"1 Terrace farm?": the reason I stop/restart mid-game

[Vandlys]

Playing as Pachacuti (Maya), I had a nice start between some mountains. Before Antiquity ended I managed to place three more cities/towns near mountains and mountain ranges. Then, when exploration started and I could move on to Inca, I quit the game. I noticed this pattern in my games (I have the same when playing Tecumseh, Mississippian, Shawnee), because by the time I have to switch to a new Civ that is map dependent I find the map lacking to play as that Civ.

I had many brilliant maps as Tecumseh (Mississippian) but then switching to Shawnee finding that I had nothing to use their bonus for navigable rivers.

The same just happened with Inqa. All tiles next to mountains were filled by quarters (leader bonus prompted me to focus on that), but I had barely any rough terrain left. Of my three cities starting in the exploration age, I was able to build 1 (!) terrace farm. That just didn't make me feel like playing anymore.

Has anyone else felt like this? How do you counter it? I could read up on following civilisations before starting Antiquity I suppose, but it feels weird not playing to a Civ's strength because down the line there is another one coming up.

Edit: And I never realised this but the wiki is age-locked?! Meaning you can't look up anything about the Inca if you're in Antiquity?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yes, it's very frustrating that mountains don't necessarily have a large amount of rough terrain around them, resulting in few of these unique improvements. Fortuntely, they did change Terrace Farms a few months back so that mountain adjacency makes them better, but they don't have to be next to the mountains. So you should be able to manage a few more, even if they aren't all spectacular.

 

[Lebo44]

Interesting, this has never been an issue for me in any Civilization game. Even when playing as a water-focused Civ and starting in the middle of a desert, I always saw it as an challenge. I would ask myself: how can I adapt to this situation? Where should I expand to make the most of my civilization’s unique strengths?

Of course, every player has their own approach and playstyle.

 

[Smegger213]

I guess that's another reason why forced switching of Civ's pisses players off. I hate it. I also hate the any leader can play any Civ crap.

 

[Vandlys]

Yes, it's very frustrating that mountains don't necessarily have a large amount of rough terrain around them, resulting in few of these unique improvements. Fortuntely, they did change Terrace Farms a few months back so that mountain adjacency makes them better, but they don't have to be next to the mountains. So you should be able to manage a few more, even if they aren't all spectacular.

Yeah, indeed. I've restarted a map and am using map tacks to plan ahead for the next age. Luckily there is much more rough terrain on this map, but like I said previously I had 1 eligible tile in three cities. Unfortunately, it takes a while before you see if a map is suitable long-term.

Interesting, this has never been an issue for me in any Civilization game. Even when playing as a water-focused Civ and starting in the middle of a desert, I always saw it as an challenge. I would ask myself: how can I adapt to this situation? Where should I expand to make the most of my civilization’s unique strengths?

Of course, every player has their own approach and playstyle.

Yeah, I've done that with Civ VI as well, but once I really got the hang of the game. VII still throws me for a loop at times though so I just feel like wanting to play Civs at their strength first, before doing a "Mali in the snow"-type deal.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I guess that's another reason why forced switching of Civ's pisses players off. I hate it. I also hate the any leader can play any Civ crap.

What? You could just not switch into Inca, no one is making you play Inca, you could choose another Civ that fits your situation better.. What are you on about?

 

[Smegger213]

What? You could just not switch into Inca, no one is making you play Inca, you could choose another Civ that fits your situation better.. What are you on about?

The point is that I don't want to switch Civ's. I want to stay with the same Civ from start to finish. Just like in every other version of Civilization that came before Civ 7.

 

[Leucarum]

I think Civs with terrain-based kits should only have been in Antiquity where they affect map gen.

After anqituity it's less you playing the map, and more the map playing you if you get a good terrain-viv spawn. It also annoys players who would like to plan their games in advance ( ). And then you run into the sorts of issues you describe.

 

[UWHabs]

I think having some map dependencies on later civs can make sense. If you get in a great spot, you can use your map layout to leap you forward.

But I do think that in general, making sure that important parts of a civ's kit can still be useful. At least the change to terrace farms to be on any rough terrain makes them not any harder to place than like a hidden fortress. I still think they would be better if you placed them on a mountain tile with some restrictions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think Civs with terrain-based kits should only have been in Antiquity where they affect map gen.

I think quite the opposite. The strength of the civilization switch is that you could pick the one which fits your game situation. So, it's great to have exploration and modern age terrain-focused civs which you could select if they have an advantage.

The situation described by OP is the one where you could look at the map and just don't choose Inca.

Although the problem with Civilopedia is surely an issue.

 

[Vandlys]

I think quite the opposite. The strength of the civilization switch is that you could pick the one which fits your game situation. So, it's great to have exploration and modern age terrain-focused civs which you could select if they have an advantage.

The situation described by OP is the one where you could look at the map and just don't choose Inca.

Although the problem with Civilopedia is surely an issue.

Yeah, I completely get you and you raise a valid argument. To counter it, though, I have limited free time and I really felt like playing Inca as Pachacuti. It just feels off to play for hours to find out you can't really use your unique improvement.

Second game went a lot better though!

 

[Lebo44]

Yeah, I completely get you and you raise a valid argument. To counter it, though, I have limited free time and I really felt like playing Inca as Pachacuti. It just feels off to play for hours to find out you can't really use your unique improvement.

It’s for these very reasons that I prefer scenarios and often go with the Advanced Start option

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The point is that I don't want to switch Civ's. I want to stay with the same Civ from start to finish. Just like in every other version of Civilization that came before Civ 7.

So, and hear me out here...

don't play Civ 7?

I don't get this arrogant demand that Civ 7 must be like every other civ game... just go back to the others? They're great. Civ 5 and Civ 6, even Civ 3, I still play 3 and 5 quite often.

 

[Leucarum]

So, and hear me out here...

don't play Civ 7?

I don't get this arrogant demand that Civ 7 must be like every other civ game... just go back to the others? They're great. Civ 5 and Civ 6, even Civ 3, I still play 3 and 5 quite often.

I think the frustration is how close 7 comes to greatness. Removing builders, army commanders, towns/cities, mixing/matching leaders and civs are amazing. I tried going back to 6 and really missed those changes.

I genuinely thing Antiquity era Civ7 is the best entry in the franchise. It's just awkward that modern era Civ7 is the worst entry in the franchise...

 

[kaspergm]

On a side-note, it always struck me is slightly ironic how the Inca in Civ6 was arguably the civilization that benefittet the least from the Machu Pichu wonder for the same reason that OP ran into in their game.

 

[Smegger213]

So, and hear me out here...

don't play Civ 7?

I don't get this arrogant demand that Civ 7 must be like every other civ game... just go back to the others? They're great. Civ 5 and Civ 6, even Civ 3, I still play 3 and 5 quite often.

With respect, but how is my wishes an arrogant demand? It would say that a hell of a lot of the dislike for Civ 7, would site Civ switching as being one factor.
In my mind, it wouldn't take much to solve. Give players the option to change Civ's or not. They could maybe give each Civ some bonuses and maybe units for each age.
I do play Civ 5 a lot. I couldn't get into Civ 6, despite trying on numerous occasions.
The graphics in Civ 7 are great. Oh, but what I would give to be able to play a version of Civ 5, with the graphics of Civ 7.

 

[UWHabs]

On a side-note, it always struck me is slightly ironic how the Inca in Civ6 was arguably the civilization that benefittet the least from the Machu Pichu wonder for the same reason that OP ran into in their game.

Before they made the change, Pachacuti/Inca was often a bad combo, because you needed to use those mountain tiles for different things. I remember my first game, I had like a gorgeous location, rough tile in a little mountain valley with 5 mountains. Was it worth a terrace farm (pre-patch)? Not at all. 2 buildings there was so much better than the Terrace farm.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

With respect, but how is my wishes an arrogant demand? It would say that a hell of a lot of the dislike for Civ 7, would site Civ switching as being one factor.
In my mind, it wouldn't take much to solve. Give players the option to change Civ's or not. They could maybe give each Civ some bonuses and maybe units for each age.
I do play Civ 5 a lot. I couldn't get into Civ 6, despite trying on numerous occasions.
The graphics in Civ 7 are great. Oh, but what I would give to be able to play a version of Civ 5, with the graphics of Civ 7.

Okay but just because I LOVE cheesecake doesn't mean that I should make a carrot cake into a cheesecake.

 

[King Flevance]

I think quite the opposite. The strength of the civilization switch is that you could pick the one which fits your game situation. So, it's great to have exploration and modern age terrain-focused civs which you could select if they have an advantage.

The situation described by OP is the one where you could look at the map and just don't choose Inca.

Although the problem with Civilopedia is surely an issue.

Only problem with that is that you can't look at the map during civ selection. You just have to go off memory.

The civilopedia and UI/UX still needs a lot of work to support gameplay where uniques keep changing. I don't know how many times I have seen a unit on the map and dont know if it is a settler or a merchant. There is a lot to try to keep track of in 7. Then every age, you are literally playing a different civ based on your previous civs circumstances. So your strategy must adapt, so your viable picks actually become very limited. Most later civs need to be designed to be more adaptable in their playstyle otherwise it will eventually be everyone usually plays the same late game civs. (The ones designed in a way that is adaptable to multiple circumstances)

Things like not being able to look at the map during a peace proposal to see where the gifted city they recently founded even is on the map really do cut this game off at the knees sometimes. The accessibility of information lacking while trying to launch such radical new concepts in the design really was a recipe for disaster. However, I will say that with a concept like civ switching, throwing in civs willy-nilly is not a reliable method. You should have a format for civ progression in each age. You could go more specific each age or more versatile based on the design. But I feel like some of these civs were more tossed in for flavor than design.

 

[Krikkit1]

Only problem with that is that you can't look at the map during civ selection. You just have to go off memory.

The civilopedia and UI/UX still needs a lot of work to support gameplay where uniques keep changing. I don't know how many times I have seen a unit on the map and dont know if it is a settler or a merchant. There is a lot to try to keep track of in 7. Then every age, you are literally playing a different civ based on your previous civs circumstances. So your strategy must adapt, so your viable picks actually become very limited. Most later civs need to be designed to be more adaptable in their playstyle otherwise it will eventually be everyone usually plays the same late game civs. (The ones designed in a way that is adaptable to multiple circumstances)

Things like not being able to look at the map during a peace proposal to see where the gifted city they recently founded even is on the map really do cut this game off at the knees sometimes. The accessibility of information lacking while trying to launch such radical new concepts in the design really was a recipe for disaster.

Very much this, Civ has always had poor UI in terms of providing information, but they drastically increased the amount of information needed with the Unique Units, Civics, Traditions, Buildings, Quarters, etc.