No more Pangea Scripts

[brewgod]

Hello Fellow Civ Fans,

After spending millions of dollars into a game for the past 5 years, Ed Beach and Firaxis is not going to give away the game at an expo in Cologne. The demo which people got to play was most likely limited to 15 turns and one small land mass. It's all speculation at this point until the official game is launched. Also patches and updates will come shortly after release and after 12 months the game will have a whole lot more options coming from Firaxis themselves and the modding community which have made my Civ 6 game experience feel like a whole new game. Again..."You Vote With Your Wallet" if you don't like it don't buy it that simple. Firaxis and 2K is a business to employ people they are not doing this out of the kindness of their heart. They have shareholders to answer to and loans to pay back for developing Civ 7. It's called Capitalism. Don't like it then don't support Firaxis and 2K and Sony and MSFT.

I feel like the fan base here wants a head coach of a NFL team to give out their play book to all teams at the start of the season after practicing for 4 months to be prepared for the upcoming season.

My 2 Cents.

Brew God

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Per this dev interview, “the only thing we don’t really do are Pangea maps, unless you play just one Age”, and he confirms that AI civs are playing in the background on the New World during Antiquity.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Ah! That confirms it then. Shame. Ah well, maybe they can add "The Great Desert" or something later on.

 

[Zaarin]

he confirms that AI civs are playing in the background on the New World during Antiquity.

I'd wondered about that, and that's good to know.

 

[Krikkit1]

Per this dev interview, “the only thing we don’t really do are Pangea maps, unless you play just one Age”, and he confirms that AI civs are playing in the background on the New World during Antiquity.

Well you hopefully that’s an option/map type
“New World” contains
-Any player civ (default?) new world = old world
-AI civs only (default?)
-Independent Peoples only (Terra map)

And I look forward to the “Great Deserts” map option

 

[Hajee]

This is a shame

 

[GeneralZIft]

"Uhhh yeah we don't really do any of the fun stuff from the previous games. But can we interest you in perhaps all these new monetisation techniques?"
-TakeTwo Interactive

 

[AriochIV]

I don't see the play value in having half of the map inaccessible during the first Age. What is the upside? This seems like something done to force a narrative that has nothing to do with play value. It's not even historically accurate, as there was movement between hemispheres before the Exploration Age.

 

[shaglio]

I don't see the play value in having half of the map inaccessible during the first Age. What is the upside? This seems like something done to force a narrative that has nothing to do with play value. It's not even historically accurate, as there was movement between hemispheres before the Exploration Age.

If I were a betting man, I'd gamble that it is because a lot of people say that their game-play interest wanes after the initial exploration of the world is done. So by having half of the map inaccessible, they are trying to guarantee that there is still a sense of wonder from discovering more of the map in later stages of the game. I know, from what I've read here, that a lot of players don't bother playing the second half of the game - either the game ends too early or they check out. This "map hiding" solves the latter issue. The "ends early" problem has been solved by the new 3-Era model. If you're bored 1/3 of the way through the game, just play one of the 3 Eras and everything's good. If you're bored a 2/3 of the way through the game, just play two of the 3 Eras.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't see the play value in having half of the map inaccessible during the first Age. What is the upside? This seems like something done to force a narrative that has nothing to do with play value. It's not even historically accurate, as there was movement between hemispheres before the Exploration Age.

I am not fully on board yet because we just haven't seen enough, but I don't mind it in principle and even quite like it as an idea.

From a gameplay perspective, I like the thinking that each Age should be different, with slightly different rules and mechanics, and even slightly different maps. I agree that the best part of the game is the early exploration and settling phase, the race for space on the map. Give me that experience twice? Sounds fun!

From a flavour perspective, I see it as a literal representation of your empire's horizons expanding, this also works fine for me.

I have some reservations. I understand that it might feel forced or artificial, but as long as it is fun and interesting then I'm probably cool with that.

We'll see, I guess!

 

[AriochIV]

If I were a betting man, I'd gamble that it is because a lot of people say that their game-play interest wanes after the initial exploration of the world is done. So by having half of the map inaccessible, they are trying to guarantee that there is still a sense of wonder from discovering more of the map in later stages of the game. I know, from what I've read here, that a lot of players don't bother playing the second half of the game - either the game ends too early or they check out. This "map hiding" solves the latter issue. The "ends early" problem has been solved by the new 3-Era model. If you're bored 1/3 of the way through the game, just play one of the 3 Eras and everything's good. If you're bored a 2/3 of the way through the game, just play two of the 3 Eras.

But we already have that experience if you choose to play a map type like Continents or Terra, and it's done organically through the inherent inability to cross oceans rather than through the hand of the developer preventing it. And the player can choose whether he wants that experience or would rather have a different experience.

This restriction takes away Pangea and Fractal and other custom map gameplay and adds nothing.

 

[BuchiTaton]

- Colonialism, for the 16th-19th colonialism we need a map that mimic historical geographic conditions. This mean have half the map for the main civs (playables) in a core comunicated continent, plus the rest occupied by minor civs (non playables) in smaller continents separated by ocean or deserts. These oversea land should also have some valuable natural resources/luxuries.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

But we already have that experience if you choose to play a map type like Continents or Terra, and it's done organically through the inherent inability to cross oceans rather than through the hand of the developer preventing it. And the player can choose whether he wants that experience or would rather have a different experience.

This restriction takes away Pangea and Fractal and other custom map gameplay and adds nothing.

Too early to say definitively that it adds nothing, we've barely seen anything about the Exploration Age.

I think there is a potential benefit to structuring this experience, rather than keeping it organic; it allows them to add/remove systems that are tailored to this phase of the game, e.g. things that incentivise further exploration and diplomacy in a way that is more difficult in the linear structure of past Civ games.

 

[Krikkit1]

Just like we have military units to help show real world conquest, as opposed to only buildings settlers and traders..

 

[Nikolai II]

and it's done organically through the inherent inability to cross oceans rather than through the hand of the developer preventing it.

Perhaps they have a similar or same limitation this time? We have yet to see much of exploration.

 

[AriochIV]

Too early to say definitively that it adds nothing, we've barely seen anything about the Exploration Age.

I think there is a potential benefit to structuring this experience, rather than keeping it organic; it allows them to add/remove systems that are tailored to this phase of the game, e.g. things that incentivise further exploration and diplomacy in a way that is more difficult in the linear structure of past Civ games.

Well, that's what I'm saying. If there's a benefit, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Hajee]

And from a game play perspective, this means bee lining to ocean tech and chosing navel civ is a must have because you know that there is a land mass out there.

This mechanic forces you into a certian play style

 

[TreVor_ish]

Well, there is another way to keep the exploration for longer - bigger maps, with more players.
Which could bring more verity of interactions. Not only in exchanging goods like strategic resources or luxuries, but maybe arms, intel, technology.
Perhaps, I could destabilize a bigger region with more players, for economic gain. Enslave, vassalize, bribe, brake apart. You know, stuff that actually happened in the world.

 

[Krikkit1]

And from a game play perspective, this means bee lining to ocean tech and chosing navel civ is a must have because you know that there is a land mass out there.

This mechanic forces you into a certian play style

That tech might not be the only thing you need to actually expand into the new world… settlement distance to capital could be a significant barrier (which might take multiple civics and techs and policies to work around)

Given the Mughals are Modern, it seems that you would have only just begun to colonize/conquer the coasts by the time Modern Begins.

I mean if you look at the IRL over ocean colonizers
earliest:
Norse, Polynesians
next:
Spain, Portugal
Final:
English, French, Dutch

Getting their late had a benefit (2 of the 6 could be described as major powers G7, security council, nukes, etc … and it isn’t the first two)

 

[Atlas627]

But we already have that experience if you choose to play a map type like Continents or Terra, and it's done organically through the inherent inability to cross oceans rather than through the hand of the developer preventing it. And the player can choose whether he wants that experience or would rather have a different experience.

This restriction takes away Pangea and Fractal and other custom map gameplay and adds nothing.

I don't see why it "adds nothing". Guaranteeing that there is unexplored territory means they can add specific mechanics that actually make that unexplored territory worthwhile. That's a lot! We don't yet know which ways they'll make it worthwhile, though. Nevertheless, it doesn't prevent custom map gameplay, it would just mean the game isn't balanced for it...which is already true just by it being a custom map.

And from a game play perspective, this means bee lining to ocean tech and chosing navel civ is a must have because you know that there is a land mass out there.

This mechanic forces you into a certian play style

No, because that oceanfaring tech will be in Age 2, which you cannot reach. By the time you get to Age 2, you should have built up your empire in such a way that you'll know whether beelining for oceanfaring is a good strategy for you or not. It is definitely possible that your new civ will incentivize building up a religious base at home, rather than exploring. The only guarantee here is that choosing an exploration-based civ will at least not be a total waste of time, because there's something to discover. How good that is will be different from game to game, hopefully mostly in ways that you can determine from your home territory, so you can make this decision strategically.