SupremacyKing2
Deity
TSL is not incompatible with civ switching. I've outlined a couple ways it could be done.
Will it be possible to play TSL (True Starting Locations) in Civ 7?
- Thread starter ColtSeavers
- Start date
TSL is not incompatible with civ switching. I've outlined a couple ways it could be done.
Yes, that's what I was referring to in my parenthetical. Here's my understanding of the options:
1) Game ends after Antiquity, so you miss out on >2/3 of the experience.
2) Somehow teleport your civ to a new location; no idea how that works.
3) Something about resetting the map which I didn't follow.
4) Just don't force civ switching.
The least gameplay interfering option is just start in X preferred age and play through. If the Romans->Normans->France/Britain push east then maybe London is in Mesopotamia….which is ok for a TSL late game
the other is modding the game rules so that civs are unlocked by having territory? town?city? capital? in a certain location on the map (so if you want to be America in the modern, either start with a NAm civ, or aggressively colonize the east coast from Europe/Africa.
That way each civ would begin its Age at least partially in control of its TSL
the other is modding the game rules so that civs are unlocked by having territory? town?city? capital? in a certain location on the map (so if you want to be America in the modern, either start with a NAm civ, or aggressively colonize the east coast from Europe/Africa.
That way each civ would begin its Age at least partially in control of its TSL
Last edited:
SupremacyKing2
Deity
You could play a TSL game that is just Exploration Age or just Modern Age too. In other words, the TSL game would start in the Exploration Age or start in the Modern Age.
I also suggested started in Antiquity in the TSL area and then moving on to the Exploration Age and then Modern Age, like any normal civ7 game. So you would still play all 3 Ages. You would not miss out on the other Ages. Of course, your Exploration or Modern civ would not start in their TSL area but that's ok. The Antiquity civ is the only civ that actually needs to start in the TSL area since your Exploration or Modern Age civs are "evolutions" of the your TSL civ.
I've never suggested that.
We know the map will expand when you advance to the next Age. So the map could expand to include the TSL area of your new civ. For example, we know Romans can advance to be the Normans in the Exploration Age. So at the start of the Exploration Age, the map could expand to include the area where the Normans were historically from.
Yes that could be one of the options. It would just be hard to implement since the game is not designed to work that way. Hence, it would probably require some fancy modding.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,782
Yeah I suppose that’s true. It’s not like the AI or the player makes every single one of their cities in the appropriate location after initial settle anyway.
The first seems like the least-bad response to starting with the premise that the game will force switching.
However, anything along those lines is just a work-around for the basic conceptual failure/mismatch. The whole premise of TSL is building a particular civ in response to its geography: Polynesians are seafaring, Russians benefit from the cold, Incans use hills, etc. Like happened in actual history.
So no, this new "innovation" is simply incompatible with how many of us have played since literally Civ II (yes, it was part of the game back then). The devs can either make it optional or impose their vanity on a series they inherited.
Is it really vanity to make a game you're passionate about making? Civ7 will not make previous entries in the franchise cease to exist; you can still play them.
ColtSeavers
Warlord
Acctually TSL was part of it since Civ 1!
And I also do worry, that some maybe unintended consequences of this whole Civ Switching stuff are probably not thought through properly.The vanity is forcing everyone to play a certain way. Granted you could say the same about 1UPT and other changes, but again those are less of a departure from a fundamental premise of the game (as noted above, going back to the very start).
Actually I think this innovation makes TSL (modded) actually work. If Egypt expands Southwest it can become Songhai, Northwest it eventually can become France, east it can become Chola or Meiji Japan.
For the strongest TSL, link it to capital location, so if Egypt wants to become one of those it would have to move its capital. and if not it’s Egypt->Abbasids->?Egypt?.
Every game starts with this assumption, though. There are ways you can and cannot play; that's just...the conceit of playing a game.
Unless another civ already is in that area. Plus, it still breaks the concept of fitting a certain geography over centuries.
Yes, that's what I said. However those other conceits don't end something like TSL that's been around from the start and fits with the game's overall premise. For example, 1UPT killed the stacks of doom, but those sounded asinine and regardless only appeared in IV.
that's one point of unlocking by territory.
I'm not a TSL player, but I suspect that either by basing TSL on Antiquity and/or using mods for regional unlocking of civs TSL would still be very viable in Civ7. However, TSL players are a small subset of Civ players, and the core premise of the game has always been based around random maps.
ColtSeavers
Warlord
What makes you so sure, that only a "small subset of Civ players" wants to play TSL maps?
Your last statements aren't accurate.
I played a lot (and still play) Civ3. It includes a check box for "culturally linked starting location", but most maps are random. One has to explicitly choose the Earth map. Playing something like TSL is a choice, not the default. Although I played less Civ4, I believe that playing a random map was also much more common there. Choosing an Earth map with an approximation of TSL was a choice, not the default.
More importantly, Civ3 had large stacks and rewarded stacking. The AI players were a real threat, especially with their bonuses at the highest levels.
Civ2 had stacking, but also had "stack death" -- if any unit in the stack died when attacking, the whole stack died. I hated that mechanic; I really enjoyed its removal in Civ3.
I fully understand that many players (and folks here) got their start with the franchise with Civ6. Thanks for caring so much, that you've become a Civfanatic! For my part, I love exploring a random map. Playing on a TSL map is much less fun for me; I can see how those who love it will be disappointed that it is a less prominent option in Civ7.
The fact that random maps are and, at least as far back as Civ2, which is as far back as I've played, always have been the default setting? I'm not saying playing TSL maps is playing the wrong way, but it's not the experience the game is designed around.What makes you so sure, that only a "small subset of Civ players" wants to play TSL maps?
ColtSeavers
Warlord
Does it really matter whether it was set as default or optional? It was available, that's all that matters to me.
And the civ switching allows your civ to “fit the territory” even on a random map.
Find yourself next to some islands….
colonizing them may unlock Polynesia, if not not choose the from the civs you do have best suited to colonizing that.
Do thr Romans find themselves in the
middle of a mountain range? Inca next?
vast plains? Mongols next?
desert? Abbasids next?
on an island? Tonga/Hawaii next?
In a TSL base rules map for Rome, the human players would have options but the AI would basically stay with civs from the same area. Mods could just ensure that the civ you chose were True Start.
ColtSeavers
Warlord
Whether it was optional or by default is not really relevant concerning the question, how many players acctually want to play/ are playing TSL maps.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
