Poll: Importance of Filling the Map

[qadams]

In your ideal game of Civ 6 — by the time the Industrial Age is reached, how much of the useful land should be claimed?

 

[cephalo]

I'm not sure if it's possible to hit any particular mark unless you design the game around just that, but in the real world there are still mysterious and wild places in the late 1700's where you would find only goody huts.

 

[stealth_nsk]

About 70-80%, but there's no such option in the poll.

 

[Matthew.]

Yeah I'm with Stealth here, an option between the two. I think on a Pangaea map, most of the obvious settle spots should be more or less filled. The exceptions for the 20% would be low priority spots... island chains, huge deserts, heavy jungle or hills with low food/resources.

 

[qadams]

This issue of filling the map makes me wonder about something. Instead of looking for a sweet spot between Wide and Tall, could there be a hybrid of the two?

One thing the game has never presented very well is the difference between urban and rural areas. What if there was a mechanism that enabled you to determine for each city whether you wanted to build a concentrated metropolis or a gently spreading township? The latter would be allowed to encompass more tiles, say, five rings instead of three, but would be limited in its population growth. It seems to me that would end up creating a much more realistic looking map.

I know this may sound arbitrary, and it might in fact be impossible. I’m not a programmer or a game designer, so I don’t how you would even go about accomplishing that. But does the idea make any sense?

 

[stealth_nsk]

This issue of filling the map makes me wonder about something. Instead of looking for a sweet spot between Wide and Tall, could there be a hybrid of the two?

It was discussed multiple times. Wide vs. Tall was artificial construct of Civ5. We could expect more fine-grain civilization development strategies in Civ6.

 

[kaspergm]

I voted about 67 %, but I would be fine with a lower number also. In my ideal game, there should be land to settle late game, as well as there should be in-game incentives to claim it late. Civ5 failed spectacularly on both these accounts, and while it's fairly easy to come up with a solution for reasons for settling late game (industrial resources, new natural wonders, etc.), it's harder to find a mechanism that at one hand secures free land in late game and on the other doesn't promote super narrow/tall gamestyles.

I do like to play Terra-style maps because I think it's both realistic and adds something to the game to have this later-game "rush for Africa" style of gameplay which adds something to do in the late game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Depends on your definition of "useful land"

and "claimed"... 100% of land is "claimed" by 4000-3000 BC it all has a city/ tribal village or barb camp in range.


However, in terms of "land than can possibly have resources benefiting a civilization" is actually having those resources benefiting a civ.. then I would say ~50%, ie 100% of the GOOD land should be taken by the Industrial era... but there should be a Lot of marginal land that needs Modern/Atomic Era techs to make worth claiming (Tundra, Deserts, Jungles, Hilly areas)... basically areas where the only reason to have a city there is the Uranium deposit... or because you want a place to heal your troops/base your planes and see enemy troops coming in

 

[kaspergm]

Depends on your definition of "useful land"

and "claimed"... 100% of land is "claimed" by 4000-3000 BC it all has a city/ tribal village or barb camp in range.

Splitting words is not really contributing to the discussion, though. Do you actually think that was what the OP was thinking when he asked the question?

 

[Thormodr]

I voted nearly all. I figure that means about 90% of the useful land has been filled by the industrial era. Let's say in and around 1800 AD.

 

[qadams]

Splitting words is not really contributing to the discussion, though. Do you actually think that was what the OP was thinking when he asked the question?

No, of course I didn't mean that. I meant claimed by a Civ/Empire, not by barbarians or tribal villagers.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Splitting words is not really contributing to the discussion, though. Do you actually think that was what the OP was thinking when he asked the question?

Well it depends on if people's (not necessarily OP but anyone voting) reasoning was based on "real life" (where 90% of the land was 'claimed' by people ~20,000-10,000BC.. but probably still in 2016 AD doesn't have more than 80% covered by 'civilization')

But assuming gameplay (in or directly adjacent to) some cities culture borders...as I said 100% of the good land, or say 50% of all land

 

[tomplum68]

proximity should breed contempt

 

[Thormodr]

Well it depends on if people's (not necessarily OP but anyone voting) reasoning was based on "real life" (where 90% of the land was 'claimed' by ~20,000-10,000BC)

Read the Op and use common sense.

"In your ideal game of Civ VI..."

Do you really think any Civ games with their 6,000 year old leaders and have archers that can shoot across the English Channel are based on real life?

 

[Ebrim]

"Useful" is a very subjective term even in a game like civ. That said I think most great fresh water locations in temperate areas should be more or less occupied by the industrial area. I by no means think that should include most of the map and the civs present and their priorities should dictate what land is being exploited and what not.

 

[Dunkah]

I would like to see a mechanic where unless the land is actually connected by a cultural border it is considered a colony and grow beyond a certain limit.

I suppose a trade route or harbor could be used the same way, perhaps rivers etc.

I can't stand it when the AI colonizes 15 cities in the snow on the south and north of my borders with no Strategic or Luxury benefits at all.

Perhaps if just cultural borders were to grow a bit faster this would rectify the situation.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Read the Op and use common sense.

"In your ideal game of Civ VI..."

Do you really think any Civ games with their 6,000 year old leaders and have archers that can shoot across the English Channel are based on real life?

In many people's ideal game of Civ, Tanks beat spearmen.. because that happens in real life.

(and generally that is a good argument... if there isn't a good reason to do it otherwise, the game should be predictable in that sense)... but the issue with "realism" arguments is there are multiple ways to look at them. (and also gameplay needs to come first, and some things need to be simplified)

 

[cephalo]

I would elaborate and say that exploration is fun, and that it should be extended for as long as is feasible. I also think that the 'terra' map was a great way to organize a playthrough of civ. I was disappointed when that was rather underplayed in Civ5.

In Civ4, it worked extremely well, as it was great fun to do the Christopher Columbus thing and find new untapped luxuries on continents that had no starting players.

 

[qadams]

I would elaborate and say that exploration is fun, and that it should be extended for as long as is feasible. I also think that the 'terra' map was a great way to organize a playthrough of civ. I was disappointed when that was rather underplayed in Civ5.

In Civ4, it worked extremely well, as it was great fun to do the Christopher Columbus thing and find new untapped luxuries on continents that had no starting players.

Right, and that's why it was rarely played in Civ5 — because for some stupid reason the Terra map script placed all the original luxuries on the opening continent, and nothing new in the undiscovered lands.

 

[chaotoroboto]

This issue of filling the map makes me wonder about something. Instead of looking for a sweet spot between Wide and Tall, could there be a hybrid of the two?

One thing the game has never presented very well is the difference between urban and rural areas. What if there was a mechanism that enabled you to determine for each city whether you wanted to build a concentrated metropolis or a gently spreading township? The latter would be allowed to encompass more tiles, say, five rings instead of three, but would be limited in its population growth. It seems to me that would end up creating a much more realistic looking map.

I know this may sound arbitrary, and it might in fact be impossible. I’m not a programmer or a game designer, so I don’t how you would even go about accomplishing that. But does the idea make any sense?

Civ 4's cottage system was intended to represent suburban sprawl - hence growth and cultural boosts about the same time suburbanization started historically.

Civ 6's neighborhoods look comparable in function and timing.

Civ does a weird thing where it takes a region the size of multiple states, but has you manage it like a city. So instead of calling it a mining town or university town, we call it a mine or a campus district. I live in a city of a million and a quarter people three hours from Atlanta and A state over; but if you were going to rep it in Civ, it would be a mine in the tile next to the Atlanta city center. In Civ 6, maybe Birmingham would rate a campus district, as that's the center of our economy now. Charlotte - which is knocking on 3 Mil - would be reduced to a commercial hub; Charleston at well over a Mil? A harbor.

In Civ 4 or 5, these would all be towns/trading posts, of course; the buildings to represent them held in the city center.

You have to apply a certain level of abstraction, but the urban/rural concept is there.