It depends on map size. Standard maps have four continents, I believe. So a Standard Pangaea landmass will be divided into four in-game continents. Larger and smaller maps will have more or less.
[GS] Phoenicia Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
It depends on map size. Standard maps have four continents, I believe. So a Standard Pangaea landmass will be divided into four in-game continents. Larger and smaller maps will have more or less.
Which is why Phoenicia is not crippled by Pangaea. Settling the coasts of other continents for a foothold followed by internal expansion is still possible and most of its bonuses (both innate and via potential colonization cards/wonders) still function normally.
historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,402
The usefullness still depends on the outline of continent regions. For example if you settle a new landmass which is divided into 2 continent regions and by bad luck one of your bridgehead cities is in continent region 1 and the other is just next to it but in region 2, then you get no bonus when you move your capital. It is arbitrary and not based on any geographic features or values like the distance between cities. (Another example : The border between Europe and Asia crosses the city of Istanbul. So by definition the western part of Istanbul is european, the eastern part is asian.)
Those kind of problems with sub-optimal game rules are nothing new in Civ series, e.g. I remember a Civ 4 game with Japan on Earth map where I had problems to expand beyond japanese home island/starting city since Asia counted as separate continent and all japanese cities in Asia were treated as expensive colonies.
Those kind of problems with sub-optimal game rules are nothing new in Civ series, e.g. I remember a Civ 4 game with Japan on Earth map where I had problems to expand beyond japanese home island/starting city since Asia counted as separate continent and all japanese cities in Asia were treated as expensive colonies.
There are 5,6 and 7 continent models in use today. So it can‘t be that easy
Some people also are starting to think that New Zealand is on a different continent than the rest of Oceania (Zealandia), so yeah, defining continents is even tricky in modern days. At least the current civ model has fixed the old "bug" from days when continents were simply connected landmasses, and hopefully the map generation in GS has improved so that continent borders are more logical, rather than currently where they can be quite arbitrary.
Oceania isn't generally considered a continent anyway, but rather a region, since so much of it is made up of oceanic islands that can't be said to be on any continent at all. However, it's quite correct to say that New Zealand represents the non-submerged portion of the continental crust that forms Zealandia.
But then, if you really want to get into it, even the familiar continents like Asia can be divided into many smaller tectonic plates (Arabia, Anatolia, Iran, Sunda, not to mention India!). Continents are indeed arbitrary.
India, Arabia, etc.. are typically called subcontinents however those are due to the fact that they lie on different tectonic plates.
Anatolia/Iran are still part of Eurasian plate.
The Europe/Asia divide is nothing short of geopolitics. The separation is nonsensical in modern terms, yet people go out of their way to create new arbitrary standards for separation even in geographic terms.
It's pretty interesting and goes to show how even culture drives science.
Anatolia/Iran are still part of Eurasian plate.
The Europe/Asia divide is nothing short of geopolitics. The separation is nonsensical in modern terms, yet people go out of their way to create new arbitrary standards for separation even in geographic terms.
It's pretty interesting and goes to show how even culture drives science.
I heard her in quill18's videos. She hasn't.Here's hoping she practiced her glottals.
Also her vowels are still wrong. 
Oh, good. I liked Pakal's VA.
My favorite quirks of using a plate tectonics model is that Japan and Kamchatka are North America...but coastal Washington and British Columbia aren't.
Spoiler Content warning for tectonic plate gore :
You sure about that?
We can define a plate as anything that moves relative to another plate after all...The fact is simple plate tectonics does not really apply within continental landmasses, particularly those made up of a carnage of collision zones such as we see in the Middle East, and South Asia.
We can no more rely on a tectonic definition of the continents than we can on a political one. We must simply accept that they are defined... as they are defined. It is of course obvious that the Europe/Asia divide is as much to do with cultural differences (as perceived by classical Greeks and medieval Christendom) as much as physical geography.
Last edited:
pgm123
Emperor
- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,168
Continent regions in the game can be arbitrary. You can define a Middle America continent region as shown on this picture :
Then Mexico would be on a different "continent" than United States.
Or look at Australia (continent) : It includes New Guinea but not the other islands of Indonesia, Phillippines, etc.
Australia is part of the Oceania region :
Spoiler :
Adding to this:
The island of Papua is a part of the Autralian continent, but it will often be put culturally in Asia. Under botanical continents, Papua is a part of tropical Asia (not temperate Asia) and Australia-New Zealand are together. However, by animal life, the Wallace Line separates Papua from Asia. Making it more complicated, New Zealand is probably a part of the submerged continent of Zealandia.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
the point is that right now the "Continents" often end in the middle of some random plains somewhere, so whatever logic they now use past that is OK by me.
Lowkey disappointed we don't have earthquakes on continent lines tbh.
Spoiler Content warning for tectonic plate gore :
That's unacceptable and completely unrealistic! Someone has to change this!
Oh ... and as I write "change" ...
Just out of curiosity a question to the dedicated moders out there: Is it possible to change the map after its creation and after all the civs were placed?
For example in order to add one or two instances of a civ-specific luxury ressource at the coasts of a certain civilization?
Firetuner to edit a map after it is created.
Some industrious modder might be able recreate Indonesia's civ5 ability in civ6 if that's what you are asking. I assume you wanna throw in some unique cedar, murex, and olives for Phoenicia?
Firetuner to edit a map after it is created.
Some industrious modder might be able recreate Indonesia's civ5 ability in civ6 if that's what you are asking. I assume you wanna throw in some unique cedar, murex, and olives for Phoenicia?
To my eternal shame, I do not remember Indonesia's Civ5 ability!
But yes, I am just wondering, if it wouldn't be possible to mod the game so that some of those puple-making snails would "naturally" appear near Phoenicia's starting location.
And I mean automatically on the game start and not by manual shenanigans.
(As strong as Mali is already, I also would love them to have specfically gold mines near them. So maybe their close-by luxury ressources could be changed to gold (from the Australia scenario)?)
Indonesia's Civ5 ability was unique resources when settling on a unique continent.
I'm not sure if there's a resource generation ability post-map creation, although a possibly easier implementation would be to just provide resources for trade deals (rather than have them on the map).
I'm not sure if there's a resource generation ability post-map creation, although a possibly easier implementation would be to just provide resources for trade deals (rather than have them on the map).
YnAMP can do this or something like it.But yes, I am just wondering, if it wouldn't be possible to mod the game so that some of those puple-making snails would "naturally" appear near Phoenicia's starting location.
And I mean automatically on the game start and not by manual shenanigans.
I love how this image clearly shows the island of Cyprus to be on a plate that belongs to Asia, while being closest to a mainland African plate and culturally and politically European. Always liked that. I wonder if Cypriot cities are on Phoenicia's city list.Spoiler Content warning for tectonic plate gore :
You sure about that?
The fact is simple plate tectonics does not really apply within continental landmasses, particularly those made up of a carnage of collision zones such as we see in the Middle East, and South Asia.
We can no more rely on a tectonic definition of the continents than we can on a political one. We must simply accept that they are defined... as they are defined. It is of course obvious that the Europe/Asia divide is as much to do with cultural differences (as perceived by classical Greeks and medieval Christendom) as much as physical geography.
Similar threads
