tied to buildings themselves. For example, a library might receive a science bonus for each other “science” building in the same city, or a market might receive a gold bonus for each “economic” building. This would create a new kind of internal “adjacency” puzzle within the City Center itself.
The Map Re-Stitched: A New Sense of Place
The removal of districts would not only change the way cities function, but also the way players interact with the map. The vibrant, sprawling cities of Civilization 6, with their distinct districts and wonders, would be replaced by a more uniform landscape of City Centers and tile improvements.
The Diminished Role of Terrain
Analysis on forums shows that one of the most celebrated aspects of the district system is the way it makes terrain matter. The placement of mountains, rivers, and other features can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of districts, forcing players to carefully consider the geography of their empire. Without districts, the strategic importance of terrain would be significantly reduced.
While tile yields would still be important for population growth and production, the special placement bonuses for districts would be gone. This would make the map feel more homogenous, with less variation in the strategic value of different locations. To counteract this, new mechanics could be introduced to make terrain more interesting. For example, certain tile improvements could receive bonuses based on the underlying terrain, or new “terrain-dependent” buildings could be added to the game.
A New Look for Wonders
Wonders, those magnificent testaments to a civilization’s power and ingenuity, would also need to find a new home in a district-less world. Instead of occupying their own tiles, they would likely be constructed within the City Center, much like in previous Civilization games. This would have both positive and negative consequences.
On the one hand, it would make the placement of wonders less of a spatial puzzle. Players would no longer have to worry about finding the perfect spot for their wonder, with the right adjacency bonuses and terrain features. On the other hand, it would also make wonders feel less integrated into the world. The visual spectacle of a wonder like the Great Pyramid rising from the desert sands would be lost, replaced by a simple icon in the city screen.
The Flow of the Game: A New Strategic Cadence
The removal of districts would have a ripple effect throughout the entire game, changing the pacing of the early game, the nature of mid-game expansion, and the path to victory in the late game.
A Slower, More Deliberate Early Game
According to the player community, the early game in a district-less Civilization 6 would likely be slower and more deliberate. Without the immediate goal of building districts, players would be more focused on exploration, expansion, and the development of their core cities. The initial build order would likely revolve around scouts, settlers, and basic military units, with a greater emphasis on securing good city locations and clearing out barbarian camps.
The “eureka” and “inspiration” moments, which are often tied to the construction of districts, would need to be rebalanced. They could be triggered by the construction of certain buildings, the discovery of new technologies, or the completion of specific in-game actions.
The Mid-Game: Consolidation and Conflict
The mid-game would be a period of consolidation and conflict. Players would focus on developing their core cities, building up their infrastructure, and preparing for war. With fewer cities to manage, players would have more time to focus on military strategy and diplomacy.
A popular strategy would be to use the mid-game to “prune” the empires of their rivals, capturing key cities and crippling their economies. The “mega-cities” of a district-less Civilization 6 would be tempting targets, and the loss of a single city could be a devastating blow to an empire.
The Late Game: A Race to the Finish
The late game would be a race to the finish, with each civilization vying for one of the game’s victory conditions. The paths to victory would need to be rebalanced to account for the absence of districts.
- Science Victory: The science victory would be a race to build the necessary components of the spaceship. Without the massive science yields from campuses, this would be a more challenging endeavor, requiring a dedicated focus on science buildings and specialists.
- Culture Victory: The culture victory would be a battle for the hearts and minds of the world’s population. Without the tourism from theater squares and wonders, players would need to find new ways to generate tourism, such as through great works, national parks, and seaside resorts.
- Domination Victory: The domination victory would be a straightforward contest of military might. The “mega-cities” of a district-less Civilization 6 would be formidable fortresses, and conquering an entire empire would be a long and bloody affair.
- Religious Victory: The religious victory would be a struggle for spiritual supremacy. Without the faith generation from holy sites, players would need to rely on other sources of faith, such as religious buildings and policies.
A Different, But Not Necessarily Better, Game
The removal of districts from Civilization 6 would be a monumental change, creating a game that is both familiar and alien. It would be a game of “tall” empires and “mega-cities,” of internal development and strategic consolidation. It would be a game where the City Center is king, and the map is a canvas for a different kind of strategic artistry.
While the district system is a defining feature of Civilization 6, and one that is beloved by many players, it is not the only way to design a compelling and engaging 4X game. A district-less Civilization 6 would be a different game, but not necessarily a better or worse one. It would be a game that appeals to a different kind of player, a player who prefers the slow, deliberate build-up of a “tall” empire to the rapid, sprawling expansion of a “wide” one. Ultimately, the question of whether or not Civilization 6 would be better without districts is a matter of personal preference. But it is a question that is well worth asking, for in asking it, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the intricate and elegant design of the game we have today.