National Parks

[KrikkitTwo]

There is a bit of a problem with the appeal model.

It applies both to neighborhoods (where people live) and National Parks/Resorts (where they visit)

Things like Deserts, Rainforests, Swamps, Elephants, Deer....seem like they might be good to visit (for National Parks) but you wouldn't want to live there.

So I think there needs to be some things that either
boost Tourism without adding Appeal (Rainforest tiles give +2 Tourism, Swamp +1, to National Parks)
OR
decrease Housing without removing Appeal (no Neighborhoods on Desert tiles or adjacent to/on Rainforest/Swamp)

 

[Silverdawn]

Also of note is that the tooltip says "Woods (Old Growth)" which implies that there are Woods that aren't Old Growth and thus Woods could possibly be planted or spawn naturally. Presumably Old Growth increases the appeal value.

Maybe "(Old Growth)" gets applied to Woods that are made part of a national park? It could then be used to provide a higher appeal value or limit Lumber Mills being applied?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Maybe "(Old Growth)" gets applied to Woods that are made part of a national park? It could then be used to provide a higher appeal value or limit Lumber Mills being applied?

I suspect it's something like that. It just adds a little character to the Park once it is created.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Maybe "(Old Growth)" gets applied to Woods that are made part of a national park? It could then be used to provide a higher appeal value or limit Lumber Mills being applied?

Which would fit with say renaming swamps "wetlands" when they are in a National Park for appeal boost.

 

[Seek]

Maybe "(Old Growth)" gets applied to Woods that are made part of a national park? It could then be used to provide a higher appeal value or limit Lumber Mills being applied?

Alas, no. A tile right next to a city with a Mbanza on it had the same designation.

 

[isau]

National Parks do make me wish that a nation's borders were independent of its cities. I'm not entirely sure how that would work, altho some way for Scouts to claim tiles would be interesting. Possibly using charges like Builders do, and requiring the tiles grabbed to be contiguous with the empire.

 

[Silverdawn]

Alas, no. A tile right next to a city with a Mbanza on it had the same designation.

Any hints in the tooltip on how it differs from standard Woods?

 

[chazzycat]

Unless there's some additional mechanics that we don't yet know about, what is to stop you from polluting your own lands for increased production, and when NPs roll around, simply colonizing a virgin continent (that you may have pre-emptively cleansed of its messy inhabitants ) and plopping down a huge national park for mass tourism?

One potential issue would be multiplicative bonuses for tourism late in the game, if they exist. If it's anything close to civ5, there is a huge incentive to concentrate your tourism in the capital since it will have better multipliers. So if there's any building, wonder, or policy in civ 6 similar to the National Visitor Center from civ5, it could create similar incentives.

 

[Brianstorm]

National Parks do make me wish that a nation's borders were independent of its cities. I'm not entirely sure how that would work, altho some way for Scouts to claim tiles would be interesting. Possibly using charges like Builders do, and requiring the tiles grabbed to be contiguous with the empire.

They had an outpost system in Civ III to grab resources, could be done like that. Maybe if you claim territory without a city there's less/no warmonger penalty for opposing civs, depending on the era. Would also make forts more useful.

 

[MistyRonin]

Put a small fence around, and give a color filter to the included tiles so the colors of the natural park look more vibrant and lush, et voilá! Awesome, easy to read natural magic .

Although I understand the ui visibility issue, I've never seen a National Park with a fence, and been in a good amount of them (at least in Europe and Africa).

 

[Stringer1313]

There is a bit of a problem with the appeal model.

It applies both to neighborhoods (where people live) and National Parks/Resorts (where they visit)

Things like Deserts, Rainforests, Swamps, Elephants, Deer....seem like they might be good to visit (for National Parks) but you wouldn't want to live there.

So I think there needs to be some things that either
boost Tourism without adding Appeal (Rainforest tiles give +2 Tourism, Swamp +1, to National Parks)
OR
decrease Housing without removing Appeal (no Neighborhoods on Desert tiles or adjacent to/on Rainforest/Swamp)

I agree with you conceptually but gameplay wise this sounds too complicated. I already don't love the idea of hovering your mouse over tiles to see their appeal (and yes I know there's a filter, but it just feels cumbersome).

 

[Abraxis]

Although I understand the ui visibility issue, I've never seen a National Park with a fence, and been in a good amount of them (at least in Europe and Africa).

Me neither and I have pack packed all over Canada aiming to explore as many as possible, I couldn't even guess at how many I've been to. I do like the idea some others posted about small meandering trails appearing within them though, perhaps observation stations and info booths along them if it works. Maybe even small ruins -mills, castles, whatever. Wildlife would be a challenge because it would look weird if smaller than resource animals, but too big if scaled to their proportion, but some birds could probably work.

I'd like better delineation than that green line, but I think a fence is the wrong approach.

 

[Deggial]

What was wrong with Civ5's broader, inward-blurred borders?
They looked nice and defined the territory quite well.
Why didn't Firaxis stick to this visual? It would have fitted the national parks' boarders, too.

 

[dturtle1]

Trails through forests would work amazingly well. I like the idea of small ruins or some random defining feature (water hole with big tree next to it ) for plains and hills maybe.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

What was wrong with Civ5's broader, inward-blurred boarders?
They looked nice and defined the territory quite well.
Why didn't Firaxis stick to this visual? It would have fitted the national parks' boarders, too.

Do you mean the more curved borders?

I don't mind, for what's it worth, real life borders are almost rarely ever curved unless they are beside a river, which, in Civ 6, they are too. They just don't curve if there is land between the two tiles.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Depends on what scale you look at. There are almost no straight lines in European borders (of more than a few km anyway), and if you smooth up a bunch of very short straight lines you end up with a curve

Those borders are very often adjacent to rivers, or mountains ranges, unless I am wrong.

This is the same case with Rivers in Civ 6, it's just the rivers are just more straighter than in real life.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

You're on the internet, it's not hard to open up google maps and see you're wrong.

Northern Ireland/Ireland is a particularly bad example, but border gore is pretty much the norm.

Fair enough. I'm fairly sure those borked borders follow something even if it's just a fence.

Also, the border gore is present in Strategic View. So there's that.

 

[Deggial]

Do you mean the more curved borders?

I don't mind, for what's it worth, real life borders are almost rarely ever curved unless they are beside a river, which, in Civ 6, they are too. They just don't curve if there is land between the two tiles.

No, actually I meant the gradient shading of the inner color:

Spoiler :

In my opinion, this looks way more pleasant and tints the inner tiles a bit for a better optical discrimination.

But the curved lines wouldn't hurt either, I guess.

 

[eso12por8]

A fence would be a start, maybe some lakes/waterfalls/animals, flowers, etc.

I vote for a sparkly magical rainbow barrier. Unicorns guarding the perimeter.

 

[Abraxis]

No, actually I meant the gradient shading of the inner color:

Spoiler :

In my opinion, this looks way more pleasant and tints the inner tiles a bit for a better optical discrimination.

But the curved lines wouldn't hurt either, I guess.

I was under the impression they meant to do this still before release. I really hope they don't believe the current borders are an improvement