Thundra and Snow

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

That is why I requested global inclusion criteria for a final 30, otherwise you're going to get a dozen Indian civs and a bunch in SEA/Africa after axing the ones that have already showed.

 

[m15a]

That is why I requested global inclusion criteria for a final 30, otherwise you're going to get a dozen Indian civs and a bunch in SEA/Africa after axing the ones that have already showed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "global inclusion criteria". If you mean criteria that every civ must pass to be eligible for what a particular person wants in a civ, I think I *might* be able to come up with a list, but that list of criteria wouldn't yield an ideal list of civs - it'd be too long. I'd also need to describe a ranking algorithm, which I think would be very difficult to define since, at best, choosing the Nth ranking civ would depend on all the civs ranked higher than N. At worst, some civs would be especially valuable when paired with others (e.g., historical enemies) and I'd have to consider potentially lower ranked civs to choose some rankings.

Anyway, my point is that following a set of criteria to choose civs won't necessarily yield the best possible civs, and that's not just because I want certain civs in the game on a whim. However, choosing civs on a whim to see if they make a good fit for the game is a good way of avoiding the need to test an impossibly huge combination of potential civs.

Maybe I'm thinking of the question in an unnecessarily convoluted way, though. At the risk of going off topic, can you list your personal criteria that would yield a best list of 30 civs? (I'd be curious anyway what you think.)

 

[Karmah]

neither tundra nor snow have made any civilization 'great' let alone 'ok'.

Russia has massive lands (former top side of mongol/horde lands) and it's all basically empty aside from some random resource extraction.

Most of Russia's pop live in the not-tundra area.

Canada has massive tundra lands but maybe .02% of the pop live up there.

the lands people went for historically were not frozen wastelands.

So while Tundra, in prior civ games, usually got more deer/forests/etc, the flat non-forest tiles were worth very little, which makes sense.

snow tiles are completely useless and should stay that way.


Also, most ski resorts are in mountains near good lands, not in the middle of the north.

Yes and yes for realism sake. Now Civ is not entirely based on realism. Not to diminish the immersion effect of realism and the value of it , mind me ! But there is this magical thing we call 'imagination'. What you want to achieve in civ is to win , not be 3rd or 4th or a decent civ , you want to be the first. No civ never ever dominated a big part of the world through domination by 100 AD and went on until they launched a spaceshift in 1767. Now that can happen in Civ. And we want it to happen.

I'm not sure any civilization spawning in a desert with a few desert river hills dominated the world, now in Civ if you get petra and the desert pantheon combined with tradition you are well on the way to win in such a setup.

And that's fine , because you are playing a realism based game but not a simulation . Every words count. It's a game.

Why not have this something , even if you have to compete or adapt to get it , that makes tundra or snow worthwhile ? Just for the fun of it ? Just to get a let's see ? just to play 'pretend' ?

Would it be hard to balance ? or to make it interresting ? like a nice starting combo and an end game huge bonus with some challenging gap at mid-game ?

Just sayin....

 

[Thormodr]

Yes and yes for realism sake. Now Civ is not entirely based on realism. Not to diminish the immersion effect of realism and the value of it , mind me ! But there is this magical thing we call 'imagination'. What you want to achieve in civ is to win , not be 3rd or 4th or a decent civ , you want to be the first. No civ never ever dominated a big part of the world through domination by 100 AD and went on until they launched a spaceshift in 1767. Now that can happen in Civ. And we want it to happen.

I'm not sure any civilization spawning in a desert with a few desert river hills dominated the world, now in Civ if you get petra and the desert pantheon combined with tradition you are well on the way to win in such a setup.

And that's fine , because you are playing a realism based game but not a simulation . Every words count. It's a game.

Why not have this something , even if you have to compete or adapt to get it , that makes tundra or snow worthwhile ? Just for the fun of it ? Just to get a let's see ? just to play 'pretend' ?

Would it be hard to balance ? or to make it interresting ? like a nice starting combo and an end game huge bonus with some challenging gap at mid-game ?

Just sayin....

Well said.

I love historical what ifs. Who's to say if history replayed itself that things wouldn't turn out differently?

That's why I love Civ and why it's so fun for me.

 

[Tagma]

I like the end-game "tundra mini game" - oh look, that useless area that's done nothing but spawn barbs for the last 3000 years is suddenly full if oil and uranium. How many aluminium deposits can I claim with just one city?

 

[King William I]

For one thing, it's labeled wrong. What the game calls tundra is actually taiga. Fixing that I think would fix the "unrealistic amount of tundra problem"

As for improving it, I think it's a horrible idea. We need bad tiles to compare with the good ones.

 

[shaglio]

For one thing, it's labeled wrong. What the game calls tundra is actually taiga. Fixing that I think would fix the "unrealistic amount of tundra problem"

As for improving it, I think it's a horrible idea. We need bad tiles to compare with the good ones.

Not exactly true. In Civ 5 terms, what they call tundra is basically a mix of tundra and taiga - differentiated by the presence or lack of trees.