Anyone else worried about the map expansion feature?

[stealth_nsk]

I get that but having it so all civs learn to cross oceans around the same time feels a bit forced. Not all cultures developed how to cross oceans around the same time

I think you still need tech to do it.

 

[sTAPler27]

I think you still need tech to do it.

Probably, but the fact everyone gets a leg up at the end of each age means that everyone will more or less get there within a couple of turns of one another

 

[Krikkit1]

Probably, but the fact everyone gets a leg up at the end of each age means that everyone will more or less get there within a couple of turns of one another

Not necessarily.. everyone starts at the same spot in the new Age, but the ability to cross oceans probably isn't at the beginning of the Age. (it's "official" start date is ~400 AD... so crossing oceans is probably midway through).... I could see a second age polynesian civ able to cross oceans from the beginning. but most civs may not get it choosing to focus on other things first. if its 3 techs in.

 

[aieeegrunt]

With the transition from Antiquity to Exploration leading from a primarily local land-based warfare and exploration leading to an era with the naval game becoming available, I have to guess that the transition from Exploration to Modern makes air and space available. If the actual map size doesn't change between eras and just unlocks new ways to interact, then perhaps there is a hex grid (or grids) for aerospace units. It's rather hard to speculate with the dearth of info about even the Exploration age, though.

That would put the era change around the time of the World Wars

Which means you could have World Wars as your crises

Given how dramatically the world changed between 1914 and 1945 it’s not a bad idea

 

[Disgustipated]

Also, why not be able to send a ship, any ship, further into ocean, for a chance of finding a new land, but with a possibility to have it lost.

Reminds me of Civ 2 days. I admit to reloading a few times to make sure my ship isn't lost. Though usually I didn't bother, and waited for caravels.

I certainly hope they find a way to do TSL maps. Losing TSL maps would be a huge blow, and the feature isn't worth it if we lose that.

Which makes me think. We are all assuming an ocean will be blocking the opened part of the map. But what if it's just mountains and desert (like in central Asia for example)?

 

[dagriggstar]

I wonder if they have come up with a colonial revolution system actually.

Like on the other continents, you can only found “factories” (in the trade factory sense). Then as part of the third act they become a separate faction. But you are incentivised to found them, even with that knowledge, because the short term benefits of having certain resources is too good to pass up…

Also same era may not mean same tech level between continents on contact. Like if your area has more factions and science in the exploration era depends more on teamwork (research agreements, tech diffusion, trade) we could naturally have everyone start the era at the same level, but the more sparsely populated (in terms of factions) other continents will fall behind by the time there is first contact.

 

[TreVor_ish]

Reminds me of Civ 2 days.

Yes, and it was probably removed because the risk outweigh the cost of production of the ships and accidental click on the ocean tile could make it frustrating. But what if vessels would take damage depending on how far from the coast they end the turn.
Humankind had something like this and it was fun to just look around a little further from coast, if there is a land somewhere. Still didn't make it useful beyond knowing if there is or isn't. But what if during said voyage I could meet a distant culture and been able to establish a lucrative trade deal. That could make it worth while.

 

[sTAPler27]

That would put the era change around the time of the World Wars

Which means you could have World Wars as your crises

Given how dramatically the world changed between 1914 and 1945 it’s not a bad idea

Well I don't think you instantly unlock flight. It's more likely the modern era begins sometime in the 19th century. Also I doubt world wars would be a crisis because how would you do that if everyone on the planet is at peace. It would feel sloppy having everyone declare war on one another at random

 

[Krikkit1]

Well I don't think you instantly unlock flight. It's more likely the modern era begins sometime in the 19th century. Also I doubt world wars would be a crisis because how would you do that if everyone on the planet is at peace. It would feel sloppy having everyone declare war on one another at random

Im sure they thought that too in 1910 (Trade will stop wars and all that)

 

[King of Prussia]

My only worry would be if this limits or prohibits other types of maps. TSL, new world, and pangea were all fun. Even the occasional fractal or small islands were good.

 

[GeoGeo]

The ages seem to functionally be 3 different Civ games that relate to and flow into one another. We'll have to see exactly what's happening behind the scenes (or maybe there's an interview going into more detail), but it's not necessarily that the Antiquity map is "blocked off" or incomplete. Gameplay wise, the "full" map may or may not really exist at that point. Come to think of it, can players even reach the edge of an Antiquity map if there's always deep water surrounding the landmasses?

We also don't know how the map is meant to expand from Exploration to Modern. Full access to the poles? That wouldn't be a very dramatic change in most cases.

 

[Krikkit1]

My only worry would be if this limits or prohibits other types of maps. TSL, new world, and pangea were all fun. Even the occasional fractal or small islands were good.

Given the idea that the standard map (in a game that has the Exploration Age as a part) will have a “ocean” separation. There is still plenty of possibilities

1. What is in the “new World”
Default = other AI civs
Only independent peoples
Nothing: actually unpopulated
For MP games, human players can be on different sides option

2. What type of map are the old/ new world
Old is an Archipelago , new is Pangea
Both Archipelagos, both a few coastally connected continents.

Old is hot and dry, new is wet and cold?

3. More “worlds” possible (ie 3/4/5 separate areas

4. For TSL all you have to do is have the start for Starting Age civs fixed…
For “advanced TSL” you can have civs unlock only if you control their territory (or something nearby)

5. Pangea is a bit complicated…one might be able to just have
Old World =Pangea,
New World =Archipelago with no civs
or
they have a great impassable NS cliff / mountain range in the middle…so exploration you get to sail around the world sea to the other coast.. and then modern you go through the mountains
Or
“True Pangea” just renders certain Second Age mechanics pointless

 

[Black Gate]

I think it's a little too early and the devs are been far too coy about details to have any specific fears yet. The expansion of the map really just sounds like the typical expanded access to the ocean, and I'm more skeptical about the value of exploration gameplay in the modern age. What is it really modelling, the exploration of the polar regions and Africa?

 

[playshogi]

Why would worry about the map expansion feature? It sounds like fun. What I worry about is that they will fail to deliver on the promise to vastly reduce late-game drudgery.

 

[Nigel_Tufnel2]

I have likely played Polynesia 20x more than any other civ in both V and VI - losing my favorite part of the games for 13 years (exploring the Ocean immediately, and having access to the entire world) sounds awful. There's nothing like massive exploration in the early game. Finding sweet city sites way in advance is quite fun for me.

I've also enjoyed Ocean sailing as Norway tremendously. As well as all the various map types, I probably play Pangea or Continents only 20% of the time.

 

[JNR13]

At first they made it sound like forced Terra, but since they revealed that there are still civs on the other continent, I think it's more a forced continents situation and the whole "map opening up" thing is a marketing gimmick to put a better spin on it than "only a single map type", presenting a loss of feature scope as some exciting novelty thing.

We've also seen snow melt, with snow apparently having three stages of intensity or so, but I'm not sure what the consequence is of this. Biomes barely seem to matter anymore.

I get that but having it so all civs learn to cross oceans around the same time feels a bit forced. Not all cultures developed how to cross oceans around the same time

But you see, being in the same era ingame now is not supposed to represent having lived at the same time. Rather, the eras represent stages of development and if a culture was crossing oceans, it is an exploration era civ regardless of its timeline. The Khmer are an ancient civ because what they did historically lines up more with the gameplay of the ancient era. Subsequently, seafarer civs of different times IRL will all come together in the exploration era because that's the era for doing the things they did, even if they lived at different times IRL.

Basically, the game has its own universal timeline through which civs are synchronized as to create an even but also controlled matchup.

 

[sTAPler27]

At first they made it sound like forced Terra, but since they revealed that there are still civs on the other continent, I think it's more a forced continents situation and the whole "map opening up" thing is a marketing gimmick to put a better spin on it than "only a single map type", presenting a loss of feature scope as some exciting novelty thing.

We've also seen snow melt, with snow apparently having three stages of intensity or so, but I'm not sure what the consequence is of this. Biomes barely seem to matter anymore.


But you see, being in the same era ingame now is not supposed to represent having lived at the same time. Rather, the eras represent stages of development and if a culture was crossing oceans, it is an exploration era civ regardless of its timeline. The Khmer are an ancient civ because what they did historically lines up more with the gameplay of the ancient era. Subsequently, seafarer civs of different times IRL will all come together in the exploration era because that's the era for doing the things they did, even if they lived at different times IRL.

Basically, the game has its own universal timeline through which civs are synchronized as to create an even but also controlled matchup.

The only issue is that weren't the people of the pacific really quick to island hop? If that were the case what antiquity era civs from that region can we expect? Also wouldn't that mean civs that would've historically interacted with each other not be able to meet? No declining Mayans meeting the Spanish or no Zulus and the British

 

[JNR13]

The only issue is that weren't the people of the pacific really quick to island hop? If that were the case what antiquity era civs from that region can we expect?

Based on the Tongan wonder being in antiquity, we seem to get a Polynesian civ there. Tongans in antiquity and Haiwaiians in exploration seems possible.

Also wouldn't that mean civs that would've historically interacted with each other not be able to meet? No declining Mayans meeting the Spanish or no Zulus and the British

Yes, that is what Andrew Johnson called "some weirdness" - Chola not meeting the Khmer, for example.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Based on the Tongan wonder being in antiquity, we seem to get a Polynesian civ there. Tongans in antiquity and Haiwaiians in exploration seems possible.

Yes, that is what Andrew Johnson called "some weirdness" - Chola not meeting the Khmer, for example.

I think Polynesia may be one of the civs/regions that is getting a pretty substantial India/China-ish overhaul in base game. We know the Maui wonder likely points at Tonga in antiquity, which like Khmer and the Maya they are really the best available, documented option if we want a starting point for expansion in that region. We know there are Hawaiian units, indicating a transition to a Hawaii civ. And we know that Civ likes to bring back past civs, the Maori have already been featured, they along with the Hawaiians constitute the largest Polynesian populations, and the Maori would make a great complimentary-yet-different playstyle to Hawaii and Tonga.

Consequently, I think we absolutely are going to see Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii in the base release of the game. It's actually one of the "historical progressions" that is going to be least offensive compared to what we are likely getting with Maya -> Inca -> Brazil/Mexico or Khmer -> Indonesia -> Siam or (as I think I have just solved) Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa/Oyo/Benin/Ashanti and Aksum -> Swahili/Ajuran -> Buganda at launch.

This would be smoothed over even more if we get a Samoan leader instead of a Tahitian, Hawaiian, or Maori leader, as Samoa serves as an even better starting point for that legacy.

EDIT: It also is totally possible that Austronesia got totally cheated and instead the progression is straight-up Khmer -> Indonesia -> Hawaii, with a Tongan wonder, with eventual plans to add Tonga and the Maori. In which case, Hawaii would shift from being one of the least offensive historical progressions to by far the most.

 

[sTAPler27]

I think Polynesia may be one of the civs/regions that is getting a pretty substantial India/China-ish overhaul in base game. We know the Maui wonder likely points at Tonga in antiquity, which like Khmer and the Maya they are really the best available, documented option if we want a starting point for expansion in that region. We know there are Hawaiian units, indicating a transition to a Hawaii civ. And we know that Civ likes to bring back past civs, the Maori have already been featured, they along with the Hawaiians constitute the largest Polynesian populations, and the Maori would make a great complimentary-yet-different playstyle to Hawaii and Tonga.

Consequently, I think we absolutely are going to see Tonga -> Maui -> Hawaii in the base release of the game. It's actually of the "historical progressions" that is going to be least offensive compared to what we are likely getting with Maya -> Inca -> Brazil/Mexico or Khmer -> Indonesia -> Siam or (as I think I have just solved) Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa/Oyo/Benin/Ashanti and Aksum -> Swahili/Ajuran -> Buganda at launch.

This would be smoothed over even more if we get a Samoan leader instead of a Tahitian, Hawaiian, or Maori leader, as Samoa serves as an even better starting point for that legacy.

Despite the fact we're getting more civs on launch this might be the most controversial lineup yet just because with civ switching there's bound to be some janky paths for some cultures. Hopefully this drives them to create more civs from under represented regions so people who really like pacific or subsaharan civs aren't locked into generally the same paths each game compared to someone who plays a European civ for example.