Anyone else worried about the map expansion feature?

[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.

 

[RedCourtJester]

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.

I have a strong suspicion that Tecumseh's preorder bonus is actually a surprise package with the Mississippian and Anishinaabe. I think that maybe why he is a bonus leader and how they were able to represent the Shawnee in a sensitive light: they have their own three act structure that progresses regardless of US and Canada. Obviously US and eventually Canada could be options, but if my hunch is right, this particular issue with our Native American civ will dissipate with knowledge that Tecumseh comes with a full three civ suite.

To put this in another light: we are speculating approximately 13-14 civs per era (I actually think we will have a few more than that in modern era to tie up loose ends like Australia, Gran Colombia/Mexico/Brazil, Morocco, Ethiopia, and maybe Sweden or Safavid Persia). Translating that to Civ VI terms, that means we are getting approximately 13-14 "full civs" across the entire three eras. Obviously there is a bit more work involved in each "third" of a civ this time around, but we can still draw the rough analogy. Civ VI though, released with 18 full civs, plus Aztec as a preorder bonus. If we only got Shawnee as the preorder civ, we are kind of getting cheated, because translating that to Civ VI ratios we are only getting a third of a "full civ." We are getting a third of what we got with the Aztecs. Consequently, I think the likelihood that the Shawnee come as a "full civ," one antiquity (Missisippian), one exploration, and one modern (Anishinaabe), makes the preorder bonuses seem a lot more equitable by comparision. Put another way, 1 bonus civ on top of 18 felt a lot meatier than 1 bonus civ on top of 39-42 civs will feel. Ergo, I think Tecumseh has three civs.

 

[sTAPler27]

I have a strong suspicion that Tecumseh's preorder bonus is actually a surprise package with the Mississippian and Anishinaabe. I think that maybe why he is a bonus leader and how they were able to represent the Shawnee in a sensitive light: they have their own three act structure that progresses regardless of US and Canada. Obviously US and eventually Canada could be options, but if my hunch is right, this particular issue with our Native American civ will dissipate with knowledge that Tecumseh comes with a full three civ suite.

There's a good possibility you're right or at least I hope you are. I get they're being very secretive and letting the roster trickle in over time but I wish they would've got the Egypt treatment and laid out a potential progression. Even then that one was pretty janky because of how unrelated the cultures were.

 

[CrackerJack45]

I have a strong suspicion that Tecumseh's preorder bonus is actually a surprise package with the Mississippian and Anishinaabe.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it required (either by law or by certain online retailers) that all contents of purchasable content is disclosed before it is purchasable? Also I think that doing that is just bad business practice, you want to market ALL the things that people will be getting with their purchase, businesses don't do "surprise" bonus content. Mississippians are likely just base game, it's the most simple conclusion.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it required (either by law or by certain online retailers) that all contents of purchasable content is disclosed before it is purchasable? Also I think that doing that is just bad business practice, you want to market ALL the things that people will be getting with their purchase, businesses don't do "surprise" bonus content. Mississippians are likely just base game, it's the most simple conclusion.

First I've heard of this. Free stuff is tacked onto things all the time after purchase, not just bonus content, but little perks and easter eggs. Plus to what extent could a person be expected to describe literally every feature in a video game? Also, wouldn't Kickstarter goals be found to be deceptive by not clearly promising content? What about all the marketing that says "subject to change;" if someone preordered based on, say, Hatshepsut being in the game but she got swapped out for Ramesses, that would be a change in content thoroughly covered by that disclaimer.

If you can show me such a law, then I will gladly reevaluate, but this smells like nonsense to me. I don't see how anyone would ever have a right, let alone a sane desire, to sue over getting MORE civs in the preorder bonus than they were initially led to believe. Especially since, again, no one is being deprived of fully informed preorder content before launch: everything will be disclosed well before the cutoff date.

 

[CrackerJack45]

First I've heard of this. Free stuff is tacked onto things all the time after purchase, not just bonus content, but little perks and easter eggs.

"Perk and easter eggs" are very different from an entire playable faction. I don't imagine an example could be found that compares to what you're suggesting here.

Plus to what extent could a person be expected to describe literally every feature in a video game?

Huh? It's a playable civ, TWO playable civs. As a game developer of COURSE you would advertise this to people, not just go "oh I can't be bothered to list them all". I don't know what your even trying to get at here.

If you can show me such a law, then I will gladly reevaluate, but this smells like nonsense to me.

Not a law, but in reference to my "required by certain online retailers" comment I know that Nintendo lists content available in their eshop ahead of announcement dates and that's how a lot of leaks happen. Again, like I mentioned I could be wrong about legal stuff I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[RedCourtJester]

"Perk and easter eggs" are very different from an entire playable faction. I don't imagine an example could be found that compares to what you're suggesting here.

Huh? It's a playable civ, TWO playable civs. As a game developer of COURSE you would advertise this to people, not just go "oh I can't be bothered to list them all". I don't know what your even trying to get at here.

Not a law, but in reference to my "required by certain online retailers" comment I know that Nintendo lists content available in their eshop ahead of announcement dates and that's how a lot of leaks happen. Again, like I mentioned I could be wrong about legal stuff I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject.

Again, just because it hasn't been advertised yet doesn't mean it isn't planned to be advertised. I think you are getting far too hung up on that point. Preorder phase is still for another four months, they could be trickling out information at whatever rate they wanted during that period, like they do for literally every other piece of content in the game. It more important to be maintaining excitement/momentum than to be disclosing everything upfront.

Oftentimes content updates are listed, and I think that may be a combination of courtesy to consumers and covering for any potential liability if content is not delivered or buggy, but as far as I am aware that is a business practice, not a law. If it were the case, so many indie developers would be screwed over for having a looser release schedule. It is possible that third party platforms such as Steam have their own internal disclosure requirements, but none of that has to be consumer-facing.

 

[sTAPler27]

"Perk and easter eggs" are very different from an entire playable faction. I don't imagine an example could be found that compares to what you're suggesting here.

Huh? It's a playable civ, TWO playable civs. As a game developer of COURSE you would advertise this to people, not just go "oh I can't be bothered to list them all". I don't know what your even trying to get at here.

Not a law, but in reference to my "required by certain online retailers" comment I know that Nintendo lists content available in their eshop ahead of announcement dates and that's how a lot of leaks happen. Again, like I mentioned I could be wrong about legal stuff I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject.

If they were withholding content I can see why that would be an issue. But if you're knowingly paying a certain amount of money and end up getting more than what you paid for I don't think people would jump to legal disputes.

 

[RedCourtJester]

If they were withholding content I can see why that would be an issue. But if you're knowingly paying a certain amount of money and end up getting more than what you paid for I don't think people would jump to legal disputes.

And, again, the pack is called "Tecumseh and the Shawnee." It doesn't state specifically that those are the only two things in the pack.

 

[AriochIV]

If they were withholding content I can see why that would be an issue. But if you're knowingly paying a certain amount of money and end up getting more than what you paid for I don't think people would jump to legal disputes.

When have you ever known a corporation to offer content as a preorder bonus, and then just for the heck of it deliver twice what was promised?

I'll answer for you: never. Don't be absurd.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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.

I mean, it's definitely still going to do that, right? It's different to past Civs, but there is still going to be a cool alternate history story. If anything I'd say there are greater possibilities than ever before.

 

[GeneralZIft]

The only way they could do this right in my opinion is by locking off the other part of the map behind an ocean, and in the archaic ages, simply suggest that the Earth is flat and ships would fall off the end. Other than that, they could put a huge fog that ships get lost in. That's the only ways they could do it without being artificial.

 

[LastSword]

Issue of early exploration (being too easy in the series).

I am not worried at all. I already dislike it/know it is a bad solution.
-"limiting" number of players for ancient era; I know I would like it better if "new area" is only inhabited by independent people and map expand from "standard" to "huge".
-We don't know the percentages of old world and new world ~ though I estimate the old world to be at least 65% based on number of players.
-We don't know if "standard map" will be expanded into "huge map" yet. However I assume that "standard map" will be reduced to "small map" in ancient era (due to performance / iterations and general trend for the series - civ6 maps were slightly smaller than civ5 and I don't expect civ7 to revolutionize it); therefore playing just an ancient era -> smaller map by a large margin.
-Creating artificial obstacles may sometimes feel wrong narrative-wise.
-"Cpu waste" when playing just an ancient era (since there are AI players that actually play on the "second part of the map").
Now, the question is if this bad solution isn't the best one.

What else to limit exploration?
A complicated gold maintenance system for units based on distance from nearest City? Add a "leash" to make units unable to move at certain point?
Something even more complicated to limit unit movement?
Do nothing? (Seriously it could be better. We will see.)
Populate vast oceans with land, mostly islands (and unreveal them to players)? Still feels a bit bad narrative-wise (I explored this ocean and there were no islands there before). I implemented this one, therefore I am bit biased towards it. It solves a lot of above issues. However you cannot secure % of new territory this way.

What else to enhance exploration in exploration era when player already explored a lot.
-New way to control territory (colonies for resources?) - basically replace a blob empire gameplay of antiquity => focus on rewarding more disjointed states around the globe.
-Explorers? Send them to Natural Wonders to create an expedition (first player to NW gets better rewards, maybe also distance based). Creating an expedition for all NWs could be tied to the era's progress. ("explore" the explored world in new way)
-Create outposts/embassies to make larger part of the world visible (so exploration more based on visibility rather than revealed territory).
-Archaeology? It fits better a modern era.

 

[sTAPler27]

I mean, it's definitely still going to do that, right? It's different to past Civs, but there is still going to be a cool alternate history story. If anything I'd say there are greater possibilities than ever before.

I mean there definitely will be especially with civ switching I just don't get the artificial limitation of holding back that kind of exploration for all civs

 

[sTAPler27]

Issue of early exploration (being too easy in the series).

I am not worried at all. I already dislike it/know it is a bad solution.
-"limiting" number of players for ancient era; I know I would like it better if "new area" is only inhabited by independent people and map expand from "standard" to "huge".
-We don't know the percentages of old world and new world ~ though I estimate the old world to be at least 65% based on number of players.
-We don't know if "standard map" will be expanded into "huge map" yet. However I assume that "standard map" will be reduced to "small map" in ancient era (due to performance / iterations and general trend for the series - civ6 maps were slightly smaller than civ5 and I don't expect civ7 to revolutionize it); therefore playing just an ancient era -> smaller map by a large margin.
-Creating artificial obstacles may sometimes feel wrong narrative-wise.
-"Cpu waste" when playing just an ancient era (since there are AI players that actually play on the "second part of the map").
Now, the question is if this bad solution isn't the best one.

What else to limit exploration?
A complicated gold maintenance system for units based on distance from nearest City? Add a "leash" to make units unable to move at certain point?
Something even more complicated to limit unit movement?
Do nothing? (Seriously it could be better. We will see.)
Populate vast oceans with land, mostly islands (and unreveal them to players)? Still feels a bit bad narrative-wise (I explored this ocean and there were no islands there before). I implemented this one, therefore I am bit biased towards it. It solves a lot of above issues. However you cannot secure % of new territory this way.

What else to enhance exploration in exploration era when player already explored a lot.
-New way to control territory (colonies for resources?) - basically replace a blob empire gameplay of antiquity => focus on rewarding more disjointed states around the globe.
-Explorers? Send them to Natural Wonders to create an expedition (first player to NW gets better rewards, maybe also distance based). Creating an expedition for all NWs could be tied to the era's progress. ("explore" the explored world in new way)
-Create outposts/embassies to make larger part of the world visible (so exploration more based on visibility rather than revealed territory).
-Archaeology? It fits better a modern era.

I like the idea that proximity to your territory plays a role. Maybe instead units far from owned or even just friendly territory experience random events. Maybe if they're on a continent they're not familiar with they'd end up eating something they shouldn't or contract a disease not on the home continent. And over time these penalties would lessen as you unlocked new techs and established bases and relationships on that continent.

 

[RandV]

Personally this is the thing that I'm most concerned about. As others have said, they announced it like its a new feature, but when they let people start playing the game a more cynical interpretation would be they've taken what already existed in a basic continents map, greatly reduced our map options, and come up with some marketing spin to call it a 'feature'.

There's a lot they could do to save some exploration for the middle age, but they still need to show it.

 

[Gedemon]

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.

Speculation, or maybe different expectations on the gameplay related to such a mode with the game's civ switching mechanism, but I don't see what could prevent True Starting Locations if there are still maps scripts.

I do hope unlocking by territories will be possible via modding, but that will depend on how the mechanism is exposed to mods exactly. Still, the fact that unlocking by gameplay (Mongols) has been presented is a good sign.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

Yes, and more than a few people have concerns about just how scripted and forced narrative this is, as opposed to Civ being more of a sandbox in the past

 

[King Flevance]

This is an odd design choice for sure. Why not just have some map scripts specifical divide 2-4 landmasses with oceans, bring back "sea" spaces and just allow sea and coast tiles in the ancient era. Then have ocean travel unlock relatively easily in the exploration era. I am not a fan of this new decision and am also skeptical. However, I don't want to rule it out just yet because it seems new mechanics get introduced with each age and that really opens the playing field of what is possible. But even with that said, the idea of the map being opened up later as an act to simulate the "New World" in every playthrough does feel like it is a railroaded experience that will work against map variety replayability. Really, if the game map size expands, there is no reason not to have a Pangea with invisible walls other than to only want to make it mandatory that an "America" is discovered every game.

It is concerning but I do hope we are all wrong and maybe misunderstanding limited information.