Anyone else wanting a more "geographical" experience for Civ 7?

[eduhum]

Personally, i think that the series has veered too far into arcade gameplay style. Note that ironically, i like a lot Civ6's aesthetic and graphical style. But, i miss Civ4's ability to create sprawling empires with dozens of cities.

I need more of that. I don't like playing tall. I wish the map was like in google maps, with a multitude of small intersecting valleys, chokepoints, realistic relief terrain. I don't want to micromanage city production. I want to have contact with a plethora of political entities. I wish there was no separation between civs, city states, barbarian states, etc., and that all were a continuum of dozens, hundreds even, of small tribes factions being subdued and integrated into larger and larger empires, as vassal states, ducats, and whatnot.

I want to play in an earth map and place cities without needing to care if they are well positioned for tile efficiency and resource management purposes. I don't have time or energy to nerd out stuff like that. I have plenty of time though, to analyse geopolitical dynamics in a civ map. I want civs that rise and fall continually, creating different ages. I wish for a much more geographical experience. I wish that the 2Dness of a tile map was evolved into a 3D terrain map.

I would gladly see city management shift into a style of instead of having 5-10 cities, having 50-100 cities, but much more simple to manage.

Graphically, i'd like to see much smaller tiles, so 10 tiles where there is one now, and that each city has a radius of 50 tiles, with lots of villages sprawling around, which you can foster, pillage, etc

 

[PiR]

I don't think my computer can handle that many tiles. :-(

 

[Ryansinbela]

I know my computer can't

 

[eduhum]

But those tiles would be much more simple and smaller

 

[PiR]

Smaller could help for graphical loading, but wouldn't help for fast computations / turns. :/

I'm really enthousiast with the concept of "having 50-100 cities, but much more simple to manage". But if we look at the decisions made in the latest editions, features were designed for a good performance (which was welcome). That is why Civ VI is faster than 5 and 4 on my PC.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A large map 4x game seems to be the most challenging for computers, at least in my (limited) experience. I have played some gorgeous games (Settlers 6, Caesar IV) that much older computers than what I have now played with no problem (and a 10,000+ population city in Caesar IV at least visually appeared as complex as anything in Civ VI). More recently on my present computer - which I would characterize as slightly better than average but a long way from top-tier in graphics processing - I have played all the Humankind Open Devs with no problem, but it does have problems with late-game Huge Maps in Civ VI and late game Large Map rendering in Anno 1800 - another recent game full of animated terrain, people, ships, etc.

All of which means, at least to me as a Computer Graphics novice, that the quality of the programming is at least as significant as the sheer amount of graphics work being required by the game.

Someone with better knowledge of the technical aspects could completely contradict me on this, but like others in this thread, I would really, really like bigger maps and more cities, but at the same time have the on-map depiction of what I'm doing that Civ VI offers and the sheer beauty of the map that Humankind has.

The question is, how to get it without requiring 90% of the gamers to upgrade their computers just to get past the opening movie . . .

Specifically referring to smaller tiles, both Settlers 6 and the current Anno 1800 use multitudes of very small tiles: the average structure in each game ranges from 6 to 9 tiles up to 50 tiles and more, and the current Anno (which, admittedly, taxes my current computer to the max) title includes a mass of detailed animation in most of the 'buildings', so the majority of these tiles include animation as well as static detail.

While I haven't done the math on the maps to estimate what the comparison is between Civ VI, Humankind and Anno 1800 as to how many tiles or how much area they are trying to render in their average or large-sized maps, my very uncalibrated experience tells me that they are very similar in the load they are putting on my computer. The fact that both Humankind and Anno 1800, each in its own way, look far, far better than Civ VI is, I suspect, both a factor of age - Civ VI is the older game by several years - and programming Emphasis: Humankind shows many fewer discrete gamer-manipulated objects on the map than Civ VI (no Buildings except Wonders shown separately, fewer distinctive Districts/Quarters and none of HKs Quarters require other objects placed graphically within them). On the other hand, Anno 1800 looks far more graphically complex than either of the other two games yet does not appear to be stressing my computer any more than they do - and certainly not as bad as on a Civ VI Huge Map late in the game, when my frame rate drops to Disgusting so that I just cannot play Civ VI on those size maps at all.

Bottom Line: no two games or game design teams are going to have the same standards of graphic design for their games - look at the differences in the graphic design and appearance among Old World, Humankind, Civ VI and Anno 1800 for radically different approaches to very similar subjects.
What I think we have to do is communicate long and loud what our preferences are as the spending public of gamers. Do we want beautifully realistic maps and in-game Objects (units, buildings, scenery, Leaders, etc) - and if so, what is the 'break point' at which we are trading graphic beauty/complexity for Utility in clean GUI and Economics in having to compete with the Bitcoin miners for high-end graphics cards in order to play the game?

 

[Zegangani]

re Map Size/Assets: If the 4X Game Devs keep using the same approach to Graphic Loading as till now, then I don't think that upcomming 4X Games will support larger Maps, and even worse, the Maps may get even smaller. Because the Graphics are getting better and better (requiring more Memory), and because of that, the processing Time of Loading the Asset will be longer, and the running Games slower.

One Solution for that, IMO, would be the reuse of already loaded Assets. In Civ Style Games (eg. with Camera Fosung on a specific Area of the Map): While the Game Camera is focused on a City/Area, other Parts of the Map that aren't captured by the Camera and are far away from its range, should not be rendered (Visualy not visible/No Graphics, but codewise they are there and also shown in the MiniMap). If you move the Cam to a hidden (not neccessarily unrevealed) Area, then the Game will reuse the Assets of the Previous Area, while the Latter is becoming Assetless. Lots of Games are using this Methode (I don't remember how it's called), especially in square grid Games.

Basicaly, if the Cam is focused on Area X, this Area will have all its Assets loaded and visible, aswell as All the Surrounding Areas, which are 8. So a Max of 9 Areas should have All their Assets loaded. And upon the movement of the Camera to any surrounding Area ( let's call it Area Y) of Area X, the Game will reuse Assets from Areas that aren't surrounding Area Y, but have visible Assets still loaded.
Visual Example:
See how the Camera Focus changes from Area E to Area I:
Fig.1-----------------------------------Fig.2
[X][X][X][X][X]-----------------------[X][X][X][X][X]
[X][A][ B ][C][X]---------------------[X][A][ B ][C][X][Y]
[X][D][E][F][X]-----------------------[X][D][E][F][X][Y]
[X][G][H][ I ][X]----------------------[X][G][H][ I ][X][Y]
[X][X][X][X][X]-----------------------[X][X][X][X][X][Y]
---------------------------------------------[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]

The Square Brakets represent Areas that the Camera can catch. The Green Area is catched by the Cam, and Yellow are its serrounding Areas, and all Tiles of those Areas have Assets loaded. Whereas The Red and Blue (whic are only there to showcase how the Cam is moving) Areas don't have Visible Assets that are loaded.

From Fig.1 to Fig.2 we can see that the Cam has shifted from Area E to Area I. Now that the Focus isn't on Area E anymore, which is surrounded by Area A,B,C,D,F,G,H and I, but on Area I (surrounded by Area E,F and H and 5 New Areas), we can see that the Game has reused Assets from A,B,C,D and G for the 5 New Areas, where applicable. And while the 5 new Areas are reasung those Assets, where not applicable, the Game will load the neccessary Assets from the Preset (see below).

So the Game would need to only Load Assets for 9 Areas + Preset of Assets for 5 Additional Areas (See how much X's in the Fig.2 are needed if Cam moves to a certain direction (4 Areas are already loaded but 5 are new)).

Ofc there will be Issues like "What if the Terrain/Feature Types of the Areas are completely different?". that could be solved with a Loaded Preset of All Assets necessary, which is "the Max Tiles the Camera can catch" x "All different Terrain/Feature Types Assets needed" x (9+5) Areas (so that if the Cam catches only Ocean Tiles, there is enough Ocean Tile Assets for that). And The Assets for Improvements And districts will be handled similarly (except for Uniques and Units(cultural Variations)). Yes, this would depend on how much the Cam can Zoom out, but if this would be limited, say no farther Zoom outs that you can see entire Continents, but to a Max Range of "a City and it's adjacent/neighbour Cities" (you can enlarge the MiniMap though, if you want to see things on a macro level for example), then it would be managable.

Example: Cam can catch an Area of Max 24x15 Tiles (360 Tiles in Total). Combining that with the Area surrounding the Place that is catched by the Camera (which is the Cam Area x 8) amounts to: 3240 Tiles (72x45). Which is even less than the Civ VI Small Map Size (74x46). + 5 Additinal Areas as a Preset (1800 Tiles), which amounts in a Total of: 5040, which is a little more than the Standard Map Size (84x54= 4536).
I'm sure "Normal/Non necessariliry Gaming" PCs would handle this bulk amount of Assets very well (maybe even more). Because Civ VI (that has great Graphics, although not great Style) already can handle bigger Maps than Standard, even cluttered with Cities, Units and Infrastructures.


I hope you got the Idea, and I would be very interested in what you think about it. It's just a Possible Solution to the Map Size/Asset limit Issue, but the best one I could think of yet.

 

[Gedemon]

AFAIK the assets limit issue is not related to map sizes.

And while it's true there was a graphical hardware limit for the extra large map size at the time the game was released in 2016 (6GB VRAM for 230x116 map, 4GB being enough with 2D leader heads), this has changed to a software limit introduced with some of the patches post-release (even GPU with 10 or 11GB VRAM can't load the 230x116 map now, in the same preset conditions, even with low graphical settings)

The issue would be more about AI processing time on larger map, with pathfinding for units and trade routes.

The easier way to have more cities is to stack back districts into cities (you could have a sub-hex map on the city hex, and maybe the adjacent hexes for them, those would be independent of the normal map for units/pathfinding) and maybe reduce the minimal distance between cities. IMO you'll also need some sort of limited units stacking to move armies around cities.

 

[Zegangani]

Thanks for the Insight @Gedemon. Yep, an Independant City map could be a Solution (Like in Ikariam, the Online Multiplayer Strategy Game, and its Map in general for that Matter), with Districts like Encampments and Aerodroms adjacent to the City Center.

May I ask how Old World is in regard of Map Size, eg. can it handle bigger Maps?

 

[Gedemon]

32768 tiles I think

250x130 is loading IIRC.

Not tested for a full game so no idea of the turn processing time...

 

[eduhum]

I know i'm on the minority position here, but i don't care at all about every tile being gorgeous. Actually, the best way to make a gorgeous map is to make so many tiles that one can recreate the 'photography of the Alps snow capped from a plane', ie, very wide mountain ranges with many valleys and subvalleys. I don't mind at all functional 1998 aesthetics (polished with polymer style artwork).
I want extremely wide plains in which i can make dozens of cities that can hold up a multi tier system of importance in cities (national capital, regional, local... each one with it's one radius of influence and such)

 

[duckstab]

The easier way to have more cities is to stack back districts into cities (you could have a sub-hex map on the city hex, and maybe the adjacent hexes for them, those would be independent of the normal map for units/pathfinding) and maybe reduce the minimal distance between cities. IMO you'll also need some sort of limited units stacking to move armies around cities.

Is a stacking limit even necessary anymore? In Civ6 almost every unit and building has a significant maintenance cost, and it's much harder to field the massive armies that were possible in Civ4, stacking limit or no.

Bringing back the stack would not only simplify unit management and pathing but would give the AI more of a fighting chance in combat.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Is a stacking limit even necessary anymore? In Civ6 almost every unit and building has a significant maintenance cost, and it's much harder to field the massive armies that were possible in Civ4, stacking limit or no.

Bringing back the stack would not only simplify unit management and pathing but would give the AI more of a fighting chance in combat.

We have direct evidence of how to do Unit Stacking right, or at least, an order of magnitude Better: Humankind requires expending population to build units, yet in the last Open Dev of the game people were fighting battles in the Early Modern (Renaissance) Era with up to 50 units! Individual 'stacks' (armies) were only 5 - 6 units each, but every stack within a 'radius' could be sucked into the battle as reinforcements or reserves. And so far, the AI in my experience in the Open Devs at least, has been pretty competent at using its units in the tactical battles - certainly a whole lot better than Civ VI's reconstructed Varros and Burnsides that apparently command the AI units.

 

[aieeegrunt]

AFAIK the assets limit issue is not related to map sizes.

And while it's true there was a graphical hardware limit for the extra large map size at the time the game was released in 2016 (6GB VRAM for 230x116 map, 4GB being enough with 2D leader heads), this has changed to a software limit introduced with some of the patches post-release (even GPU with 10 or 11GB VRAM can't load the 230x116 map now, in the same preset conditions, even with low graphical settings)

The issue would be more about AI processing time on larger map, with pathfinding for units and trade routes.

The easier way to have more cities is to stack back districts into cities (you could have a sub-hex map on the city hex, and maybe the adjacent hexes for them, those would be independent of the normal map for units/pathfinding) and maybe reduce the minimal distance between cities. IMO you'll also need some sort of limited units stacking to move armies around cities.

There are very strong gameplay and immersion reasons to fold districts back into the city centre, I am not surprised that there are also coding reasons as well

I fully expect that Civ7 will double down on the districts and 1 UPT thing however

 

[Naokaukodem]

I want to play in an earth map and place cities without needing to care if they are well positioned for tile efficiency and resource management purposes. I don't have time or energy to nerd out stuff like that.

Heck yeah I understand you ! In Civ6 I'm capped on districts in nearly only silly cities that i settled just because there was fresh water or if not, coast. (without thinking about its environment, as there is often plenty 2 food tiles nearly everywhere that can make a city 10 size quite easily with time, so when there is only 1 food tiles I don't even notice it, that's after that that i'm saying "oh well, bah") It's because i'm pretty reluctant to build districts except campuses, they take too much room IMO, especially with mountain range, coast, etc. and i feel it's been done more tedious to grow a city because of the "farms triangle" bonuses, that i can obtain pretty rarely except waiting for farms on hills but by that time it makes no sense anymore... when i'm lucky I take a room for at least 1 farm triangle, another for production (hills), but the more dedicated to those, the more i do it, so there's no more room for districts.

Saying that I was complaining that there was too much space in Civ5 which could lead to a natural "tail eating snake" when your citizens produced food for more citizen to produce more food (maybe just for the sake of working improved terrain I don't know) etc. I'm the kind of fluent and instinctive player (I know i shouldn't play Civ, but I adored Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4 in multiplayer, maybe i was different i don't know - actually now i have a mental desease, which makes me lazy in everything - not only the desease, but the "cure" also) who do what is prompted to him and press "next turn" (TOO OFTEN my games are a "next turn" fest, the turns pass and i don't see much improvement), very unlike some YouTubers that could spend 15 minutes to explain and actually take their decisions for 1 turn only, opening panels, moving the map around, etc... I never do that !

Also the districts cost increasing with eras is a major unincentive for me to build them... thing is, if there is no war, I struggle hard to build my campuses early, along with settlers and builders, build a monument first in new cities (that can take 30 turns, but what can i do ?), and when i finished my campuses and the library, I don't know what to do with them anymore ! Everything seems so long to build too... very frustrating.

I want to have contact with a plethora of political entities. I wish there was no separation between civs, city states, barbarian states, etc., and that all were a continuum of dozens, hundreds even, of small tribes factions being subdued and integrated into larger and larger empires, as vassal states, ducats, and whatnot.

That's exactly what I tried to achieve in the idea of the link in my signature ! "Barbarians" and states in real life lived a long time in symbiosis.

----------

I noticed you tax the game to be too Arcade... ah, I was thinking the opposite. I mean, to beat Deity you have to plane everything, not just click next turn everytime like a nag. (which i do... a lot ! ) And i never complete Deity games due to being desperate in face of the AI science advantages... so I've come to the conclusion that I miss a lot of things by clicking "next turn" without much happening. Thing is, I don't know what. It doesn't seem I can do much except waiting for my campuses to complete... that's why i imagined a system of vocal and visual alerts in another thread, but truth is I don't know if this would be more useful than annoying.

 

[PiR]

Everything seems so long to build too... very frustrating.

Try a faster game speed?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yeah, I obviously thought about this, the problem is that if you want to do wars, it's more avantaging to have the slowest speed possible. (so I take the default speed, normal)

But I will think about it at least in GS where I try to avoid wars.