Really happy with where stability is at the moment it is challenging in a good way but not punishing.

i've touched on this in feedback I've left elsewhere, but I think stability a great mechanic atm, placing districts feels meaningful and you have to think about which ones to build with a limited amount of stability to spare. What breaks this is the Commons Quarters. Because they are not stability-limited, you can spam them and this results in huge areas covered in these quarters. I think Commons Quarters should be available from the start but capped (and possibly more powerful to compensate). Each Era you unlock could increase the cap so that you have a smooth increase in the scale of your cities. This would also mean you have to think more about where to place these districts as you develop, rather than doing CQ-suburbs through spam. Choosing Builder cultures could further increase the cap - at the moment they have nothing to increase stability, which is the primary limitation on district construction.

I also agree with the suggestion that the stability cost of EQs could be decreased. In my playthroughs EQs were almost the only district I built in the early eras due to stability restrictions. Ideally, I think they should supplement and synergise the building you are already doing, rather than dominating it.

AOM wrote:

Bridger wrote:

AOM wrote:Just from a common sense perspective, it makes no sense to me that farms that provide life-sustaining food cause instability, while Commons districts (politics and art studios?) cause stability. 

It makes perfect sense to me.  As a city grows it requires more oversight in order to prevent crime/corruption.  So every additional district reduces stability naturally.

Commons Quarters maybe represent governmental functions (bureaucrats?).  The more places they are near, the more stability they can inject.  I don't see how spamming them can help, as they give very little stability unless you make sure they are surrounded by at least 3 other quarters.  Perhaps they need a ramping cost though?

A farm is not a city district in the real world or historically. They are rural elements. Farms provide food. Food is a stabilizing commodity. History tells us that. Common sense tells us that. Starving populations rebel to get food, as food is a necessity of life. If you don't get that, I don't know how to help you. Starving people rebel. This isn't rocket science. 

If you actually play the game, which from your comment, I'm guessing you haven't, spamming the pink Common Quarters provides substantial stability. You cluster them up, and it forms this large, ugly pink cluster in your city. Even if you think politicians somehow equal stability, it's difficult to imagine how having politicians covering 10 tiles all clustered together is beneficial. Especially at the same time your city is starving and can't place a farm district without the game deciding a farm district is the city's tipping point for rebellion. No, this is just silly, and it makes for really ugly looking cities. Not to mention the fact that it's boring always building the same district at the expense of every other type. It makes it so you can't build money or science districts. So you have a bunch of poor cities with lots of politicians and no food, science, or money. Not what I'm looking for in a game.

I have to agree with AOM. Food is what stabilizes human society. It's half of the "Bread and Circuses" concept. I would remove the stability penalty from farms and apply it to the other districts. This and (IMO) low city caps have been real frustrating points this last beta.

Conquered cities and how they transitioned to being under control is unclear.

Governed cities don't seem to allow me to change their focus, or know what they would do anyway. And why some cities end being governed and some integrated.

Once a city has a territory added, the city view is limited and does not scale up well to cover the extra area, which is a shame because I really like the city and territory mechanics :-)

The siege mechanics are really good too, with the way fortifications expand over the core parts of the city.

Biggest problem I had with cities though is that I clearly need to know more about how they are working :-) The FIMS data and the optimal location tools really help with that, but there is a lot going on that I don't know yet with them.