Yes, that's even worse than the Normans being based in Rome, which is pretty tough to swallow. Although the Modern French effectively being Italians is up there in weirdness. Seems as though some others, like India, might be fine.its gonna be so weird becoming Songhai in the middle of the Nile River....
French and Italians are much, much more closely related than Maurya are to Chola or either are to Mughals. Maurya, Chola, and Mughals don't even share a language family, not even distantly, and the distance from Rome to Rouen is less than half the distance from to Patliputra to Gaṅgaikoṇḍa Chōḻapuram or from Gaṅgaikoṇḍa Chōḻapuram to New Delhi.Although the Modern French effectively being Italians is up there in weirdness. Seems as though some others, like India, might be fine.
It was also fun with the Maori, settling near the Great Barrier Reef, when it wasn't inhabited by Australia.I loved playing as Australia, completely isolated and far from the chaos happening on other continents. It was common for me to include the Aztecs in the game and later discover that they had taken almost all of the Americas. I didn’t play TSL often, but it’s undeniable that it has its charm.
Be careful what you say. Catherine might send her Flying Squadron after you.Although the Modern French effectively being Italians is up there in weirdness.
That is an interesting use for TSL, as an easy to use "mod" for having no one close to you. It has the negative effect of needing to pick the AI adversaries while I like keeping them random, but I guess I could always roll a dice and pick them that wayI don't generally find TSL interesting--if I want that kind of game, I'll play CK3--but I did got a mild level of enjoyment out of a couple TSL games in Civ6 where I just stuffed in all the Balkan and Balkan-adjacent civs and leaders into the game while I enjoyed the peace in East Asia or the Americas.![]()
I don't have high demands. Customizable TSL Maps, i.e. being able to select who you are playing against. Since FXS obviously won't change their newly implemented Civ Switching mechanics, I hope some Modder will come up with a solution, which let's me (and the AI) keep the original Civs, which we originally picked. Playing a TSL Map, where France's or England's capitol is Rome, doesn't sound much "fun" to me.I believe it's been confirmed Civ 7 will have a TSL map, albeit not immediately on launch. Subsequently, I've been thinking about what I would consider an ideal TSL map, and how it could also work with some of the Civ 7 mechanics.
- European Overcrowding: This is something which I expect will likely be less of an issue in Civ 7, with a lower proportion of European civs than previously. However, it is possible that with future DLCs that proportion will increase (possibly more so in the exploration/modern ages, where the more obvious conterparts to modern european countries show up), and so it'd be useful if there were a system in place to prevent extreme overcrowding by influence which civs the AI can be.
- Civ 7 Mechanics: I'd assume TSL maps would also be compatible with advanced starts (although advanced start TSL hawai'i would be tough!), and that afroeurasia and the americas would be distant lands to each other - possibly with oceania as a third?
- Region Unlocks: It'd be neat if it were possible to become a different civ based on which territory you've settled in. This wouldn't likely open more options during the antiquity/exploration change unless you settled impressively far, but it'd be fun to be able change from a South American civ into an African one in the modern age after settling across the ocean during the exploration age.
- Slight Randomisation: Unrelated to Civ 7 mechanics, I wasn't a fan of always having all the same resources and wonders in the same locations in Civ 6. It allowed for fun planning ahead at times, but I'd enjoy it if there were a TSL map with slightly randomised features - still in the appropriate places, but variability in if they'll be the game or not. A more script-driven Earth map generation may also open possibilities for changing global temperatures/rainfall/etc?
- TSL-Specific Narrative Events: What it says on the tin - extra narrative events connected to geographical locations, referencing historical events.
For me, the interesting thing about TSL is being able to try out certain playstyles and try to recreate history (with all known limitations!). E.G. playing as America or Aztecs means, plenty of space, isolated devolpment and then find out at a later stage, how your Civ can compete with the Europeans, which were battling against each other for centuries on a totally different continent. If you play a TSL map, you know each Civ has its own prerequisites and will have a very unique gaming experince, just because of the starting location and its surroundings. The same map plays out very differently, depening on which Civ you pick and on which continent you are playing.That is an interesting use for TSL, as an easy to use "mod" for having no one close to you. It has the negative effect of needing to pick the AI adversaries while I like keeping them random, but I guess I could always roll a dice and pick them that way
But the main reason I'm not a fan of TSL maps, is that the x I like the most in the 4x is exploration, while that is much less interesting when I already know the landmasses and even where I'm starting on it. And even more if I repeat that same map over and over.
They could have changed their capital. TSL could make it mandatory.I don't have high demands. Customizable TSL Maps, i.e. being able to select who you are playing against. Since FXS obviously won't change their newly implemented Civ Switching mechanics, I hope some Modder will come up with a solution, which let's me (and the AI) keep the original Civs, which we originally picked. Playing a TSL Map, where France's or England's capitol is Rome, doesn't sound much "fun" to me.
It is not just about the capital. An English civ should be placed on the British Isles, not on the Italian peninsula.They could have changed their capital. TSL could make it mandatory.
It wouldn’t be placed anywhere unless you started in modern…it could become English if it made it to England (like the Angles, Saxons, Normans, and Romans did IRL)It is not just about the capital. An English civ should be placed on the British Isles, not on the Italian peninsula.
I get your point, although personally where a civ ends up isn't so important to me. In a previous civ game, by the time England as a country was historically established irl, in the game it might've already spread all the way across western Europe. In Civ 7 it will prolly be less likely to actually occupy the British Isles, which true is a bit odd but the degree of ahistoricity is similar either way.It is not just about the capital. An English civ should be placed on the British Isles, not on the Italian peninsula.
In the previous Civ games, you could choose between playing a World/ Europe/ Asia etc. Map using TSL or Random Starting Locations. Playing the latter, England could end up in Central Europe. That wasn't considered TSL, though.I get your point, although personally where a civ ends up isn't so important to me. In a previous civ game, by the time England as a country was historically established irl, in the game it might've already spread all the way across western Europe. In Civ 7 it will prolly be less likely to actually occupy the British Isles, which true is a bit odd but the degree of ahistoricity is similar either way.
England is an interesting example also bc considering how much it's a product of invasion and influence from other parts of Europe, I'd just imagine it as an alternative history where the English cultural identity crystallised in central Europe instead of Great Britain![]()
I think his point was that TSL only applies to the very start of the game. After your capital is settled, the guard rails are off and even though you started on England your second city could very well be elsewhere.In the previous Civ games, you could choose between playing a World/ Europe/ Asia etc. Map using TSL or Random Starting Locations. Playing the latter, England could end up in Central Europe. That wasn't considered TSL, though.
Ok, got it. However, if you do start in Italy as an English Civ, that's obviously a totally different ballgame than starting on the British Isles. Nobody expects England in Civ to develop exactly same as in IRL, but at least the initial prerequisites should be the same. Obviously, after Turn 1, all bets are off, and everything is possible.I think his point was that TSL only applies to the very start of the game. After your capital is settled, the guard rails are off and even though you started on England your second city could very well be elsewhere.
That isn’t unique to Civ 7, so I don’t think TSL following Turn 1 is a problem to be solved.
Yes, this is why I'm not particularly a TSL fan. Mostly I did it as a sort of metacommentary on how overstuffed the Balkans were.That is an interesting use for TSL, as an easy to use "mod" for having no one close to you. It has the negative effect of needing to pick the AI adversaries while I like keeping them random, but I guess I could always roll a dice and pick them that way
But the main reason I'm not a fan of TSL maps, is that the x I like the most in the 4x is exploration, while that is much less interesting when I already know the landmasses and even where I'm starting on it. And even more if I repeat that same map over and over.
For me, this is playing to Civ's weakness because it's not a history simulator like PDX games. I did used to enjoy the randomized Earth maps from Civ5 and enjoy some of the absurdity that ensued--I recall a particularly memorable game, one of the few where I played aggressively, in which I, Russia, was located in Brazil, and I went on to conquer Rome in Chile and the Ottomans in North America. (And was very annoyed that I was plagued by warmonger penalties for the rest of the game when the Ottomans and Romans had been gone for centuries before I arrived in the Old World.)For me, the interesting thing about TSL is being able to try out certain playstyles and try to recreate history (with all known limitations!).
Given how minimal the Briton influence was on the English, shouldn't England start in Denmark then?Ok, got it. However, if you do start in Italy as an English Civ, that's obviously a totally different ballgame than starting on the British Isles. Nobody expects England in Civ to develop exactly same as in IRL, but at least the initial prerequisites should be the same. Obviously, after Turn 1, all bets are off, and everything is possible.
For me, this is playing to Civ's weakness because it's not a history simulator like PDX games.
You are making things too complicated for me.Given how minimal the Briton influence was on the English, shouldn't England start in Denmark then?![]()
I think this misses the point of what civ swapping is supposed to simulate. It's not supposed to represent how specific real world civilizations evolved except in the broadest strokes; it's supposed to represent how real-world civilizations are built out of layer upon layer of other civilizations, the relationship among whom is not always obvious (e.g., there's not much Babylonian about Rome, but Babylon is still part of its DNA insofar as Rome built on Alexander's empire who built on Persia who built on Assyria and Babylon who built on Sumer who built on the Ubaid culture who built on...). Though I think this is a retroactive explanation for what is first and foremost mechanical decision to shake up the gameplay by having era-relevant uniques for all civilizations and especially to make the notoriously dull late game more interesting.Let's face it, Civ 7 will never be able to come up with enough peoples or nations to be a "perfect" historical simulation.
This is as well put as I’ve ever seen the mechanic described. It’s why I’ve always thought that the folks who are hyperfocusing on “pathways” and what they might imply are kind of missing the point, and are imputing an unintended meaning to the whole thing.think this misses the point of what civ swapping is supposed to simulate. It's not supposed to represent how specific real world civilizations evolved except in the broadest strokes; it's supposed to represent how real-world civilizations are built out of layer upon layer of other civilizations, the relationship among whom is not always obvious
To each their own, of course - but this is one of the main draws to TSL for me at certain times. No matter where I started, I would often try to do the same or similar things... Such as found a "canal city" near the Panama Canal and found enough cities in northern South America or the Caribbean to assure free passage. Found a canal city to emulate the Suez Canal and settle enough to reach the Indian Ocean. Settle the Hawaiian Islands. Create a solid defensive wall in the Himalayas, or in the Caucasus, or in the Alps. Control the Straits of Gibraltar. Found cities all around Uluru. Etc.But the main reason I'm not a fan of TSL maps, is that the x I like the most in the 4x is exploration, while that is much less interesting when I already know the landmasses and even where I'm starting on it. And even more if I repeat that same map over and over.