Hills are overpowered

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes. Non floodplain Desert (unless Petra) and Tundra (unless Russia) are just really bad terrain only good for wonders/districts. I don't even understand how a desert city with floodplains is supposed to get decent production from.

Its not... desert cities/coastal cities/ and non-Russian tundra cities are wastelands, only there for strategic reasons.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You mean in real life ? I don't care.

No in civ6, they are intended to be cities that get outside support, and exist for strategic reasons....like Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Middle East, Australia they are minor contributors to economic output.. except for the strategic/luxury resources there... cities where they are unlikely to have too many districts, because they either lack the housing, food, or production.

(actually can you build neighborhoods on desert/tundra)

The "main cities" are the Grassland/Plains cities (preferably with forests/hills or other "toppings")

Those are the ones worth founding+fighting over... you found+fight over desert and tundra cities to help you better fight+found the grass+plains cities.

 

[Acken]

Yeah I misread what you wrote

 

[ExemplarVoss]

I don't actually see the issue here. Tiles don't have to be balanced (and would be fairly weird if they were).

You're going to want to settle a city based on the net of the surrounding tiles- good farmland, tiles for production (either hills or riverside forests), resources, district adjacency bonuses, and so on. That some tiles produce different totals in a spreadsheet leads to interesting choices, not 'unbalanced' or 'overpowered' gameplay.

 

[Acken]

It's not a problem if the mix of these is balanced. But it's not hard to see the issue, especially in multiplayer if someone starts with a big flat region against someone starting in a hilly forest region.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It's not a problem if the mix of these is balanced. But it's not hard to see the issue, especially in multiplayer if someone starts with a big flat region against someone starting in a hilly forest region.

well thats why start spots get scores and low scores get more resources shoved in

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's not a problem if the mix of these is balanced. But it's not hard to see the issue, especially in multiplayer if someone starts with a big flat region against someone starting in a hilly forest region.

Starts being not balanced are part of the Civilization games since the first. It's the price of random map and diversity.

 

[Promethian]

Don't forget Pantheon bonuses. There are options to make tundra or desert give +1 faith adjacency to a Holy Site. This can provide massive faith. Build some cities around the edges of the desert or tundra so they can fit a holy site and they will serve as glorious holy cities.

 

[Acken]

well thats why start spots get scores and low scores get more resources shoved in

If this is done correctly.

Starts being not balanced are part of the Civilization games since the first. It's the price of random map and diversity.

Its a problem for multiplayer. Not for singleplayer.

That said the multiplayer community will simply make their own maps.

 

[Atlas627]

Its a problem for multiplayer. Not for singleplayer.

That said the multiplayer community will simply make their own maps.

I never understand this. When I play multiplayer, diplomacy can completely overrule a good start. Its overcoming good/lucky play with good play. What's the problem?

 

[Acken]

Diplomacy and good play is available to everybody.
Im not sure why you think salt starts are removed from the nqmod ?

 

[Atlas627]

Diplomacy and good play is available to everybody.
Im not sure why you think salt starts are removed from the nqmod ?

I...what? How did you get that from what I said, from what you said, from what he said, or anywhere?

 

[rreebb]

That said the multiplayer community will simply make their own maps.

That's a good solution. For singleplayer, please don't try to balance everything to the point of every game feeling the same. Ah, I have a river, three hills, five grasslands, two luxuries. Deja-vu.

Let me experience the joy of having a ridiculously good start for one game, and the challenge of building up a civ from a flat wasteland for the next. It's also ok to lose some games.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Individual tiles don't need to be balanced, starting locations need to be at least partially balanced for single player and must definitely be balanced for multiplayer.
There is a risk however, with "crap" tiles that the game over-compensates staring locations. CiV did this with desert starts. Those were among the best starts you could get even thought flat (non floodplain) desert was the worst tile on it's own.

I hope the map scripts are robust enough to give decent starting locations to everyone and avoid both totally crappy and OP ones. I never cared to play for CiV HoF not because i'm bad but because i can't be bothered to re-roll 40 maps until i get a really good one that can compete with the 3*salt mountain/river/coast some players played on (well, i'm not that good either so i wouldn't have been on the top anyway).

Ideally, there will be different scripts and/or options to create balanced games for multiplayer/HoF and more random ones for non competitive SP.

 

[Acken]

I...what? How did you get that from what I said, from what you said, from what he said, or anywhere?

Im asking you because its a similar problem.

 

[rreebb]

That's counter intuitive. Everyone expects flood plains and riverside tiles to be good, but hills? Slightly strange imo

Why? Expectations from previous Civ games?

(The real-world equivalence of the "production" yield is shaky anyway - what exactly does it represent? Presumably hills having production is due to easier mining, but of what? All reasonable minables are already resources...)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I made that reflection to myself as I writing it up... While food coming from farms/irrigation is definitely natural, the idea that production (what ever that is) comes primarily from mines, and that mines can only be built on hills is rather artificial. But yes, we are used to it, from previous civs and 4x or RTS games more generally. It's ingrained to the point of being intuitive now, might as well stick with it.

In terms of balance its ok to have some bad tiles, its okay to have some medium tiles, and its ok to have tiles that are great at food or production. The problem is that hills seem to be great for food AND production. Better than bonus resources when - the entire point of bonus resources - is to have a few very good tiles that easily stick out.

For what it's worth, I think removing the adjacency bonus for hill farms, or pushing their constructions further into the tech tree are reasonable ways of curbing this problem.

Or make riverside tiles better (say flatland farms get +1 food if on a river (like Lumbermills)...from the beginning not with a tech)

 

[Atlas627]

Im asking you because its a similar problem.

Everything I put in quotes here is paraphrasing.

Someone said "tiles don't need to be balanced".

You said "its not a problem in singleplayer, but it will be in multiplayer"

Someone said "nah its part of the game"

You said "its a problem in multiplayer. The multiplayer community will make their own maps to address such problems"

I said "I don't understand why people feel the need to make the map balanced *even in multiplayer*. In multiplayer, you have diplomacy to account for the unbalance anyway"

You said "Im not sure why you think salt starts are removed in those multiplayer mod maps"

What? You just implied they were by saying "unbalanced starts will need modded maps to fix". That literally implies you are removing the different starts with your modded map.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Everything I put in quotes here is paraphrasing.

Someone said "tiles don't need to be balanced".

You said "its not a problem in singleplayer, but it will be in multiplayer"

Someone said "nah its part of the game"

You said "its a problem in multiplayer. The multiplayer community will make their own maps to address such problems"

I said "I don't understand why people feel the need to make the map balanced *even in multiplayer*. In multiplayer, you have diplomacy to account for the unbalance anyway"

You said "Im not sure why you think salt starts are removed in those multiplayer mod maps"

What? You just implied they were by saying "unbalanced starts will need modded maps to fix". That literally implies you are removing the different starts with your modded map.

Good starts are removed from multiplayer because players from a good start can use diplomacy as well as players with a poor start. So diplomacy doesn't remove the imbalance.

 

[Acken]

You said "Im not sure why you think salt starts are removed in those multiplayer mod maps"

What? You just implied they were by saying "unbalanced starts will need modded maps to fix". That literally implies you are removing the different starts with your modded map.

You understood correctly so I dont see what confuses you. I disagreed with your statement and provided an example. Thats it. Its not "my modded map" by the way. Just the one competitive multiplayer civ5 use often.

Edit : Unless you re saying that you know already but still feel this way therefore my response was useless. If that is where this conversation is heading. About the flow of conversation rather than the subject. Dont waste your time im not really interested in that over the internet.