• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?

Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?


  • Total voters
    391
I don't think they compete for anything. We've seen a Ranking screen where none of the Distant Land civ was even present.
I believe only the top three civs are shown (plus the player if not in the top three). I can't remember which video it was, but I'm pretty sure I saw a video in which DL civs were competing for two of the other victories (Military and Culture, if memory serves). Since I can't remember the source, though, I concede I could be mistaken. I believe you are correct that they don't contribute towards Age Progression or victory in Antiquity.
 
They compete for everything except Economic Victory, but yes, not being a coder, I'm afraid I don't understand why they couldn't just invert the Distant/Home Lands for the other civs. I presume there was a reason since they said they're investigating how to fix it, but it does seem strange to me as a layman.
They can’t compete for Military Victory as written either.
 
I believe only the top three civs are shown (plus the player if not in the top three). I can't remember which video it was, but I'm pretty sure I saw a video in which DL civs were competing for two of the other victories (Military and Culture, if memory serves). Since I can't remember the source, though, I concede I could be mistaken. I believe you are correct that they don't contribute towards Age Progression or victory in Antiquity.
Ah no, you're right. I thought during the Exploration age livestream we had seen the Victory > Legacy Points screen which shows everyone, but it was in fact the Overview one with the top 3 players in each path, and there definitively is Amina there who was on the Distant Land.
 
And yet Amina from the Distant Land WAS in the Military path top 3.
timestamp
That’s weird…maybe they Are relative
Did Amins invade something on the “Homelands according to Spain” or did she invade something on her homeland (the “Distant lands according to Spain”)?

If “DL/HL” is relative to the civ , then the only problem is the treasure resources. Which should be simple to have on the other continent.
 
Last edited:
That’s weird…maybe they Are relative
Did Amins invade something on the “Homelands according to Spain” or did she invade something on her homeland (the “Distant lands according to Spain”)?

If “DL/HL” is relative to the civ , then the only problem is the treasure resources. Which should be simple to have on the other continent.
Hard to tell... We can see the minimap just after that, but we only see one of her cities (she's green, and it's her capital city Gao) on the Distant Land.
1737828699285.png
 
Maybe the problem with dynamic HL/DL is also connected to larger maps. Larger maps would require more HL (2-3) that can be fully explored, but everybody needs to be of similar distance to the DL to keep it fair for the HL civs. While in turn, there only needs to be one DL - and if there are two HLs, the balance is off for the DL civs. There would be much more land that is dynamic DL for them and much more resources.
 
Yes, that's what I meant. Since Treasure Resources spawn in Distant Lands, your Home Land should be Distant Lands for the other continent. Again, I'm not a programmer, but from a lay perspective this seems like it shouldn't be that difficult to program. Hopefully they can make it work after launch. ETA: This would also conceivably allow MP human players to spawn on different continents, which I believe is something some people have said they wawanted.
I am a programmer and I don't get it. It seems the land and ressources are distant/home as an absolute attribute of the object rather than relative (requiring to use logic to determine). It's for sure easier that way since you just use a value than have it depend on the civ but it feels like lazy design.
I think it has more to do with the design they went for, centered around the player and therefore not caring enough than limitation of programming tbh.
 
Maybe the problem with dynamic HL/DL is also connected to larger maps. Larger maps would require more HL (2-3) that can be fully explored, but everybody needs to be of similar distance to the DL to keep it fair for the HL civs. While in turn, there only needs to be one DL - and if there are two HLs, the balance is off for the DL civs. There would be much more land that is dynamic DL for them and much more resources.
You don’t need any more than 2 “Lands” in any case
an 18 player map could have 12 on one large crowded Land, and the other 6 on one uncrowded Land.

For 3+ “Lands” all you need is your “Land” is the Homeland all other lands are Distant Lands. Whether your Homeland was a ‘crowded’ one or ‘empty’ one is irrelevant.
 
You don’t need any more than 2 “Lands” in any case
an 18 player map could have 12 on one large crowded Land, and the other 6 on one uncrowded Land.

For 3+ “Lands” all you need is your “Land” is the Homeland all other lands are Distant Lands. Whether your Homeland was a ‘crowded’ one or ‘empty’ one is irrelevant.
That would be quite boring though. The DL needs to be limited to one specific area. Otherwise the competition that everybody needs to go there now in Exploration Age isn‘t there.
 
And here I am wondering if it would be possible to have 4 different map scripts in one game.
Every single one with possible native civ(s), that considers it's land and resources as home and the other as distant.
 
That would be quite boring though. The DL needs to be limited to one specific area. Otherwise the competition that everybody needs to go there now in Exploration Age isn‘t there.
Don't you feel that the 'distant lands' feature is restricting the type of game people play?

One of the features of civ used to be that it could be played in a lot of different ways, and the various map packs and mods helped that.

Civ 7 seems to be dictating the type of game you will play every single time?
 
Don't you feel that the 'distant lands' feature is restricting the type of game people play?

One of the features of civ used to be that it could be played in a lot of different ways, and the various map packs and mods helped that.

Civ 7 seems to be dictating the type of game you will play every single time?
I mean, going to the Distant Lands isn't mandatory to work on half of the Legacy Paths (not including Songhai and Mongolia, who can get extra progress on the Economic path and win the Militaristic path in the Homelands respectively), and Legacy Paths aren't even mandatory anyways. Colonizing another continent for new resources when Cartography is unlocked is more encouraged than in previous games and you get more boni out of it, but you really don't have to if it's not your thing.
 
Yes, that's what I meant. Since Treasure Resources spawn in Distant Lands, your Home Land should be Distant Lands for the other continent. Again, I'm not a programmer, but from a lay perspective this seems like it shouldn't be that difficult to program. Hopefully they can make it work after launch. ETA: This would also conceivably allow MP human players to spawn on different continents, which I believe is something some people have said they wanted.
It's clearly not about programming, it's about gameplay. I can't see all the potential problems arising, but the most obvious is the ability to capture treasure fleets. If you're able to capture and use treasure fleets gathered on your continent, this could be exploited. If not - there will be a mess with 2 types of treasure fleets. Another one I see is the problem is how you interact with those resources. As I understand, now distant land resources exist only for civilizations from the old world, if you create symmetry here, there should be some ways to interact with old world treasure fleet resources for old world civs.

I guess there are many other issues I just don't see now, because I even haven't played the game yet.
 
That would be quite boring though. The DL needs to be limited to one specific area. Otherwise the competition that everybody needs to go there now in Exploration Age isn‘t there.
Why?

Everyone needs to get to the “Other” places. Each Land is competed over by everyone that is Not there
 
Why?

Everyone needs to get to the “Other” places. Each Land is competed over by everyone that is Not there
but if everyone has a choice where to go, there is much less competition (and more treasure good around) compared to when all need to go to the same place. It‘s simply not the same dynamic if the goal is „go someplace else“ compared to „go here“
 
It's clearly not about programming, it's about gameplay. I can't see all the potential problems arising, but the most obvious is the ability to capture treasure fleets. If you're able to capture and use treasure fleets gathered on your continent, this could be exploited. If not - there will be a mess with 2 types of treasure fleets. Another one I see is the problem is how you interact with those resources. As I understand, now distant land resources exist only for civilizations from the old world, if you create symmetry here, there should be some ways to interact with old world treasure fleet resources for old world civs.
That's an interesting point, but in the dev stream it's clear that distant land civs can capture treasure fleets. Presumably, they'd then be able to cash them in as well, so the status of the resource the fleet is generated from (i.e. distant land or not) doesn't matter?
 
but if everyone has a choice where to go, there is much less competition (and more treasure good around) compared to when all need to go to the same place. It‘s simply not the same dynamic if the goal is „go someplace else“ compared to „go here“

I think you're misunderstanding. No one would have a choice of where to go. Old World civs would still need to find and go to/settle/exploit DLs and those in the DLs would have to go to the Old World to do the same.

Honestly though, I wouldn't care about the fact that civs in DLs aren't able to compete for legacy paths regarding distant luxuries, treasure fleets, and settling DLs if Firaxis actually leaned into the asymmetry. Players should be able to start in DLs. There could be designed tech disparity between civs in new world and old, with starting in DLs meaning you're playing game of survival and from a position of disadvantage during exploration age with specifically designed catch up mechanics and legacy paths about surviving/thriving during these wave of colonization. Instead we've just got what feels like lazy design (imo of course)
 
Honestly though, I wouldn't care about the fact that civs in DLs aren't able to compete for legacy paths regarding distant luxuries, treasure fleets, and settling DLs if Firaxis actually leaned into the asymmetry.
But that would ruin the precious balance. :rolleyes:

In my view, far too many design decisions in this game have been driven by a desire to achieve greater balance. But, should achieving greater balance even be a primary goal? I don't believe it should be. The two primary considerations should be: 1) is it fun? and 2) is it interesting? If you have to sacrifice some balance to make the game more fun and interesting, that's generally a sacrifice worth making.

I get that the multiplayer crowd often clamors for more balance. But, those issues can often be addressed with house rules (i.e. "no one gets to pick civ X) or with more expansive setup options.
 
Top Bottom