[NFP] Some people just want to see the world burn a little too much

Hey,

developers are monitoring this forum, so let me voice a certain grievance I've acquired with an otherwise fantastic game mechanics. It's jungle/forest fires. Their effect, especially on arboreal maps, can be devastating. Too devastating. Especially on lower levels of disaster intensity.

Imagine a flood wave going back and forth through a river for several centuries, effectively drowning children every year and destroying what little was produced that year. This would be ridiculous, especially if game-wise, flooded tile would always kill a pop. But that's exactly what happens with forest fires. And, taking the river analogy to new heights, our little flood wave can jump rivers and travel across the whole continent.

This unrealistically devastating disaster type, something that wrecks havoc even in small outbreaks of 3-4 tiles, was bothering me for some time already. Now, I started a true start Europe map with Russia. And a fire started in Finland. Soon, ~20 tiles were constantly in flames and fire waves were going in circles, completely depopulating and devastating my 4 largest cities. Fires were burning for several dozens of turns.

Remember from history lessons, when Charlemagne had to deforest half of Europe in order to stop fires that killed 98% of the continent's population? Me neither.

And I even thought that forests covered with permafrost don't burn so hard. You need to remove permafrost first in order to start some slowly brewing turf fires. But no, in Civ6, snow is flammable too.

What's even better, right after I delt with my fires, Scandinavia started to burn. It was late medieval era. Now, it's almost industrial era and it's still burning. How do you like them apples from hell, barbarians?.

I know that it's a vital game mechanic. I know that it was designed to effectively counter post-conservation forest spam aimed at providing massive production everywhere. I do enjoy it and I must say it's balancing done in the right way.

However, it can really be an overkill.

How to deal with it? 3 suggestions:
1. If tile is not being actively worked, a pop should not be killed just for the crime of living in a city with far-reaching borders.
2. Chance of pop dying could be linked to disaster intensity. 100% at 4 and proportionally less on lower settings.
3. Forest fires hit adult forest the most, i.e. forest with old, large, often dead trees. Saplings don't burn so well. Fire propagation onto new growth (defined as something that has regrown within the last X turns) should be by far less likely. Now, the process of regrowth is quite rapid, turning larger natural forests into merry-go-round of apocalypse. While sustainability is important, I don't think it's what all the hippies have in mind.

 

I have almost the opposite issue with the forest fires.

Yeah, the population loss sucks, but forest fires have a 100% chance of adding fertility to tiles and can be burned again and again and again and again (naturally or by soothsayers) which can make the tiles really OP.

The tiles are worth less while on fire, but the fire burns out pretty quick. Then the trees regrow. After regrowing, the tiles are +1 food and +1 production. Then you can burn them down again. In my game, I sent a soothsayer into a heavily forested area and burned it down a few times before settling and had the best city I have ever had in all my games. I had tiles that were 5 food/3 production before I even built a lumber mill.

It seems like maybe they should only get the fertility benefits the first time they burn down? Or maybe there should be a certain percent chance that they regrow and a chance that they don't? Or they always regrow, but just have a chance at fertility, like floods and volcanoes, instead of 100% guarantee.