September Update Thread

[leif erikson]

I don't know how he knows that the patch will be on the 20th though.

I do not know, it was a misunderstanding.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

The game already makes desert, jungle and tundra much too valuable. Some terrains should be categorically worse than others. If reality was like Civ, Siberia would support 300 million Russians and the world's 5 biggest cities would all be in the Sahel.

If reality was like Civ we would have Aztecs in the Moon and Petra in America build by Mapuche..

 

[lotrmith]

That's kinda my point. How interesting is ice in an average Civ game?

But mountains shouldn't be in that list. Mountains make for the best settles in the game, because you can leverage them in quite a many ways.

Since ice blocks movement, I find it at least marginally interesting. It also represents a physical border to either north or south from which you are safe from incursion.

Mountains are bad. Since they're not workable, all they do for you is add appeal and adjacency for holy site and campus, or aqueducts. They are better than ice, but I'd still rather have them be just outside a city's radius than inside.

 

[Disgustipated]

Coastal cities should be prime locations for trade and industry, not science

At least in the U.S. our best universities are near the coast. If anything adjacency for mountains should be lowered to minor.

 

[KayAU]

I find the discussion about "dead" areas interesting...I actually think it could be a valid approach to city placement. Fallen Enchantress did this, there were only certain areas could be settled. That made potential city spots extra valuable, as you couldn't just plop down cities anywhere (not until you got a powerful and expensive spell to revive land later on, at least). The uninhabited lands, meanwhile, would contain a mix of resources and dangers, which you would interact with through your armies or by building outposts.

I think a similar approach could work for civ as well, where not every position on the map could support a major city. This would mean fewer cities, but they would each have much higher value. City settling requirements could be eased with technological development, but the land would not have to be "dead" in the mean time. It could contain resources, outposts, villages, barbarians and so on, and the terrain would matter with regards to moving units through it. You would still be interacting with it, but in different ways than just filling it up with cities.

 

[Gedemon]

I find the discussion about "dead" areas interesting...I actually think it could be a valid approach to city placement. Fallen Enchantress did this, there were only certain areas could be settled. That made potential city spots extra valuable, as you couldn't just plop down cities anywhere (not until you got a powerful and expensive spell to revive land later on, at least). The uninhabited lands, meanwhile, would contain a mix of resources and dangers, which you would interact with through your armies or by building outposts.

I think a similar approach could work for civ as well, where not every position on the map could support a major city. This would mean fewer cities, but they would each have much higher value. City settling requirements could be eased with technological development, but the land would not have to be "dead" in the mean time. It could contain resources, outposts, villages, barbarians and so on, and the terrain would matter with regards to moving units through it. You would still be interacting with it, but in different ways than just filling it up with cities.

I agree, a kind of outpost mechanism to control territory with tiles providing other incentives to be conquered than city support is better than cities everywhere.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think it's good to have marginal terrain and to have the ability to make a limited amount of marginal terrain useful (aka Petra).

 

[bite]

Of indeed have some civs that can make marginal terrain work much better than others

 

[acluewithout]

I find the discussion about "dead" areas interesting...I actually think it could be a valid approach to city placement. Fallen Enchantress did this, there were only certain areas could be settled. That made potential city spots extra valuable, as you couldn't just plop down cities anywhere (not until you got a powerful and expensive spell to revive land later on, at least). The uninhabited lands, meanwhile, would contain a mix of resources and dangers, which you would interact with through your armies or by building outposts.

I think a similar approach could work for civ as well, where not every position on the map could support a major city. This would mean fewer cities, but they would each have much higher value. City settling requirements could be eased with technological development, but the land would not have to be "dead" in the mean time. It could contain resources, outposts, villages, barbarians and so on, and the terrain would matter with regards to moving units through it. You would still be interacting with it, but in different ways than just filling it up with cities.

I think it's good to have marginal terrain and to have the ability to make a limited amount of marginal terrain useful (aka Petra).

The only technological limits on settlement are really limited to sea travel - first hurdle is embarking, and then deep sea travel. Maybe also unlocking cards that let you deal with loyalty, at a stretch. And honestly, I don’t find any if those a huge limit.

It would be maybe interesting having a more staggered approach where, say, you can’t settle desert or tundra until you have tech x or can’t settle other continents until you unlock tech y.

Not sure I’m super worried either way.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

About the mystery on Terra maps...
In the new world, assuming there will be city-states, they will be alone with barbarians and I expect that eventually some/many of them will be razed by swarming barbarians under normal conditions. So could this mystery be related to this issue, to prevent city-states on new world razed by barbs with a new mechanic?

 

[pokiehl]

About the mystery on Terra maps...
In the new world, assuming there will be city-states, they will be alone with barbarians and I expect that eventually some/many of them will be razed by swarming barbarians under normal conditions. So could this mystery be related to this issue, to prevent city-states on new world razed by barbs with a new mechanic?

Barbarians cannot raze capitals.

As I stated earlier I doubt there is anything - probably just a joke from Dennis that is being looked into far too much. Maybe at the most a cool New World wonder like Deliverator suggested.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm in the "mystery = Dennis being dramatic" camp.

 

[durfal]

I'm in the "mystery = Dennis being dramatic" camp.

At most I suspect a hidden goldmine surrounded by barbarian camps .

 

[Krajzen]

I think the solution to the problem of Useless Land lies in the way territorial expansion works.

I really dislike how in Civ borders spread like organism, on their own, one little step by another, and not only that but for some reason uninhabited lands join your lands faster if you have more operas and theatres. This is simply not how borders worked in history, they were established by political/military force (not artistic influence lol) OR as a result of diplomatic treaties.

In Civ to control Siberia you need to settle it by a crazy amount of cities and then wait until your theatres convince frozen uninhabited soil to join you. IRL Russians claimed it, settled few very tiny military outposts, battled some poor innocent 'barbarian' peoples and boom, the entire Siberia was considered theirs because nobody had force to contest that claim. It worked similarly with those areas of Americans and Africa which lacked strong state societies.

Maybe there should be two types of land territorial control in those games?
You get special second terrain descriptor, called Wastelands, which is applied to sufficiently huge areas of harsh very low yield terrain - arid deserts, steppes, polar circle - and to grab them you don't settle cities but build Outposts, special tile improvement that grabs only Wasteland terrain.

Outposts would have only two purposes:
1) Military control - they lift Fog od War in wide radius, guarantee Barbarians aren't spawning here and establish borders blocking other civs armies
2) In late game not only Strategic Resources have higher rate of spawning in Wastelands, but also you get the ability of 'surveying' Wastelands and discovering new sources of regular resources such as silver, copper etc.

'Wastelands' IRL would be: something like 80-90% of Siberia, northern Russia and Scandinavia, Greenland, 80-90% of Canada and Australia, Amazon, Patagonia, Sahara, Syrian Desert, Arabian deserts, deepest Central Africa, Namib Desert, most of Central Asia etc.

Oh and one more thing - some civs (such as Steppe Horde Empires or Native Americansl) could get special mechanics involving Wastelands.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

although i'd like to see a bigger return of barb cities.

 

[UWHabs]

I think the solution to the problem of Useless Land lies in the way territorial expansion works.

I really dislike how in Civ borders spread like organism, on their own, one little step by another, and not only that but for some reason uninhabited lands join your lands faster if you have more operas and theatres. This is simply not how borders worked in history, they were established by political/military force (not artistic influence lol) OR as a result of diplomatic treaties.

In Civ to control Siberia you need to settle it by a crazy amount of cities and then wait until your theatres convince frozen uninhabited soil to join you. IRL Russians claimed it, settled few very tiny military outposts, battled some poor innocent 'barbarian' peoples and boom, the entire Siberia was considered theirs because nobody had force to contest that claim. It worked similarly with those areas of Americans and Africa which lacked strong state societies.

Maybe there should be two types of land territorial control in those games?
You get special second terrain descriptor, called Wastelands, which is applied to sufficiently huge areas of harsh very low yield terrain - arid deserts, steppes, polar circle - and to grab them you don't settle cities but build Outposts, special tile improvement that grabs only Wasteland terrain.

Outposts would have only two purposes:
1) Military control - they lift Fog od War in wide radius, guarantee Barbarians aren't spawning here and establish borders blocking other civs armies
2) In late game not only Strategic Resources have higher rate of spawning in Wastelands, but also you get the ability of 'surveying' Wastelands and discovering new sources of regular resources such as silver, copper etc.

'Wastelands' IRL would be: something like 80-90% of Siberia, northern Russia and Scandinavia, Greenland, 80-90% of Canada and Australia, Amazon, Patagonia, Sahara, Syrian Desert, Arabian deserts, deepest Central Africa, Namib Desert, most of Central Asia etc.

Oh and one more thing - some civs (such as Steppe Horde Empires or Native Americansl) could get special mechanics involving Wastelands.

Culture = borders has been a staple of civ forever, so would be weird to change it. But honestly, with the new loyalty mechanism, it would make a lot of sense to change border growth to somehow be based on some sort of loyalty factor, so if your cities are putting out a lot of loyalty, it can claim more of the neighbouring lands. It's also kind of crazy that you can simply buy a nearby tile with no ramifications - if you did a loyalty system like this, it feels like "buying" a on someone's border or that they exert loyalty pressure on should trigger some grievances.

 

[Krajzen]

Culture = borders has been a staple of civ forever, so would be weird to change it.

If it's stupid tradition then it's time to end it.

although i'd like to see a bigger return of barb cities.

Barbarian cities in civ terms is an oxymoron - barbarians are assumed to be agressive tribal societies incapable of government and urban dwellings.

I'd like to see a civ game in which 'barb cities' do return but in a specific way: barbarians can occasionally spawn or coordinate large invadions targeting cities, and if they take and hold them for some time then they are uplifted to major civs... Or even just city states!

Them becoming new civs is practicaly impossible if we are going to be Leader Purists and not allow new civs with placeholder leaders to spawn in the game. But City States spawning from barbarian invasions would be easily doable - just give them type and ability randomly chosen from among CS not present on the map (name is either of conquered city or from random 'barbarian' pool).

If barbarians becoming cultural city states is too weird then they could always become military CS.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If it's stupid tradition then it's time to end it.



Barbarian cities in civ terms is an oxymoron - barbarians are assumed to be agressive tribal societies incapable of government and urban dwellings.

I'd like to see a civ game in which 'barb cities' do return but in a specific way: barbarians can occasionally spawn or coordinate large invadions targeting cities, and if they take and hold them for some time then they are uplifted to major civs... Or even just city states!

Them becoming new civs is practicaly impossible if we are going to be Leader Purists and not allow new civs with placeholder leaders to spawn in the game. But City States spawning from barbarian invasions would be easily doable - just give them type and ability randomly chosen from among CS not present on the map (name is either of conquered city or from random 'barbarian' pool).

If barbarians becoming cultural city states is too weird then they could always become military CS.

I like it.

 

[steveg700]

In a game that rewards inifinite city sprawl certain areas should be garbage, yes. With the current game mechanics every inch of the world consists of somewhat large cities. Which is not very interesting from a gameplay standpoint. And unrealistic.

Well, we have garbage tiles. They're oceans, and they make a lot of maps feel small and congested relative to the number of civ's on the map. I'd also like to see sprawls contained, but not by just doling out bad terrain. Deserts themselves are largely garbage, right now even with strategic resources scattered through them. The main thing that makes building large cities everywhere possible is that cities can be fed tons of food just by trade routes, and that's terrain-agnostic.

Yeah, that's the case where gameplay has to trump reality. I mean, in civ, if I started in South America for every civ but Brazil I'm totally clearcutting the entire Amazon to both grow my cities and provide "usable" land. But in reality, as much as they try, you simply can't destroy the entire Amazon and create usable land from it.

And I mean, I think having dead areas that you could do very little or nothing with actually would make for some very interesting cases. But you'd need to have a map roughly double the current size for there to be both enough land to use and have those "dead" spots as a sort of "neutral" territory.

Sure, for instance, if "bad" terrain like desert or snow actually had deleterious effects on units moving through it, then it would be useful as a buffer zone. But that ain't the game we're playing.

Nor are we playing where players get dealt such a bad starting hand--like the South American jungle start you mention--that you should expect to be still fighting with spears when another civ shows up on your shores with galleons or gatling guns. That's a game of ragequits.

Mountains are bad. Since they're not workable, all they do for you is add appeal and adjacency for holy site and campus, or aqueducts. They are better than ice, but I'd still rather have them be just outside a city's radius than inside.

The mountain adjacency bonuses for science trump anything else on the map. For religion, it's much the same--basically on par with a pantheon . And then there's the appeal bonus for neighborhoods and national parks. True, they're better on the outskirts than inside (except for making parks), but they're still enormously useful, and by no means should be lumped in with garbage terrain. Mountains is winning.

Desert tiles should be dependent on Oasis, not Petra. Oasis should also give better adjacency bonuses to certain Districts. These Desert cities should work as a mid-post linking two Cities settled on terrain with better yields. There should be something unique about them. Bonuses to trade routes passing through a City Centre adjacent to an Oasis; Solar farm bonuses when adjacent to each other, etc.

Yeah, I think you saw my post in the Ideas forum that an oasis should provide a big adjacency bonus for commercial hubs. Pretty much echoes this sentiment.

Another thing that Civ isn't is a game where build outposts for a specific strategic purpose. Outposts in the desert, the arctic, the middle of the ocean. There are no supply lines to maintain, no maximum distance a unit can travel, no requirement to maintain trade routes in order to exchange resources, no special locations for either science or religion. Conversely, there's not much of a basis for building a major metropolitan hub for a certain purpose. Cities are very cookie-cutter, that's the shame of it all.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

In a game where your economy is mostly based on working tiles, you're going to continue to have strange issues like this.