Changing the way the world looks

[SnuwWulfie]

I really enjoyed civ 5 and 6 and the recent change in how wonders work has got me thinking. Everytime I stare at the world in civ 6 I am captivated by how nearly every tile matters in some form of dynamic unity. But I feel like it's lacking in a way, the feelings. I find the part where the cities are so off scale with the world rather... humbling. I feel like the entire game should, not only be grand, but feel grand.
So I have often fantasised about little villages popping up nearby cities or perhaps some sort of trading outpost (like a commercial hub but actually having a purpose to the trader units which do all the trading anyways). But today a thought popped into my mind!

Sorry for the lap of text, I will get on with the idea now:

-The idea is to change cities into provinces. You would bacically settle your first city in the start just as it would normally go. However as your controlled land grows more cities would pop up.
-The profince would still give all the benefits your usual city in civ 6 would, but it would be more visually spread out.

-The wonder system still fits in here but instead of picking a tile for it you will pick a a city in the profince.

-What about districs and the wonders who need those? You can pop em next to your cities, much like how big industrial areas are often on the edge of cities.

-You can combine the way districts would work together with the visuals. Industry districts open up jobs, libraries and universities attract people for studies, places with entertainment attract people looking for a more attractive and fun place to live, etc. So basically instead of having more buildings pop up and all your cities (even those you just conquered) instantly looking more modern as you advance the technology tree, the cities in your province would grow in places where there are more districs, the cities could gradually become visually closer, to the current tech age you're in, as there is less farming compared to other jobs present. (as in rl cities which saw plenty of industry in the industrial revolution grew the most and fastest both in population and architecture)

My last point was getting a bit long and vague so I will stop it there. It's propably the hardest one to implement as cities still instantly change visuals even in the modern civ 6.

Please don't forget that, even though I summed up so much, the province as a whole would still produce as much as a normal city would in civ 6. This is simply meant as an improval of visuals with a possible but certainly not necessary path to gameplay changes (such as conquering individual parts of the province)

One last thing before the torture of reading my awful grammar will be over. Potentially instead of having provinces in which cities "pop up" you could have the smaller cities be entirely individual. (which would open up allot more possibilities, think about roads and trade routes for example, especially if the cities along the way all specialise) These cities could then be 'added into' a province. The province would have a maximum amount of cities in it equaling the output of a city in civ 6. the maximum amound could potentially be influenced by; civs themselves, govenors, or infrastructure, and could potentially be more globalised after reaching certain industrial or modern techs. (another thing about traders is that they would have a small positive effect in every city they pass through. giving birth to strategically placed cities especially for trade.)

 

[Zaarin]

I mean, on an abstract level this is already more or less how it works: obviously the enormous amount of land covered by a "city" is larger than some European nations and is (and has always) represented more than merely a city in the usual sense of the word.

That being said, I'd love it if the visuals captured this idea more. As is we already have little houses around districts, but I wouldn't mind seeing villages and lesser cities crop up around our main city centers (regional capitals, if you will). What I don't want is a change in the way wonders work or are presented: I love that Civ6's wonders truly feel wondrous. I don't really care that the scale means the Pyramids dwarf Tokyo; the way things are presented on the map are meant to be abstractions anyway, IMO.

 

[SnuwWulfie]

I mean, on an abstract level this is already more or less how it works: obviously the enormous amount of land covered by a "city" is larger than some European nations and is (and has always) represented more than merely a city in the usual sense of the word.

That being said, I'd love it if the visuals captured this idea more. As is we already have little houses around districts, but I wouldn't mind seeing villages and lesser cities crop up around our main city centers (regional capitals, if you will). What I don't want is a change in the way wonders work or are presented: I love that Civ6's wonders truly feel wondrous. I don't really care that the scale means the Pyramids dwarf Tokyo; the way things are presented on the map are meant to be abstractions anyway, IMO.

I must admit I was taking it to an extreme level. But besides my own view of things I'd certainly be pleased with how you put it yourself.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I mean, on an abstract level this is already more or less how it works: obviously the enormous amount of land covered by a "city" is larger than some European nations and is (and has always) represented more than merely a city in the usual sense of the word.

That being said, I'd love it if the visuals captured this idea more. As is we already have little houses around districts, but I wouldn't mind seeing villages and lesser cities crop up around our main city centers (regional capitals, if you will). What I don't want is a change in the way wonders work or are presented: I love that Civ6's wonders truly feel wondrous. I don't really care that the scale means the Pyramids dwarf Tokyo; the way things are presented on the map are meant to be abstractions anyway, IMO.

Agreed that the visual depiction of the game could use some work. Every Improvement and/or District actually represents both the mine/quarry/farm but also the 'support network' of people living nearby, in a town or village or hamlet. It would be nice to see that represented, and see them grow as the Output of the tile and resources grow. This might also give a 'visual penalty' to Chopping: Harvest the Resource, and the people in the nearby town/village move away and the graphics disappear over the next few turns, leaving the buildings to decay back to the 'blank' map tile.

Another point is that it would be nice to have more 'reference points' on the map: named rivers, promontories, mountain ranges or single mountains rising out of the plain, and of course the villages/towns connected with the Districts/Improvements should be named. Some of them, in fact, might be 'hard wired' - the Harbor District of Athens and that of Rome should probably always be PIraeus and Ostia, for instance. The Campus of Boston should be Cambridge by default, and so forth...

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm all for this ICS graphics. More than ICS, nearly one town per tile, if not more ! However, graphics should be very hardly and finely reworked, as in to pack up several cities in a single tile and make it feel like modern villages (but still small) we have in France for example. It is to say, whereas there could be let's say up to five villages in a single tile, they should be well differenciated, it is to say with a zoom they could not automacally touch each others. Such graphics would look like paints, that's why it's not realistic in CIv6. Civ7. Or more.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Not to forget the outside land ! That's, for my part, the most interesting idea for populating the land since the start. It should be admitted that agriculture has been discovered everywhere since the start, not to discuss if there should still be nomads. (although those last could still be and serve as goody huts, thing is it would be mobile goody huts) Then you could have interaction with every tile outside your territory basically, first of all that spawn in my head : cultural relation. You could convert villages to your culture, and that COULD lead to an "annexion". (remember : not all your culture is united, and not all your union is your culture)

Another point is that it would be nice to have more 'reference points' on the map: named rivers, promontories, mountain ranges or single mountains rising out of the plain, and of course the villages/towns connected with the Districts/Improvements should be named. Some of them, in fact, might be 'hard wired' - the Harbor District of Athens and that of Rome should probably always be PIraeus and Ostia, for instance. The Campus of Boston should be Cambridge by default, and so forth...

Yeah I could even imagine "natural wonders" that wouldn't be, or maybe. Like, for example, particular geography spawning at the map generation, in random orientation. For example, there could be earth cliffs that can't be accessed except from one point, and unit in it would be above their opponents for an ambush for example. (although people would be accustomed to beware such things) That could even be a defilé with two sides accessible only in one point and above the normal terrain.

Thing is, I don't know if this would be better to have always the same "natural wonders" spawning, or having an engine that can literally produce an infinity of such variety of environment. Probably it would be better for programming, and being still familiar with the concept of "natural wonder".

EDIT : cities on those "natural wonders" being very difficult to attack, maybe it should stay labelled as "natural wonders" and be unsettlable in some way. Must be play tested.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Speaking of geographical features...

Up until now, all the Civ franchise has had pretty much 'generic' terrain: plains, grasslands, forest, jungle/rain forest, marsh/swamp, desert, tundra...
But when you look at the differences between, say, the American desert southwest with its mesa vistas and the dunes of the Arabian or Saharan desert - or the Qattara Depression west of Egypt, the variations in mountains among the Dolomite Alps, American Appalachians, Ozarks, Sierra Nevada, the steep hills in Chinese river gorges, the Everglade swamps versus the marsh delta of Egypt or Louisiana...

There's a lot of variety our maps are missing! A few 'Natural Wonders' taking up a tiny fraction of the tiles does not make up for the visual and possibly play-changing variety that we could have.

And, as I've argued before, the gamer/AI player does not and never has had in any Civ game, the ability to change the landscape the way people actually have changed it: where are the open pit mines covering 100s of square kilometers, the wholesale changing of flora and landforms, the bridging of shallow seas, tunnels through mountains, canals through isthmuses, straightening of rivers?

 

[Zaarin]

Not to mention the utter nonsense that we can't place crops, livestock, or living luxuries. I mean, many South and Central American countries' economies are dependent on coffee, a plant native to the highlands of Ethiopia; chocolate is now grown in Africa; crops like wheat, rice, barley, and maize have been spread around the entire globe. It's absolutely silly that we can only have these things where they're "native." Really only non-organic luxuries like Jade, Silver, and Diamonds does it make sense that we can't replicate elsewhere--you can't "plant" gemstones. In the modern age you should be able to synthesize them, though.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Agreed that the visual depiction of the game could use some work. Every Improvement and/or District actually represents both the mine/quarry/farm but also the 'support network' of people living nearby, in a town or village or hamlet. It would be nice to see that represented, and see them grow as the Output of the tile and resources grow. This might also give a 'visual penalty' to Chopping: Harvest the Resource, and the people in the nearby town/village move away and the graphics disappear over the next few turns, leaving the buildings to decay back to the 'blank' map tile.

Another point is that it would be nice to have more 'reference points' on the map: named rivers, promontories, mountain ranges or single mountains rising out of the plain, and of course the villages/towns connected with the Districts/Improvements should be named. Some of them, in fact, might be 'hard wired' - the Harbor District of Athens and that of Rome should probably always be PIraeus and Ostia, for instance. The Campus of Boston should be Cambridge by default, and so forth...

I love the idea that villages and towns could spring up around some of the districts. Instead of naming however, I would rather it be implemented more visually though because the naming would end up getting confusing. Making Cambridge the name of the campus in Boston would be confusing as their is already a Cambridge University in Cambridge England, even though I know you meant the suburb Cambridge where Harvard is located.
Maybe they could create a city pool for each Civ with minor cities and randomize them, creating suburbs, although that might be too hard for some like Scythia.

 

[Mobfire]

Not to mention the utter nonsense that we can't place crops, livestock, or living luxuries. I mean, many South and Central American countries' economies are dependent on coffee, a plant native to the highlands of Ethiopia; chocolate is now grown in Africa; crops like wheat, rice, barley, and maize have been spread around the entire globe. It's absolutely silly that we can only have these things where they're "native." Really only non-organic luxuries like Jade, Silver, and Diamonds does it make sense that we can't replicate elsewhere--you can't "plant" gemstones. In the modern age you should be able to synthesize them, though.

I feel like the concept of agricultural resources only being on specific tiles is meant to represent areas whose climates are particularly advantageous towards harvesting those resources, so it wouldn't make sense to be able to plant them wherever we wanted to. Nevertheless, perhaps researching certain technologies or performing certain actions could give a chance to generate some of these resources in your territory, representing your people discovering how to plant and harvest a previously foreign crop.

 

[Zaarin]

I feel like the concept of agricultural resources only being on specific tiles is meant to represent areas whose climates are particularly advantageous towards harvesting those resources, so it wouldn't make sense to be able to plant them wherever we wanted to. Nevertheless, perhaps researching certain technologies or performing certain actions could give a chance to generate some of these resources in your territory, representing your people discovering how to plant and harvest a previously foreign crop.

For bonus resources, yes, I agree--I mean obviously something is being grown in non-resource farms. It still doesn't make sense, though, that we can't plant living resources elsewhere. I mean the biggest consequence of the Columbian Exchange, aside from wiping out a sizable portion of the New World's native population, was the two-way exchange of biodiversity--or rather the introduction of valuable crops like maize, potatoes, tomatoes, chocolate, tapioca, tobacco, etc. to the Old World, the pretty much complete replacement of New World grasses by Old World grasses, and the infestation of Old World livestock like pigs, cows, rabbits, and horses to just complete the overthrow of the New World biosphere. Really the New World got the short end of the stick any way you look at it.

Point being, though, that Civ's static representation of resources is a relic that really needs to be updated. Very, very few living resources are localized anymore--cinnamon and nutmeg being rare exceptions. Cardamom has been introduced to Guatemala, which is now the leading producer outstripping India and Sri Lanka; saffron is produced in dry climates across the globe; coffee has been introduced in virtually every hot mountainous region in the world; chocolate is now grown in Africa and Indonesia; sugar has been introduced in the Caribbean and elsewhere; cotton, despite having a native variety in the Southwest and Mesoamerica, was introduced from Egypt and India; apricots, plums, and other fruits spread across the entire Old World in the Neolithic; wine spread from Georgia in every direction in the Neolithic and is now cultivated in the New World and Australia as well; horses have become so widespread that it's hard to say they even have an ideal climate (and were domesticated so early that, like cattle, they have no wild cousins outside the zebra and and a few species of wild ass); etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There are three Primary Changes I would like to see in the Resource System.

1. Do away with the artificial division of Resources into Bonus, Strategic and Amenity/Luxury. How a Resource is used depends on Technology: Horses may be a 'strategic' resource required for some military units, but after that last Cavalryman is retired (or Upgraded) in your Civ, Horses become an Amenity or Gold-Producing Resource, as personal pastime or racing animals. Olives and Olive Oil are at once a Food, Health (cleaning agent) and Trade item. In fact, all the so-called 'Bonus' Resources should be Trade Items - what percentage of World Trade today is in Food, either plant or animal-based?
By removing the rigid definitions for Resources, both the Resource and Trade systems become much more diverse throughout the game.

2. Resources should not magically appear all at once all over the world. As your Technology improves, new 'deposits' should become available - perhaps finding them would be a late-game use for Scouts, or perhaps a new Civilian Unit of Prospector/Civil Engineer could find them, or it could even be 'automatic' when a new Technology is discovered, but the resources and the map should not be static.
The other side of that, of course, is that Resources that are exploited for X thousand years should have a chance of becoming Depleted, either permanently, or temporarily until new Technology allows you to go after ores that could not be extracted easily in an earlier Era.

3. ALL of the plant and animal Resources should be 'moveable - with proper technology and terrain/climate situations. Here, even though modern bio-technology can almost grow anything anywhere, we do need some hard and fast 'definitions' as to what terrain tiles Resources can grow on, and Specific Technologies to allow them to be 'spread'.
How do we keep everybody from 'planting' every Plains/Grassland Tile with Wheat or Pastures? We add Amenities for Variety of Food. Essentially, your Civ is rewarded for producing a Balanced Diet for your population, either through bio-technology at home or through Trade. Again, both the Resource and Trade Systems benefit from new diversity, and even Social Policies or Civics can get involved, as in the Tea or Coffee Culture in various countries which could make those two 'Resources' virtual Requirements for certain Civs.
This is also where the 'addictive' Resources could have a Special Place in Civ: once established as part of a society, Tobacco, Alcoholic Drinks (another Resource Diversity: wheat, rice, potato, maize, fruit all can make Distilled alcohols as Trade/Amenity items) Tea/Coffee caffeine-sources become 'Amenity' Requirements.

Of course, what I Want to see and what I expect are two different things. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Firaxis to do anything about either the Resource or Trade systems...

 

[Zaarin]

There are three Primary Changes I would like to see in the Resource System.

1. Do away with the artificial division of Resources into Bonus, Strategic and Amenity/Luxury. How a Resource is used depends on Technology: Horses may be a 'strategic' resource required for some military units, but after that last Cavalryman is retired (or Upgraded) in your Civ, Horses become an Amenity or Gold-Producing Resource, as personal pastime or racing animals. Olives and Olive Oil are at once a Food, Health (cleaning agent) and Trade item. In fact, all the so-called 'Bonus' Resources should be Trade Items - what percentage of World Trade today is in Food, either plant or animal-based?
By removing the rigid definitions for Resources, both the Resource and Trade systems become much more diverse throughout the game.

2. Resources should not magically appear all at once all over the world. As your Technology improves, new 'deposits' should become available - perhaps finding them would be a late-game use for Scouts, or perhaps a new Civilian Unit of Prospector/Civil Engineer could find them, or it could even be 'automatic' when a new Technology is discovered, but the resources and the map should not be static.
The other side of that, of course, is that Resources that are exploited for X thousand years should have a chance of becoming Depleted, either permanently, or temporarily until new Technology allows you to go after ores that could not be extracted easily in an earlier Era.

3. ALL of the plant and animal Resources should be 'moveable - with proper technology and terrain/climate situations. Here, even though modern bio-technology can almost grow anything anywhere, we do need some hard and fast 'definitions' as to what terrain tiles Resources can grow on, and Specific Technologies to allow them to be 'spread'.
How do we keep everybody from 'planting' every Plains/Grassland Tile with Wheat or Pastures? We add Amenities for Variety of Food. Essentially, your Civ is rewarded for producing a Balanced Diet for your population, either through bio-technology at home or through Trade. Again, both the Resource and Trade Systems benefit from new diversity, and even Social Policies or Civics can get involved, as in the Tea or Coffee Culture in various countries which could make those two 'Resources' virtual Requirements for certain Civs.
This is also where the 'addictive' Resources could have a Special Place in Civ: once established as part of a society, Tobacco, Alcoholic Drinks (another Resource Diversity: wheat, rice, potato, maize, fruit all can make Distilled alcohols as Trade/Amenity items) Tea/Coffee caffeine-sources become 'Amenity' Requirements.

Of course, what I Want to see and what I expect are two different things. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Firaxis to do anything about either the Resource or Trade systems...

Honestly even a lazy hackjob version of what you just described would be a huge improvement over what we have now. I understand the gameplay implications of tying luxuries to continents as we have now (it incentivizes colonizing new continents or trading with empires on other continents) and it also represents certain historical tendencies for resources to be endemic (for example once upon a time Ethiopia really was the only source of coffee, India was the only source of cardamom, China was the only source of tea [there's a reason every language in the world has a word for tea that comes from either Mandarin cha or Cantonese te], etc.), but realistically humans have been deliberately transplanting resources since the Neolithic--in fact, that was the very point of the Neolithic Revolution. And I agree with everything you posted--I'm just saying that even a very watered down version would be an improvement over the current situation.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Honestly even a lazy hackjob version of what you just described would be a huge improvement over what we have now. I understand the gameplay implications of tying luxuries to continents as we have now (it incentivizes colonizing new continents or trading with empires on other continents) and it also represents certain historical tendencies for resources to be endemic (for example once upon a time Ethiopia really was the only source of coffee, India was the only source of cardamom, China was the only source of tea [there's a reason every language in the world has a word for tea that comes from either Mandarin cha or Cantonese te], etc.), but realistically humans have been deliberately transplanting resources since the Neolithic--in fact, that was the very point of the Neolithic Revolution. And I agree with everything you posted--I'm just saying that even a very watered down version would be an improvement over the current situation.

Another place where the current system utterly breaks down is that Resources, either natural or human-enhanced, until Technology caught up and showed how to spread them, provided massive benefits to certain societies/Civs because of Monopolies. Chinese Porcelain (manufactured), and Silk (natural/Enhanced), Greek Olive Oil (Enhanced) all had tremendous Economic consequences because they were exclusive for centuries to specific Civs and parts of the world. Historically, At the start of the game Silk should be available in just one area of the world, Cotton and Sugar in one or two at most... And if Civ VI ever gets a 'Terra' type map like Civ V had, let's hope they realize that there is very little reason for anyone to go looking for a 'new' continent unless some resources are peculiar to that continent and not available anywhere else!

This brings us back to the OP: Changing The Way The World Looks should include Changing where Resources appear at the start: Wheat can become more general 'Grain' and be found all the way from near-Tundra to Flood Plains to Plains to Grasslands, reflecting that Oats, Barley, Rye, and Wheat have among themselves a very wide range. Rice, on the other hand, is pretty much (at start) a Tropical, wetlands Resource. The 'wine' grapes were originally cultivated (according to current archeology, always subject to Updating) in exactly one spot near the Black Sea coast, The extraction of Silk from the silkworm was developed in One Place, Maize and Potato were turned from weeds into major food Resources in just one part of the World. This simple Exclusive Start change alone would make the Map/Game World a much more diverse and interesting place.

 

[Phrozen]

For bonus resources, yes, I agree--I mean obviously something is being grown in non-resource farms. It still doesn't make sense, though, that we can't plant living resources elsewhere. I mean the biggest consequence of the Columbian Exchange, aside from wiping out a sizable portion of the New World's native population, was the two-way exchange of biodiversity--or rather the introduction of valuable crops like maize, potatoes, tomatoes, chocolate, tapioca, tobacco, etc. to the Old World, the pretty much complete replacement of New World grasses by Old World grasses, and the infestation of Old World livestock like pigs, cows, rabbits, and horses to just complete the overthrow of the New World biosphere. Really the New World got the short end of the stick any way you look at it.

Point being, though, that Civ's static representation of resources is a relic that really needs to be updated. Very, very few living resources are localized anymore--cinnamon and nutmeg being rare exceptions. Cardamom has been introduced to Guatemala, which is now the leading producer outstripping India and Sri Lanka; saffron is produced in dry climates across the globe; coffee has been introduced in virtually every hot mountainous region in the world; chocolate is now grown in Africa and Indonesia; sugar has been introduced in the Caribbean and elsewhere; cotton, despite having a native variety in the Southwest and Mesoamerica, was introduced from Egypt and India; apricots, plums, and other fruits spread across the entire Old World in the Neolithic; wine spread from Georgia in every direction in the Neolithic and is now cultivated in the New World and Australia as well; horses have become so widespread that it's hard to say they even have an ideal climate (and were domesticated so early that, like cattle, they have no wild cousins outside the zebra and and a few species of wild ass); etc.

Cinnamon is grown in Mexico. Vanilla, a new world thing, is most famously grown in Madagascar . The cotton we use now is actually a natural hybrid of Old world and New world cotton as cotton plants existed in both but were different species.

Then you have things that were back introduced like Tobacco and Peanuts which are native to the New World were taken to the Old World where new species were developed and then taken back to the New World.

Still I would have places where growing certain crops is better than others. The Palouse has feet of volcanic topsoil so it is really good to grow wheat there, the soil of New England is too rocky to grow wheat well but is suited for Sugar Maples, hard woods, and cattle.

 

[Zaarin]

@Boris Gudenuf Yeah, that's precisely what I'd like to see: early monopolies followed by spreading of resources, with new resources (or new sources of old resources) incentivizing colonization.

Cinnamon is grown in Mexico.

Yes, but the overwhelming bulk of cinnamon still comes from Southeast Asia, predominantly India/Sri Lanka/Indonesia, which is partly why real cinnamon is so expensive (a lot of what's sold as "cinnamon" in the US is actually cassia, just like a lot of what's sold as "truffle oil" is actually "summer truffle oil." Mismarketing cheapskates. -_-).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Still I would have places where growing certain crops is better than others. The Palouse has feet of volcanic topsoil so it is really good to grow wheat there, the soil of New England is too rocky to grow wheat well but is suited for Sugar Maples, hard woods, and cattle.

Which is another way of saying we need a lot more variety in our Basic Terrain Tiles on the Civ Map. In fact, I would keep the basic terrain definitions we have now but add more 'special' areas: volcanic soil is a good example, because Volcanoes have been much talked about as 'Natural Disasters' but nobody seems to realize how many Positive modifiers a volcano also brings to an area: richer soil, access to Resources like Obsidian and Tephra (cement/concrete) - any 'Natural Disaster' added to a game has to have both Positive and Negative elements to it, and Volcanos, properly modeled, fit the bill while also adding something to the landscape graphically and in game play elements.

We can also 'define' terrain that plant/animal Resources can be 'relocated' to more stringently: Grapes can be grown in just about any temperate climate, but good Wine Grapes need properly-situated slopes, soil, sunshine and water to make a commercially-viable Wine for Amenity/Trade/Gold-producing game requirements (and let's admit it, many of us have tasted wines that should Never have been bottled, but that doesn't mean they need to be modeled in the game!). Ultimately, we might even have an 'overlay' you can toggle which will show the 'Optimal' tiles for spreading Spices, Wine Grapes, Cotton, Silk and similar 'mobile' but Particular pant/animal Resources. Other such Resources, like Grain/Wheat, Cattle, Sheep, and Horses, are much less demanding: I have personally seen cattle and horses thriving in terrain as different as tropically semi-swamp Florida and scrub semi-desert New Mexico, and sheep are notorious for grazing dry hills that are marginal for almost any other large mammal.

And, final comment on the previous post: Timber should be a Resource, meaning the Old Growth large trees required for Post-Medieval ship construction and some monumental construction. Sugar Maple is more of a 'nitch' Resource, and I would put Sugar Beet as a more widely-economically important Resource before it, but again, it shows how much sheer variety we are missing in the map, Resource, terrain possibilities...

 

[Absolution]

I must admit I was taking it to an extreme level. But besides my own view of things I'd certainly be pleased with how you put it yourself.

This is how it should naturally be. When someone comes with a wild idea, he will present it in theory, regardless of technical abilities and popularity issues, and other commenters will soften him to a more acceptable idea, in various directions.

Personally, I have always been fascinated with going harder with the Civ4 system of Villages.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Civ4, I'll explain shortly - Villages were a kind of improvement built by Workers after researching Pottery. They provided the City with reduction of density (which prevents unhappiness) and possibly some gold.
Initially, the Villages were built as Cottages, and could be fed by the Cities' Production rates, and grow to a Hamlet, then to a Village, and finally to a Town. An advanced and successful City in the game would have several Towns surrounding it.
I'd would like to have the ability to continue this evolution into a City.

The Idea:
Villages will appear naturally in fertile areas inside your borders, similar to the idea that you have mentioned here.
Naturally, they'll grow in the settlement scale. Every step in the scale will be longer and harder to reach than the previous one, and the Town to City progress will be extremely difficult.
However, you could speed up the elevation or even the spawn of Villages by sending Settlers. It changes the role of Settlers. They would not form Cities anymore, but found Villages, or elevate existing settlements into the next stage quicker.
A "Corps" of Settlers could found a Town straight away.
I think that this could work very well with your idea. Having Villages and Towns all around you Cities. Not the unnatural and heavy Neighbourhood District mechanic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is how it should naturally be. When someone comes with a wild idea, he will present it in theory, regardless of technical abilities and popularity issues, and other commenters will soften him to a more acceptable idea, in various directions.

Personally, I have always been fascinated with going harder with the Civ4 system of Villages.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Civ4, I'll explain shortly - Villages were a kind of improvement built by Workers after researching Pottery. They provided the City with reduction of density (which prevents unhappiness) and possibly some gold.
Initially, the Villages were built as Cottages, and could be fed by the Cities' Production rates, and grow to a Hamlet, then to a Village, and finally to a Town. An advanced and successful City in the game would have several Towns surrounding it.
I'd would like to have the ability to continue this evolution into a City.

The Idea:
Villages will appear naturally in fertile areas inside your borders, similar to the idea that you have mentioned here.
Naturally, they'll grow in the settlement scale. Every step in the scale will be longer and harder to reach than the previous one, and the Town to City progress will be extremely difficult.
However, you could speed up the elevation or even the spawn of Villages by sending Settlers. It changes the role of Settlers. They would not form Cities anymore, but found Villages, or elevate existing settlements into the next stage quicker.
A "Corps" of Settlers could found a Town straight away.
I think that this could work very well with your idea. Having Villages and Towns all around you Cities. Not the unnatural and heavy Neighbourhood District mechanic.

We had a discussion of something similar some time ago on these Forums, so let me summarize what came out of that:
'Settlements' would grow up naturally around any Improvement or Resource within your borders, starting small and gradually growing: hamlet -village - town, etc. Settlers/Builders would be used to start a Settlement Outside your Borders. As in, say, a Settlement with Improvement on a tile to exploit some Resource you can't quite reach with normal border expansion, and that you can't yet justify building a whole city for. Basically, one Builder Charge wold be required for the Improvement (pasture, quarry, mine, etc) and one for the Settlement, and a Settler would provide both plus a population 'boost' from the start on the tile.
Note that this would also allow for lots of Specialized 'Settlement spreaders' - American Pioneers, Spanish Conquistadors, Teutonic Knights seizing new territory, etc. Also, quite a number of 'normal; actions would spawn Settlements: a military fort in this case would act just like an Improvement to soon' a civilian population around it, and possibly even a Trade Route that passed through tiles with Resources might draw population to tile outside your borders or at least outside the normal City Settlement.

Somewhat mixed feelings about having Settlements grow 'organically' into Cities: it's much more historically accurate, but somewhat removes the total 'Gamer Control' of city placement that has been part of the Game since Civ I, so it might be a real challenge to get such a mechanism accepted. On the other hand, allowing the gamer/AI to place a Settlement and then 'feed' more population to it with Builders until it has the 'take-off' point and becomes a city would be a compromise: you place the city, but you don't always place a complete city all at once.

The whole point would be that there would be more variety of population points on the map, instead of everything being just Cities and Barbarian Encampments and nothing else.

A mechanism as described above would also tie in neatly with the Free City mechanism of R&F: a city that grows up outside your Civ Borders might or might not be loyal to you without extra work: there are lots of examples ranging from the pre-Classical Greek colonies around the Mediterranean and Black Seas to, of course, the American Colonies of the post-Renaissance, of cities founded by one Civ that wind up becoming something other than what was intended!

 

[Phrozen]

Which is another way of saying we need a lot more variety in our Basic Terrain Tiles on the Civ Map. In fact, I would keep the basic terrain definitions we have now but add more 'special' areas: volcanic soil is a good example, because Volcanoes have been much talked about as 'Natural Disasters' but nobody seems to realize how many Positive modifiers a volcano also brings to an area: richer soil, access to Resources like Obsidian and Tephra (cement/concrete) - any 'Natural Disaster' added to a game has to have both Positive and Negative elements to it, and Volcanos, properly modeled, fit the bill while also adding something to the landscape graphically and in game play elements.

We can also 'define' terrain that plant/animal Resources can be 'relocated' to more stringently: Grapes can be grown in just about any temperate climate, but good Wine Grapes need properly-situated slopes, soil, sunshine and water to make a commercially-viable Wine for Amenity/Trade/Gold-producing game requirements (and let's admit it, many of us have tasted wines that should Never have been bottled, but that doesn't mean they need to be modeled in the game!). Ultimately, we might even have an 'overlay' you can toggle which will show the 'Optimal' tiles for spreading Spices, Wine Grapes, Cotton, Silk and similar 'mobile' but Particular pant/animal Resources. Other such Resources, like Grain/Wheat, Cattle, Sheep, and Horses, are much less demanding: I have personally seen cattle and horses thriving in terrain as different as tropically semi-swamp Florida and scrub semi-desert New Mexico, and sheep are notorious for grazing dry hills that are marginal for almost any other large mammal.

And, final comment on the previous post: Timber should be a Resource, meaning the Old Growth large trees required for Post-Medieval ship construction and some monumental construction. Sugar Maple is more of a 'nitch' Resource, and I would put Sugar Beet as a more widely-economically important Resource before it, but again, it shows how much sheer variety we are missing in the map, Resource, terrain possibilities...

You can get sugar syrup from just about any maple. Just that the sugar maples in North America are the best species for it when it comes to sap, harvest season, and taste as maple syrup is surprisingly complex when it comes to the chemical composition of its flavor. There is some written evidence that the ancient Greeks produced sugar syrup from maples though it was used as a medicine. Aristotle mentioned it for example. There wouldn't be any problem planting Sugar Maples in say Scandinavia or the foothills of the Alps in Germany, Austria, and France. It is just that sugar beets grow quicker and are easier to process than Sugar Maples. Europeans never really acquired a taste for maple syrup like the Canadians and Americans did.