How "regions" could add a lot to the civ franchise

Oct 25, 2014
I had this idea (probably not new) where the game would automatically group hexes together into "regions" at the start of the game. So the map would still have hexes that units would use to move but there would be regional borders around hexes to group them into regions. The regions would have names of course so that you could identify them. I would suggest making regions big enough for maybe 2-3 cities normally spaced out.

These regions could be used for a lot of cool gameplay features:
1) Civs could claim adjacent regions as their own before settling cities there.
2) Civs would be able to say "don't settle region [name]" instead of the generic "don't settle near me". This would really help diplomacy.
3) If a civ settled a region claimed by another civ, it could trigger a casus belli.
4) Civs could agree to give up a claim to a region in exchange for gold or something.
5) Regions could be designated as "demilitarized zones" or granted their independence.
6) Adjacent regions could give each other extra production, gold, culture, or science bonuses to represent internal commerce. This would encourage civs to settle adjacent regions first and create more continuous empires.
7) Regional borders would be used to create national borders when you settle a city in a region. National borders would no longer expand tiel by tile but would automatically pop to the regional borders when you settle anywhere in that region. This would prevent the silliness of the AI settling in areas clearly part of your civ but technically outside because your borders haven't reached their yet.
8) Regions could grant cities in them special bonuses. For example, a region that has a lot of wheat tiles, could grant a food bonus to worked tiles in that region.
9) Leaving goodie huts intact in a region that you've settled could grant cities bonuses. This would encourage leaving goodie huts alone for a longer term bonus or popping them for a big short term bonus rather than the current strategy of always popping them. Goodie huts could automatically transform into a village once you've settled the region for enough turns. Villages could grant your closest city extra food and production.

I am sure there are more possibilities. But you get the idea.


Dec 1, 2017
I think a problem with Civ VI is that the map feels very empty. I think "Regions" would help.

I don't think the regions need to do much to make the game better and help fill out the map.

One simple thing they could do is just provide a "boundary" to where you city will grow (i.e. you city expands to tiles within a region faster than tiles outside of a region).

Another thing you could have is free cities that spawn in regions that don't have any civ or city state in them. These free cities would all reinforce each other's loyalty with any other free cities within that region. You could conquer them, raze them, flip them, or leave them alone as you wish. That'd maybe become more aggressive if you attack one of the cities in that region or settle cities in their region. You could maybe reduce the chances of them being aggressive if you spread religion to them or have a more pacifist government type (eg classical republic).

Lastly, I think cities states could maybe expand by one or two more cities within their region later in the game. The cities would have to be founded within 4 tiles of the original city state.
Last edited:


Jul 31, 2017
Minnesota, USA
Now that we have continents, I suppose sub-dividing them into a few regions each wouldn't be too technically hard to pull off (Just apply the continent algorithm to continents themselves instead of the whole map, add another field/array/subclass/whatever to store it. We might even be able to recycle continents' indexing to also fit regions depending on how they are indexed.)

But, while I really enjoy how Civ's tiles work, I think regions would be a tremendously useful addition to the current mechanics we have with regard to diplomacy and loyalty. In Vanilla, where AI forward settling was a scourge upon the humans, there was a great desire by players to be able to say "This is my space, don't settle in my space. I don't want the whole map to myself, just this obvious area around my capital." There's no real way to do this now in a targeted manner- you just piss off the AI. But, with regions, we could really expand on the system. It could be a minor annoyance to settle near a civ, but if you settle in one of 'their' regions, that might be a real issue. You could tell them "Don't settle in <this region>, it's my space." The more of that region you occupy, the more they respect that decision.
Loyalty influence from cities could be modified depending on if it comes from the same region or a different one. For example, the french citizens of Alsace-Lorraine certainly feel some patriotism towards Paris. But if you hop just over the border to the Rhineland, Paris' influence has dropped a lot. (And Berlin holds much more sway!) I think this kind of mechanic would really sharpen the current loyalty system.

Similarly, taking cities within your regions could incur a lower penalty than a standard territorial expansion war. Shaka might be "reuniting" the Zululand vs invading the Kongo. We can even broaden the "colonial" war concept to include "imperial" wars- A and B are fighting each other, but the cities being seized are in places outside of either's "homeland," so the penalties are smaller. (See European wars fought in their colonies.)

In the peace process, maybe we could even have civs cede or demand control of regions form their opponents- Victoria might demand Barbarossa both hand over his outposts and agree to not settle new cities in the "Sub Saharan Africa" Region after a particularly nasty war, for example :rolleyes:. This would be an example of ceding control of a region. Breaking this agreement might incur some diplomatic penalties on the world stage! We can add to the colonial chaos by remembering that while Spain and Portugal have agreed on divvying up the Americas, Glorious Britain pays no heed to such claims!


Mar 9, 2017
Expanding on these ideas, I would like to see regions and districts tie in together. For eg instead of having to build industrial zones or campuses in nearly every city, the empire could be divided into regions (2-3 cities) and each region must be designated - either a science region, industrial region, etc.

Designating a region gives additional bonuses to that region for the respective district and buildings but negative bonuses to districts and buildings not of that designation. For eg a campus built in an industrial region would receive negative yields to science and vice versa.

This reflects more historical circumstances: ie the Ruhr valley in Germany or Manchester in England. Of course you could have several of the same regions if you want if your empire is big enough.

Imho this would create more strategy. You would have to choose priorities and make sacrifices. Whilst the district cost scaling does do this to a certain extent, it is still limited particularly if you have high production throughout your empire.

I think that the next civ franchise should focus more on empire management rather than being a board game. I think Civ 6 tried to go down this path but didn’t go all the way.


Mk Z on Steam
Nov 22, 2007
The territory could be claimed by an action of the scout/explorer.
How i see it:
When a scout moves in the wilderness, a border around him (like that around the Great General) shows an area which can be claimed. A region contains X tiles and its shape is determined by the rules by which a city's borders grow normally. After the player hits the "claim" button, the scout disappears, and a Frontier Fort is built on the spot -- it's a center of the new region. It requires maintenance, and can be captured or razed by the enemy: in result the region's ownership is switched or the region is cleared, respectively.
The player can improve the region's resources just like in his core territory. This way remote luxuries or strategics can be hooked up without building a city. Regions can be traded via diplomacy.
Scouting units can pass through other players' regions but can't claim territory there. Settlers can pass too but can't found cities there.

-- take up the land to settle it later
-- get resources without building a city
-- prevent barbarians from spawning in the wilderness
-- see other players' movements through the territory
-- create a buffer zone for defense
Last edited:


Feb 21, 2018
Scouting units can pass through other players' regions but can't claim territory there. Settlers can pass too but can't found cities there.

I'm with you except for this. I think this can be available diplomatically, as per an agreement with another civilization, but not the default. The default should see several Civs building outposts in important areas and fighting over the territory, with a city being that much more strong of a claim to it.

England and Indonesia both build an outpost in a region. They get casus bellis on each other to fight over that region. Possibly only in that region. Either one can build a city to bolster their strength in the region, and the only resolution is to militarily destroy the opposing outpost or diplomatically get the opposing Civ to relinquish the claim. Rinse and repeat for additional civs, where you might have a hotly contested area where 6 civs are all vying for the same region.
Mar 31, 2018
If loyalty becomes a problem, an entire region might break away from your empire, declaring itself independent. That group of cities might even constitute an entirely new Civ - maybe the same country as your Civ but with a different leader (e.g Gorgo’s Greece forms as a rebellious region from Pericles’ Greece). You would have a casual belli to declare war on the region with no warmonger penalty. Other civs might have reduced warmonger penalties for pacifying a wayward foreign region and integrating it into their own empire. Whether a region becomes independent or flips to a neighboring Civ could be determined by that Civ’s loyalty score.


May 22, 2010
Regions would help a lot in terms of historical victory conditions (e.g. have 3 cities in Siberia by 1700 or something) and limiting settler activity (blocking settlers from entering regions)
Top Bottom