Thundra and Snow

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Water have become more useful with the trade system and the trade system is keep in some form so while water tile themself are not the greatest, cities located near water have potential to be very strong.

With the focus on specialization thundra could definitely have a role, it could be good for tourism/faith/culture/whatever but desert could also get roles such as being good for markets, jungles are good for science, this encourage empries to expand as they want the best tiles for each district so if thundra is good for tourism you would want your tourism city to be a thundra city like you want your science city near mountains and jungels.

Civilization V did not encourage you to expand much and one of the bigger reason for that was that there was no specialization and some tiles are just pure better then others. Given all penalties for expanding in Civilization V there was no real drive to found more then lets say 4 cities because there was little to no gain in founding complete inferior cities. The best cities was best at everything and that is what Civilization VI try to go away from.

 

[unpossible251]

What about a late game exploration stage based on the polar regions?
Polar explorers, science boost, submarines, uranium and oil, launch sites, .... Possible? Like a late game archaeological race with a science / military focus? Possible global warming element, if they bring that back from civ3 (was it?)

 

[Draco84]

Global warming would be nice to be back in the game, would require pollution to make a comeback, which I'm not opposed to.

I'd play a remake of Civ 1.

Snow should be worthless, Tundra should be close to it, But one thing I would like to see, is the ability to create settlements, or outposts, they would be cities that have no population but add every adjoining tile to your civ, make them built built out of a settler (or new unit)

Give us a chance to snag that oil in the snow without building a city that will cost you 5% of your science and be worthless except for the oil.

 

[Nixalo]

I could see Tundra become decent as place for decent city.

Possible go heavy on religion with a tundra forest start. Whatever forests, hills, muntains, deer and and furs gives bonuses to.

Tundra start???
Step 1: Settle near forest and deer for faster research of Trapping.
Step 2: Build Holy Site on Forest for bonus faith
Step 3: Kill Southerners with warriors and reindeer chariots bought with Faith.
Step 4: Settle city in the ruins of Southerner city.

 

[brianshapiro]

Adding some snow luxuries [if the happy system is in, and I hope so] like Seals and Bears would improve the use of snow without needing any magic solution. Snow is snow, after all, worse than desert.

Ivory .. from walruses. Its not limited to elephants

Bears and seals though I believe would fall under the Fur resource that's already existed in Tundra, though they'd be nice to see on the map.

 

[Thormodr]

I have been lobbying for an Inuit Civ for well over a decade. They could make good use of arctic and tundra terrain. Plus, they could bring back the seal resource.

It's amazing to me that one of the most adaptable and interesting civilizations has never been included in a Civilization game. With the number of Native American civs that have been done and done pretty well, I think it is finally time to have an Inuit Civ.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Exactly. In civ5 tundra is somehow a huge biome where entire civilisations may fit in, while this is the map of extent of real tundra on Earth

Logging in for the first time in forever just to say this, but: this is an extremely warped projection. On my phone so I can't find a more accurate one.

Edit: or maybe not idk

 

[m15a]

Logging in for the first time in forever just to say this, but: this is an extremely warped projection. On my phone so I can't find a more accurate one.

That's a good point. I couldn't find a good map, but according to Wikipedia, 11.5 million square kilometers are tundra - about 7.8% of the Earth's land area, which is bigger than Europe. And that doesn't count the non-tundra "snow" regions that cover most of Antarctica and Greenland.

Not making an argument one way or the other about tundra in Civ. Just thought I'd mention some numbers because, yay numbers!

 

[Heinage]

Here we are debating the usefulness of Tundra in Civ and you know what? 100 years from now, some poor people are going to come across this forum thread and be like: "geeze, I wish the world still had Tundra to "complain" about ".

Have some respect people, gosh!

[emoji14]

On topic: I like Tundra's role in the game. Adds variety and challenge

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Redaxe]

Logging in for the first time in forever just to say this, but: this is an extremely warped projection. On my phone so I can't find a more accurate one.

Edit: or maybe not idk

The extent of Tundra on that map probably means Winter + Summer.

Either way it seems to most closely represent where snow tiles sit in Civ 5.

My guess as others here have already said is that snow best represents permanent tundra - there is 0 food yield because farming is close to impossible to achieve.

Civ 5 Tundra best represents climate with an extreme cold winter but with warm or mild summers. Farming activity is heavily restricted over the winter and food yields are lower.

Tundra & snow tiles should not be as produtive as grasslands - that is obvious.

What they can do though is add some more food resources to tundra tiles so you can still get some food - Seals would be an ideal resource to have on coastal tundra tiles.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ V makes tundra playable, it really wasn't in IV unless you were playing against people much worse than you or below your usual difficulty in SP. That's mostly because V is more pop driven and less dependent on terrain for yields, plus some tundra specific bonuses from religion/counterplay with boosting seafood etc.

Global warming would be nice to be back in the game, would require pollution to make a comeback, which I'm not opposed to.

GW was not a functional mechanic in Civ IV. If it's to make a "comeback", it needs to look very different than it has in previous civ titles, where it became more of an inane nuisance with minimal to no useful choices rather than something to plan around.

Just as importantly, GW is almost irrelevant over the scale of a civ game, most of which is pre-industrial, with the latest part of the game happening in different timeframes and historical progressions. We're supposed to buy that one super-advanced nation that was in the industrial period only 20-40 years and wiped out most other nations before they did it themselves contributes *more* to GW than anything in our real history? Really?

In addition to the rote mundane micromanagement it used to bring, it also behaved in a way that made no sense. To bring any climate change back into the game, you'd have to completely alter how it works and the timing it hits. You CAN model it, but it should be really low priority compared to most mechanics because it will be irrelevant for most of the game's time period, and in many cases should be irrelevant for the whole game (domination victory before or at-start of industrial revolution, very fast/limited industrial revolution). In practice, it's a low yield mechanic necessarily.

 

[Atwork]

A Google search yielded this:

"The arctic region of Russia, the most developed of all the arctic regions, is a vast storehouse of mineral wealth, including deposits of nickel, copper, coal, gold, uranium, tungsten, and diamonds. The North American Arctic yields uranium, copper, nickel, iron, natural gas, and oil."

So, IMO, if the game were to model real life, then you would not settle large populations in the tundra because the living conditions are too harsh and supplying a large population too difficult. But, you would certainly want to claim the territory or land for resource extraction.

For game purposes, in the modern era, a player could send a worker or diplomat unit to claim a resource by building a Resource Development Center, thus acquiring the resource until such time as the Center were purchased or captured by another player. Similar to plopping down a fort, but a different graphic, and you wouldn't need to be adjacent to your culture spread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/w...tic-territory-to-the-united-nations.html?_r=0

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Maybe the answer isn't to make tundra better, but to not make civs start near tundra. Then players can go build near it on their own accord if the feel the need to.

 

[Krajzen]

I have been lobbying for an Inuit Civ for well over a decade. They could make good use of arctic and tundra terrain. Plus, they could bring back the seal resource.

It's amazing to me that one of the most adaptable and interesting civilizations has never been included in a Civilization game. With the number of Native American civs that have been done and done pretty well, I think it is finally time to have an Inuit Civ.

A civilization requires urban development, centralization, social stratification, symbolic communication (writing system), dependence upon farming etc.

There's IMO a problem with perceiving "lack of civilization" as an insult, and thereby a pressure to basically say all peoples had their own civilizations - Bushmen, Amazon tribes, Inuit, pre-contact Aborigines and so on. That's, in my opinion, an emotional corruption of neutral term. "Civilization" is an anthropological and historical label and some human societies simply do not fit it at all, but there's this stupid ingrained reasoning "no civilization->uncivilized people->insult->racism/arrogant eurocentrism" etc.
Inuit is a word describing culturally similar people of three separate continents (they aren't even a single ethnic group) that had no contact with each other and were spread over a million km2 barren landscape in so low numbers even today there are less than 140 000 Inuit peoples on the entire planet. Inuit don't even constitute a single society, not to mention civilization. They didn't have military, navy, government, iron smelting, scientific method etc and they couldn't reach them in their extreme environment, and that's understandable but they were not a civilization.

And once again, it sounds as if I was willing to insult them, but I don't. I am in awe of indigenous peoples of the world and their environmental mastery, but they were not civilizations. Hunter-gatherers are not civilizations, Inuits and Yakuts and Amazon rainforest tribes were not civilizations, and there is nothing bad in that, but I think the Civ series should have some factual basis.
(I already think Polynesian, Shoshone and Zulu civs shouldn't be in the series next to such monumental civilisations as India - Iroquis and Huns fit just barely)

#####that was my 'background' problems with Inuits, now regarding gameplay###

I see serious gameplay problems with 'snow civ'.
1) It is dependent on terrain type that no other significant system of a game uses (so far in series). Either you make maps generate little snow lands, so Inuit waste their uniqueness, or you make maps generate much snow lands, which are almost completely useless for everybody but Inuit.
2) If its snow habitability bonuses are civ-based, not pop-based - as all civ systems work, and changing that would be enormous feat - then there is a problem of Inuit snow cities being useless for all other civilisations that happen to conquer them. That would be frustrating and unbalanced - you basically have a playable faction that is a burden for all other factions.
3) On all 'regular' map types (and great majority of games is played on those), due to the way civ and real geography works, Inuit would end up always on the extreme polar verge of the map. That'd be weird but more serious problem with 'ingame geography' is the fact many of civ5 continents/pangea/archipelago maps I've played basically have no land polar regions, just arctic oceans. So once again, very special civ requiring very specific terrain balance to work reliably.
4) I have played many league multiplayer games and on symmetrical MP maps Inuits would be always useless, as there was no snow/tundra covering starting positions, unless the entire map generation process was tweaked especially for Inuit.
5) Wonders in civ6 are going to have strict terrain requirements (Pyramids - desert, Stonehenge - grasslands etc) as well as probably city districts. So once again, Inuit would either have no access to stuff everybody else has or they'd require special balancing. This extends even to the most basic stuff - farmlands on tundra and snow are impossible, so Inuit shouldn't be able to build this terrain improvement at all...
6) Snow lands in civ series rightfully contain very few resources, both luxury and normal. No agricultural products, no luxuries such as silk, basically only mineral riches, so once again, this would require additional balance and attention just for Inuit...


In the end I think Inuit would cause a ton of balance problems for the very dubious gain (making useless climate useful after stomping realism). I don't think Inuit, the only 'terrain-centric' civilization in game would work good at all.

 

[Thormodr]

A civilization requires urban development, centralization, social stratification, symbolic communication (writing system), dependence upon farming etc.

There's IMO a problem with perceiving "lack of civilization" as an insult, and thereby a pressure to basically say all peoples had their own civilizations - Bushmen, Amazon tribes, Inuit, pre-contact Aborigines and so on. That's, in my opinion, an emotional corruption of neutral term. "Civilization" is an anthropological and historical label and some human societies simply do not fit it at all, but there's this stupid ingrained reasoning "no civilization->uncivilized people->insult->racism/arrogant eurocentrism" etc.
Inuit is a word describing culturally similar people of three separate continents (they aren't even a single ethnic group) that had no contact with each other and were spread over a million km2 barren landscape in so low numbers even today there are less than 140 000 Inuit peoples on the entire planet. Inuit don't even constitute a single society, not to mention civilization. They didn't have military, navy, government, iron smelting, scientific method etc and they couldn't reach them in their extreme environment, and that's understandable but they were not a civilization.

And once again, it sounds as if I was willing to insult them, but I don't. I am in awe of indigenous peoples of the world and their environmental mastery, but they were not civilizations. Hunter-gatherers are not civilizations, Inuits and Yakuts and Amazon rainforest tribes were not civilizations, and there is nothing bad in that, but I think the Civ series should have some factual basis.
(I already think Polynesian, Shoshone and Zulu civs shouldn't be in the series next to such monumental civilisations as India - Iroquis and Huns fit just barely)

#####that was my 'background' problems with Inuits, now regarding gameplay###

I see serious gameplay problems with 'snow civ'.
1) It is dependent on terrain type that no other significant system of a game uses (so far in series). Either you make maps generate little snow lands, so Inuit waste their uniqueness, or you make maps generate much snow lands, which are almost completely useless for everybody but Inuit.
2) If its snow habitability bonuses are civ-based, not pop-based - as all civ systems work, and changing that would be enormous feat - then there is a problem of Inuit snow cities being useless for all other civilisations that happen to conquer them. That would be frustrating and unbalanced - you basically have a playable faction that is a burden for all other factions.
3) On all 'regular' map types (and great majority of games is played on those), due to the way civ and real geography works, Inuit would end up always on the extreme polar verge of the map. That'd be weird but more serious problem with 'ingame geography' is the fact many of civ5 continents/pangea/archipelago maps I've played basically have no land polar regions, just arctic oceans. So once again, very special civ requiring very specific terrain balance to work reliably.
4) I have played many league multiplayer games and on symmetrical MP maps Inuits would be always useless, as there was no snow/tundra covering starting positions, unless the entire map generation process was tweaked especially for Inuit.
5) Wonders in civ6 are going to have strict terrain requirements (Pyramids - desert, Stonehenge - grasslands etc) as well as probably city districts. So once again, Inuit would either have no access to stuff everybody else has or they'd require special balancing. This extends even to the most basic stuff - farmlands on tundra and snow are impossible, so Inuit shouldn't be able to build this terrain improvement at all...
6) Snow lands in civ series rightfully contain very few resources, both luxury and normal. No agricultural products, no luxuries such as silk, basically only mineral riches, so once again, this would require additional balance and attention just for Inuit...


In the end I think Inuit would cause a ton of balance problems for the very dubious gain (making useless climate useful after stomping realism). I don't think Inuit, the only 'terrain-centric' civilization in game would work good at all.

Thoroughly disagree. Civ is all about playing in a fantasy world laid out before you. How about playing on a cold rocky world? A world with lots of arctic and tundra terrain. A Inuit Civ would shine. This is no different than a Polynesian Civ having a big advantage on a tiny islands map.

Personally, I think that saying that the Inuit don't qualify as a civilization is absurd. The Huns are in the game, after all, and rightfully so. The game is all about having fun. It's not some social anthropological dissertation.

If you have a problem with them in MP (which makes up less than 10% of the player base and likely closer to 5% or less) then don't allow them to be played.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Thoroughly disagree. Civ is all about playing in a fantasy world laid out before you. How about playing on a cold rocky world? A world with lots of arctic and tundra terrain. A Inuit Civ would shine. This is no different than a Polynesian Civ having a big advantage on a tiny islands map.

Personally, I think that saying that the Inuit don't qualify as a civilization is absurd. The Huns are in the game, after all, and rightfully so. The game is all about having fun. It's not some social anthropological dissertation.

If you have a problem with them in MP (which makes up less than 10% of the player base and likely closer to 5% or less) then don't allow them to be played.

Before getting too up in arms about what should/shouldn't be included, before considering any civilizations at all think about what criteria would make you pick one civ over another civ, if you had to use only a fixed number of civs in the game.

Applied globally to all civilizations, I think you will find it hard to get Inuit anywhere near a top 50 list, let alone a top 30 list, without resorting to whim as your criteria.

But whim could also allow for Quebec, Confederate States of America, HRE, Mordor, and Vulcans.

 

[poom3619]

Before getting too up in arms about what should/shouldn't be included, before considering any civilizations at all think about what criteria would make you pick one civ over another civ, if you had to use only a fixed number of civs in the game.

Applied globally to all civilizations, I think you will find it hard to get Inuit anywhere near a top 50 list, let alone a top 30 list, without resorting to whim as your criteria.

Let's say we all use our different set of "criteria" and leave it at that. Inuit could make a great unique civ from gameplay perspective. Compare to... another set of criteria, it might not.

 

[Thormodr]

Before getting too up in arms about what should/shouldn't be included, before considering any civilizations at all think about what criteria would make you pick one civ over another civ, if you had to use only a fixed number of civs in the game.

Applied globally to all civilizations, I think you will find it hard to get Inuit anywhere near a top 50 list, let alone a top 30 list, without resorting to whim as your criteria.

But whim could also allow for Quebec, Confederate States of America, HRE, Mordor, and Vulcans.

Stick to historical reality for one thing. So, no Mordor or Vulcans.

Every iteration of Civ brings something new. Although I am not a fan of Civilization 5, I thought Civs like Venice, the Huns and the Shoshone were very creative and well done. They were a breath of fresh air and looked to be fun to play. Polynesia was also very cool and had been requested for a long time.

I'd like to see that creativity continue in CIV VI. The game is about having fun.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Let's say we all use our different set of "criteria" and leave it at that. Inuit could make a great unique civ from gameplay perspective. Compare to... another set of criteria, it might not.

You get to use your own criteria, but no filling the bottom line in advance. Give some reasons you would pick one civ over another in a list of 30.

Not my reasons, your reasons.

The list generated from your own criteria won't have Inuit unless you use whim to elevate them.

 

[m15a]

Before getting too up in arms about what should/shouldn't be included, before considering any civilizations at all think about what criteria would make you pick one civ over another civ, if you had to use only a fixed number of civs in the game.

Applied globally to all civilizations, I think you will find it hard to get Inuit anywhere near a top 50 list, let alone a top 30 list, without resorting to whim as your criteria.

But whim could also allow for Quebec, Confederate States of America, HRE, Mordor, and Vulcans.

That makes some sense, but we can't assume that any criteria for a chosen civ is independent of whatever other civs happen to be in the game. A lot of my preferred criteria are based on the selection of other civs in the game and which civs have been in past games.

I think it's fun to have civs that haven't been in the game yet, so even though a lot of the past civs are in the top 30 independently "best" civs, none are in the top 30 of civs that haven't been in the game yet, but of course Inuit could be.

I also like covering geographic regions that haven't been covered much in past Civ games or the current one - that made Indonesia a very good choice for me by the time BNW came out. Inuit also fulfills that criterion.

I also like civs that are just interesting in some historical ways, particularly those that bring attention to the question of what is a civilization or whether a civilization in the historical sense is necessarily important in the game sense. Inuit also fulfills that criterion.

Based on those criteria, Inuit might be in my top 30 list. However, I would be pretty disappointed if *only* civs that fit those criteria are in the game.

All that said, I still am not so sure whether I'd like an Inuit civ in Civ VI, but it's because of gameplay reasons. The most interesting historical aspect is the ability to survive and do well in harsh environments. But I think a bonus that makes a civ as good in a harsh environment as a typical civ in a typical environment isn't very fun. Having a tundra start will still be bad in some ways (being off to the edge of the map and being less in contact with other civs), and other civs will have UA that make them above average in any starting place rather than simply average in an atypical starting place. And I don't think the standard tundra (or desert) tile should suddenly be even better than grassland for one civ - that just goes past my realism threshold. That might be fun to have an Inuit opponent, but that's not good enough for me, really.

If city states (or minor civs) had unique features, it'd be a neat option for thay IMO.