I don't think terrain elevation is a thing.

[AntSou]

In the trailers it looked like it was definitely a thing, but the more I look into gameplay, the more it looks like a visual style with minimal gameplay implications. It's basically cliffs, like we had in Civ 6, but on land.

For instance, in the examples below. The cliffs will block movement through the tiles (and stops melee from attacking an adjacent ranged unit), but the height is just a visual trick.

Similar to cliffs in Age of Empires giving the impression of height (though that's fully 2d):

There's another video of a unit attacking another which seems to be on a slightly lower terrain level, but there's no indication of it affecting combat results, which tells me it's just visual.

Is there contradicting evidence?

Bummer...

 

[Zaarin]

Is there contradicting evidence?

This doesn't contradict being simply aesthetic, but they said rivers are programmed to flow downhill.

 

[AntSou]

Here's another good example:

Is the green hex on a higher elevation than the red one? It seems like it, but I suspect it might just be visual.

And along the same lines, has anyone spotted hills yet? It seems to be all flat, with cliffs replacing hills and offering a different sort of tactical advantage compared to the previous games.

 

[SeelingCat]

I think I read that it was theorized that hills were replaced by 'rough' terrain, IIRC?

 

[Krikkit1]

I think Cliffs are only where there is a height difference of 2... so on the example
Red circle Height=0
Green circle Height=1
Scout Height=2

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I like the Aesthetic, and that is enough for me already.

If there was an advantage for movement downhill also as attacking uphill then, it would be a plus.
Higher range for Ranged units also has always been influenced by elevation factors.
I am very interested to learn more about the implications for elevation factors than the Aesthetic ones.

 

[GeoGeo]

Here's another good example:
View attachment 701435

Is the green hex on a higher elevation than the red one? It seems like it, but I suspect it might just be visual.

And along the same lines, has anyone spotted hills yet? It seems to be all flat, with cliffs replacing hills and offering a different sort of tactical advantage compared to the previous games.

Right, I suspect the cliffs exclusively affect combat interactions that pass through the cliff edges since there's a clear visual indicator. The two hexes to the north would have no impact on one another (other terrain effects notwithstanding). Having to check a tooltip to verify terrain differences would likely get very tedious, especially if a player uses lower visual settings.

Now, what if an archer on that cliff fired two hexes to the south?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Right, I suspect the cliffs exclusively affect combat interactions that pass through the cliff edges since there's a clear visual indicator. The two hexes to the north would have no impact on one another (other terrain effects notwithstanding). Having to check a tooltip to verify terrain differences would likely get very tedious, especially if a player uses lower visual settings.

Now, what if an archer on that cliff fired two hexes to the south?

To keep it simple, I suspect firing over 'lower ground' as an archer replacing the scout would do to the south, would be treated as firing from hill to hill is in Civ VI: hills are always above anything lower.

For movement, I suggest (also to keep it simple) that any movement over the 'slope/cliff' would be hindered to some extent: horses cannot charge downhill without risking serious injury, and an animal-drawn wagon going downhill can quickly get away from you and roll over everything in its way to the bottom of the slope: braking is as important as hauling in those cases, and safely moving wheeled vehicles down a slope can be more dangerous than getting them up the slope.

 

[The_J]

Here's another good example:
View attachment 701435

Is the green hex on a higher elevation than the red one? It seems like it, but I suspect it might just be visual.

And along the same lines, has anyone spotted hills yet? It seems to be all flat, with cliffs replacing hills and offering a different sort of tactical advantage compared to the previous games.

I have not checked it, but I thought the range of sight got more for the scout when it moved onto that tile.
I could be very wrong though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I have not checked it, but I thought the range of sight got more for the scout when it moved onto that tile.
I could be very wrong though.

Given that the graphics show a scout as a single figure plus an animal compared to combat units with 8 - 10 figures, I suspect that scouts have really low combat factors.

Therefore, anything that gives them some other advantage: sight distance, movement, interaction with Minor Powers, is very likely to keep them useful in the game - given that their basic function, scouting the map, will be curtailed automatically by limiting the map until later in the game.

 

[Mazisky]

I think there are 2 new tiles:

Cliffs, which give additional bonus to units in the elevated parts
Rough Terrain, which should give the opposite effects.

Both are new terrain types and still an improvement over Civ 6 cliffs that you barely see.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't remember the source, but it was explicitly stated that there is terrain elevation, but it doesn't normally play a role in combat except for one case; where there is a cliff, that terrain is not passable in that direction, and so archers can sit up there and rain arrows down below without being able to be directly attacked from that direction.

 

[8housesofelixir]

In the videogamesi interview, the producer said that "there is actually verticality to the map now, so rivers always flow outward," and further implies that the river generation mechanic - which part of the river is navigable - ties to the terrain height.

I suppose there might be a slight elevation difference, like coastal tiles being 0 and inland riverhead hexes being 2.

 

[AriochIV]

You can clearly see terrain elevation differences. It's most obvious in the low-angle cinematic shots, but it's very clear. The only question is how much it actually impacts gameplay.

 

[Josephias]

You can clearly see terrain elevation differences. It's most obvious in the low-angle cinematic shots, but it's very clear. The only question is how much it actually impacts gameplay.

I’d say not having any terrain height info in the terrain tooltip (at least as per gameplay shown) is more indicative height will not make a gameplay difference (maybe except clear “height advantage” situations such as cliffs.
But maybe they are still tweaking that info and not showing it yet…

 

[OzzyKP]

I'd assume that if they were a real change that some of the YouTubers would have at least mentioned it.

 

[JNR13]

I like it, Humankind was too gimmicky and battle became too much about getting any sort of miniscule high ground, while the cliffs made the map mostly a big maze. It seems Civ VII uses elevation less as a tile-to-tile differentiator and more of a smooth gradient (which to a small degree already existed in VI visually) so that two flat tiles can be next to each other and still have a slight rise going through them. Only when vastly different heights clash are cliffs created.

This should do away with this mapgen nonsense where a river starts on one half of the continent in the flats and then flows straight through the orogenic belt in the center, which should really be a watershed boundary instead.

 

[JNR13]

As long as they're used sparingly, it's fine I think. I don't want the world to be a depiction of realistic scales, that would mean cities are a dot at best and a grey smudge in modern times at most. The map uses different scales simultaneously, all abstracted. The cliff sizes fits the buildings scale better, for example. Trying to convert everything into a definite real world units won't enhance your enjoyment of a game this abstract.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm also concerned about the cliffs, mostly because of how they turned Humankind's maps into big mazes, as JNR13 noted. That said, there are a lot of geographical features that limited the movement of armies and merchants in the real world and these have never been well represented in Civ. I wouldn't mind a few cliffs if deserts and swamps were also properly represented as unnavigable areas breaking up movement on the map.

 

[Zoeff]

Inland cliffs were present in CivBE and I always hoped Civ7 would have them since Civ6 skipped on them. I'm happy \o/