Make some territories uncolonizable until Industrial tech, but very profitable afterwards

[Krajzen]

Originally was going to post in the small ideas thread, but this is not that small of an idea.

- 95% this won't happen but a specific dream of mine: special territories which can't be colonized until the modern era technology and which then contain priceless resources. To simulate vast areas IRL which were uninhabitable for the entire history until 20th century and then turned out to be important. Also great for keeping colonization race relevant until the end game.

Just to expand on this area. I really think it is hard to simulate role of "great wastelands" in history without such mechanic. By "great wastelands" I mean incredibly sparsely populated areas, like 3 people/km2 and less today, mostly unfit for agriculture and human life.
- Ural & Siberia (with the exception of southern patches of fertile souls),
- Canada
- Alaska
- Amazon and other SA rainforests
- Patagonia
- Deep Sahara
- Kalahari, Namib
- deep Central Africa (area, not just country)
- huge part of Arabian Peninsula
- Papua, Borneo interior
- 90% of Australia (all except south east, which would be settled long ago if somebody discovered Australia)
- arguably some western US areas (that part between New Mexico, West Coast and Missisipi Basin)

(Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Tibet, Scandinavia etc are outside this category, because they are wastelands as well but just barely allow powerful cultures to prosper and have decent corners)

All those areas were basically cutoff, infertile, nomadic wastelands, inhabited by very small numbers of numbers of (I'm sorry) primitive hunter gatherers all the way until 19 - 20th century. Basically uninhabitable outsider very small "oases" allowing occasional outposts. No civilization could rise here due to isolation and unability to hit certain "critical mass" of good production.

But in the same time, they turned out to be incredibly important in last 200 years, because most of those areas also had (by geology, sheer area probability, lack of exploitation etc) enormous mineral resources. And only in those era certain empires had the technology to survey those areas, find those riches, and just barely, by the most advanced agriculture or outsider food supplies, colonize those giant wastes and communicate across them.

The solution is actually very simple. Just make some territories Special and lock their colonization behind industrial are technology - such as Fertilizer, Railroad, Geology, Industry, Colonialism etc. This way you make the map cooler, it feels very authentic, and you leave some area for the exciting late game scramble.

Sid Meier could never do this. It has no discrete territorial units (which I think is an inferior solution for many reasons, mostly balance) and very stupid rules of territorial control (did Romang borders grew like fungus accelerated by theatre, Ovid and baths?). It always had the awkwardness, ugliness, and just plain lack of realism, when by the modern era huge wastelands are still uncolonized "barbaric lands", but in the same time tundra in other places can be casually settled since ancient era.

On top of that, it would leave some exploration fun until late game.

Even better would be if those areas couldnt have been even EXPLORED until some early modern era tech (or even industrial). Siberian interior was reached by outsiders always no earlier than 17th century, some parts until 19th, same with most of North America. Darkest Africa until 19th century was never seen by a white man (though it is special case, as it is because of tropical diseases requiring vaccines). Just make it so all units in that territory suffer unavoidable attrition until tech X (on top of not being able to found cities here until tech Y).

Then slap some tech Z1, Z2 etc with revealing sources of oil, uranium chromium etc and here we have fun endgame aspect.

Unexplorable and uncolonizable territories could be one and the same or two separate (though usually overlapping) special types of land.

 

[ehecatzin]

It's probably expansion material but It's a very cool idea, it could also open the possibility to adding cultures that can give you early acces to either impassable terrain, or the ability to colonise it, say, Polynesians, Berbers, Inuit, or maybe even the Incas with mountains.

 

[Wyvern_Parade]

This is a really good idea to keep the exploration part of the game fresh and interesting past the mid-game (which is one reason many people don't enjoy the late game in Civ). My preferred way to do this would be to have harsh climates unable to be colonized until a late game tech is unlocked.

In addition, instead of having resources like oil, uranium, etc. automatically be revealed when you reach the technology, it would be interesting if you had to use a specific unit or project (scientific expedition, for example) to kind of re-explore the area. That way even if the entire map has been explored you have another kind of wave of exploration each time you unlock a tech for a new strategic resource.

 

[ost]

As a gameplay idea it seems interesting and a nice way to allow for territorial expansion and exploration into the late-game. But (imho) the historical justification seems weak and reductive. By your own admission all of those places you listed had peoples/cultures living there. Many were not cutoff, not infertile, not nomadic, and supported societies that thrived in these "wastelands".

The "technology" to live in the places you have listed has existed for millennia, however I'd concede that the economic incentives may be more recent in certain cases. To riff on your idea a bit, I would rather the cost of turning an outpost into a settlement be more expensive for regions with harsher climates.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As a gameplay idea it seems interesting and a nice way to allow for territorial expansion and exploration into the late-game. But (imho) the historical justification seems weak and reductive. By your own admission all of those places you listed had peoples/cultures living there. Many were not cutoff, not infertile, not nomadic, and supported societies that thrived in these "wastelands".

The "technology" to live in the places you have listed has existed for millennia, however I'd concede that the economic incentives may be more recent in certain cases. To riff on your idea a bit, I would rather the cost of turning an outpost into a settlement be more expensive for regions with harsher climates.

There is at least one early Spanish eye-witness report that the Amazon was lined by extensive villages, heavily populated before European diseases struck. The limiting factor to settling by Europeans was the Europeans' ghastly susceptibility to tropical diseases, which made much of Central and South America and the Caribbean virtual Death Traps for colonists.

BUT your suggestion that producing an Outpost to settle an inhospitable region or convert that Outpost into some kind of 'City' could simply be made more expensive seems to me to be quite doable in the base game of Humankind. After all, it requires no real change in graphics or mechanics, simply changing the cost of settling certain regions with terrain/climate negatives. The game already identifies terrain by type and biome and labels some types 'Wasteland' so that does not seem like an impossible task.

If you want to settle a swamp, tundra or desert you can do it, but it will be expensive, and especially expensive in the early part of the game when there is little in the way of technology to make it easier . . .

 

[mitsho]

It's mostly not whole regions though that were uninhabitable, right? It were certain islands, swamps etc with lots of mosquitoes or other reasoning. That would make me more inclined to just push some tiles off limits til the industrial era. But even the harder "tiles" were doable, if you really wanted to. Compare for example the Rocky Mountains to the Alps, quite similar but one of those mountain ranges, every valley is settled, every slope used for Cows or whatever no matter how steep it is. It was just needed to survive until the Industrial era came along and you could go to the cities or - exactly - overseas to the Rocky Mountains where you could have comparatively a whole valley to yourself. So yeah, some tiles should be off limits, some should be harder.

Whole regions on the other hand were settled later on as well. They were either too cold, too much desert or too much jungle to support a big population. I'm thinking of Siberia, Amazon, Australia here. And thus I like the proposal that these areas are better kept as outposts until late in the game. Realistically, these don't become powerhouses of development then either, but are more valued for their natural resources. And that's okay as well. Simulation trumps Gameplay?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's mostly not whole regions though that were uninhabitable, right? It were certain islands, swamps etc with lots of mosquitoes or other reasoning. That would make me more inclined to just push some tiles off limits til the industrial era. But even the harder "tiles" were doable, if you really wanted to. Compare for example the Rocky Mountains to the Alps, quite similar but one of those mountain ranges, every valley is settled, every slope used for Cows or whatever no matter how steep it is. It was just needed to survive until the Industrial era came along and you could go to the cities or - exactly - overseas to the Rocky Mountains where you could have comparatively a whole valley to yourself. So yeah, some tiles should be off limits, some should be harder.

A lot depends on how Humankind is going to draw the boundaries of each Region. If they are simply Larger Tiles of near-uniform size, then each is likely to include both Easy, Difficult, and Impossible areas to settle. IF, on the other hand, their size will be allowed to vary and each include largely one biome/terrain type, then an entire Region can easily be 'declared' Hard to establish a city until certain technologies or Era is reached. From what little I've seen so far, it looks like they are tending towards the latter, but not 100%, so the Difficulty Level may have to be by tile.

IF we had complete freedom of choice - which depends on just how much modification they are willing to make to City Placement mechanics at this stage of the game development cycle - I think I'd like to see a Three Tier Difficulty level:
Easy - tiles where the majority of ancient/classical/Pre-Industrial cities were established: next to rivers, well-watered plains and prairies, access to good harbors, etc.
Difficult - tiles in more extreme climates, like just over the line from Tundra, or in dense forests, in desert oasis or desert/jungle coasts or jungle rivers. Cost might be about two or three times what it is for Easy, but if that's all that is available, or there are really useful resources in that region, it can be done.
Impossible For Now - you cannot make a City here without a lot of Technological help. Cities in the middle of a desert without modern mechanized irrigation and de-salinization, for instance, or in the middle of the howling arctic without Central Heating and mechanized transportation. This category, though, could also include Very Modern Cities that are built on 'reclaimed' or 'manufactured' land, like Abu Dubai or the sections of Tokyo built on what used to be parts of Tokyo Bay - Future Tech just 30 years ago, not uncommon today.

Whole regions on the other hand were settled later on as well. They were either too cold, too much desert or too much jungle to support a big population. I'm thinking of Siberia, Amazon, Australia here. And thus I like the proposal that these areas are better kept as outposts until late in the game. Realistically, these don't become powerhouses of development then either, but are more valued for their natural resources. And that's okay as well. Simulation trumps Gameplay?

I'd rather say that (for once!) Simulation Enhances Gameplay, in that it enhances Late Game Play and gives you a whole new set of circumstances for city growth late in the game.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

A lot depends on how Humankind is going to draw the boundaries of each Region. If they are simply Larger Tiles of near-uniform size, then each is likely to include both Easy, Difficult, and Impossible areas to settle. IF, on the other hand, their size will be allowed to vary and each include largely one biome/terrain type, then an entire Region can easily be 'declared' Hard to establish a city until certain technologies or Era is reached. From what little I've seen so far, it looks like they are tending towards the latter, but not 100%, so the Difficulty Level may have to be by tile.

I think there's some small variation in region size, but they are about the same size on average. However, I can confirm that regions indeed only have one biome each.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think there's some small variation in region size, but they are about the same size on average. However, I can confirm that regions indeed only have one biome each.

That clarifies things nicely, Thank You!

Unfortunately, it also means that I doubt we will see any regions defined as Un-Urbanizable in the game, because it would effectively reduce the size of the playable map. Especially as in another post The Cat reminded all that they do have City-State-Like minor powers on the map which will (presumably) reduce the regions available for settling even further.
Still, making some regions more difficult to settle or expand into Cities should still be doable. I think that showing in-game the greater difficulty of getting an Outpost established, or growing a city, in a harsh environment compared to a benign one would add to rather than detract from the playing experience, as long as you can still build up your Faction and are not artificially absolutely prohibited from using certain regions. Especially if those regions are the only nearby source of Resources that might be critically important in the early game.
In many circumstances, you would be very willing to pay extra to establish an Outpost and claim a region that has, say, the only source of Coal, Iron, or Gold as far as the eye can see . . .

 

[DST1348]

I would rather go for an 'incentive' driven approach, rather than locking regions behind technology. If I have choice between a fertile river region or an arctic wasteland, why would I chose one over the other? In the early game, fertile tiles seem more important. In the late game, these arctic tiles may contain oil or uranium, I and I care more for these resources than another +20 size city. Maybe we get the opportunity to send trade caravans (similar to Endless Legend), so that the rest of the empire can support that city in the inhospitable region. So, settling in such a region still requires an investment for the whole empire.

Plus, this would allow for more cultures (in later expansions), that gain food boni to artic or desert tiles and who can thrive in these conditions.

 

[Stringer1313]

I really like this idea. It could help combat ICS, or the obsessive need to colonize every thing immediately.

 

[Krajzen]

I would rather go for an 'incentive' driven approach, rather than locking regions behind technology. If I have choice between a fertile river region or an arctic wasteland, why would I chose one over the other?

Realistic take on history of technology doesn't allow establishing ancient cities in tundra terrain, where the soil is literally frozen for months and big populations can't be sustained with primitive farming. There is no way around that. There is a reason nobody settled Siberia on a decent scale before last centuries (where 'decent' means still 'almost the least populated area of land Earth').

Plus, this would allow for more cultures (in later expansions), that gain food boni to artic or desert tiles and who can thrive in these conditions.

That's the point of my post. There are no human cultures that can 'thrive' as in magically sustain cities in areas without fresh water and with barren soil. So called desert civilizations were existing because of rivers (Egypt, Sudan, Iraq), oasis (Arabia), underground reservoirs (Iranian qanats, Nabateans, Garam) or just plan non - desert fertile areas (Yemen, Maghreb). I am really not looking favorably at civ6 being ready to depict some peoples as magically summoning incomes to barren lands (such as Russians having that racist stereotype of "cold loving brutal folk").

Making all lands colonizable also makes room, at the discussion level, for questions like 'why didn't natives just develop civilization here before Europeans' due to the trivialization of the extremely harsh climatic conditions and their impact on urbanisation. Certain Central African areas or those around Namib desert had no city dwelling cultures because it was impossible to sustain them up to certain tech levels and resources accumulated by late Europe, not because natives were stupid or didn't gry hard enough (I don't think anybody here believes that, but a lot of people outside do)

If Inuits 'thrived' then why was their total population smaller than some Greek city states despite having so much room? Because they didn't really thrive, they were just barely capable of survival, in extreme conditions, at hunter gatherer tribal level of organisation. Natives around the world didn't posess some magical 'noble savage' abilities turning them into superhumans capable of spawning cities in the middle of deserts and tundra.

Minor nations would exist in such Terra Incognita extreme areas, they'd be just tribal indigenous people, not city dwellers, they could also offer some bonuses regarding surviving in such terrain you could learn.

 

[JesseS]

Maybe just let new cities starve to death by taking out the automatic food from the city center that civ has always had? If you settle a tundra or desert wasteland with no food available, the population should be able to decrease to 0. Then later techs can give you the ability to trade food and make those area inhabitable (if not ideal).

 

[conorbebe]

Has it been confirmed whether there is a continents mechanic in Humankind, similar to Civ? Because if there is, I think an elegant solution would simply be to have a debuff to cities created on other continents, like to stability for example, so that players still had the choice to settle far away lands, but are persuaded not to until later in the game.

 

[Krajzen]

I have realized this mechsnic is reduntant with the system of outposts in this game. Or even forget about outposts: with world divided on territories you van always make an algorithms sometimes create territories which are 80% wasteland but the remaining 20% is still great enough to found a city here. Here, you get the continent of Australia

Not to mention that in HK extracting resources from wasteland terrain is done much more elegantly than civ's "just found token terrible city here" solution.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

you van always make an algorithms sometimes create territories which are 80% wasteland

I of course don't recall exact numbers, but that feels about right for the arctic and desert regions I've seen in game...