Anyone else worried about the map expansion feature?

[JNR13]

Tonga - Maori - Hawaii would make a lot of sense but with some of the gaps we're bound to get, I have my doubts that out of all regions Polynesia will be among those who will get a full line at launch...

 

[UWHabs]

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's wouldn't be a very dramatic change in most cases.

I wonder if exploration -> Modern will not be about the 2D physical map, but perhaps in 3D. I could certainly see the modern age "expansion" be about search for resources like coal, oil, aluminum, uranium, etc...
Alternately, perhaps the airfare game will take on its own layer. That would only matter for warfare until the truly modern space/satellite/communications age, but that's another option for how the map "expands" to the modern age. Although that wouldn't really give you more space to build out your cities.
The last option would be for the map to like physically re-tesselate itself with more tiles. Basically letting you scrunch more into the same area. But that seems like an aggressive change, and for the math to work, you'd probably need to at least 4x the number of tiles, and I struggle to see them wanting to somehow re-tile the grid without losing anything.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wonder if exploration -> Modern will not be about the 2D physical map, but perhaps in 3D. I could certainly see the modern age "expansion" be about search for resources like coal, oil, aluminum, uranium, etc...
Alternately, perhaps the airfare game will take on its own layer. That would only matter for warfare until the truly modern space/satellite/communications age, but that's another option for how the map "expands" to the modern age. Although that wouldn't really give you more space to build out your cities.
The last option would be for the map to like physically re-tesselate itself with more tiles. Basically letting you scrunch more into the same area. But that seems like an aggressive change, and for the math to work, you'd probably need to at least 4x the number of tiles, and I struggle to see them wanting to somehow re-tile the grid without losing anything.

I also don't think Exploration->Modern will be about literal map expansion or even unreachable areas on the map. I expect it to be more about new gameplay features, which allow playing the map differently. Corporations and colonial/proxy wars could add layers on top of the existing game map.

 

[RedCourtJester]

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.

If my predictions are correct, we are likely going to get a pretty nice mixture of returning civs along with some fleshed out options. Based on what pathways seem most likely at this point, what we are likely going to get:

Prior launch game civs returning again at launch (17/18 returns): Egypt, Greece, "China," "India," Norse, Rome, Sumeria, "Persia," "Arabia," Spain, America, Brazil, "England," "France," "Germany," "Japan," "Russia."

Prior expac/DLC civs returning again at launch (12/32 returns): Khmer, Maya, Norse (Denmark), Byzantium, "Korea," Inca, Indonesia, Maori, Mongolia, Songhai (Mali), Ottomans, Sweden, plus bonus for third SEA civ Siam returning and "Morocco" probably returning under "Numidia."

"Replaced civs" unlikely to return (3 "returns" plus 1 DLC): Nubia (Aksum), Kongo (Buganda), Cree (Shawnee). Mapuche (signs are possibly pointing toward Guarani DLC).

Very likely planned DLC civs or represented by leaders (another 15 returns): Alexander (Macedon), Assyria (Babylon), Australia, Austria/Hungary, Aztec, Canada, Dutch, Gauls, Georgia, Ethiopia, Poland, Portugal, Morocco, Scythia/Huns, Vietnam. Plus probably bringing back HRE as a third companion to "Germany" and Austria/Hungary, and maybe even having all three of Babylon, Assyria, and Sumeria.

Total count: 32 of 50 VI civs returning or being replaced at launch plus Siam and Morocco. That's an excellent starting point. And likely 49 of 50 (!) returning civs + Siam and Morocco + HRE + Babylon after some DLC. The only civs really left sitting on the fence are Scotland, which I still think will get some sort of "Celtic" representation separate from the Gauls in the game, be it Ireland, or a Scottish leader, or James VI leading Britain. And Gran Colombia, which I think may actually stand a shot at being the modern South American civ in base game instead of Brazil to better tie together Maya and Inca at launch. Thus, all 50 Civ VI civs are likely to be accounted for by the end of DLC cycles, plus whatever could be brought back from prior games.

What this does indicate, however, is that we aren't getting THAT many totally new civs at launch. Civ VII base game is just trying to bring the board back to parity with VI complete so DLC can build on it. Actual new civ slots we seem to be getting are (9): Tonga, Hawaii, Italy, Swahili/Ajuran, Normans, 2 new Chinas, 2 new Indias. With Aksum, Buganda, Shawnee, and Numidia occupying replacement slots (with gratitude because they are excellent new choices). I could also mayyyybe see squeezing in either an exploration era Pashtun civ to connect Middle East and India, or a modern Italian civ for Rome to progress toward, but otherwise I don't think any other new civs are likely at launch.

We don't really have many "new" civs to be revealed--other than Numidia, Tonga/Hawaii, Mexico, and Swahili/Ajuran--just a lot of fun surprises as to how old civs have been improved on.

Also, note, this does bring my speculated number of release civs to 40 if you exclude the Shawnee as DLC, which is just one civ higher than current estimates based on 13-civ eras (39). Not to mention we only have hard confirmation of 12 civs in the exploration era. Unfortunately, I just don't know who to cut (I think the Norse could progress to England instead of Sweden? Or Spain could progress to Italy instead of Mexico?), but I think my general point that we won't see too many new civs added, and not too many at a time in DLC (which, truly, is consistent with how past Civ games have expanded upon the roster).

 

[chaosprophet]

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.

Well, from what they said it seems like you can go from any civ to any civ, as long as you unlock the requirements for those civs, with the historical/regional path just being free unlocks. The requirements are probably something one wouldn't have much difficulty to aim for if they want to unlock a particular one, and you probably unlock a few just by playing the era without particularly aiming for it. So a player being locked in the same path would happen only if the player wants it to be the case, or maybe because they have a self imposed rule they only want transitions that could have happen historically or the like.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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

The whole concept of era changes with a forced crises each time is going to be like this no matter what you do.

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

There was a best selling book before WW1 with this premise, I believe it was called the “Great Illusion”.

It argued that because the European nations were so intertwined with each other trade wise that any general war would have to be short because otherwise everyone’s economy collapses

Hilariously this made a war more likely, because many world leaders now had a “Home before the leaves fall” mentality. In particular it made Germany dramatically under estimate the impact of Britain as an enemy, because the assumption was that the war would be too short for Britain to build a large land army, or collapse Germany’s economy with a blockade.

One of the few leaders who thought otherwise was Lord Kitchener, who predicted an initial clash, everyone digs in and goes Total War Economy, and it turns into a slugfest

He thought it would take three years to grind Germany down, which wasn’t a bad guess

 

[The Economy]

I don't mind losing Pangea and TSL, I just hope we still get a good variety.

I know the removal of Pangaea was confirmed, but was TSL ever confirmed to be gone or is this just speculating?

It seems like the new map mechanics can still be compatible with TSL.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't know what feature I'm less excited for, the map literally expanding removing map variation and the game being split into three seperated rounds to force narratives

I still question who aasked for this everytime I hear it

 

[pokiehl]

I know the removal of Pangaea was confirmed, but was TSL ever confirmed to be gone or is this just speculating?

It seems like the new map mechanics can still be compatible with TSL.

This isn’t right; it’s not confirmed that Pangea or TSL is removed.

 

[aieeegrunt]

This isn’t right; it’s not confirmed that Pangea or TSL is removed.

How does One Large Continent work with the whole map expanding mechanic?

A chain of impassible terrain like Mountains/Deserts?

Or is another continent revealed when the map expands? I mean this would be the smartest way to handle it, but that means it isn’t Pangea anymore, just Terra By Any Other Name

 

[Krikkit1]

How does One Large Continent work with the whole map expanding mechanic?

A chain of impassible terrain like Mountains/Deserts?

Either That or Pangea disables certain game mechanics in the Exploration Age... making it a specialized map like ones that were all land.

 

[chaosprophet]

On the Civilization survey I saw they posted on steam, one interesting point relevant to this topic:

As in this implies there would be indeed some type of map expansion / new things to explore on the modern era. I though that was the case from things said so far, but don't think we had a confirmation yet about modern?

 

[Krikkit1]

On the Civilization survey I saw they posted on steam, one interesting point relevant to this topic:

View attachment 705153
As in this implies there would be indeed some type of map expansion / new things to explore on the modern era. I though that was the case from things said so far, but don't think we had a confirmation yet about modern?

Actually modern could be archaeology as well as poles…or just the need to look for new resources in areas you looked at before but weren’t good for settling/colonizing.

 

[sTAPler27]

Well, from what they said it seems like you can go from any civ to any civ, as long as you unlock the requirements for those civs, with the historical/regional path just being free unlocks. The requirements are probably something one wouldn't have much difficulty to aim for if they want to unlock a particular one, and you probably unlock a few just by playing the era without particularly aiming for it. So a player being locked in the same path would happen only if the player wants it to be the case, or maybe because they have a self imposed rule they only want transitions that could have happen historically or the like.

I'm aware but I think it's important for under represented regions to have paths that feel a bit more fitting. Imagine playing as the Maori and having the next closest civ be Australia

 

[sTAPler27]

The whole concept of era changes with a forced crises each time is going to be like this no matter what you do.



There was a best selling book before WW1 with this premise, I believe it was called the “Great Illusion”.

It argued that because the European nations were so intertwined with each other trade wise that any general war would have to be short because otherwise everyone’s economy collapses

Hilariously this made a war more likely, because many world leaders now had a “Home before the leaves fall” mentality. In particular it made Germany dramatically under estimate the impact of Britain as an enemy, because the assumption was that the war would be too short for Britain to build a large land army, or collapse Germany’s economy with a blockade.

One of the few leaders who thought otherwise was Lord Kitchener, who predicted an initial clash, everyone digs in and goes Total War Economy, and it turns into a slugfest

He thought it would take three years to grind Germany down, which wasn’t a bad guess

But that would make it feel more like one of those historical grand strategy games. This event happens because that's what happened in our time not because of your own actions. Civ is a history based franchise but it cranks the alternate history to 11. You're not just playing the history of human civilization you're playing it on shuffle mode, whole new issues could arise that we could have never dreamt.

 

[sTAPler27]

If my predictions are correct, we are likely going to get a pretty nice mixture of returning civs along with some fleshed out options. Based on what pathways seem most likely at this point, what we are likely going to get:

Prior launch game civs returning again at launch (17/18 returns): Egypt, Greece, "China," "India," Norse, Rome, Sumeria, "Persia," "Arabia," Spain, America, Brazil, "England," "France," "Germany," "Japan," "Russia."

Prior expac/DLC civs returning again at launch (12/32 returns): Khmer, Maya, Norse (Denmark), Byzantium, "Korea," Inca, Indonesia, Maori, Mongolia, Songhai (Mali), Ottomans, Sweden, plus bonus for third SEA civ Siam returning and "Morocco" probably returning under "Numidia."

"Replaced civs" unlikely to return (3 "returns" plus 1 DLC): Nubia (Aksum), Kongo (Buganda), Cree (Shawnee). Mapuche (signs are possibly pointing toward Guarani DLC).

Very likely planned DLC civs or represented by leaders (another 15 returns): Alexander (Macedon), Assyria (Babylon), Australia, Austria/Hungary, Aztec, Canada, Dutch, Gauls, Georgia, Ethiopia, Poland, Portugal, Morocco, Scythia/Huns, Vietnam. Plus probably bringing back HRE as a third companion to "Germany" and Austria/Hungary, and maybe even having all three of Babylon, Assyria, and Sumeria.

Total count: 32 of 50 VI civs returning or being replaced at launch plus Siam and Morocco. That's an excellent starting point. And likely 49 of 50 (!) returning civs + Siam and Morocco + HRE + Babylon after some DLC. The only civs really left sitting on the fence are Scotland, which I still think will get some sort of "Celtic" representation separate from the Gauls in the game, be it Ireland, or a Scottish leader, or James VI leading Britain. And Gran Colombia, which I think may actually stand a shot at being the modern South American civ in base game instead of Brazil to better tie together Maya and Inca at launch. Thus, all 50 Civ VI civs are likely to be accounted for by the end of DLC cycles, plus whatever could be brought back from prior games.

What this does indicate, however, is that we aren't getting THAT many totally new civs at launch. Civ VII base game is just trying to bring the board back to parity with VI complete so DLC can build on it. Actual new civ slots we seem to be getting are (9): Tonga, Hawaii, Italy, Swahili/Ajuran, Normans, 2 new Chinas, 2 new Indias. With Aksum, Buganda, Shawnee, and Numidia occupying replacement slots (with gratitude because they are excellent new choices). I could also mayyyybe see squeezing in either an exploration era Pashtun civ to connect Middle East and India, or a modern Italian civ for Rome to progress toward, but otherwise I don't think any other new civs are likely at launch.

We don't really have many "new" civs to be revealed--other than Numidia, Tonga/Hawaii, Mexico, and Swahili/Ajuran--just a lot of fun surprises as to how old civs have been improved on.

Also, note, this does bring my speculated number of release civs to 40 if you exclude the Shawnee as DLC, which is just one civ higher than current estimates based on 13-civ eras (39). Not to mention we only have hard confirmation of 12 civs in the exploration era. Unfortunately, I just don't know who to cut (I think the Norse could progress to England instead of Sweden? Or Spain could progress to Italy instead of Mexico?), but I think my general point that we won't see too many new civs added, and not too many at a time in DLC (which, truly, is consistent with how past Civ games have expanded upon the roster).

I feel like Nubia has a fair chance of returning. They were a pretty notable civilization and important as one of only like 6 African civs represented in the 6. I don't see Aksum as a replacement for Nubia because both fill in two pretty different niches with Aksum probably having a path geared towards becoming Ethiopia in the last era given they've appeared in 5 and 6 and given that their abilities in those games were linked to their history as the Aksumites.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'm aware but I think it's important for under represented regions to have paths that feel a bit more fitting. Imagine playing as the Maori and having the next closest civ be Australia

I actually think Australia will be in the base game as an alternate progression option from Indonesia and Maori, in addition to their typical Khmer and Hawaii. That way they aren't so railroaded in the transition to modern.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I feel like Nubia has a fair chance of returning. They were a pretty notable civilization and important as one of only like 6 African civs represented in the 6. I don't see Aksum as a replacement for Nubia because both fill in two pretty different niches with Aksum probably having a path geared towards becoming Ethiopia in the last era given they've appeared in 5 and 6 and given that their abilities in those games were linked to their history as the Aksumites.

I think Aksum is a functional replacement for the representation Nubia was filling in base game. But that doesn't mean I don't think Nubia could easily return at some point in DLC/expacs, I think its odds are very good.

 

[sTAPler27]

I feel like everyone's tackling this from the gameplay perspective and not the narrative perspective. Like why are civs being locked from traveling? In some games there'd be an island in just the right spot that would link two continents together allowing for early game travel. This small bit of randomization could drastically alter the course of the game. I feel like by the end of each game the map should tell a unique story about how the game world ended up so differently from our own, whether that be how cultures progressed differently or how the geography shaped the way people interacted. Creating artificial limitations feels like its constraining the possibilities. Civ is historical not in the sense it's directly following real events but in how it demonstrates how history is made through fictionalized versions of real events.

 

[sTAPler27]

I actually think Australia will be in the base game as an alternate progression option from Indonesia and Maori, in addition to their typical Khmer and Hawaii. That way they aren't so railroaded in the transition to modern.

The issue would be like for example if you were playing as the Shawnee for example and you really only had the US or Canada to transition into. I'd imagine a lot of Native players or even those that want to feel more culturally consistent would rather transition into another more culturally consistent group than a settler colony that now controls most of the land once occupied by the earlier cultures.