• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Unique + Intrinsic bonuses

I am not at all familiar with civ 6's system, but the ability to tier different start bias weights should have solved any of the problems left over from 5.
Yes, it’s bizarre that we ended up going backward instead of forward.
I think another possible issue with 6 is just the generally smaller number of tiles per player on default map sizes.
It’s not really map size either. Standard and smaller are all actually bigger than in Civ 5.

It’s just bad, irrespective of map size. You can start a Huge map or a bigger modded size, select only 2 civs, and you’ll still get stupid starts. Even funnier, you’ll also always still start within like 10 tiles of each other, no matter how much wide, open space there is.
 
Yes, it’s bizarre that we ended up going backward instead of forward.

It’s not really map size either. Standard and smaller are all actually bigger than in Civ 5.

It’s just bad, irrespective of map size. You can start a Huge map or a bigger modded size, select only 2 civs, and you’ll still get stupid starts. Even funnier, you’ll also always still start within like 10 tiles of each other, no matter how much wide, open space there is.
And frankly, the miserable generation of starting positions both inappropriate to any start bias and the map size is what has driven me to propose more mobile starts or starting post-map bias or damn near anything else I can think of to get around this.

Because sadly, after the Civ VI experience I don't trust Firaxis to get the starting biases and map generation right. I would dearly love to be surprised by Civ VII . . .
 
Re: the original thrust of this thread, I don't mind the idea, but I think you can have simple bonuses without going all the way down to a choice of 5-6 for 50 civs. Civ 6's bonuses were often overwhelming, but you can definitely have more manageable bonuses without going that far.
At least I don't think my own ideas are too complicated...
I'm not understanding how that's simpler than what we currenly have? You just gave each playable faction 2 unique abilities, 2 unique units, and 2 unique infrastructures. :confused:
I'm also not sure about the idea of combining some of these attributes. The Musica are considered an Andean civilization, yet you have them able to build Colombian Llaneros.
 
And frankly, the miserable generation of starting positions both inappropriate to any start bias and the map size is what has driven me to propose more mobile starts or starting post-map bias or damn near anything else I can think of to get around this.

Because sadly, after the Civ VI experience I don't trust Firaxis to get the starting biases and map generation right. I would dearly love to be surprised by Civ VII . . .
You won't find any disagreement from me: almost everything about Civ 6 map gen and Civ spawning is just worse than it's been in prior entries. I've had a lot of fun playing Civ 6 and I will always think fondly about it, but so many aspects of it are a stark reminder that we can't take the idea that "sequel = forward progress" for granted. Civ 7 may very well take a lot of steps further backward...I remember being so excited about getting different continental terrain graphics for Civ 6 like Civ 5 had. It made perfect sense too--Civ 6 even has names for continents! Alas, even though the map is more important than ever in Civ 6, we just get a homogenous world.

I still remember in 2017 or 2018 that a Civ 6 update completely broke civ spawning. You'd spawn in snow, on top of 3 other civs at the same time. I believe it took months for them to actually fix it, despite it being the most egregious bug the game's ever had.

Let's not forget that Civ 6's landmasses are just a lot worse than in Civ 5. Civ 6 "Continents" - generally a standard map most players use - STILL just creates 2 big chunky blobs, devoid of interesting features. Civ 5's "Continents" at least creates bays and stuff, and we get more shapes than blobs.

To me, there is literally nothing more important that Firaxis needs to get right for Civ 7 than everything related to map gen and spawning.
 
I'm not understanding how that's simpler than what we currenly have? You just gave each playable faction 2 unique abilities, 2 unique units, and 2 unique infrastructures.
Even if you have the same number of total bonuses, dividing them into distinct components makes them easier to digest. many of civ6’s UAs and ULAs had 3 or more subcomponents, but mine rarely exceed 2. I think I have done a reasonable job of making simpler bonuses overall than what civ 6 accomplished, but I’m obviously biased.
I'm also not sure about the idea of combining some of these attributes. The Musica are considered an Andean civilization, yet you have them able to build Colombian Llaneros.
I wanted a civ for the isthmo-Colombian cultural sphere, and the Muisca are the most prominent. I don’t know enough about the area or the Muisca in particular for a UU2 that is directly or circumstantially linked to the Chibchan-speaking cultures in particular, but the Llanero are a prominent group from the area. Its not a great fit, but given how I have delineated “civilization” from specific polities it need not be a perfect fit. That said, if you have suggestions to improve my list I’m happy to hear it.
 
Yeah I’m not. I’m arguing against implementing what I see as bad idea (Neolithic era).
I mean, you directly said that 'you guys' all want a picture-perfect start:
I swear, you guys want all of the interesting decisions just completely removed from the game so you can get picture-perfect starts every time, which has never even been the intent of the game. If it were, Legendary start would be default, but it’s not.
 
even though the map is more important than ever in Civ 6, we just get a homogenous world.
Wait what ? What do you mean ? I find on contrary that Civ6 map generator allows for too bad starting locations, regarless of the civ ou picked. Example : I already started near the coast (at east), the toundra (south), desert (west), while north was covered by some other AI or city-States and/or mountains... I feel that's everything but homogenous, that's even too much in the other way around. Personnally, I'm fine with Civ2 map generator, when most of tiles are grassland/plains and you may have plenty space to expand. The Civ2/3 map generator was also more surprising, I don't recall if there was a choice of kind of map, but the result was more diversified and surprising than Civ4/5/6. I guess it's what you mean by "homogenous", just the shape of the land and not its nature ?
 
Wait what ? What do you mean ? I find on contrary that Civ6 map generator allows for too bad starting locations, regarless of the civ ou picked. Example : I already started near the coast (at east), the toundra (south), desert (west), while north was covered by some other AI or city-States and/or mountains... I feel that's everything but homogenous, that's even too much in the other way around. Personnally, I'm fine with Civ2 map generator, when most of tiles are grassland/plains and you may have plenty space to expand. The Civ2/3 map generator was also more surprising, I don't recall if there was a choice of kind of map, but the result was more diversified and surprising than Civ4/5/6. I guess it's what you mean by "homogenous", just the shape of the land and not its nature ?
Well in that sentence I was referring to the textures of the terrain graphics. In Civ 5, terrain and features have different graphics from one continent to the other. It makes the world feel more alive and dynamic. In Civ 6, we don't have that system, so a forest on one continent looks exactly the same as on another. It's boring. To me, this was a huge graphical downgrade and I can't believe they didn't carry that system over.

But yes, I also think the shape of the land is too similar across landmasses for most map scripts. "Continents" always gets you 2 blobs. "Fractal" always generates a pangaea-type map. And so on. This was fixed a bit with some of the other map scripts added later in development (Splintered Fractal and Seven Seas are great), but still.
 
I love the people contesting what those should be called and in Civ6 they went with Continents.

You know it's funny that they have a system to determine Continents (sections of the map) and don't use that to even vary the terrain.

To be honest I don't quite know why it would be that hard. Can't you grab the green texture of the ground and just shift it slightly dark green? I'm no expert though :p
 
Oh, VERY subtle yes. The only thing I recall as a difference from game to game is those mountains with or without snow on top of them. Personnally I wouldn't mean such difference by continent, but also by zones, where you don't have the same looking forests for example apart from its variation of color : conifers for example. But I have to say that for what I know it may be the case in Civ6 ; I really don't pay attention to such details when it's not more obviously depicted.
 
Oh, VERY subtle yes. The only thing I recall as a difference from game to game is those mountains with or without snow on top of them. Personnally I wouldn't mean such difference by continent, but also by zones, where you don't have the same looking forests for example apart from its variation of color : conifers for example. But I have to say that for what I know it may be the case in Civ6 ; I really don't pay attention to such details when it's not more obviously depicted.
I would rather them be differentiated by zones than continents. The current woods in Civ 6 just displays conifers, which are mainly found in cooler climates so having deciduous woods in the middle of the map to designate warmer areas would help. Mountains by rainforests and woods could also look like the ones from the pirate scenario, which are covered in trees, as well.
 
Different “zones” still leads to boring homogeneity and ugly juxtapositions. Look at how desert mountains function in Civ 6.

I think having these art styles come back for different landmasses would add a lot to making each landmass feel more like its own little world. It’d make finding new land more exciting.

And even though it’s subtle and you didn’t explicitly perceive the differences, they still contribute significantly to the whole picture. It’s like listening to a song. If you’re not into music, you’ll miss a ton of the layered details throughout, but when you take them out one by one, things become more sparse.
 
Different “zones” still leads to boring homogeneity
?
and ugly juxtapositions
Since I certainly do not make the difference if it's not juxtaposed like in the link you provided, I hardly think of a better way to underline such variety. The more so when you find your zone (or here, continent) "boring".

Now, I might happilly welcome new types of biomes like "savannah", but since I feel already overwhelmed by Civ6 variety I'm not sure if I would like it gameplay-wise. If anything, I would put more green, more wet, even at the price of an Ages mechanic. (however, biomes in Civ6 are good or totally useless, there's no middle ground, yeah, mountains, water -since you can't settle it-, deserts, I'm looking at you)

But, if there's no coming back, I would like for every civ to be able to profit from one particular biome like deserts, jungles, mountains, toundra, ice ?, coasts more like it is the case with Petra now for one civ and like it is the case now for civs uniques.

I could totally play a game where I can pick up a desert "unique" if I spawn near a vast desert after a period of exploration without being able to settle cities, even if it's not working like pantheons when once picked up, no one can pick it up anymore. It could be like an aptitude several civs can share, like Civ4 traits, and maybe that might bring them closer together. (unification ?)

Unless it is just a building/national wonder or a project, even if that sounds pure fantasy. After all, it's easier, cheaper and faster to conquer your neighbours than revitalising a desert like the Sahara or the arabian desert or any kind of desert. (since it's more difficult to conquer in modern era, it's more likely to happen there, like Saddam Hussein wanted to do in Irak by rebuilding ancient irrigation network, but american spies discovered it and America sent its army there to prevent this)

You know what sounds like fantasy too ? The ability to settle on water. But, since wonders effects for example are retroactive by essence, it could not be totally ridiculous to see a civ ability follow the same retroactive scheme : you can settle water because you "created" isles in it, albeit you just found them.
 
You know what would be nice, instead of settling water (cities), is the ability to 'settle' water territory such that you can fish in the ocean. And late game naval combat can revolve around capturing water territories. They can be resembled by like a flock of ships or something? Not sure.
 
?

Since I certainly do not make the difference if it's not juxtaposed like in the link you provided, I hardly think of a better way to underline such variety. The more so when you find your zone (or here, continent) "boring".
Sorry, I’m not clear on what’s confusing you. Maybe this will address it: if desert looks the same across different landmasses, that’s boring. If deserts on landmass A look different than deserts on landmass B, that’s cool.
Now, I might happilly welcome new types of biomes like "savannah", but since I feel already overwhelmed by Civ6 variety I'm not sure if I would like it gameplay-wise. If anything, I would put more green, more wet, even at the price of an Ages mechanic. (however, biomes in Civ6 are good or totally useless, there's no middle ground, yeah, mountains, water -since you can't settle it-, deserts, I'm looking at you)

But, if there's no coming back, I would like for every civ to be able to profit from one particular biome like deserts, jungles, mountains, toundra, ice ?, coasts more like it is the case with Petra now for one civ and like it is the case now for civs uniques.
Oh dear lord please no…we need way fewer terrain-focused abilities, not more.
I could totally play a game where I can pick up a desert "unique" if I spawn near a vast desert after a period of exploration without being able to settle cities, even if it's not working like pantheons when once picked up, no one can pick it up anymore. It could be like an aptitude several civs can share, like Civ4 traits, and maybe that might bring them closer together. (unification ?)
You already can. It’s called picking a desert pantheon or building Petra or other desert-specific bonuses from city-states or great people or governors or whatever. The only difference is instead of the game granting it to you as a magical ability, you’ve picked and earned it yourself.
 
Sorry, I’m not clear on what’s confusing you. Maybe this will address it: if desert looks the same across different landmasses, that’s boring. If deserts on landmass A look different than deserts on landmass B, that’s cool.
I think the confusion comes from the map types we both play on : I always or very often play on pangaea, so for me it has little sense. What leads to wonder myself : why wouldn't you feel boring the whole period you are stuck on your continent ?
Oh dear lord please no…we need way fewer terrain-focused abilities, not more.
"If there's no coming back" : make so that every terrain is playable, as simple as that, without the need of "unique abilities" specifically.
You already can. It’s called picking a desert pantheon or building Petra or other desert-specific bonuses from city-states or great people or governors or whatever.
I never pick desert pantheon, I love Petra but I would like it to be empire-wide, as to Nasca lines I see them as useless without Petra. Great people and governors I don't see.
The only difference is instead of the game granting it to you as a magical ability, you’ve picked and earned it yourself.
Hence this sentence :
Unless it is just a building/national wonder or a project, even if that sounds pure fantasy.
As to world wonder competition I can see it as a challenge but not very serious. (there was a fashion lately on Youtube : build every world wonder in Deity, the guy I watched and succeeded was at his eighth try. As for me I can try it but on Settler, and don't always succeed !)
 
Top Bottom