Anyone else worried about the map expansion feature?

For other options that could have been done you could look at how that first cheap scout you pop out and everyone after are all basically Lewis & Clark. There could have been better unit progression in regards to "exploration" implemented here, where normally it's just a race to get them scouts at as far as possible to snatch up all the goody huts.

It's something I've played around with before imposing self restrictions, letting scouts only go so far and not crossing natural boundaries like rivers in the early game keeping the visible map view shrunken for longer. Sticking to self imposed restrictions can be hard, but the game really did feel better that way.
 
RandV said:
For other options that could have been done you could look at how that first cheap scout you pop out and everyone after are all basically Lewis & Clark. There could have been better unit progression in regards to "exploration" implemented here, where normally it's just a race to get them scouts at as far as possible to snatch up all the goody huts.

It's something I've played around with before imposing self restrictions, letting scouts only go so far and not crossing natural boundaries like rivers in the early game keeping the visible map view shrunken for longer. Sticking to self imposed restrictions can be hard, but the game really did feel better that way.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of a classic MSDos game called SkiFree. After you passed the the 2000m mark, the Abominable Snowman would chase you down and eat you. This was an inevitability, he was programmed to run far faster than your normal skiing speed, and while you could increase speed temporarily to avoid getting caught, at some point an obstacle or turn would slow you down enough that he would eat you. I've seen this kind of "expiration date/space" risk-gambling in other games in other forms, and I think it is a very nice, organic way of implementing soft limits.

I think scouts should be "eaten by tigers" after they stray too far from your city. Or maybe, like the Abominable Snowman, have a timer start counting down at a certain distance, where their odds of being "eaten by hippos" increase turn by turn. That way you are allowed to explore further, but there are downsides and they might just get "eaten by cassowaries."
 
RedCourtJester said:
I'm reminded of a classic MSDos game called SkiFree. After you passed the the 2000m mark, the Abominable Snowman would chase you down and eat you. This was an inevitability, he was programmed to run far faster than your normal skiing speed, and while you could increase speed temporarily to avoid getting caught, at some point an obstacle or turn would slow you down enough that he would eat you. I've seen this kind of "expiration date/space" risk-gambling in other games in other forms, and I think it is a very nice, organic way of implementing soft limits.

I think scouts should be "eaten by tigers" after they stray too far from your city. Or maybe, like the Abominable Snowman, have a timer start counting down at a certain distance, where their odds of being "eaten by hippos" increase turn by turn. That way you are allowed to explore further, but there are downsides and they might just get "eaten by cassowaries."
Click to expand...
They should just lose hp if they are far from your cities/settlements/capital. Give you a chance to move back into support range.

That should apply to all units, military/settlers etc. Scouts would probably have a longer range than other units, but they should still have a range beyond which they lose hp inevitably.
 
Krikkit1 said:
They should just lose hp if they are far from your cities/settlements/capital. Give you a chance to move back into support range.

That should apply to all units, military/settlers etc. Scouts would probably have a longer range than other units, but they should still have a range beyond which they lose hp inevitably.
Click to expand...
That would also track I suppose as losing supplies/food. Although I think players would get frustrated at an additional malus to deal with for combat.

Plus, in the case of scouts, ludonarratively I would be asking why they suck at foraging so much. I still like "eaten by koalas."

But I could probably deal with something of that sort if it were dealt with flavorfully well enough.
 
Riconatic said:
I think there is quite "strong confirmation" for pangea:
Dennis Shirk said so.
Time stamp to correct spot:
Textual quote from this post and thread where issue was frst discussed: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/no-more-pangea-scripts.691725/post-16664709
“the only thing we don’t really do are Pangea maps, unless you play just one Age”
Click to expand...
This could feasibly just be referring to the fact that there is only a single continent in antiquity and/or exploration eras. Ergo, you have your "Pangaea." It's just...smaller lol.

It's vague, I'm not sure exactly what he means there. Because clearly what players want is for (1) all 8-10 civs or whatever to (2) be on a single continent the size of a FULL map. But if the eras still have their limitations even in a single era, we don't know if in fact the civ count or map size can be increased in antiquity or exploration, nor if the continents can all be merged in modern.
 
RedCourtJester said:
This could feasibly just be referring to the fact that there is only a single continent in antiquity and/or exploration eras. Ergo, you have your "Pangaea." It's just...smaller lol.

It's vague, I'm not sure exactly what he means there. Because clearly what players want is for (1) all 8-10 civs or whatever to (2) be on a single continent the size of a FULL map. But if the eras still have their limitations even in a single era, we don't know if in fact the civ count or map size can be increased in antiquity or exploration, nor if the continents can all be merged in modern.
Click to expand...

We do know exactly what he means though, they've explained it enough

There is no longer a concept of a strictly " pangea" map script because the way the eras system work and with the map LITERALLY expanding between eras .

No you most likely will not be able to start with all the civs in a game all on one continent in the first era because Ed Beach and his team want to force a narrative of overseas exploration and colonization in the explortation and modern age.
 
TheGrayFox said:
We do know exactly what he means though, they've explained it enough

There is no longer a concept of a strictly " pangea" map script because the way the eras system work and with the map LITERALLY expanding between eras .

No you most likely will not be able to start with all the civs in a game all on one continent in the first era because Ed Beach and his team want to force a narrative of overseas exploration and colonization in the explortation and modern age.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with that assessment, that the concept of "Pangaea map" does not exist in the game as we currently understand it to be. The notion of a "full map of civ slots" and a "single large continent covering the maximal map space" simply doesn't exist. Either it's part of a map with a single continent and some of the civs, or it's the whole map with all of the civs but no single continent.

But what we kind of don't have confirmation on is whether, for a single era game, you can remove those restrictions and play with all of the civs, on the whole map, on a single continent. And part of that is due to him not giving us every specific detail to accurately convey that information, so we still don't know what restrictions are maintained in single era games. But part of it is just the kind of fuzzy semantics of what the expectations of a "Pangaea map" are and how they relate to Civ VII's limitations. Is "what players want/expect" a huge, single continent map, or just any sized-single continent map, and what number of civs does it need to feel "Pangaea-y?" Is the antiquity or exploration era civ count enough? And in which eras will be satisfied by those limitations if it's not "max size" continent and "max number" civs? We don't even know if Shirk's idea of Pangaea, or what he thinks player's expectations of Pangaea are, actually align with what players want/expect from a Pangaea map.

I don't think the question of Pangaea is fully answered, and any conclusions are kind of inferring things we haven't actually been told yet.
 
TheGrayFox said:
We do know exactly what he means though, they've explained it enough

There is no longer a concept of a strictly " pangea" map script because the way the eras system work and with the map LITERALLY expanding between eras .

No you most likely will not be able to start with all the civs in a game all on one continent in the first era because Ed Beach and his team want to force a narrative of overseas exploration and colonization in the explortation and modern age.
Click to expand...
I could see still starting with all civs on one continent/accessible in Antiquity. It just means there’s a whole other continent that is full of independent peoples for the next age.
 
Krikkit1 said:
I could see still starting with all civs on one continent/accessible in Antiquity. It just means there’s a whole other continent that is full of independent peoples for the next age.
Click to expand...

A map where all the civs start on one continent and there is another to explore is just terra mapscript... not pangea
 
Last edited:
RedCourtJester said:
I think I agree with that assessment, that the concept of "Pangaea map" does not exist in the game as we currently understand it to be. The notion of a "full map of civ slots" and a "single large continent covering the maximal map space" simply doesn't exist. Either it's part of a map with a single continent and some of the civs, or it's the whole map with all of the civs but no single continent.

But what we kind of don't have confirmation on is whether, for a single era game, you can remove those restrictions and play with all of the civs, on the whole map, on a single continent. And part of that is due to him not giving us every specific detail to accurately convey that information, so we still don't know what restrictions are maintained in single era games. But part of it is just the kind of fuzzy semantics of what the expectations of a "Pangaea map" are and how they relate to Civ VII's limitations. Is "what players want/expect" a huge, single continent map, or just any sized-single continent map, and what number of civs does it need to feel "Pangaea-y?" Is the antiquity or exploration era civ count enough? And in which eras will be satisfied by those limitations if it's not "max size" continent and "max number" civs? We don't even know if Shirk's idea of Pangaea, or what he thinks player's expectations of Pangaea are, actually align with what players want/expect from a Pangaea map.

I don't think the question of Pangaea is fully answered, and any conclusions are kind of inferring things we haven't actually been told yet.
Click to expand...


You say the question isn't fully answered but there really is only one way to interpret statements like "the map is going to literally expand each era" and "the only thing we don't have anymore is a concept of Pangea maps outside of a single era because finding the New world is important to us and to Ed. There always has to be those core 2 areas on the map"

I don't understand why some on these forums try to bend over backwards to reinterpret the very clear things the devs keep repeatedly telling us in advertisements and showcases. There is no strictly pangea mapscript anymore outside of playing a single era.

Krikkit1 said:
True, but for Antiquity it would be the same.
Click to expand...

Too bad, antiquity era isn't the whole game
 
Pangea could be a nonstandard map script it would just disable certain elements (like an all land map would)
 
Krikkit1 said:
Pangea could be a nonstandard map script it would just disable certain elements (like an all land map would)
Click to expand...

There is no disabling eras and the devs themselves literally said "the only thing we don't have anymore is a concept of Pangea maps outside of a single era because finding the New world is important to us and to Ed. There always has to be those core 2 areas on the map"
 
TheGrayFox said:
There is no disabling eras and the devs themselves literally said "the only thing we don't have anymore is a concept of Pangea maps outside of a single era because finding the New world is important to us and to Ed. There always has to be those core 2 areas on the map"
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems pretty straightforward.
 
See this is the type of feedback (pangea or TSL maps) I really hope people are leaving in Firaxis' civ 7 steam survey

I'm all for them having this super focused experience that the game is built around and I am very much looking forward to it but I can also say I'll be a bit disappointed if only flavors of continents or terra are our map options at launch
 
Bleakz said:
See this is the type of feedback (pangea or TSL maps) I really hope people are leaving in Firaxis' civ 7 steam survey

I'm all for them having this super focused experience that the game is built around and I am very much looking forward to it but I can also say I'll be a bit disappointed if only flavors of continents or terra are our map options at launch
Click to expand...
Do they have Steam Survey on, currently? How can you participate in that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
ColtSeavers said:
Do they have Steam Survey on, currently? How can you participate in that?
Click to expand...
It was posted in the "news" section of Civ 7 on steam

store.steampowered.com

Sid Meier's Civilization VII - Steam News Hub

Updates, events, and news from the developers of Sid Meier's Civilization VII.
store.steampowered.com store.steampowered.com

It does end very abruptly if you answer yes to pre-ordering but answer no and you get to leave some feedback at the end
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Bleakz said:
It does end very abruptly if you answer yes to pre-ordering but answer no and you get to leave some feedback at the end
Click to expand...
Not quite. I saw people saying this which was different from what I remember when I answered it, So I opened it again to check.

If you answer no to preordering, it will probably ask you why you didn't. But if you answer yes, it has a question with multiple option about reasons you did and then this open question:
firefox_GFpEJDPfJJ.png

That question can be interpret broad enough for people to then write that not having X would make it a must have, in case they want to complain about something they disliked even if they still decided to preorder. I, for example, talked about regional pricing there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Deggial
Unleash the map scripts!
Replies
7
Views
355
chaosprophet
C
stealth_nsk
Map / game settings
Replies
3
Views
403
Leyrann
L
C
Resources unique to the "New World"
Replies
9
Views
622
dagriggstar
D
C
Potential for new ages being added in future DLC
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
acluewithout
A
M
Speculation on civ switching and colonial nations
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Krikkit1
K
Top Bottom