Continents

[stealth_nsk]

It would be good if:
- Continents have more reasonable shape.
- Borders between continents have more land features.
- Diverse appearance of forests and the like.

But the 1 and 2 are features of map script and 3 is the feature of the art. All of them are things which are normally polished in late iterations of the game. So you can't expect this to work well in the build from the end of the June.

 

[anandus]

Pretty sure we'll also be getting a Continents Lenses, which will color code the tiles on the map according to their continent. Using that it will be easy to identify where continents' borders are.

Indeed:

 

[Monado]

Having to use a continents lens for fights along divides; seems like a potentially obnoxious extra step in combat.

 

[demidyad]

Edit:
For a more cluttered example; Blue = Laurentia. Orange = Antarctica. Yellow = Zealandia. Purple = Pannotia

Spoiler :

Rio was founded in Antarctica, but many of it's western/southwestern tiles are in Laurentia; while the city center is in Antarctica, the campus and The Pyramids end up in Laurentia.

Thank you for doing some of your own research and contributing to the discussion.

So, to Address the OP's initial concern;Yes, it seems entirely possible that if this civ were instead, say, America, then it's continental combat bonus would not apply to the defense of Rio's western territory, as it lies on a different continent.

It seems you've come to the same conclusion I did in the OP

As it stands this won't lead to fun decisions in-game, more cheesy and arbitrary. This is the first major design mis-step I've seen - unless the algorithms do change significantly in time for release, which is certainly possible, or indeed very likely

 

[Ravihon]

Not sure I get the upheaval. Ed Beach mentioned in the live stream yesterday the background for the continent design decision.

And yes it is because of the bonus stuff some CiVs get based on continents, and to balance that on Pangäa maps etc. The rule mentioned was for every 2 Civs there is one continent created. How these are created map wise was not mentioned...at least I do not recall.

 

[LDiCesare]

I hope the continents can be controlled by mapscripts. It would be trivial to do in something like my tectonics scripts.

 

[King Jason]

The real question I look forward to having answered is if Archipelago's consist of continents that have multiple islands and island chains under their territorial sphere of influence. With the nature of pangea, I'm compelled to say yes, but we know that coastline tiles are not attributed to continents.

Then again, neither are mountains.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Indeed:

Spoiler :

This has just made RFC even more fun

 

[Joketa]

I'll assume this is not how continents will work in the final release. It would be stupid. America hates civs who launch wars on their home continent. There's only one other civ on their continent. Hmm...

 

[King Jason]

I'll assume this is not how continents will work in the final release. It would be stupid.

The devs have already confirmed this is exactly how it works in the recent livestream.

 

[Joketa]

The devs have already confirmed this is exactly how it works in the recent livestream.

So it is stupid?

Or would you be able to set the number of continents per civ in the set-up menu? 8 civs, one continent per 4 civs, continent map. Problem solved.

 

[HanNorwood]

I'll assume this is not how continents will work in the final release. It would be stupid. America hates civs who launch wars on their home continent. There's only one other civ on their continent. Hmm...

It says a continent per two civs, but it doesn't make several things clear; whether or not that means only two civs will spawn on that continent, and if a foreign civ declaring war on somebody else on America's continent.

Also, keep in mind that other civs aren't stopped from expanding onto another continent.

 

[King Jason]

So it is stupid?

Nope - it's awesome.

Opinions are fun.

 

[happybjorn]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the only way I can see that continents in what has been show are arbitrary is that they follow some criteria the developers came up with rather than some external definition or rule(s). That's an awful weak premise for criticism.

Also, its kinda hard to judge when we don't know what those criteria are and, as stealth_nsk noted, will probably be refined as the game develops.

 

[Magil]

I'll assume this is not how continents will work in the final release. It would be stupid. America hates civs who launch wars on their home continent. There's only one other civ on their continent. Hmm...

I assume it'll kick in when Civs on other continents declare war on Civs on Roosevelt's home continent--that was kinda how Roosevelt's diplomacy worked (in a loose, general sense), he was trying to keep European influence out of the Caribbean. Oversimplification obviously, but it's good enough to understand the way they made his agenda.

Also, Roosevelt probably doesn't like it if you go attacking city-states on his home continent. So Monty farming city-state units for builders on his continent would irritate him. It's not just a matter of other civilizations.

Spoiler :

 

[RedBlack]

Wouldn't it be enough to mark the edge of the continents with a larger tile edge? Just so the border is visible without lens.

 

[Brutus2]

I was watching a video this week with a funny result based on continent agendas. Playing as America, the guy invaded and captured London. Immediately after loosing her capital Victoria contacted the player to let him know how happy she was that they shared the same continent, (since he now controlled London which was on the same continent with her other cities).

Nothing like taking someone's capital and having them be happy about it!

 

[demidyad]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the only way I can see that continents in what has been show are arbitrary is that they follow some criteria the developers came up with rather than some external definition or rule(s). That's an awful weak premise for criticism.

You don't find it odd for a unit to get a bonus on one grassland tile, but not the one next to it

Again the problem is not that the definition of continents is arbitrary (although they are), the problem is that it widens the gap between theme and mechanic for certain player decisions.

 

[King Jason]

You don't find it odd for a unit to get a bonus on one grassland tile, but not the one next to it

I see VIRTUALLY no difference between America's continental distinction and say, Japan's coastal distinction; Some tiles you'll stand on and get bonuses, and right next to you there can be tiles where you no longer get those bonuses. Japan's military get a bonus to a specific sphere of terrain... America's military get a bonus to a specific sphere of terrain. What's the problem?

Again the problem is not that the definition of continents is arbitrary (although they are)

That's probably because the definition of continents are arbitrary. The only reason Europe and Asia are two different continents are cultural ones; they're even on the same continental plate.

Continents are dumb and make no sense.

the problem is that it widens the gap between theme and mechanic for certain player decisions.

How? America's theme (from a player's perspective) lends itself toward continental conquest. So... conquer your continent. What's the problem? Just because a Pangea happens to accurately reflect the idea of a super-continent doesn't prevent America from dominating their portion of it - their continent - in keeping with their theme.

America doesn't even completely own the continent that their actually on in real life so either way their bonus translates thematically just fine.

 

[Joketa]

Nope - it's awesome.

Opinions are fun.

Yes, if there are options. It's awesome. If you're locked into two civs per continent, it's stupid in relation to the unique abilities laid out. America then only cares about one other civ and a couple of city states. France's ability is then lame and England's is way too powerful.