Limiting Exploration

[pokiehl]

. I never really heard people complaining about it, but maybe most players like to play Pangea to prevent it? I don't know.

There are like 6 regulars here and they’re all very opinionated. I wouldn’t mistake anything you read here as the majority opinion of anything.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Now people, we are only brainstorming here. There's no reason to fight.

It's not a true CFC brainstorming session until we fight

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Having more "people" on the map sounds like games where you wander around and get clues from NPCs. There are times where that would be fun and times where I would just esc and get on with building my empire.

I think limiting exploration by gating behind tech or cost would be fine as long as the rewards match the opportunity cost. Exploring would cost you in the short term for some long term gain.

 

[Evie]

We are indeed, very opinionated, although I cannot help but note that given your use of "they", you somehow forgot to include yourself among the opinionated regulars. Momentary distraction no doubt.

As to oceanic limitations, Marla, I will point out my earlier post where I mentioned that if I haven't explored something by mid-game, chance are I won't - and I don't think I'm unique in that regard. I might stumble into it by accident if I happen to fight a war in the area ; but I'm not going to spend any resources on dedicated land exploration of the other continent. It benefits my expansion very little (even if I do want a foothold there, it's going to be whatever I can grab from the coast, not something that require a convoluted journey around every other nation's borders), it's unnecessary to exploitation, and if I do decide to wage a war there, any exploration is going to be incidental to actually fighting the war, not something I'm going to devote time and effort to).

Realistically, in most cases I'm going to discover what's on the other continent because I got around to building satellites.

And that's precisely what I feel would happen to any *other* area whose exploration end up being limited in the game.

 

[Marla_Singer]

We are indeed, very opinionated, although I cannot help but note that given your use of "they", you somehow forgot to include yourself among the opinionated regulars. Momentary distraction no doubt.

As to oceanic limitations, Marla, I will point out my earlier post where I mentioned that if I haven't explored something by mid-game, chance are I won't - and I don't think I'm unique in that regard. I might stumble into it by accident if I happen to fight a war in the area ; but I'm not going to spend any resources on dedicated land exploration of the other continent. It benefits my expansion very little (even if I do want a foothold there, it's going to be whatever I can grab from the coast, not something that require a convoluted journey around every other nation's borders), it's unnecessary to exploitation, and if I do decide to wage a war there, any exploration is going to be incidental to actually fighting the war, not something I'm going to devote time and effort to).

Realistically, in most cases I'm going to discover what's on the other continent because I got around to building satellites.

And that's precisely what I feel would happen to any *other* area whose exploration end up being limited in the game.

What you're describing here is what you do in your current games, I guess based on Civ6? And I agree with you, I don't know a lot Civ6 (Civ4 remains my favourite), but from what I understood about the game, the interest to explore and expand beyond Renaissance is indeed limited (and that was also the case in Civ4, maybe less though).

This being said, that doesn't tell anything about how you would play on Civ7, or any other future 4X games for the matter.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Attritional terrain I have seen tried in other games, and I found it a major annoyance - but maybe that's just me.

It might, however, be possible to take advantage of the Classes of units in the game now, and give, so to speak, an 'extra advantage' to Recon line units. I have always imagined the Scout and his successors as much smaller units than the regular military forces - if a Spearman or Swordsman represents several thousand men, a Scout represents a few dozen, and the scout's purpose is not to fight, but to find out and report back: Lewis and Clark's "Corps of Discovery" of around 20 men is a perfect example of my conception.

So, some difficult terrain could be made impassable or impose other penalties - but only on units other than Scouts. Not only Desert, but Tundra, Ice/Snow, and Rainforest have all been barriers to people unfamiliar with them, but the difficulties multiply as the group gets larger.

As an example, the northern extension of the Chihuahuan Desert in southern New Mexico, between El Paso, Texas and Socorro, is devoid of surface water away from the Rio Grande to the west. In an area of almost 10,000 square miles, there has been exactly one permanent native American settlement found, and it was next to the mountains where some run-off from the peaks provided a trickle of water.
BUT it was no barrier to the movement of small groups. Dozens and dozens of campsites have been found all over the area dating back to 900 CE or so (Carbon 14 dating of charcoal and other debris) - all temporary and used by groups of less than 20 men/women. The area has surface deposits of flint and other useful stone for tool-making, and so was constantly being exploited - and the small groups could (just barely) find enough water and game to sustain themselves for a short time until they filled their hide bags and left for permanent settlements to the north and south to trade.

I think a similar mechanic might work to find a 'sweet spot' between penalizing all Exploration and leaving movement unrealistically untrammeled as it is now. Scouts can cross barren or forbidding ground - because no ground is completely impassable all the time - but larger groups, settlers and builders, trade caravans, will have more trouble and might even be legitimately prohibited from entering some types of tiles/terrain until their Survival Technology improves.

 

[Evie]

It's my experience from every civ game I've played to date, and I've been playing Civ since the nineties.

You'll excuse me if I evaluate new ideas based on the genre to date, not based on imagining new systems nobody has yet proposed to fill in the blanks of your ideas and make it work. Can I imagine ideas that would make exploration worthwhile in the later stages of the game? Yes. Am I going to bother doing that for an idea I'm not actually interested in making work because I don't like it? No. It's your job to explain how exploration would be wortwhile in the later parts of the game in your design, not my job to fill in the blanks for that.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's my experience from every civ game I've played to date, and I've been playing Civ since the nineties.

You'll excuse me if I evaluate new ideas based on the genre to date, not based on imagining new systems nobody has yet proposed to fill in the blanks of your ideas and make it work. Can I imagine ideas that would make exploration worthwhile in the later stages of the game? Yes. Am I going to bother doing that for an idea I'm not actually interested in making work because I don't like it? No. It's your job to explain how exploration would be wortwhile in the later parts of the game in your design, not my job to fill in the blanks for that.

I do have ideas that would definitely fit in a 4X game, I have only doubts how to picture them in a more academic "Civilization" game. Basically, I consider that development and control of trade has been key in the History of civilization and that's an aspect I think could be better represented even in a standard Civ game. Rather than signing a deal with a foreign power to magically benefit of some resource, it would have to transit along an actual trade route that should be protected. Doing so would require expanding far from your mainland in setting up trading posts along routes to secure them. If that aspect would be better developed, that would make late exploration and expansion significantly more important than it is now.

 

[Patine]

Why would I be moved by such a silly logical fallacy? And why would I be moved by some baseless blanket assertion like this?

It’s funny you say that because I imagine you guys’ viewpoints are actually the tiny minority opinions, given that none of your ideas ever make it in the game and you spend all day criticizing tiny aspects of the game that don’t matter to most people.


Then you yourself and my ideas have something in common

This obnoxious conduct, bad faith arguing, hypocrisy and false claims, belligerant expression of obtuse opinions, and now making an overt personal attack, while falsely claiming I am doing just for calling out this odious conduct. I am done with you, and I advise everyone else here be so, too.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Attritional terrain I have seen tried in other games, and I found it a major annoyance - but maybe that's just me.

Just being curious, which games are you thinking about?

 

[vorlon_mi]

Especially in earlier games (Civ3 and Civ4), knowing details about the land in other civ's territory usually had a strategic / military aspect. They might have a key resource (saltpeter, oil) that I needed. Or that I would need to disable, to make my planned invasion easier. Knowing that an invasion target *lacked* a resource would be key. If I don't have military ambitions past the Renaissance, then my incentives for further exploring are reduced.

Civ3 and Civ4 allowed the trading of maps, which could serve that purpose. Diplomacy -- in the form of Right Of Passage or Open Borders -- could allow my units to make their own maps. Even use the roads of the other tribe!

What's the incentive, for continuing to explore later in the game? Other than military intelligence, trade is a minor incentive. Often just calling up the diplomacy screen will tell you what another civ can offer you; you need not know how many resources they have and where they are located. In BERT, there are sites for explorer expeditions that give bonuses. In Civ5, ancient ruins served that purpose. In Civ6, finding a new natural wonder gives some era score, but that's a relatively low benefit for sending you recon unit halfway around the world. If Civ7 has tangible benefits for each civ to find all of the (natural wonders / continents / city states), then exploration will be worthwhile into the mid- and late-game.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Especially in earlier games (Civ3 and Civ4), knowing details about the land in other civ's territory usually had a strategic / military aspect. They might have a key resource (saltpeter, oil) that I needed. Or that I would need to disable, to make my planned invasion easier. Knowing that an invasion target *lacked* a resource would be key. If I don't have military ambitions past the Renaissance, then my incentives for further exploring are reduced.

Civ3 and Civ4 allowed the trading of maps, which could serve that purpose. Diplomacy -- in the form of Right Of Passage or Open Borders -- could allow my units to make their own maps. Even use the roads of the other tribe!

What's the incentive, for continuing to explore later in the game? Other than military intelligence, trade is a minor incentive. Often just calling up the diplomacy screen will tell you what another civ can offer you; you need not know how many resources they have and where they are located. In BERT, there are sites for explorer expeditions that give bonuses. In Civ5, ancient ruins served that purpose. In Civ6, finding a new natural wonder gives some era score, but that's a relatively low benefit for sending you recon unit halfway around the world. If Civ7 has tangible benefits for each civ to find all of the (natural wonders / continents / city states), then exploration will be worthwhile into the mid- and late-game.

In Civ5, the first civ to meet all other give civs gets to host the First World Congress

 

[Patine]

Especially in earlier games (Civ3 and Civ4), knowing details about the land in other civ's territory usually had a strategic / military aspect. They might have a key resource (saltpeter, oil) that I needed. Or that I would need to disable, to make my planned invasion easier. Knowing that an invasion target *lacked* a resource would be key. If I don't have military ambitions past the Renaissance, then my incentives for further exploring are reduced.

Civ3 and Civ4 allowed the trading of maps, which could serve that purpose. Diplomacy -- in the form of Right Of Passage or Open Borders -- could allow my units to make their own maps. Even use the roads of the other tribe!

What's the incentive, for continuing to explore later in the game? Other than military intelligence, trade is a minor incentive. Often just calling up the diplomacy screen will tell you what another civ can offer you; you need not know how many resources they have and where they are located. In BERT, there are sites for explorer expeditions that give bonuses. In Civ5, ancient ruins served that purpose. In Civ6, finding a new natural wonder gives some era score, but that's a relatively low benefit for sending you recon unit halfway around the world. If Civ7 has tangible benefits for each civ to find all of the (natural wonders / continents / city states), then exploration will be worthwhile into the mid- and late-game.

You make it sound like Civ3 and Civ4 were the start of the series.

In Civ5, the first civ to meet all other give civs gets to host the First World Congress

Given the utter incompetence, bungling, and division of the historical League of Nations and UN, the World Congress also feels like a, "fantastic element," in how it works, going back to that conversation. Although, in a much more simplified way, the MoO2 Galactic Congress, I believe, was the first to use some of those core mechanics of any MPS/Firaxis Game.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Given the utter incompetence, bungling, and division of the historical League of Nations and UN, the World Congress also feels like a, "fantastic element," in how it works, going back to that conversation. Although, in a much more simplified way, the MoO2 Galactic Congress, I believe, was the first to use some of those core mechanics of any MPS/Firaxis Game.

Again, you're too much stuck on real life. I like the idea of an actually competent World Congress (though only ostensibly a vehicle for cooperation and more as yet another channel for civs to manipulate according to their whims and goals)

 

[GeneralZift]

There are like 6 regulars here and they’re all very opinionated. I wouldn’t mistake anything you read here as the majority opinion of anything.

The most true thing I've seen anyone write.

---

I think probability based water exploration is completely out of the question. No one wants to hear that their vessel just made a bad roll so you have to build a new one to finish exploring.
Ideally, water stuff overall needs some kind of complete overhaul - maybe one that lets you pay more production for a more equipped ship.

For example, by default, your medieval ship is able to explore all coastal tiles and maybe 2-3 ocean tiles without a constant attrition.
However, if you spend more production/gold on your ship, it comes equipped with more "Supplies" (represented by a maximum amount for that ship).

Then, it's able to cover maybe 5-6 ocean tiles without attrition.
Ships with more supplies produce more money when plundered by Privateers, they might be slower (depending on balance), and the more ocean tiles they cover, the more supplies they use.
At a port, you might be able to refill supplies at a set Gold cost.

Next: for trade
Trade ships come with a Supply cost consideration, which eats into their overall profit.
This would be balanced by how much more profitable a certain trade route could be, which adds a lot of agency.

Next: for transport
Perhaps embarking could only move you on coastal tiles by default (for convenience) - but transport over Ocean should require climbing on board to a proper Ship.
This would take up the space would take up for Supplies, so you have to manage.

What do you guys think?

 

[Patine]

Again, you're too much stuck on real life. I like the idea of an actually competent World Congress (though only ostensibly a vehicle for cooperation and more as yet another channel for civs to manipulate according to their whims and goals)

I don't. It's not just a contrast to real life. It's a cartoon, and one the game would be better off without.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

It's a game, and we don't need to simulate real-life dysfunction

 

[Patine]

It's a game, and we don't need to simulate real-life dysfunction

I said there were other reasons, too. You are just discounting those, and my opinions, cavalierly, as though they were meaningless. I try to have reasons to bring counterpoints to others' views. This doesn't even try.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I said there were other reasons, too. You are just discounting those, and my opinions, cavalierly, as though they were meaningless. I try to have reasons to bring counterpoints to others' views. This doesn't even try.

What reasons? I see only a single riposte to my reminiscing about the Civ5 feature

 

[vorlon_mi]

You make it sound like Civ3 and Civ4 were the start of the series.

Sorry! I know that you are a big fan -- and current player -- of Civ2. I never played Civ1, so I have no first hand experience.
My first-hand experience playing Civ2 is nearly 20 years old at this point, so I don't feel confident in talking much about it.
For both of those games, I would need to consult web resources to inform my posts.

Since I am still actively playing Civ3, that's my go-to reference point.