Unique + Intrinsic bonuses

[GeneralZIft]

I think Some terrain needs to be necessarily better or more useful generically than other terrain to push players to land-grab and conflict.

You aren't always stuck on Continents. Usually you'll get some friends, and the game is usually split into two sides. Besides, you can meet everyone during the Renaissance.

 

[pokiehl]

I think the confusion comes from the map types we both play on : I always or very often play on pangaea, so for me it has little sense. What leads to wonder myself : why wouldn't you feel boring the whole period you are stuck on your continent ?

It still makes sense in Pangea though. Pangea is split up into different continents in civ 6. These continents could have different textures.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It still makes sense in Pangea though. Pangea is split up into different continents in civ 6. These continents could have different textures.

And what would it do to you ? You would still find it "boring" wouldn't you ?

 

[pokiehl]

And what would it do to you ? You would still find it "boring" wouldn't you ?

I’ve gotta admit, you have me lost. I don’t think we’re understanding each other. Why would I find boring the very idea I’m advocating? And why is the word boring in scare quotes?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Different “zones” still leads to boring homogeneity

? (and the word "boring" is in quote because I find it too hard for such a thing)

 

[BuchiTaton]

?

Since I certainly do not make the difference if it's not juxtaposed like in the link you provided, I hardly think of a better way to underline such variety. The more so when you find your zone (or here, continent) "boring".

Now, I might happilly welcome new types of biomes like "savannah", but since I feel already overwhelmed by Civ6 variety I'm not sure if I would like it gameplay-wise. If anything, I would put more green, more wet, even at the price of an Ages mechanic. (however, biomes in Civ6 are good or totally useless, there's no middle ground, yeah, mountains, water -since you can't settle it-, deserts, I'm looking at you)

But, if there's no coming back, I would like for every civ to be able to profit from one particular biome like deserts, jungles, mountains, toundra, ice ?, coasts more like it is the case with Petra now for one civ and like it is the case now for civs uniques.

I could totally play a game where I can pick up a desert "unique" if I spawn near a vast desert after a period of exploration without being able to settle cities, even if it's not working like pantheons when once picked up, no one can pick it up anymore. It could be like an aptitude several civs can share, like Civ4 traits, and maybe that might bring them closer together. (unification ?)

Unless it is just a building/national wonder or a project, even if that sounds pure fantasy. After all, it's easier, cheaper and faster to conquer your neighbours than revitalising a desert like the Sahara or the arabian desert or any kind of desert. (since it's more difficult to conquer in modern era, it's more likely to happen there, like Saddam Hussein wanted to do in Irak by rebuilding ancient irrigation network, but american spies discovered it and America sent its army there to prevent this)

You know what sounds like fantasy too ? The ability to settle on water. But, since wonders effects for example are retroactive by essence, it could not be totally ridiculous to see a civ ability follow the same retroactive scheme : you can settle water because you "created" isles in it, albeit you just found them.

Something like this could work.

Spoiler Examples Biomes :

Spoiler Biomes Yields :

Note that players could do it fine by recognize just 3 types or temperature and 4 (+1) of vegetation, the specific name for each combination are more to explain their real world equivalent but the players dont really need to memorize all those (neither is needed to have specifc names in game for these combinations).

 

[pineappledan]

Isn't macchia a bit specific? And the use of shrub implies more hospitable areas than desert or tundra, whereas scrub has the harsher -- and therefore more accurate -- connotation for your purposes.

Why not call the Vegetation "Scrubland" and the specific biome "bush" or "brush"?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Isn't macchia a bit specific? And the use of shrub implies more hospitable areas than desert or tundra, whereas scrub has the harsher -- and therefore more accurate -- connotation for your purposes.

Why not call the Vegetation "Scrubland" and the specific biome "bush" or "brush"?

Like explained the name for the specific combinations are just to provide a proxy, in game they can even be nameless since players only need to know the different levels of temperature and vegetation.
Macchia this time covers temperate* Shrublands included the Mediterranean climate ones. The use of Shrublands, Bushlands and Scrubland overlaps at some degree and could be interchangeable even in formal literature. The relevant point is what they provide and how player could recognize it.
* Provide production from the commonly rocky terrain. Shrublands are heterogenous areas were we can have both some soil for farming or pasture, isolated trees and exposed bedrock.
* Recognition, in game Shrublands have bushes some few trees and evident rocky terrain. Not the tall grass of Grassland, not the dense forest of Woodland neither obviously flooded terrain of Wetlands. And of course not the completely barren terrain of Wastelands.

Whatever is named Macchia or Bushland the total yield is already more valuable (+1F +2P) than Desert (+1F +1P) and Tundra (+2P) from the combination with temperature. The model want to provide variety but as product of only two valiables so players can estimate the total value without the need to differentiate 12(+3) forms isolatedly.

So in short, yep it can be changed from Shrubland to Scrubland or Bushland as a category, but the relevant part is the mix of clases in the table.