Ryansinbela
Emperor
I talked with someone and they said the problem is that the poles are never used, thus a spherical map has no functional purpose
I talked with someone and they said the problem is that the poles are never used, thus a spherical map has no functional purpose
Yes, late game strategy, but also the possibility to respect distance/proportions everywhere for real earth map, with a better representation of movement cost from A to B than when using a projection, even if you make the few pentagons passable.
but that respect of proportion in itself will open another issue for those real maps, as most TSL maps use disproportions for gameplay purpose, I suppose that using a larger than life Europe on a spherical map may look very, very strange![]()
to think that civ3 was able to handle much larger maps than civ6...Plus if you want a proportional as possible map I'm sure it would have to be outside or normal parameters, even for Huge. The largest earth map I ever played on mostly as a gimmick was el_mencey's 362X362 map for civ 3 which was the largest maps could be modified for civ3 . Beautiful map, not very practical.
to think that civ3 was able to handle much larger maps than civ6...
65535 tiles for civ3, only 10240 tiles for civ6 at this moment, restoring the ability to handle big maps, another fundamental change I'd like to see for civ7.
Throw out 1UPT if it is not technically possible to create decent VANILLA RELEASE AI while preserving decent turn times. Replace it whatever else - Humankind amazing tactical battle system, Heroes - like battle map, chess - like minigame, card - like minigame, whatever just nor 1UPT. Bonus points for actually having the feeling of dramatic, climactic grand battles back in the series.
Do everything you can to make midgame and endgame fun.
Go back to historical inspirations instead of arcade board game.
Make rebellions and civil wars a threat.
Provide modding support this time.
Don't be afraid to challenge the player.
The talk about the Sphere reminded me of Super Mario Galaxy. Sure, it‘s a nice gimmick, but that‘s about it. It would be a nice marketing thing, but gameplay-wise or with regards to visuals - I don‘t see the need.
I‘d rather have a system that allows for larger maps. That way you can make the cities better, have more realistic maps and still combine the city and empire level on the same map. In civ6 that just felt cramped. I‘d leave it open how to handle combat then.
Civ 6 put the one single map into the center of its design by making everything react to it (adjacencies e.g.), civ 7 should do the same, but for the people living on the map (social movements, uncontrolled migration).
(A revolution on the way food is handled would also be in order, but I can‘t see them ditching the very easy to understand system for a realistic one. After all, that‘s practically a trope in strategy games)
1. Each individual city has become more important, because in most games it is 1 of 5 - 10 instead of 1 in 20. That means no game mechanism can make you lose a city: no volcano, earthquake, hurricane, Barbarian Invasion, nor anything else 'natural' (non formal AI Civ opponent) can do more than damage the city, because each city is Too Important.
Food has always been linked directly to population growth in Civ, but just as important, with the smaller maps it must be only rarely linked with actual Population Loss - anything that negative happening to your city has become too drastic as the total number of possible cities per game drops. Realistically (Aaaargh! He's using that word again!) most city growth came from people moving in from the countryside, not being born in the city, so 'real' population growth should be related to City Attractiveness - culture, religion, job opportunities, etc, with Enough Food being only one factor out of several.
But as you say, that would complicate what is now a very simple game system.
. . . Funilly enough, I find Housing as too uninteresting name and should I re-mod my game that hard, I was thinking about renaming it into Employment, ramping it off Improvements and Districts.
If your tile grid is well indexed, the algorithmic solutions to pathfinding on a sphere are going to be the same as on any other map. The advantage of a grid or some other geometric layout is that you can infer what the valid connecting tiles are, but at the end of the day, with the existence of things like impassable terrain, it's the same as mapping through something that isn't on a grid and is more jumbled.There is also the pathfinding aspect which I've wondered about but I have a harder time understanding. Like, if you have to take a detour, under which system is the detour shorter/longer ? Longer detours would make stuff like canals/trading posts more valuable I imagine....
Spheres seem cool. Like the future. Ergo, people want spheres. But usually people advocate keeping the poles and throwing ice there. The problem, of course, is that there's no reason to cross the poles on earth, but you technically would get a more accurate layout of a planet.I would have thought the main purpose of a spherical or more spherical like map (eg eckert II hexagon projection) would be to essentially exchange snow/tundra tiles for jungle/grass tiles. Like you don't play with the poles on a sphere but are you playing with the poles on a rectangle anyway ?