Anyone else bothered by the sense of scale?

[smvalentine]

Even on a huge Earth map, North America is what 20? 30? tiles across.
That makes each tile something like 75-100 miles across and a whole city 500-700 miles across!
In CiV the city core tile seemed out of scale at this size.
In CiVI with districts, the "city" now extends across the whole 7 tile wide region!

When I heard about districts, I had hoped they would make the map 7x higher resolution in CiVI to counteract that effect. e.g. North America 140-200 tiles across on an Earth map.
I guess that would take too much memory/CPU cycles for current PCs, but as it is, "cities" are bigger than Texas!

 

[Bechhold]

Yes they need to enlarge the maps.

 

[RealAntithesis]

This probably comes from Civ turning more and more towards 'gamified' mechanics and concepts that are less and less reflective of history or the modern world as we know it.

Along the way, I think the game designers have lost sight of what made Civ so appealing to so many people in the first place. There are many 'features' in Civ6 that don't really make sense - and I struggle to find a sense of reality (and therefore 'connection') in what I'm doing in game.

The kludgy, eye straining interface and micro management heavy gameplay doesn't help either.

 

[Leyrann]

Okay.

We now make the maps some 10 times bigger in all directions.

Have fun waiting 20 minutes for map creation.

Have fun waiting 10 minutes before it's your turn again.

Have fun settling and governing 400 cities (equal to 4 on old size) that want to produce stuff every turn.

 

[nzcamel]

I find the 'Yet (not) another maps pack' mod to be quite good. It's looking like I can run all but the largest map size available on my 4 year old PC.

 

[TomKQT]

In CiVI with districts, the "city" now extends across the whole 7 tile wide region!

When I heard about districts, I had hoped they would make the map 7x higher resolution in CiVI to counteract that effect. e.g. North America 140-200 tiles across on an Earth map.
I guess that would take too much memory/CPU cycles for current PCs, but as it is, "cities" are bigger than Texas!

There isn't such a huge change from Civ5 to Civ6 in this concern. In Civ5 the cities still had the 3-tile radius and you typically didn't place cities closer than this. So, in fact, each city was almost 7 tiles wide with all the farms and market places belonging to the city. It was far from realism.
Civ6 just added different use to the tiles around the city center, but I personally still don't think of it as a 7-tiles large city, the districts seems to me more like separate entities (a factory located outside the city etc.).

However, the most important point (which a lot of people don't like to hear...) is that this is a game and it cannot be realistic in every single aspect. Can you even imagine how would Civlization look with strictly realistic scale? How enormous would the map have to be? Thank you, but I would not want to play such a game. It would probably require hardware of a kind that nobody would be able to play the game at home. And for example domination victory would maybe take months of real time to finish...

 

[Bro]

And yeez, did you take a look at those gigantic buildings, units and resources! There's like tanks the size of cities and horses the size of little islands.

 

[dunkleosteus]

In civ V, each tile was 100x100 km, based on the demographic screen giving 10000 sq km for each tile you own.

For Civ 6, I sort of make peace with the scale system by assuming that each city is more like a state or province than a city. I also assume the districts are more like smaller cities in the state or province than districts. So the campus is like a college town where most of the population are students. Stuff like that. Helps justify the huge distances between each.

If the map was scaled up, I think we'd need more detail on tiles, like instead of hills tiles, maybe different elevations of terrain. Any tile that acted as a transition between elevations (unless it was a cliff) would be a slope. Going low to high would eat extra movement like normal hill tiles. High to low and mid-mid wouldn't though. If a tile was 2 elevations above an adjacent tile, it would be a mountain. Would be a lot of fun to have a system like this. Plus, we could have waterfalls.

 

[Leyrann]

In civ V, each tile was 100x100 km, based on the demographic screen giving 10000 sq km for each tile you own.

For Civ 6, I sort of make peace with the scale system by assuming that each city is more like a state or province than a city. I also assume the districts are more like smaller cities in the state or province than districts. So the campus is like a college town where most of the population are students. Stuff like that. Helps justify the huge distances between each.

If the map was scaled up, I think we'd need more detail on tiles, like instead of hills tiles, maybe different elevations of terrain. Any tile that acted as a transition between elevations (unless it was a cliff) would be a slope. Going low to high would eat extra movement like normal hill tiles. High to low and mid-mid wouldn't though. If a tile was 2 elevations above an adjacent tile, it would be a mountain. Would be a lot of fun to have a system like this. Plus, we could have waterfalls.

Would love a system like that, but I think it would be too fundamental a change for even a new Civilization.

If you want to make your own 4X game though...

 

[nzcamel]

Alpha Centuri...

 

[Zaarin]

I think you have to accept that Civ5 and Civ6 are not meant to be a satellite image of your empire and that a certain level of abstraction is involved. Civ6's art style certainly makes this easier to accept than Civ5's sad attempt at looking like a satellite image.