Are there really no tile improvements that can be built on tundra, desert, and snow?

[TehJumpingJawa]

I think changing Hills from just +1 Hammer to + 1 Hammer, -1 Food would be an excellent fix. This would fix almost all the current issues. It's too easy to grow population and make hammers at the same time without sacrifice or an earnest attempt to grow population.

What, you mean like civ4?

Funny how many sensible things got thrown out during the long march of 'progress'.

 

[Staal]

You are full-on ignore-all-flaws defence force here if you think it's okay that hills are the only way to get decent production.

In Civ IV, if you had no hills, you could still build workshops or watermills to gain production. In Civ VI, where everything costs way too much and production is your most valuable commodity, no city without hills will EVER be useful. It doesn't matter how many floodplains and bonus resources it has - it will just plain never be able to build districts, units, wonders or buildings at an acceptable rate.

Lumbermills dude. Industrial zone dude. I've not once had trouble with lack of production. It's not the game, it's you.

 

[Ferocitus]

My take is such: I have limited time to play. I would rather play an enjoyable start. Playing with a low production start or completely boxed in by mountain ranges or some such is a sub optimal use of my time. Can such games be won? Probably, domination snowballs and you only need 4-5 archers and some melee from your capital, you can use the AI's cities later on. But sometimes for me it's more important to pursue a certain playstile or victory condition than to "win the map" at all costs, especially if said costs translate to time invested in getting a Dom victory as the only viable one.

Why would the game designer cater for people who have limited time and
want "an enjoyable start" as a default? They've already provided the
ability to start again, and to choose some easy options and levels.

Firaxis should have built in a system of penalties for reloading games
within a short time or, at the least, show the number of reloads with
the final score.

 

[Abraxis]

My take is such: I have limited time to play. I would rather play an enjoyable start. Playing with a low production start or completely boxed in by mountain ranges or some such is a sub optimal use of my time. Can such games be won? Probably, domination snowballs and you only need 4-5 archers and some melee from your capital, you can use the AI's cities later on. But sometimes for me it's more important to pursue a certain playstile or victory condition than to "win the map" at all costs, especially if said costs translate to time invested in getting a Dom victory as the only viable one.

While you're waiting for Firaxis to dedicate a couple coders to implementing some map scripts or maybe start options to please that guy "Myth and Legend" on the CivFanatics forums, have you tried using the Legendary Start option? While it won't necessarily give you your hills, it will at least give you production resources to prevent you from ever having to figure out how to cope with a low production start.

 

[Takfloyd]

Lumbermills dude. Industrial zone dude. I've not once had trouble with lack of production. It's not the game, it's you.

"It's not me, it's literally everyone else!"

Opinion discarded.

 

[Grotius]

In Civ IV, if you had no hills, you could still build workshops or watermills to gain production.Opinion discarded.

I agree with you that production could use a bit of a buff (and I think tech needs to slow down). But isn't Civ 4's approach the case in Civ 6 too? You build watermills, and workshops/factories/power plants in your industrial districts. And lumber mills. Moreover, factories and power plants provide their production bonuses to all city centers within six hexes, not just the owning city. I've had cities with no hills do just fine, thanks to piggybacking on the industrial zones of more powerful neighbors. Seaports and Wonders can help too, and maybe chops.

Back to the original post: I have an all-Tundra start on my current game, on King difficulty, tiny map, Marathon speed, as England. I'm alone on a small island that has 3 non-Tundra hexes. I have four cities. I'm behind, but I'm making stuff. Mines and forests are keeping me alive and kicking, barely, heh. Once I get to the Industrial Zone, I think I'll be okay.

 

[Staal]

"It's not me, it's literally everyone else!"

Opinion discarded.

You can discard whatever you like. Fact remains that there is no inherent terrain problem. But mainly I cannot stand people like you guys that just b******g for the sake of it. Change the tone of your observations.

Moderator Action: Please post in a civil tone. And please also do not try to avoid the autocensor with transparent misspellings.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Staal]

It's okay, we had this we Civ:BE too. Thankfully the whims of the few are overridden by the will of the many. We know their is a real early game hammer issue and hopefully, firaxis does too.

I also found it especially puzzling when this was said...

Because my first 3 city is going to have access to a mid game tech and the hammers to make such a district when i'm hammer starved.

As the saying goes, you can lead a camel to water...Or you can kill it because why are you even using a camel.

I think you guys are just simply bad at selecting city locations.

 

[bbbt]

I think this is what bothers me the most. We know the gold selling exploit will be fixed soon but when it is, I really hope we will be able to buy districts with gold.

Yeah, I think this would go a long way to assuage "low production" complaints - also maybe a few more policy cards - maybe some for discounting military units purchased in the same way as they have for producing units. After the delete unit gold is massively needed of course!