[GS] Antarctic Late Summer Patch Discussion Thread

[criZp]

Please define "better".

"better" as in "actually distributed instead of heavily localized"

Do you not find that clustering... and therefore scarcity... adds motivation for trade and warfare?

resources are already scarce regardless of their distribution, so no, I don't think that giving one player ALL the resources in an area in one city and say to the other guys "lol just trade for it or conquer it xD" is good design.

 

[Takfloyd]

are you guys working on a better map distribution of strategics?

I'm pretty sure resource clustering is intentional, and I think it's a good thing. If all the resources are evenly distributed, it will make interactions between players less interesting. In real life, some countries have seemingly unlimited amounts of oil while others have none at all. And that's an important driver for international trade, diplomacy and war. The game should emulate that.

 

[criZp]

I'm pretty sure resource clustering is intentional

that doesn't make sense. if devs wanted some players to have much and others to have little to none, they could have reduced frecuency and increased yields, instead of coded the resources to cluster together.

 

[Josephias]

that doesn't make sense. if devs wanted some players to have much and others to have little to none, they could have reduced frecuency and increased yields, instead of coded the resources to cluster together.

Not necessarily, clustering, but not jouning them all in one tile, encourages city placement and border growht strategies, where two civs can fight for the land where the cluster is without it being a binary result battle.

So clustering is intentional, but separating the cluster in 2-3 tiles may also be.

 

[criZp]

Not necessarily, clustering, but not jouning them all in one tile, encourages city placement and border growht strategies, where two civs can fight for the land where the cluster is without it being a binary result battle.

yeah except most resources are revealed in already settled lands. your "border growth strategies" comes down to having some gold that you can throw at border expansion in case you need to. wow such strategy.

So clustering is intentional

stop pretending to know things for fact when you actually don't know it. you are not the dev I was originally replying to.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Just to make sure, may I ask which version of the game PC users have now?

Hmm, if only someone were keeping track of released versions...

 

[Takfloyd]

yeah except most resources are revealed in already settled lands. your "border growth strategies" comes down to having some gold that you can throw at border expansion in case you need to. wow such strategy.

In a game based around adjacency bonuses, it is quite simply better design to have resources spread across multiple adjacent tiles than to have a just a single tile. It encourages more consideration for district placements, and like the other guy said, it also makes it possible for two cities or two players to share one resource area. Take the middle east for example - it's an oil rich area and a lot of countries have agendas related to getting that oil, but it's not like only ONE country in the middle east gets all the oil. It's spread across the region.

 

[Phoenix1595]

Please define "better". Do you not find that clustering... and therefore scarcity... adds motivation for trade and warfare?

Unless there are unreasonable cases that require special treatment (e.g. Mongols start with no horses on their landmass), I find uneven distribution to be desirable.

I second this. Isn’t the whole point of Civilization the jockeying of resources and territory in order to foster a thriving civ? IRL, a successful civ would adapt in order to succumb scarcity. Also, many RL resources also clump, generally, so I do not mind that it occurs in-game as well.

Anyway, to each their own, I suppose. It just doesn’t seem to be a top priority to me, and I believe that map setup options and mods that could better address OP’s needs.

 

[DWilson]

If I've learned anything here recently, no matter how obvious or intuitive, people upset about something deny that it is ever impossible to deduct dev intentions. It's true in this forum, and I expect in general with regards to things that have developers

 

[The googles do nothing]

Please define "better". Do you not find that clustering... and therefore scarcity... adds motivation for trade and warfare?

It does motivate warfare between me and those who don't have resources.

 

[criZp]

In a game based around adjacency bonuses, it is quite simply better design to have resources spread across multiple adjacent tiles than to have a just a single tile

the hansa is the only district that get higher adjacency from more resources in the map, and that's a unitque district affected by bonus/luxury resources and com-hubs as well, hardly much of an argument.

 

[criZp]

If I've learned anything here recently, no matter how obvious or intuitive, people upset about something deny that it is ever impossible to deduct dev intentions. It's true in this forum, and I expect in general with regards to things that have developers

funny you should say that, as if random distribution cannot cause clusters here and there.

 

[criZp]

IRL, a successful civ would adapt in order to succumb scarcity.

Civ is not real life and you cannot count on getting natural resources through trade when the guy sitting on the resources thinks of a conquest victory, or really anything but a diplo victory...

I believe that map setup options and mods that could better address OP’s needs.

there are no such options or mods.

 

[Kwami]

It does motivate warfare between me and those who don't have resources.

This is the real problem with resource distribution. Sure, it'd be nice if a player without Niter would go and take some Niter from the guy that has it. In practice, though, the player with Niter is going to have stronger units than the one without and war is almost a non-starter. Instead, the player without could try to trade for some Niter. But, the player with would probably be smart not to trade away that Niter. So, if you're lacking a critical strategic resource, you usually just have to wait until the next era and hope that have you the next resource. Every Civ game has been like this, though.

Isn't there an option to evenly distribute resources during the advanced game setup screen? I can't check from work.

 

[heinous_hat]

I suppose anyone's perspective on resource distribution is going to depend upon game settings, especially map size.

Players on larger maps are going to appreciate the effect that localized resource pockets have on play, because they can use diplomacy or exploration to solve the scarcity problem, in addition to warfare. To a degree, this is true for slower game speed as well, where you're afforded more time to be creative. So localized resources reduce predictability here, because you can apply different solutions.

On a smaller map, though, you have fewer clusters, so maybe trade and exportation aren't as viable, and warfare becomes the predictable default. Here, I think you need customized start scripting that accounts for map size. Or, just give the player a "balanced" strategics setting. Otherwise, we have the opposite effect, and play becomes too predictable.

I do know that when Civ6 released, I absolutely hated the resource distribution, which was a deliberately even spread. I like bigger maps at slower speeds, so that was predictably boring.

 

[Delvi]

I'm visiting the lands of Tomyris now and going back home on Tuesday. So I'd like to ask you guys which is your opinion about civ6 after Antarctic Summer Patch and hotfix have been issued. Does it worth to start a serious game?

 

[Takfloyd]

the hansa is the only district that get higher adjacency from more resources in the map, and that's a unitque district affected by bonus/luxury resources and com-hubs as well, hardly much of an argument.

Every Industrial Zone gets adjacency bonuses from iron, coal, aluminium and uranium, and Harbors get adjacency bonuses from oil. All strategic resources also give tile yields. All of this factors into city and district placements. As for difficulty of obtaining resources, AIs will always trade away theirs, and there are always alternative units to use if you lack a resource and want to go to war to get it. There's usually also late-game resources in unclaimed territory near the poles that you can settle if you need them. If you want more resources on the map, there are absolutely mods that do that. The only one who has no valid argument here is you. It seems like you just don't want to encounter hardships in the game, in which case lowering the difficulty is an option.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Isn't there an option to evenly distribute resources during the advanced game setup screen? I can't check from work.

But if the strategic resources were evenly distributed, I don't know why they should bother to be in the game at all. If everyone has them what's the point?

 

[Kwami]

Every Industrial Zone gets adjacency bonuses from iron, coal, aluminium and uranium, and Harbors get adjacency bonuses from oil.

No, they don't. Industrial Zones get +1 bonuses from mines and quarries and +0.5 bonuses for adjacent districts. Harbors get +2 bonuses from city centers, +1 bonuses from coastal resources, and +0.5 bonuses from adjacent districts.

 

[Kwami]

But if the strategic resources were evenly distributed, I don't know why they should bother to be in the game at all. If everyone has them what's the point?

Your way of playing isn't the only way of playing. Another poster asked about distributing resources evenly and I simply asked if the option already exists. You can play any way you want to play without criticizing others.