I have run through Victor twice now and really enjoyed it, however; I feel as though there are too many choices for city centre buildings that feel like there is no reward eg, granary, fish market, watchtowers, stone mason etc.  It feels just like I am clicking things for the sake of it.

How about some of these building be moved to the districts? for example when three market districts are placed next to each other (in a triangle) the player can then choose a specific building to build in the zone, like the fish market which then gives big rewards to coastal zones and rivers.  This could also work with watchtowers in garrison districts and granaries in farm district for example.

I also wanted to add that the building eg fish market, could then be visible in the centre of the triangle districts and would give the different cities and extra level of personalisation and variety.

I agree that there was a LOT of infrastructure. The sheer amount constituted a large amount of complexity, not to mention poor readability of the UI. I would have been alright with this if I hadn't - like OP - felt that a lot of the infrastructure wasn't worth it. The flat-gain infrastructures in particular were too weak. E.g: why would I ever build a fish market (+3 gold to harbour --> maybe +9 gold at most) when there were infrastructures giving +2 gold per trader for not even that much higher buy-out or production cost? Not to mention +2 to main plaza infrastructures... those felt worthless.

I think values on the flat-gain infrastructures need to be rebalanced. Maybe they could be coupled to the number of districts? E.g. for the library, +10 science on main plaza, +5 more per research quarter.

For the fish-market example, the value could have been +10 or even +15 in my opinion.

Satur9NL wrote:
I agree that there was a LOT of infrastructure. The sheer amount constituted a large amount of complexity, not to mention poor readability of the UI.

I liked the complexity of the choices available.  The time to complete and resource availability meant that intelligent choices had to be made about what benefits were the most important, at that time.
Moreover, the ability to re-prioritize construction efforts over time and based on new situations felt very realistic and genuine.

I do like the idea metioned above of adding structural/construction benefits to the districts - that seems like it could be nice feature, to allow district bonuses to improve with time and be more balanced in that manner.

The main issue I have is alot of the infrastructure is weak, some even have fixed yields, in comparsion the infastructure in endless legend is powerful and impactful.

Goodluck wrote:

The main issue I have is alot of the infrastructure is weak, some even have fixed yields, in comparsion the infastructure in endless legend is powerful and impactful.

I never really had any issue with building up the city to become productive over time.  Especially since the other territory outposts can be linked to a city.  I could understand that argument if you were playing really tall at the city level, and every territory had its own city instead of linking those additional resources - but only if its original placement was not ideal.  The city districts do seem to provide a good way to sprawl out and get the right resource allocation.  In my view anyway.
Having not played EL, I don't understand the comparison - but I am not fond of the idea that some feature which is hidden behind a research field could be super OP if I unlocked it first. Or that it could kill my civ, if I did not know that I 'needed' to.