Civ7 is the most bizarre game in the franchise so far.

But that’s not the real problem. The real problem with city sprawl is that the distance from the NW-most quadrant of Chalkis to its wharf (a walk that one of my citizens could presumably make in an hour or so) is the same distance as from my city to the frontier city of a rival nation: 5 hexes.
This is a problem of inconsistent scale and it’s unavoidable in a game where the map is divided into tiles that are all the same physical size but theoretically must abstract different distances. I don’t think the physical scale of anything in civ has ever been absolutely relative, even when comparing two of the same object type.

This perhaps would be improved with cities able to expand out more than 3 tiles, and with wider distances between cities (a territory system like Humankind for instance).
 
For context, the general rule of thumb is that in pre-modern agrarian societies something like ~80-90% of the population are farmers. It's safe to assume that each farmer farms considerably more acreage than is covered by a city dweller's house. So there should probably be at least 20x more area covered by farms than cities.
You don't even need that kind of calculation. Google tells me that right this minute only 3% of the earth's surface is covered by cities!

This is a problem of inconsistent scale and it’s unavoidable in a game where the map is divided into tiles that are all the same physical size but theoretically must abstract different distances.
If only there were some way of moving between different of those scales, each important to various satisfactions that the game supplies. Say with a mouse click or something.:think:
 
Last edited:
I don't think we should be worried about this aspect just yet. I reckon that one can play on a huge map with less players and the scale will become more like reality
 
The City of London was (is) famously one square mile. Google says that it wasn't until the 18th c. that it developed significantly outside of that boundary. (I feel like I once read a thing that said it started happening 16th c.) (But still!)
 
If only there were some way of moving between different of those scales, each important to various satisfactions that the game supplies. Say with a mouse click or something.:think:
...as it is in Civ 3.

attachment.php

Screenshot of the Civ 3 mod CCM 2
 
The City of London was (is) famously one square mile. Google says that it wasn't until the 18th c. that it developed significantly outside of that boundary. (I feel like I once read a thing that said it started happening 16th c.) (But still!)
And the Eiffel Tower is famously in Paris, not Tokyo, but Civ still lets me build it there.

I just don’t think historical realism is a convincing argument for most mechanics in Civ.
 
Good thing that's not the argument I'm making, then. I'm talking about the satisfactions that the game provides to various kinds of player, and how its present visual design deprives one kind of player of one kind of satisfaction--arguably an empire builder's chief satisfaction. For players who want a city to fill the whole screen, there are city-builders out there.
 
Last edited:
And the Eiffel Tower is famously in Paris, not Tokyo, but Civ still lets me build it there.

I just don’t think historical realism is a convincing argument for most mechanics in Civ.
But this isn't an argument about realism, but probability of accurance.
There is 0 probability of that kind of a sprawl in the city thousands of years ago.
I don't have any issue with units being out of scale for visibility purposes - boats are absolutely beautiful actually.
However, if I have to abstract myself into thinking that one tile inside the city is 100 meters and one tile outside is a thousand kilometers, it breaks that empire building feeling for me.
Also, having a plantation right beside the city center is also not ideal - every plant and animal should be movable within it's biome.
Having this distinction between cities and towns and not been able to do that is a lost opportunity.
 
Imo sprawl is a bad idea in a Civ game. But I am obviously aware that by now many people who buy civ haven't even played CivIII- started later.
It can be bearable if the map is vast or zoomed in. But computer power needed will likely mean the regional or global maps won't allow for this. Imagine (eg) playing as France and Paris fills all of Gallia itself (and half of Germany too, btw).
Even currently massive (area-wise) cities, irl cover very little of the map.
 
Last edited:
But this isn't an argument about realism, but probability of accurance.
I think these are the same ideas.
There is 0 probability of that kind of a sprawl in the city thousands of years ago.
Ancient cities could be plenty huge. Rome is nearly 500 square miles large. But that's besides the point: there is zero way to make city sprawl make "realistic" sense in a game where tiles are all the same size and some approximate thousands of miles. No city that has ever existed would fill a hex to the largest degree it can be abstracted to. To scale it, cities should never take up an entire tile in the first place (which I think would be a bad idea).
I don't have any issue with units being out of scale for visibility purposes - boats are absolutely beautiful actually.
Well it's the same view many others have for cities. They're larger for beauty and visibility.
However, if I have to abstract myself into thinking that one tile inside the city is 100 meters and one tile outside is a thousand kilometers, it breaks that empire building feeling for me.
That's how it is though. Tile distances are liminal, not consistent. In fact, nothing physical in the game is consistent. How else do you make sense of wonders with the same footprint as an entire city center?
Also, having a plantation right beside the city center is also not ideal - every plant and animal should be movable within it's biome.
Not sure how this relates to the rest of the post, but that is not something I have a problem with myself.
Having this distinction between cities and towns and not been able to do that is a lost opportunity.
There is that distinction though. It's just organic and baked in the gameplay. Towns cannot have urban district buildings, so they're surrounded by rural districts. They naturally have far less sprawl. It's actually an extremely elegant solution to the point you're making.

I those who have a problem with the sprawl are forgetting that not all your settlements will be cities. More will be towns, which cannot have the same level of sprawl.
 
Last edited:
I think these are the same ideas.
Not if we talk about Eiffel Tower not being build in Paris. If, history would be different, it's probable to be erected in a different place.
Ancient cities could be plenty huge. Rome is nearly 500 square miles large. But that's besides the point: there is zero way to make city sprawl make "realistic" sense in a game where tiles are all the same size and some approximate thousands of miles. No city that has ever existed would fill a hex to the largest degree it can be abstracted to. To scale it, cities should never take up an entire tile in the first place (which I think would be a bad idea).
Yes, but again, You talk realism in concurrence of what have happened, and probability is about what could have happened if there would be a slight change in condition.
It's all boiling down to an abstract of distance.
Well it's the same view many others have for cities. They're larger for beauty and visibility.
We could argue that sprawl less visible when zoomed out on bigger map would look better.
That's how it is though. Tile distances are liminal, not consistent. In fact, nothing physical in the game is consistent. How else do you make sense of wonders with the same footprint as an entire city center?
Yes, but again, if map would be big enough that would make it less jarring, but then settlements would have to have a larger working area then 3 tiles.
Not sure how this relates to the rest of the post, but that is not something I have a problem with myself.
That one was a additional point besides the argument, sorry if it was confusing.
There is that distinction though. It's just organic and baked in the gameplay. Towns cannot have urban district buildings, so they're surrounded by rural districts. They naturally have far less sprawl. It's actually an extremely elegant solution to the point you're making.

I those who have a problem with the sprawl are forgetting that not all your settlements will be cities. More will be towns, which cannot have the same level of sprawl.
I meant that - because we have a distinction between them, not being able to move a plantation a little further from the city center, just to make it sprawl urban more organically is a lost opportunity.

Again, I agree that nothing physical in the game is consistent, loving the sprawl actually, but would also love to have some breathing room between them.
 
This is a problem of inconsistent scale and it’s unavoidable in a game where the map is divided into tiles that are all the same physical size but theoretically must abstract different distances. I don’t think the physical scale of anything in civ has ever been absolutely relative, even when comparing two of the same object type.

This perhaps would be improved with cities able to expand out more than 3 tiles, and with wider distances between cities (a territory system like Humankind for instance).
I'm not a fan of a separate city screen either. For me, it's not only a matter of the clicks - even though that matters also - but also a question of: What would be the point? The whole idea of unstacking the cities is to work with the terrain, but that more or less gets lost of all of city is contained within one hex on the map.

That is why I favor a scaling down of the hexes, if one wants, or a scaling up of the map, depending on how you see it. If standard distance between cities is much larger, you will be able to unstack cities without the extreme scaling breakdowns we have now. You will also not end up in a situation where all cities grow into each other and eliminates all farmland by late game (sorry, that's just not how the world looks).

Again, Rural towns may achieve the same, and I'm cautiously optimistic about this, but I agree what someone else said, the buildings take up too much space in the graphics for the rural improvements. Many of them just don't look very rural. I had hoped they'd rethink the way tile improvements work: Instead of putting the plantation on the resource, I'd rather have the plantation be a building next to the resource, and then have the plantation surrounded by fields with crops going to give that more open rural feeling.
 
I am very happy civ7 is going to be bizarre, because I got bored of civ5 very long time ago, and then civ6 was very conservative (and when it made major changes I disliked them), plus civ7 aims to deal with some very ancient problems of 4X genre which have been long time source of boredom for me
 
I have yet to play a game where scrolling to change scale of view would not be obnoxious. Like in Humankind. Oh you want to see a little more tiles? Well now everything's grey and you see spheres of influences. Zooming a little bit and suddenly new buildings appear out of nowhere ruining the informative detail for visual would be annoying to me.
 
Just to note to the topic, as I remembered it now, The Sims 3 resolved this with combining the two approaches. You scroll out and then a button appears to leave Lot Mode for World Mode. But for people who already don't want clicking this is worst of both worlds. But the only iteration I personally could stomach.
 
I don't really understand how people can be anti click about a dual layer map, but totally fine with clicking into different bland windows for civics, tech, governments, trade routes, building in your city, narrative events, resolving crises, picking a civ to swap too, etc etc.

I would much rather have any of those windows replaced with another map, thats far more interesting to interact with to me than a serious of text boxes on a screen.

If anyone can explain why those things are different to them, I would love to hear your thoughts
 
I don't really understand how people can be anti click about a dual layer map, but totally fine with clicking into different bland windows for civics, tech, governments, trade routes, building in your city, narrative events, resolving crises, picking a civ to swap too, etc etc.

I would much rather have any of those windows replaced with another map, thats far more interesting to interact with to me than a serious of text boxes on a screen.

If anyone can explain why those things are different to them, I would love to hear your thoughts
I like the immediacy of single map layer but I don't really see a big problem with having a dual layer map either. Both have pros and cons.

However, it's hard to see how you could have anything other than various windows for many aspects of the game. For things like civics and techs, surely simplicity and function is paramount? It's a tricky balance but I'd rather it look simple and work effectively than look fancy and be less intuitive to use.
 
I don't really understand how people can be anti click about a dual layer map, but totally fine with clicking into different bland windows for civics, tech, governments, trade routes, building in your city, narrative events, resolving crises, picking a civ to swap too, etc etc.

I would much rather have any of those windows replaced with another map, thats far more interesting to interact with to me than a serious of text boxes on a screen.

If anyone can explain why those things are different to them, I would love to hear your thoughts
Pretty sure pokiehl addressed this like twice already. It's not about having to click to access information, it's about having to perform series of clicks to see a comprehesive visualisation of your progress. Specifically, click on each city to see how it has grown rather than just pan through the map. It is extremly inconvinient for that.
 
Top Bottom