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.
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.
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.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...
Pdan's Civ 7 Civ list.xlsx
docs.google.com
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.
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 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.
I mean, you directly said that 'you guys' all want a picture-perfect start:
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.
That's probably why. Here's a good screenshot collection showing the differences: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/continent-flavors.599154/
I never notice it either. I only learnt about it from this forum after years of playing Civ5, but I still don't notice it
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.
?
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.
Oh dear lord please no…we need way fewer terrain-focused abilities, not more.
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.
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 ?
"If there's no coming back" : make so that every terrain is playable, as simple as that, without the need of "unique abilities" specifically.
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.
Hence this sentence :
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 !)
