Poll: Importance of Filling the Map

[Timothy001]

I voted 2/3. I always like a few surprises even in the later parts of the game.

 

[Furycrab]

I don't really mind the idea that someone would pick 3-4 prime city spots and try to super grow them. What I hate is this idea that there would be significant land still left and no one really wants to take it because somehow having extra cities and land hurts your strategy.

I'd love if the difference between tall and wide wasn't a number of cities issue but rather how densely you pack the cities, or a decision made to avoid warmongering due to jealous neighbors, or a decision made because the land is somehow poor. I hated that it was because that 5th city in tradition wasn't ever going to make up for the extra multipliers on your science and culture.

Mind you... I'd rather not have ICS. I just don't like this idea that civs would go... Ya... we don't want that land. In industrial, IMO discovered useful land should almost entirely be taken, or in the process of being.

 

[cazaderonus]

considering the lack of global happiness, and the (so far) lack of culture\science penalty from adding cities, i sure as hell wont stop myself from settling even the worst terrain i can see if it just gives me one or two strategic resources i need.

Those will be closer to mining camps or plantations than cities but hey.

 

[Magil]

I would say "nearly all of it", as in nearly all of the useful land (as defined in the poll). That will probably leave about 10-20% of the map unsettled, depending on how much snow is on the map and how many one tile islands spawn.

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)

For me, it's more of a pragmatic concern. Land grabbing means the land is worth grabbing, which could be good for balance. The exception to this is if it's not land that is important, but if cities themselves are somehow inherently valuable, regardless of where they are settled, then that's a problem that leads to an ICS-like mentality, which would most likely result in the entire map being claimed. I prefer an approach where it's the land that is valuable, and it's valuable enough to allow you to offset whatever restrictions are designed to pace expansion.

If the land just isn't settled, though, that implies it's not worth settling, which is imo bad for the game and actually more of a concern than some may realize.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would say "nearly all of it", as in nearly all of the useful land (as defined in the poll). That will probably leave about 10-20% of the map unsettled, depending on how much snow is on the map and how many one tile islands spawn.



For me, it's more of a pragmatic concern. Land grabbing means the land is worth grabbing, which could be good for balance. The exception to this is if it's not land that is important, but if cities themselves are somehow inherently valuable, regardless of where they are settled, then that's a problem that leads to an ICS-like mentality, which would most likely result in the entire map being claimed. I prefer an approach where it's the land that is valuable, and it's valuable enough to allow you to offset whatever restrictions are designed to pace expansion.

If the land just isn't settled, though, that implies it's not worth settling, which is imo bad for the game and actually more of a concern than some may realize.

While some land should be Worth settling, not ALL land should be worth settling in any Era. There should be a strong difference in 'value' of land, so that the cost of building a settler means its not worth claiming that land until you have reached a certain Era.

What I would like to see

Ancient-Classical... say 30% of the land is worth settling (of course you have to pump out settlers to get there)
Medieval-Industrial...say 60% of land is worth settling (farm/mine boosts make area more productive, getting resources is important, output makes building a settler less of a sacrifice)
Modern+...say 90% of land is worth settling (trying to get rare resources, secure military bases for global wars, and pumping out a settler/dealing with increased district cost isn't too big of a problem)