Will it be possible to play TSL (True Starting Locations) in Civ 7?

[I was NC]

More importantly, Civ3 had large stacks and rewarded stacking.

Appreciate the correction. I never played III, was disappointed in it relative to II, and forgot the stacking aspect of it.

In responding to several, no doubt TSL always has been the less-used option. Perhaps by a lot, but we really don't know the percent. All I'm doing is lamenting its end in the new version of the series, which otherwise looks amazing. To me it's a more consequential demise than other aspects like stacks of doom (but that's just an opinion).

I also actually do appreciate the attempts to explain why it's not dead in a forced-switching context, but am unconvinced.

 

[Zaarin]

Whether it was optional or by default ist not really relevant concerning the question, how many players acctually want to play/ are playing TSL maps.

It is relevant insofar as it's safe to assume many players never venture beyond the default settings, nor have all versions of Civ even offered official support for TSL (meaning that a player that wanted it would have to go further and look for mods to enable it). I'd say that supports the assertion that TSL players are a relatively small subset of the Civ player base. That doesn't mean they don't matter, but it does mean they're not the players the game is being built around. If a given iteration of Civ did not support TSL (and I don't agree that what we know of Civ7 would prevent it), that doesn't mean that the developers have engaged in some sort of malicious behavior against the player base.

 

[I was NC]

And the civ switching allows your civ to “fit the territory” even on a random map.

In a random map switching may indeed be an improvement. I don't see it, but that might just be my limited imagination.

 

[I was NC]

that doesn't mean that the developers have engaged in some sort of malicious behavior against the player base

I certainly am not suggesting they did. My harshest charge is vanity, which is a long way from malice.

 

[OzzyKP]

Yeah, I agree with this. It's hard to do properly with the new setup, I imagine.

 

[_hero_]

It is relevant insofar as it's safe to assume many players never venture beyond the default settings, nor have all versions of Civ even offered official support for TSL (meaning that a player that wanted it would have to go further and look for mods to enable it). I'd say that supports the assertion that TSL players are a relatively small subset of the Civ player base. That doesn't mean they don't matter, but it does mean they're not the players the game is being built around. If a given iteration of Civ did not support TSL (and I don't agree that what we know of Civ7 would prevent it), that doesn't mean that the developers have engaged in some sort of malicious behavior against the player base.

I distinctly remember when they added the TSL map in Civ VI, they said it was one of the most requested additions in the surveys they sent out to the player base. I don't know how small the percentage is, but I think it is larger than you imagine.

 

[Hajee]

A lot of people here defending the Devs with out realizing the true issue from the OP.

The devs, by taking away Pangea maps, having the years in-between the ages skip ahead so you don't play those years, removing tsl starts because civ swapping ruins the idea of tsl starts etc

The devs are actively removing core aspects of the game that some of us find fun, and is how we play.

Why defend the devs on that. At least acknowledge that this is a concern for some people. We don't want work arounds and hoping for a mod to ban civ swapping. We should expect a civ game out of the box. If they wanted to try something different then make a different game.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The devs are actively removing core aspects of the game that some of us find fun, and is how we play.

That's kind of how releasing a new game in a series works. Every prior version of Civ has done this, too. It's not like this is new with Civ 7. You can't make a new game without getting rid of some of the things that appeared in prior versions.

I sort of understand the disappointment that a feature you enjoyed is not appearing in the current game, but it's a little early for lamentations. There's no indication that TSL is out. I only sort of understand it, though, because no one has played Civ 7, yet, so its also too early to assert that feature X should have been retained.

 

[Zaarin]

Why defend the devs on that.

Because some of us like what they're doing?

If they wanted to try something different then make a different game.

The Civilization franchise would be long-dead if they just kept repackaging and reselling Civ1 for 33 years.

 

[Hajee]

Because some of us like what they're doing?


The Civilization franchise would be long-dead if they just kept repackaging and reselling Civ1 for 33 years.

Look, I am all for the 33/33/33 rule they do. For civ 7 it appears it is more of 50/50.

Improving the game and creating new mechanics is great. I like the change to the district system.

What I am saying is why remove simple features. And why create such a drastic change to a core aspect of the game play, that will for this thread purposes will negatively effect a feature alot of players enjoyed.

 

[Trengilly]

Look, I am all for the 33/33/33 rule they do. For civ 7 it appears it is more of 50/50.

Improving the game and creating new mechanics is great. I like the change to the district system.

What I am saying is why remove simple features. And why create such a drastic change to a core aspect of the game play, that will for this thread purposes will negatively effect a feature alot of players enjoyed.

Because the developers felt that removing those features would allow them to add new features that would be even better.

Ed Beach or one of the other developers already admitted they went more 50/50 and they acknowledge that they are making bold changes.

I believe there are going to be some very new ways to play Civ that people aren't considering much yet.

They have talked about being able to play single Ages as complete games. And that this will support Pangea. It also should support TSL without any problem. I actually think these single Age games could be a very successful addition to the Civ series. If each Age is a compelling and shorter game than the overall campaign it could make for a really fun experience . . . and work great for both multiplayer and a wider audience of players that would prefer shorter games.

I like the idea of single Age and shorter games. Civ games typically drag on far longer than I like and I've played many other 'single era' games like Old World and they are a ton of fun.

And for people that want to play full three Age games . . . the separate ages enable them to offer gameplay (unique to each age) that wasn't possible with prior versions of Civ . . . if that limits how TSL can work . . . it might be a valid exchange.

I mentioned somewhere else . . . but I'm impressed that Firaxis had the courage to try something new and big. Most AAA developers are super cautious and just make 'safe' games which often end up being lackluster. Any new game was going to not appeal to some of the player base, its impossible to make a game everyone would like . . . that is even the situation NOW where some people play Civ 5, or Civ 4 instead of Civ 6.

We really won't know until we see what they have done to understand if they have been successful or if it was a mistake.

 

[Gedemon]

A lot of people here defending the Devs with out realizing the true issue from the OP.

The devs, by taking away Pangea maps, having the years in-between the ages skip ahead so you don't play those years, removing tsl starts because civ swapping ruins the idea of tsl starts etc

The devs are actively removing core aspects of the game that some of us find fun, and is how we play.

Why defend the devs on that. At least acknowledge that this is a concern for some people. We don't want work arounds and hoping for a mod to ban civ swapping. We should expect a civ game out of the box. If they wanted to try something different then make a different game.

Because I've tested TSL with Humankind, and if civ7 is moddable enough, I already know how good TSL is with civ switching unlocked by territory.

 

[I was NC]

Because I've tested TSL with Humankind, and if civ7 is moddable enough, I already know how good TSL is with civ switching unlocked by territory.

That truly is very good to hear. Unfortunately it still sounds like a duct-tape response
-which may not work (artificially limit expansion, another player already there, no civ for that area),
-to accommodate what could be an optional feature (not a core gameplay aspect, just keep going).

Totally agree games must evolve. However, when a change means no longer being able to enjoy it the way you have for literally decades, disappointment is understandable. Especially when the new aspect isn't necessary to mandate and goes against a core concept of the franchise (recreating history).

In other words, the devs seem to be saying "We know better than you what you'll like." In the past they've actually been right sometimes. With VII, not so much.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think there is an option 4.

City states could represent capitals of civs from eras other than the current one so that every civ is represent in some form at every stage of the game. When you go through an era transition, we know that you can lose some cities. Perhaps for TSL if you start as say Egypt and switch to Songhai, you lose your Egyptian capital city, which becomes a city state in the exploration era, and instead you acquire the city state that represented the Songhai as your capital for the exploration era.

I wouldn't want to be the tester assigned to that particular functionality because it sounds like a minefield, but it could be quite fun and immersive in a way that satisfies some of the skeptical of civ switching (even outside of TSL maps - perhaps neighbouring a city state representing a civ in a future era could allow you switch to that civ?)

 

[Nikolai II]

I think there is an option 4.

City states could represent capitals of civs from eras other than the current one so that every civ is represent in some form at every stage of the game. When you go through an era transition, we know that you can lose some cities. Perhaps for TSL if you start as say Egypt and switch to Songhai, you lose your Egyptian capital city, which becomes a city state in the exploration era, and instead you acquire the city state that represented the Songhai as your capital for the exploration era.

I wouldn't want to be the tester assigned to that particular functionality because it sounds like a minefield, but it could be quite fun and immersive in a way that satisfies some of the skeptical of civ switching (even outside of TSL maps - perhaps neighbouring a city state representing a civ in a future era could allow you switch to that civ?)

We know we can lose cities, for sure? I have seen the claim, but not the proof.

 

[Siptah]

That truly is very good to hear. Unfortunately it still sounds like a duct-tape response
-which may not work (artificially limit expansion, another player already there, no civ for that area),
-to accommodate what could be an optional feature (not a core gameplay aspect, just keep going).

Totally agree games must evolve. However, when a change means no longer being able to enjoy it the way you have for literally decades, disappointment is understandable. Especially when the new aspect isn't necessary to mandate and goes against a core concept of the franchise (recreating history).

In other words, the devs seem to be saying "We know better than you what you'll like." In the past they've actually been right sometimes. With VII, not so much.

I can comprehend your disappointment.

But recreating history as a goal of civilization? I don’t think this was ever the case. I mean, even when I look at it generously and assume that most people would actually play on a TSL map with only ancient civs on it, I don‘t believe a Sumeria player would‘t take Rome just because historically it did not happen. Maybe some people play that way, but I would assume for most, the recreating history part only encompasses the tech tree of western civs - and maybe the starting location, regardless of time and actual historical development.

 

[chaosprophet]

The bigger barrier to TSL is the map expansion, which with the info we got it may be able to be implemented on single player and mp with some restrictions, of only picking the ancient civs of one half of the map, and maybe later after some patches expanded if they make it so you can mp both sides of the map at the same time.

The civilization switching is less of a barrier and more something that would make it a different type of TSL than other games, which may be good for some and bad for others. If you play TSL because you want to eventually have a terra map with almost all civs at same tech level around where they would be, then it won't be able to do it well or at all. If you want to play it because you want a true historic like TSL experience, then it will make it even more like it with the limitation of the civs from the particular age. After all, for example, America didn't start in the america continent, but ninstead it was people who came from a different place, established a colony there which then gained independence.

The devs, by taking away Pangea maps, having the years in-between the ages skip ahead so you don't play those years, removing tsl starts because civ swapping ruins the idea of tsl starts etc

I've seen that being said around but so far seems like a misinformation or at least exagerrated, maybe because the age of Exploration follows Antiquity made some people think it will skip all the way to 1400 or something?

As far as we know, the time break between ages would likely be the amount of years of 1/2 turns break time for that point in the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think there is an option 4.

City states could represent capitals of civs from eras other than the current one so that every civ is represent in some form at every stage of the game. When you go through an era transition, we know that you can lose some cities. Perhaps for TSL if you start as say Egypt and switch to Songhai, you lose your Egyptian capital city, which becomes a city state in the exploration era, and instead you acquire the city state that represented the Songhai as your capital for the exploration era.

I wouldn't want to be the tester assigned to that particular functionality because it sounds like a minefield, but it could be quite fun and immersive in a way that satisfies some of the skeptical of civ switching (even outside of TSL maps - perhaps neighbouring a city state representing a civ in a future era could allow you switch to that civ?)

There has been no evidence that you would lose cities (particularly your capital)

Some (?most?all) of your cities become towns, and you could lose cities during the crisis due to invasion or flipping. But there is no way they would just yank your capital city away.

 

[I was NC]

I can comprehend your disappointment.
But recreating history as a goal of civilization? I don’t think this was ever the case.

Appreciate the first statement. You're right about my comment regarding recreating history, it's not exactly what happens in a TSL game.

For me, and perhaps others, the fun is a kind of what-if. For example, the Roman empire didn't fall and instead is competing with the Aztecs to colonize lands east of the Mississippi (what I'm doing right now). My next game next likely will be if the Māoris settled Australia and then moved north. Will they be able to sustain an empire against India and China?

All of that goes away with forced civ switching, for no reason that I can discern.

 

[Zaarin]

Appreciate the first statement. You're right about my comment regarding recreating history, it's not exactly what happens in a TSL game.

For me, and perhaps others, the fun is a kind of what-if. For example, the Roman empire didn't fall and instead is competing with the Aztecs to colonize lands east of the Mississippi (what I'm doing right now). My next game next likely will be if the Māoris settled Australia and then moved north. Will they be able to sustain an empire against India and China?

All of that goes away with forced civ switching, for no reason that I can discern.

Though I'm very intrigued by some of the gameplay possibilities opened up by civ switching, I'm right there with you in being sorry to lose the what-if scenarios.