Sometimes antique site just annoying

myclan

King
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
671
I found I was building theater district not for cuture victory, but for clearing the antique site so that my worker can farm or mine that tile.
 
Amen. My current Rome game has FIVE different cities that placed industrial zones because of 3 or more cog bonuses from adjacent mines, some of which were not in the territory yet. Not going for a culture victory so (as Rome) no need to build theater squares yet. All five cities are going to lose at least one hammer adjacency bonus (and not be able to build a mine there) until I build a theater square, which is expensive at this point in the game.
 
You should be able to use a builder charge to clear an antiquity site. Then maybe some AI would get mad at you for "destroying valuable history" (would be a new agenda - likes artifacts, doesn't like people destroying artifacts).
 
I don't see why the system needs to change. As it is, antiquity sites are normally good, but sometimes can be bad. What's wrong with that? Not every single that happens to you needs to be positive, it's good for gameplay to force you to adapt and change your strategy as circumstances evolve.
 
Germany's CH gets a "resource" bonus when adjacent to an antiquity site if I remember correctly.
 
I have no problem with the sites blocking development. It even reflects real life situations where development projects are slowed because something historic is uncovered.

One thing that might help (or at least could make the game more interesting) would be having the antiquities sites appear gradually. For example, a large handful of civics in the industrial era and later would each reveal a subset of all antiquities sites when researched.
 
I found I was building theater district not for cuture victory, but for clearing the antique site so that my worker can farm or mine that tile.

I got hit with 42 antiquity sites inside my border. Haven't counted the shipwrecks yet.

I say military engineers should be able to blow them the hell up.
 
I have no problem with the sites blocking development. It even reflects real life situations where development projects are slowed because something historic is uncovered.

One thing that might help (or at least could make the game more interesting) would be having the antiquities sites appear gradually. For example, a large handful of civics in the industrial era and later would each reveal a subset of all antiquities sites when researched.
It's just obnoxious that you could have built a mine on this tile before discovering this civic, and now you can't. your progress has obstructed you.
 
I don't see why the system needs to change. As it is, antiquity sites are normally good, but sometimes can be bad. What's wrong with that? Not every single that happens to you needs to be positive, it's good for gameplay to force you to adapt and change your strategy as circumstances evolve.
0ne tile in a civ map in fact represents hundreds of square km or even more. I honestly don't see how discovering an antique will force the government to shut down all routine activities of such a big area. A farm and an antique site should be able to coexist to start with.
 
This is particularly annoying in my all techs/civics games. The map script puts them in the most annoying places.

I hold off getting that civic in regular games just because it's guaranteed to have a ruin in a painful place.
I'll build at least 2 theater districts anyway, just for the eurekas.

One thing you CAN do though, is found a city on top of ruins. I've done that quite a bit, just to clear the bloody thing out.
 
0ne tile in a civ map in fact represents hundreds of square km or even more. I honestly don't see how discovering an antique will force the government to shut down all routine activities of such a big area. A farm and an antique site should be able to coexist to start with.

Scale arguments make no sense in Civ. Period.

How can an army only move a few hundred miles in a century? Why can't I fit more than one unit in several hundred miles? Why must my market and library be built several hundred miles away too? Why do my warriors stand still for 40 years while getting shot by slingers? Why can archers shoot further than riflemen? The list goes on.

I could give a detailed reason based on abstraction, game concepts and suspension of disbelief; the take-home message is that these things make the game better.

I would argue the same thing for Antiquity Sites. 99% of the time they're good, but sometimes they're bad. That's life. It makes for an interesting, non-static game.
 
I can't stand them. I delay the civic to get them on purpose until I develop my lands more. I can't stand not being able to build a worker improvement because of these things. Most annoying feature in the game right now. Problem is I need to get it eventually for the zoos.
 
Germany's CH gets a "resource" bonus when adjacent to an antiquity site if I remember correctly.

Sometimes this is an very good extra bonus:)
I do not think that was wanted:cry:

Well... one issue is if civs can just destroy them / build on them then it does damage victory possibilities a bit. I personally thing you should be able to build on them but an archaeologist can still dig them up.

Good idea but...

Spoiler :



:borg::borg::borg:


I guess there should be not only one tech which effects antique sites. The first tech should make them visible, destructible (by a military engineer) and allows the excavation (by an archaeologist). The second tech (e.g. International law a new modern era tech) should protect them from destruction or it costs much foreign reputation. This could be added by the introduction of the UN in an expansion....but before that the bug which gives the hansa a bonus for adjacent antique sites must be fixed.
 
Scale arguments make no sense in Civ. Period.

How can an army only move a few hundred miles in a century? Why can't I fit more than one unit in several hundred miles? Why must my market and library be built several hundred miles away too? Why do my warriors stand still for 40 years while getting shot by slingers? Why can archers shoot further than riflemen? The list goes on.

I could give a detailed reason based on abstraction, game concepts and suspension of disbelief; the take-home message is that these things make the game better.

I would argue the same thing for Antiquity Sites. 99% of the time they're good, but sometimes they're bad. That's life. It makes for an interesting, non-static game.
Yes, civ is not a simulation program, but there are elements of realism that give this game a feeling of immersion. If there is a strong gameplay argument then this immersion can definitely be ignored, but there isn't.

Convince me why making antique sites and improvements mutually exclusive will make this game significantly more interesting then. I am all ears.
 
Convince me why making antique sites and improvements mutually exclusive will make this game significantly more interesting then. I am all ears.

Because they force you to adapt your strategy by either: 1) Building theatre districts and getting archeologists out or 2) Placing your districts elsewhere. Forcing you to adapt your game plan is good, because otherwise the mid and late game are super dull.

When I play Civ6 by the time I have my core cities built I start putting pins on the map for which districts will be placed where. I might spend a whole 1h doing that, maximising the effects of overlap, the various adjacency bonuses, the right defence layout, etc... But once those pins are down, things are fixed. It's rare that I deviate from the plan, so the district planning part of the game is dull from then on because I've already made my decisions. Resources popping up (and, to a lesser extent, Antiquity Sites because I also build a few archeologists) are one of the very few things that might make me change my plan. This is a good thing because it forces me to think again, rather than just clicking through the motions.
 
Top Bottom