I think the issue is that there shouldn't be bonuses that help both increase a civilization's population density and the territory covered by that civilization. The two should be somehow opposed, being simultaneously good at both cuts away a lot of the game's dilemmas. It would make more sense, IMO, to have one adjective that applies to civs that are mostly cities with lots of specialists, and another to civs that are mostly towns and/or rural districts. But having civs that are just "good at population" feels too broad, because pop is the most fundamental and powerful resource in any Civ game.
To clarify, I did not intend to imply that the Expansionist Attribute is only about population growth. It has 2 diverging trees, one for tall growth and one for wide.
That’s interesting; I think it will take some getting used to. I’ve never stared at the map, pondered expanding my empire, and then building a granary or a tile improvement to do so.
I think the issue is that there shouldn't be bonuses that help both increase a civilization's population density and the territory covered by that civilization. The two should be somehow opposed, being simultaneously good at both cuts away a lot of the game's dilemmas. It would make more sense, IMO, to have one adjective that applies to civs that are mostly cities with lots of specialists, and another to civs that are mostly towns and/or rural districts. But having civs that are just "good at population" feels too broad, because pop is the most fundamental and powerful resource in any Civ game.
Populous works but not sure it's any better? Populous fits tall quite well, expansionist fits wide quite well. Neither quite works for the other but they're both passable.
Have we seen the Expansionist tree? Does it allow you to be good at both or are there separate bonuses for tall and wide that encourage you to choose?
Edit: Ah, confirmed there are two paths. So yeh, I don't think I agree that Populous is better, it's about the same imo.
I think the issue is that there shouldn't be bonuses that help both increase a civilization's population density and the territory covered by that civilization. The two should be somehow opposed, being simultaneously good at both cuts away a lot of the game's dilemmas. It would make more sense, IMO, to have one adjective that applies to civs that are mostly cities with lots of specialists, and another to civs that are mostly towns and/or rural districts. But having civs that are just "good at population" feels too broad, because pop is the most fundamental and powerful resource in any Civ game.
I think combining them is precisely what makes them opposed, and that's why it's good design that these traits have been grouped together.
To have a tall or wide focus requires investment of Expansionist points on the same skill tree. The player has to make a decision with each skill point. If these traits were separated, then there's no tension in choosing wide or tall; you could have both easily.
Overall, grouping these two together was a great idea IMO. There's probably not a better term than Expansionist.
I don't mind Expansionist eing only about growing towns and cities (whether in size or in number). After all there is already the Militaristic attribute for the conquest aspect, it would be redundant it that was also in the Expansionist one.
Okay, fair enough, having a two-branch tree like that which strongly encourages specialising in one or the other works very well.
I'm clearly out of the loop, how do these trees work? Does everyone get access to all trees, or is locked behind certain leaders? Or is it just that some leaders can progress in some trees faster? Am I remembering correctly that we progress in these trees at the end of an age, using points based on how much we've progressed in the legacy paths? Do narrative events also give points for this?
So many trees in Civ7 it's getting hard to remember them all lol
You get access to all trees, but as Carl stated, your leader and civ have preferred trees that you will definitely get points for through narrative events. You may get points for the other attribute trees randomly from Discoverables and such.
I don't mind Expansionist eing only about growing towns and cities (whether in size or in number). After all there is already the Militaristic attribute for the conquest aspect, it would be redundant it that was also in the Expansionist one.
I would change from them adjectives to nouns and rename them DIPLOMACY, ECONOMICS, GROWTH, MILITARY - I know I am nitpicking, but "expansionist" still doesn't work with the tree in my opinion, as the word still implies outward movement. And, yes, I'm aware that population growth in Civ VII = you add new tiles to your city, but the word "expansionist" implies an ideological linkage to colonialism or territorial dominance.
Because borders can expand with "population events", growing your population can grow an individual city's borders, and that could be considered expansion.
And I think that's a definition of expansion that Firaxis has as part of their internal culture. Think about Civ 6 Russia, their cities start with extra tiles and continue to grow when Great People are retired there.
So, border growth = expansion, per Firaxis's perspective. And in Civ 7, Food = Border Growth = Expansion. Even farther, Specialists = Food = Border Growth = Expansion.
So, anything labeled Expansionist is going to be good at Food and population growth to grow borders OR to maintain specialists.
Because borders can expand with "population events", growing your population can grow an individual city's borders, and that could be considered expansion.
And I think that's a definition of expansion that Firaxis has as part of their internal culture. Think about Civ 6 Russia, their cities start with extra tiles and continue to grow when Great People are retired there.
So, border growth = expansion, per Firaxis's perspective. And in Civ 7, Food = Border Growth = Expansion. Even farther, Specialists = Food = Border Growth = Expansion.
So, anything labeled Expansionist is going to be good at Food and population growth to grow borders OR to maintain specialists.
Yes, I get that, and have mentioned it before, but the word “expansionist” doesn’t mean “prone to expanding.” It relates more closely to one who subscribes to a policy of territorial dominance. I just find the categorization to be misleading.
For myself, a player who likes to play tall and focus on culture and economy, I would be put off by a civ that has an “expansionist” attribute.
In 4X, eXpanding has never meant “let’s builds some farms!”
So how does Inca link to other civilizations? It's the only civ in South America and the only civ that I can see linking to is Spain which is in the same age. So who should you start as in antiquity to go to Inca and where will you go to in modern?
So how does Inca link to other civilizations? It's the only civ in South America and the only civ that I can see linking to is Spain which is in the same age. So who should you start as in antiquity to go to Inca and where will you go to in modern?
It seems highly likely to me that it'll be Maya -> Inca -> Mexico for the default path, which is ... not very good, but I guess it'll have to do until we get more civs.
It seems highly likely to me that it'll be Maya -> Inca -> Mexico for the default path, which is ... not very good, but I guess it'll have to do until we get more civs.
It seems highly likely to me that it'll be Maya -> Inca -> Mexico for the default path, which is ... not very good, but I guess it'll have to do until we get more civs.
I'm assuming they'll fix this later on. It feels really Spanish centric. It'd be like having India go into Austrialia as former British colonies. I can easily see them following Humankind later and adding a Norte Chico (Caralan) or Nazca predescesor.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
