dunkleosteus
Roman Pleb
People complained about the art style in Civ 6 back and forth for a long time. Everyone has their arguments about why it's good or why it isn't. I don't really care about that. What I do care about is that it doesn't even look like the terrain it represents. Tundra is not a yellowy field with permanent patches of snow.
Here are some photos of the tundra in summer:
As you can see, tundra is often characterized by mosses, grasses and low-lying shrubs, along with flowers. Snow can be present on hill faces that get partial sun-shade, but in low-lying flat areas, it usually melts during the summer. I think it's important that terrain is not depicted in different seasons: if grasslands and plains are permanently snow-free, tundra should be shown in the summer season as well.
I also think forests and jungles should be a lot denser than they're currently shown.
I wanted to take a look at what the difference between grasslands and plains should be, because it's always sort of bothered me that they're recolours of each other. After some digging around, it sounds like there IS no difference- plains aren't even a biological designation, more often it just refers to flat, non-hilly terrain (which is a problem in Civ, because you can definitely have plain-hills). Oh well. Maybe there's another distinction we can make. Grasslands are shown to be green and plains yellow. Maybe this indicates a difference in rainfall? Plains have a look that says "savanna" to me, but this would restrict them to hot regions. If we want to talk about colder regions that are dry, with short grasses and no trees... We are left with tundra or a steppe.
I think the best compromise is to sort of think of plains as a drier, grassy field with short trees or shrubs. Grasslands have 2 food, tundra has one food. Plains do not provide more food than tundra but DO provide production. This would either come in the form of rocks (as is the case for hills) or low-lying shrubbery or woody areas. I think plains should be rendered as a dry field with scattered small trees or copses of trees.
Grasslands should be shown as flowing grassy fields in comparison, with long waving grasses.
The art style itself isn't problematic for me, but the colours and level of detail look a little clay-like. If anyone has any idea how to do this, I think it would be a great project.
Here are some photos of the tundra in summer:
Spoiler Tundra :
As you can see, tundra is often characterized by mosses, grasses and low-lying shrubs, along with flowers. Snow can be present on hill faces that get partial sun-shade, but in low-lying flat areas, it usually melts during the summer. I think it's important that terrain is not depicted in different seasons: if grasslands and plains are permanently snow-free, tundra should be shown in the summer season as well.
I also think forests and jungles should be a lot denser than they're currently shown.
I wanted to take a look at what the difference between grasslands and plains should be, because it's always sort of bothered me that they're recolours of each other. After some digging around, it sounds like there IS no difference- plains aren't even a biological designation, more often it just refers to flat, non-hilly terrain (which is a problem in Civ, because you can definitely have plain-hills). Oh well. Maybe there's another distinction we can make. Grasslands are shown to be green and plains yellow. Maybe this indicates a difference in rainfall? Plains have a look that says "savanna" to me, but this would restrict them to hot regions. If we want to talk about colder regions that are dry, with short grasses and no trees... We are left with tundra or a steppe.
I think the best compromise is to sort of think of plains as a drier, grassy field with short trees or shrubs. Grasslands have 2 food, tundra has one food. Plains do not provide more food than tundra but DO provide production. This would either come in the form of rocks (as is the case for hills) or low-lying shrubbery or woody areas. I think plains should be rendered as a dry field with scattered small trees or copses of trees.
Grasslands should be shown as flowing grassy fields in comparison, with long waving grasses.
The art style itself isn't problematic for me, but the colours and level of detail look a little clay-like. If anyone has any idea how to do this, I think it would be a great project.
Last edited:
