Civ VII map graphics

[Boris Gudenuf]

AI forward settling hasn't really been a thing since 1.1.1, or whatever the early patch was that hit that specific pain point r.e. AI behaviour.

I haven't noticed it (as a repetitive problem, at least) in quite a while.

It has been ' thing' in my games, but not to the same extent (this might be because I have been playing Huge maps exclusively since before the last patch, though).

The AI will place a settlement just under 10 tiles away from my nearest settlement, and then get angry because I'm too close to him.

I have only seen one instance of absolutely 'in your face' forward settling in a half-dozen games, and that was when we were both on a coastal strip with mountains preventing any expansion except towards each other: the AI put his third settlement so that the boundaries of his settlement coincided with the boundary of my settlement - but he really had nowhere else to go, so that was a map that basically forced an early war.

What I find much more annoying is the AI granting a settlement in a peace deal that is on the far side of his territory from me (or another AI) and completely isolated. I have been able to manipulate these situations in my favor, but the AI seems completely unable to, and so it results in a near-continuous state of animosity between them, frequently to their mutual detriment.

In the Exploration Age I finished last night, for example, 6 AI civs were in two alliances of 3 and 3, and they spent most of the Age at war with each other other, ending the Age in a ridiculous patchwork of isolated settlements isolated from any capital and scattered all over the map. Worse, in the Crisis period not one of those settlements flipped to any of the neighboring Civs despite being underdeveloped and isolated - and in at least 3 cases that I could observe, Unhappy and burning down their own improvements.

My preference would be, an isolated unhappy settlement surrounded by foreign Civ(s) without serious attempts at garrisoning and pacifying it should be nearly certain to flip to another Civ during the Crisis or the X period between Ages. If the Crisis and inter-Age period means anything, that should be a no-brainer, I would think.

 

[Orango Nash]

I've struggled to get on board with unpacked cities and I think it's one of the main things that put me off Civ VI. The UI and design of that game at least made the larger cities interpretable in that game, but I feel like expanding your cities out with districts diminished the impact of geography. I haven't quite put my finger on what it is about Civ VI that's runs me the wrong way, but I know that the fun stops happening for me around the time I unlock districts

Civ VII definitely ramps up the problems with it.

Totally agree. Civ VII looks like a city builder. I've realised that I don't believe the districts on the map concept fits with the concept of "Building an empire that stands the test of time". It makes the world map look and feel small. 1UPT already shrunk the globe, but was bearable. But districts shrink the scope even further and turn it into a glorified Anno game where it looks like we're building a county, not an empire. Civ 7 is the first Civ I haven't bought on launch since Civ 2 and as long as districts are in, the series is lost to me. I'd rather the developers devote time and resources to better AI diplomacy and unit management, for example, than a shallow tile placing mini game that makes the map ugly.

Not a problem, because though a keen (and ageing) strategy gamer, I'm obviously not the target audience any more and there's plenty of other better games out there. (including several city builders that do what Civ 7 is trying, only far better). Just like to add this in the spirit of market research as to why devoted series fans are drifting away.

 

[WillK96]

Totally agree. Civ VII looks like a city builder. I've realised that I don't believe the districts on the map concept fits with the concept of "Building an empire that stands the test of time". It makes the world map look and feel small. 1UPT already shrunk the globe, but was bearable. But districts shrink the scope even further and turn it into a glorified Anno game where it looks like we're building a county, not an empire. Civ 7 is the first Civ I haven't bought on launch since Civ 2 and as long as districts are in, the series is lost to me. I'd rather the developers devote time and resources to better AI diplomacy and unit management, for example, than a shallow tile placing mini game that makes the map ugly.

It will be interesting to see where they take Civ VIII (if that even happens). I thought the district system of Civ VI was ok but less than ideal - something like Old World does city building a bit better - limiting the total amount of urban slots to something that still resembles a city rather than a several hundred/thousand mile area. Civ VII decided not only to double down on the expanded urban areas but exponentially expand it (the most developed city in Civ VI was as big as the normal city in Civ VII). It certainly cheapens the geographical and strategic elements of empire building at large. Hopefully CIV VIII could take a step back, maybe even toward CIV III and CIV IV with urban like rural improvements like cottages and/or colonies.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I confess not to having played Civ VII, so this is based on watching videos or looking at screen shots. I really have a problem with the way the map screen looks, which puts me off. When playing Civ VI, I look at the screen, and though it may be a bit cartoonish, it does look like an actual landscape with settlements and military formations moving about on it. Civ V even more so, since it benefits from cities not looking unrealistically large due to sprawling distraicts as they do in VI. But in Civ VII the screen looks to me like an overly-busy mess. It's very hard to read what is going on. I wonder if this is a common perception?

This is the main reason I cannot watch any Civ7 stream. As far as I'm concerned, this game is unstreamable.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

The cities look great when you zoom in, one city to your screen. That’s not how I play though. I zoomed out to often have 2-4 cities in view, to play a sandbox strategy It’s unreadable at this scale. Some unique quarters stand out well.
I like that they have done with walls but they also make things busy.

I think this and a few other elements (narrative events) is where they forgot who the core audience is.

 

[Vandlys]

I still maintain what I said when Civ VI was a year old and people were complaining about map legibility:

1) Colour differentials should not be necessary. I don't need a purple culture hub to see where everything is.
2) Make everything smaller, so that tiles in general blend with the world more, but important buildings/improvements on those tiles stand out. For example VI's farms. They were very easy to spot, because they were mostly empty.

But the best solution, in my opinion, would be to zoom in on the city screen and have a secondary tiny map in there. Enhance the features, so that the one ring around the city (a big hex) actually becomes a detailed map of more hexes on which you can place specific buildings and wonders. Only this ring can be used for urban development, but both this ring and the outer rings can be used for rural developments and special buildings (like a launch pad for a space ship, for example). Then, when combat happens in this city, have it take place on this zoomed in map, so that it gets an extra tactical layer. Outside of the city, resolve combat as normal.

This would negate the city builder feel, would make maps bigger again, and would make combat to defeat cities more interesting and add a new level of strategy (/difficulty).

 

[Leucarum]

I still maintain what I said when Civ VI was a year old and people were complaining about map legibility:

1) Colour differentials should not be necessary. I don't need a purple culture hub to see where everything is.
2) Make everything smaller, so that tiles in general blend with the world more, but important buildings/improvements on those tiles stand out. For example VI's farms. They were very easy to spot, because they were mostly empty.

But the best solution, in my opinion, would be to zoom in on the city screen and have a secondary tiny map in there. Enhance the features, so that the one ring around the city (a big hex) actually becomes a detailed map of more hexes on which you can place specific buildings and wonders. Only this ring can be used for urban development, but both this ring and the outer rings can be used for rural developments and special buildings (like a launch pad for a space ship, for example). Then, when combat happens in this city, have it take place on this zoomed in map, so that it gets an extra tactical layer. Outside of the city, resolve combat as normal.

This would negate the city builder feel, would make maps bigger again, and would make combat to defeat cities more interesting and add a new level of strategy (/difficulty).

I guess in practice it ends up looking something like Galactic Civilizations. I wouldn't hate that, except that finding optimal city spots could be awkward if you couldn't see the terrain layout the city will adopt in advance and potential tile bonuses. Probably a way around that too though (lens?)

 

[Vandlys]

I guess in practice it ends up looking something like Galactic Civilizations. I wouldn't hate that, except that finding optimal city spots could be awkward if you couldn't see the terrain layout the city will adopt in advance and potential tile bonuses. Probably a way around that too though (lens?)

From your reaction I don't think I made my idea clear, because there is no need for a second lens to scout tiles.

Tiles would remain in the "overworld" as normal. Every tile can have rural improvements like normally. There still would be the standard grasslands, tundra, etc.

But then when you zoom into the city, those tiles that are in the first ring around the city, are eligible for district buildings.

I guess it's similar to what they did now, but maybe compacter?

Hmmm... this idea has issues

 

[Orango Nash]

I think the question regarding districts is: How big is a tile, anyway? If 50 miles across, then districts make no sense. If 5 miles across, then perhaps they do, though now the entire globe is far smaller than Earth. Giant, unrealistic districts or tiny unrealistic Earth, which is it?

In Civs 1 - 5, this question was left abstract (less so in 5, with the introduction of 1UPT). It meant smaller scale scenarios worked too, because a "city" could be a smaller "town" in a map of just Europe, rather than the globe, for example/

Once you introduce districts, surely, you have now set the size of a tile? I believe the concept of on-map districts is not in line at all with the original concept of the civilsation series. It turns the game into more of a city builder/Carcassone type of experience. But as a game design feature, is at odds with and pulls against the "build an Empire" concept.

I guess that at least part of the designers drive towards districts is that it allows for very pretty, eye catching graphics and hopefully attracts new gamers to the series this way. Not a value judgement. Some want city builders rather than global empire builders. Just to be realistic about what the series has become, what the game actually is.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the biggest problem with map readability I have is the case when I'm going to research Hegemony and want to position my explorers. I need to place explorer with location which has a building to research, but until I research Hegemony, those tiles are not highlighted. So what I usually do is hovering over urban districts and check which buildings are there, because I can't distinguish those building easily from just looking at the map.

 

[Vandlys]

I think the question regarding districts is: How big is a tile, anyway? If 50 miles across, then districts make no sense. If 5 miles across, then perhaps they do, though now the entire globe is far smaller than Earth. Giant, unrealistic districts or tiny unrealistic Earth, which is it?

In Civs 1 - 5, this question was left abstract (less so in 5, with the introduction of 1UPT). It meant smaller scale scenarios worked too, because a "city" could be a smaller "town" in a map of just Europe, rather than the globe, for example/

Once you introduce districts, surely, you have now set the size of a tile? [...]

Why? This isn't true for units either is it? Everything you see on the map is just not to scale at all.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Why? This isn't true for units either is it? Everything you see on the map is just not to scale at all.

I think that is the point. 1upt messed up the map scale. Unpacking cities made the scale problem even worse.

 

[WillK96]

I think the absolute map sizes are smaller since Civ V as well, so 1 UPT and city unpacking make it seem even smaller.