Polynesia/Hawaii?

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes, exactly.



You're completely right of course, its just a little annoying that mods may have to be relied on to change things that most people with an opinion on the matter probably never liked in the first place.

You realize that the unmodded game will not and should not have multiple polynesian civs. Their differences are too obscure individually, and making multiple polynesian civs will degrade the uniqueness of the other civs.

Having multiple leaders for a Polynesian civ would be better (although less likely for budget reasons)

 

[DefiantMars]

Norway doesn't take up the entirety of the Seafaring design space, not even with England included. You could go with a more "exploration" based angle for Polynesian water interaction. Reusing "Wayfinding" from their Civ V ability. But take this, remove the embarkation, and ramp up the potency.
Norway gets early access to deeper water and ease of embarkation. With Polynesia, you could go with better vision and/or speed on water. A bonus like that would be generally good for scouting and still enables settling.

I don't agree with pulling uniques from multiple Pacific Island cultures. The scattered nature of the Civ V Polynesia contributed to a feel that it was more like a checkbox that had to be ticked. Even the intro text for Kamehameha was closer to a school report than a Civ intro.

I think its a better for design, finding stronger and more thematic synergy within a smaller culture wedge of Polynesia/Oceania. That said, I agree that an overarching "Civilization Ability" that encompasses the whole of the Polynesian region would make a lot of sense, but I think that the remainder of the content should be based on whoever the leader is. Leaving the leader more open ended enables alternates, but removes a lot of the blobiness.

 

[Kerfuffle]

But nobody is incentivized to be an island *settler

Japan district bonus says hello

because that's the only good way to represent settling multiple disparate islands.

Except if they were to be represented in their own right - but even, they can can still individually reference maritime themes with a naval unit / building, bonuses from certain coastal resources, or coastal improvements / bonuses - it doesn't need to be as narrow a focus as a 'bonus from settling on islands'. Heck, it's a video game more akin to a boardgame, abstractions in mechanics are fine as well. Take a look at the Samoa mod where coasts act as freshwater and you can build roads on coastal waters. It doesn't make any physical/scientific sense but it does ingeniously represent in an abstract fashion fast coastal movement between islands without having to rely on a naval unit or a trade route, as well as efficient utilization of resources from the sea / a strong bonus to food on smaller landmasses. They don't need to go too abstract, but bonuses to island settling is not the sole option they have.

 

[IgorS]

You are welcome to draw your line wherever you want. Drawing the line at "Polynesia is fine but Native America was not" seems to be the majority opinion. When you say you don't know how people can possibly have that opinion, I say I don't see how you can possibly not see how. You're doing the same thing, just with a different opinion.

I did not say I did not know how people could possibly have that opinion.
As a matter of fact, I used to be of the same opinion, that Polynesia should be a civ, and I accepted it when I made them a civ in my mod for Civ IV, and when they came as DLC for Civ V. But after giving it some thought, and reading more about them, I have changed my mind.

 

[SMcM]

You realize that the unmodded game will not and should not have multiple polynesian civs. Their differences are too obscure individually, and making multiple polynesian civs will degrade the uniqueness of the other civs.

Having multiple leaders for a Polynesian civ would be better (although less likely for budget reasons)

Why do you mean 'do I realise that'? That may be your opinion, but I might have a different one.

Anyway, I actually agree that there should not be multiple Polynesian Civs. There could be one, such as Tonga, or maybe the Maori (Not Hawaii again as that would be more repetitive than is necessary) and this could be seen as representing the history of the region as a whole, as opposed to an ugly amalgamation of multiple groups into a fictional empire. Your obsession with creating such fictional empires as opposed to more sincere depictions makes me question why you even bother commenting on threads like these; it seems to me you have no interest in the history of regions such as Scandinavia and Polynesia.

 

[Atlas627]

I did not say I did not know how people could possibly have that opinion.

I truly cannot understand how people keep saying that Native America from Civ IV was a stupid blob civ, but Polynesia is fine. It is the same thing.

Perhaps I interpreted it as more adamant than you intended? But this sounds to me like saying "this is an impossibly unreasonable opinion".

Japan district bonus says hello

That encourages dense cities period. A combat bonus on coast does not encourage islands.

Enabling is not the same as encouraging. There is design space for both.

Except if they were to be represented in their own right - but even, they can can still individually reference maritime themes with a naval unit / building, bonuses from certain coastal resources, or coastal improvements / bonuses - it doesn't need to be as narrow a focus as a 'bonus from settling on islands'. Heck, it's a video game more akin to a boardgame, abstractions in mechanics are fine as well. Take a look at the Samoa mod where coasts act as freshwater and you can build roads on coastal waters. It doesn't make any physical/scientific sense but it does ingeniously represent in an abstract fashion fast coastal movement between islands without having to rely on a naval unit or a trade route, as well as efficient utilization of resources from the sea / a strong bonus to food on smaller landmasses. They don't need to go too abstract, but bonuses to island settling is not the sole option they have.

Of course. I think you are completely misunderstanding me. The ability does not need to say "bonus for settling islands", but there is a design niche that can be filled that encourages settling islands. Only 1 Civ makes sense for that niche - Polynesia as a whole.

Norway doesn't take up the entirety of the Seafaring design space, not even with England included. You could go with a more "exploration" based angle for Polynesian water interaction. Reusing "Wayfinding" from their Civ V ability. But take this, remove the embarkation, and ramp up the potency.
Norway gets early access to deeper water and ease of embarkation. With Polynesia, you could go with better vision and/or speed on water. A bonus like that would be generally good for scouting and still enables settling.

I didn't say Norway took up the entirety of the Seafaring design space. I said it didn't take up Island Settling.

I don't agree with pulling uniques from multiple Pacific Island cultures. The scattered nature of the Civ V Polynesia contributed to a feel that it was more like a checkbox that had to be ticked. Even the intro text for Kamehameha was closer to a school report than a Civ intro.

To each their own. Not everyone has to like every Civ.

I think its a better for design, finding stronger and more thematic synergy within a smaller culture wedge of Polynesia/Oceania. That said, I agree that an overarching "Civilization Ability" that encompasses the whole of the Polynesian region would make a lot of sense, but I think that the remainder of the content should be based on whoever the leader is. Leaving the leader more open ended enables alternates, but removes a lot of the blobiness.

You could do such a thing. In my Civ6 Polynesia design, I used Kamehameha again and gave him a Hawaiian-themed ability that also works with the Civ and would make sense for Polynesia as a whole even if they don't make other leaders for it.

So far, they have not had Unique Infrastructures or Unique Units change based on Leader. They've only added an extra Unique Unit as part of the Leader Ability.

 

[Kerfuffle]

That encourages dense cities period.

Enabling is not the same as encouraging. There is design space for both

Of course there's room for both but one is not absolutely critical to the other. Not everything must be spelt out for someone to say 'this is a good idea' to follow up on in-game. With Japan, if your cities benefit from being tightly packed, then of course smaller continents and islands become more viable to settle on. You also start getting interesting choices like do I settle inland and create a bastion of cities to defend against my neighbours or do I want this island of strategic or economic importance that no one has taken yet. Of course then, they'd naturally play effectively in archipelago, small continents maps, etc as well and in a way, enabling can encourage. I hadn't ever, and am still not even referring to their coastal combat bonus at this point as well, I'm strictly talking about their district bonus.

Of course. I think you are completely misunderstanding me. The ability does not need to say "bonus for settling islands", but there is a design niche that can be filled that encourages settling islands. Only 1 Civ makes sense for that niche - Polynesia as a whole.

I'm not misunderstanding at all, your argument is that this one and only civ needs to fulfill this one specific gameplay niche. In contrast, I've been constantly saying that if one were to split Polynesia into different parts, each can stand on their own without having to outright fulfill this niche (or at least to just refer to it in a small way) - that there's enough to draw from their local histories and cultures to cater to different niches and hold an identity of their own from a gameplay perspective (again see MoreCivs Polynesia split). Even if just one or two take the mantle of seafarer / island settler, they can still be different enough to maintain a level of uniqueness. Hypothetically, would one trader civ diminish the value of another in terms of gameplay and flavour - even if one focuses on benefits from conquering cities to use them as trade hubs and forging alliances with those who share a common enemy, whilst the other utilizes trade to foster a religion and places an emphasis on generating Great People for cultural and scientific bonuses? I think not.
I also don't feel that much distinction needs to be made for seafaring and island settlement since one naturally feeds into the other under various conditions anyways.

Also to bring up Tonga and Samoa again, I'd still stand by saying that they are fit for a seafaring / coastal settlement niche considering the far reach of their maritime spheres of influence and settlements in far off islands - I know you're going to say that some were atolls not islands, but again they can be abstractly interpreted as far off landmasses ingame.

 

[DefiantMars]

I didn't say Norway took up the entirety of the Seafaring design space. I said it didn't take up Island Settling.

I didn't say you did. I was explaining my rationale as to what an alternate niche in the naval gameplay could be.

So far, they have not had Unique Infrastructures or Unique Units change based on Leader. They've only added an extra Unique Unit as part of the Leader Ability.

There are exceptions to every rule. I think this solution would be most considerate to the cultures as well as opening the door to additions in mods or other DLC.

 

[Atlas627]

Of course there's room for both but one is not absolutely critical to the other. Not everything must be spelt out for someone to say 'this is a good idea' to follow up on in-game. With Japan, if your cities benefit from being tightly packed, then of course smaller continents and islands become more viable to settle on. You also start getting interesting choices like do I settle inland and create a bastion of cities to defend against my neighbours or do I want this island of strategic or economic importance that no one has taken yet. Of course then, they'd naturally play effectively in archipelago, small continents maps, etc as well and in a way, enabling can encourage. I hadn't ever, and am still not even referring to their coastal combat bonus at this point as well, I'm strictly talking about their district bonus.

I don't disagree with any of this, nor do I think it counters my point.

I'm not misunderstanding at all, your argument is that this one and only civ needs to fulfill this one specific gameplay niche.

My argument is that it is the only one that CAN fill the niche. Not it needs to. They can leave the niche unfulfilled and, as you point out, Civs that are simply enabled rather than encouraged will still make some use of the design space.

In contrast, I've been constantly saying that if one were to split Polynesia into different parts, each can stand on their own without having to outright fulfill this niche (or at least to just refer to it in a small way) - that there's enough to draw from their local histories and cultures to cater to different niches and hold an identity of their own from a gameplay perspective (again see MoreCivs Polynesia split).

I never countered this point. Each can stand on their own. However, I think none of them make sense to fill the island settler gameplay niche, and having any blocks the possibility of having Polynesia.

So again, if they made all Civs so precise, then I don't think its a problem. It would be disappointing to not fill the gameplay niche that they could have if they hadn't split up Polynesia, however.

Even if just one or two take the mantle of seafarer / island settler, they can still be different enough to maintain a level of uniqueness.

None make sense on their own as an island settler. That is the issue.

Hypothetically, would one trader civ diminish the value of another in terms of gameplay and flavour - even if one focuses on benefits from conquering cities to use them as trade hubs and forging alliances with those who share a common enemy, whilst the other utilizes trade to foster a religion and places an emphasis on generating Great People for cultural and scientific bonuses? I think not.

Of course not, and I never based any of my arguments upon such logic.

I also don't feel that much distinction needs to be made for seafaring and island settlement since one naturally feeds into the other under various conditions anyways.

This might be where our real disagreement lies. I agree that it doesn't "need" to be made, but the point is that it COULD be made. There is a design niche that CAN be filled by Polynesia.

Also to bring up Tonga and Samoa again, I'd still stand by saying that they are fit for a seafaring / coastal settlement niche considering the far reach of their maritime spheres of influence and settlements in far off islands - I know you're going to say that some were atolls not islands, but again they can be abstractly interpreted as far off landmasses ingame.

I don't care about whether they were atolls or not. Obviously you feel that they fit this niche. I don't.

That does not change my argument whatsoever. Your issue is not with any of my logic, but simply with the claim that "Polynesia makes sense for this niche while the individual Civs don't". This is what we should have been debating all along, because we agree on everything else. And I really don't care to have this debate, because it is a matter of opinion to the highest degree.

I didn't say you did. I was explaining my rationale as to what an alternate niche in the naval gameplay could be.

There are exceptions to every rule. I think this solution would be most considerate to the cultures as well as opening the door to additions in mods or other DLC.

Both fair points.

 

[Kerfuffle]

I don't disagree with any of this, nor do I think it counters my point.

Your point is that no one is incentivised to be an island settler and I pointed out that Japan's bonuses already allow for and naturally incentivised such a thing without having to outright reference or encourage it.

I agree that it doesn't "need" to be made, but the point is that it COULD be made. There is a design niche that CAN be filled by Polynesia.

Well you did kinda say they needed to previously

This is my point. It DOES need to be island settlement, because seafarer is already taken in Civ6 by Norway. So seafarer is no longer a niche that needs to be filled.

Which is why I brang up the example regarding trader civs when I did because multiple civs can still cover the same or a similar niche whilst still being unique, not every niche can or must be held solely by one civ. I know you're saying that island settlement is what they should focus on specifically, but we can agree to disagree that maritime focuses can naturally lend themselves to settling on different landmasses anyway. Besides, if a civ feels like it's more focused on bonuses from coasts as opposed to benefits from settling different landmasses, you can easily circumvent the issue with flavour text to suggest and inform; like ability names, unit, tile improvement and building descriptors, as well as utilizing the civilopedia.

Also somewhat of a tangent but: Funnily enough in Civ V, Indonesia felt more like a civ that encouraged settling on different landmasses and continents moreso than Polynesia did. Indonesia outright gave bonuses to settling on different landmasses whilst Polynesia's main ability enabled you to do so more so than it encouraged, with it focusing more on fast, early movement and exploration over water - Even the Moai was about hugging the coast more than it was about settling on lands other than that of your origin point.

I don't care about whether they were atolls or not.

Oh, when you said:

Samoa, Tahiti, and Tonga don't, though you could use one for atolls ...

I interpreted that as you getting fussed over the specifics of settling islands vs atolls. My bad

 

[IgorS]

Perhaps I interpreted it as more adamant than you intended? But this sounds to me like saying "this is an impossibly unreasonable opinion".

No, I really did not mean it like that. I was just trying to compare two popular opinions.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Why do you mean 'do I realise that'? That may be your opinion, but I might have a different one.

Anyway, I actually agree that there should not be multiple Polynesian Civs. There could be one, such as Tonga, or maybe the Maori (Not Hawaii again as that would be more repetitive than is necessary) and this could be seen as representing the history of the region as a whole, as opposed to an ugly amalgamation of multiple groups into a fictional empire. Your obsession with creating such fictional empires as opposed to more sincere depictions makes me question why you even bother commenting on threads like these; it seems to me you have no interest in the history of regions such as Scandinavia and Polynesia.

The issue is if you have multiple potential civ candidates (cultures/nations/whatever) that have some commonalities

There are a few possible options

1. make no civ from that group
-pros: very cheap, and doesn't diminish the uniqueness of other civs in the game
-cons: interesting gameplay, geographic representation, roleplay opportunities from those civs is diminished

2. make a blob civ from those civs (ie European civ with Panzers, Roads to Rome, and Royal Dockyards)
-pros:cheap, and minimal impact on the uniqueness of other civs in the game, can allow some interesting gameplay from interesting traits in the region
-cons: ahistorical [depending on how much one power ever dominated the region, particularly recently] seems weird for roleplay/insulting to lump groups together with little or nothing in common

3. choose a representative civ from that area (ie Roman civ representing Europe)
-pros:cheap, and minimal impact on the uniqueness of other civs in the game, can allow some interesting gameplay from interesting traits in the region
-cons: leaves some areas out (missing gameplay/roleplay representation opportunities) opportunities

4. make a blob civ from those civs, with multiple leaders for individual civs (European civ with Trajan, Victoria, Charlemagne as leaders...with civ attributes being things common to all of them)
-pros:minimal impact on the uniqueness of other civs in the game, can allow some interesting gameplay from interesting traits in the region, with multiple representations adding even more gameplay and representation options... ahistoricalness minimized depending on degree of identification with 'the blob' by the leaders
-cons: maybe more expensive, slightly ahistorical, somewhat weird for roleplay/insulting to lump groups together with little or nothing in common


5. make a multiple civs
-pros: maximum gameplay options, representation
-cons: more expensive, uniqueness of all civs impacted, Especially if the civs are obscure


For Polynesia, we both agree that 1+5 are both bad options
1 is bad because Polynesia does have some really unique traits/culture/territory
5 is bad because the differences are too obscure (note: for unmodded game, mods for every possible permutatuion/shade of difference are good, but the unmodded game is different)

2-4 then is the issue

I generally think a blob civ that takes Civ attributes from cultures that opposed each other, (ie option 2) is generally bad, due to the a historicalness... particularly if the cultures were Never united

The distinction then is
3-Representative civ
or
4-Group civ with multiple leaders

I think the best is the Group civ.... even if they only make 1 leader, so that the possibility of other leaders arises. for representation.

So you could make a Hawaii civ with
-things unique to Hawaii
OR

a Polynesia civ with
-civ attributes that are Common to Polynesia
-a Leader from a particular civ (say Hawaii) with some attributes that are at least somewhat unique to Hawaii

The Advantage of the Polynesia option (if done right) is that you could add a Maori/Tongan/Samoan leader and feel like you are playing Maori/Tonga/Samoa civ...keep the civ traits to the "common traits" and keep the leader ones to the individual group ones.


.................

Note; while the traits a civ has should be unique, they can be unique even if their traits overlap (for roleplay/geography)... the problem is every single civ (especially with 4 unique categories) starts to get less unique and less recognizable (and thus less interesting) as you add more. [different people will tolerate this at different amounts, hence mods being a good idea]

But that gives my idea of a Polynesia (or title it based on the leader if desired, but that ruins the impact of playing it as another civ or as a different modded leader)
Civ Traits
-UU: naval unit available from beginning, can settle coast lines for cheap
-UA: ocean embarking from beginning, can "see" terrain (not revealing fog of war) out 5 spaces, +food to water tiles
-UI: Bonus resort
Leader U- depends on the leader..multiple options available

 

[Atlas627]

Your point is that no one is incentivised to be an island settler and I pointed out that Japan's bonuses already allow for and naturally incentivised such a thing without having to outright reference or encourage it.

I am using the terms enabled and incentivized to mean different things. Enabling something makes it more enticing by proxy, but it is not nearly to the same degree. I am well aware that you can enable something as its own design space, but you can also actively promote it as a different design space. You are not countering my point in any way, because you misunderstand my point's implications.

Well you did kinda say they needed to previously

You misunderstood me. I said that filling a gameplay niche is critically important when making Civs. There is a niche that can be filled by Polynesia but would not be filled by anyone else. Hence, they are "needed" to fill it. You of course can actually leave the niche blank if you want.

Which is why I brang up the example regarding trader civs when I did because multiple civs can still cover the same or a similar niche whilst still being unique, not every niche can or must be held solely by one civ.

I never said anything against this point. Of course you can have multiple Civs fitting the same niches, but in different combinations. That, in itself, is a new niche.

I know you're saying that island settlement is what they should focus on specifically, but we can agree to disagree that maritime focuses can naturally lend themselves to settling on different landmasses anyway.

We don't disagree on this point; please stop telling me what I think. As I have said repeatedly, enabling something is not the same as promoting it. They are completely different degrees of power. I understand 100% that you can cause ripple effects to different game mechanics by associating a Civ with related game mechanics.

Besides, if a civ feels like it's more focused on bonuses from coasts as opposed to benefits from settling different landmasses, you can easily circumvent the issue with flavour text to suggest and inform; like ability names, unit, tile improvement and building descriptors, as well as utilizing the civilopedia.

And that already exists. It already exists somewhere else. The remaining niche is promoting island settling.

Also somewhat of a tangent but: Funnily enough in Civ V, Indonesia felt more like a civ that encouraged settling on different landmasses and continents moreso than Polynesia did. Indonesia outright gave bonuses to settling on different landmasses whilst Polynesia's main ability enabled you to do so more so than it encouraged, with it focusing more on fast, early movement and exploration over water - Even the Moai was about hugging the coast more than it was about settling on lands other than that of your origin point.

Oh I agree. Polynesia enabled island settling, while Indonesia promoted foreign landmass settling. This is exactly my point when I say there is a big difference between enabling and promoting.

I interpreted that as you getting fussed over the specifics of settling islands vs atolls. My bad

No worries. I was saying that you could use a difference to make for interesting nuance. I see no necessary difference between islands and atolls, really.

The reason why I think each individual Polynesian Civ does not make sense for an island settler is that, in Civ, island settling means settling far away from your Civ. You will spawn on a big landmass, and the islands are always out at sea. That doesn't fit thematically with any individual Polynesian, since they all lived on close islands. You can make it work if you really want, but I think Polynesia fits the bill much better as a grouping.

No, I really did not mean it like that. I was just trying to compare two popular opinions.

Ah. I apologize for the unnecessary argument then. We simply have a difference of opinion.

 

[JimmyBanks]

Wow, it's been a couple of days since I looked at this thread, and clearly, some people have absolutely no understanding of polynesia or the different societies in it.

Would anyone seriously suggest the Devs have a "Europe" or "Asia" civs? They would never do it, but when it comes to Native American's and Polynesian's it's ok? The civiliziations within those groups are too diverse. I'm not suggesting that they have 2 or 3 civs in each iteration, but there are plenty of native American or Polynesian civilizations that are unique enough for one to be included. I'm not saying they should be included in the vanilla I'm simply saying that if you are going to have a Civilization out of Polynesia, give it the same respect that you give other civs.

Yes I understand they have never rulled the world but the pacific ocean is a very large area and there have been some pretty brutal wars between the different nations in it over the years.

A quick google search of the defnition of Civilization will bring up:

the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area

Anyone with any understanding of the region would agree that Tonga, Samoa, the Maori, Hawaii, Fiji, and others clearly fit that definition rather than just being Polynesia/Micronesia/Melansia in the game. Whether any are worthy of being in a game is up for debate but if they are then they need to be in as their own unique Civ not "Polynesia" "Micronesia" or "Melanesia"

 

[Kerfuffle]

@Atlas627: Reading back everything, sorry if I've come across as an annoying little brat or anything. Haven't had the best few weeks and I think I'm developing a sleeping disorder of sorts; I've been struggling to catch barely 2 to 3 hours of sleep per day for over the last week and a bit - so some information doesn't run through my head very well. I ask that you kindly bear with me if I pointlessly reiterate things or misinterpret things again in the future

 

[Atlas627]

@Atlas627: Reading back everything, sorry if I've come across as an annoying little brat or anything. Haven't had the best few weeks and I think I'm developing a sleeping disorder of sorts; I've been struggling to catch barely 2 to 3 hours of sleep per day for over the last week and a bit - so some information doesn't run through my head very well. I ask that you kindly bear with me if I pointlessly reiterate things or misinterpret things again in the future

You're doing fine,

I've been irritable, too. Got multiple huge projects I'm working on simultaneously and its driving me mad.

Anyway, all I can possibly ask from a discussion is that people try to understand and interpret, then respond to those points. Then back and forth, as I (hopefully) do the same. We haven't had any personal attacks or anything; mutual respect will keep me coming back to discuss for awhile.

It certainly beats having multiple people tell me I know nothing about Polynesia.