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

[ColtSeavers]

If I want to play historically accurate positions in the real world, I'm playing Crusader Kings, not Civilization. I play Civ to play on random maps because at this scale most modern nations would be too small to fit all the cities in.

Out of curiosity I added a respective poll to this thread!

 

[ColtSeavers]

Face it, they're not going to have all civs available in the Ancient era. I seriously doubt that the game when it rolls out is going to have 80 civs and allow people to start all over the globe. How I anticipate it is you may get a TSL map, but once you pick YOUR civ, they'll pick civs appropriate enough for the size of the map they allow around you and that's your game for a TSL game. As the world expands, then more civs will be chosen from for that era... and so on. We honestly know next to nothing about how the game's going to play and whether a "Classic Civ TSL map game" will be possible.

I have faith in the developers that they'll give us something that's similar enough to what we've had before to keep the Civilization name going.

I don't need 80 civs to get a sensible TSL game, as long as the game generally allows it, I'm fine with a limited variety of Civ choices!

 

[Siptah]

With a limit of 5 civs on the map in antiquity MP, there is for sure no need for 80 civs to play TSL

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm not sure there's a good poll option for me. I used to like TSL maps a lot. But as I got more into Civ 6 I learned that I liked playing the map in Civ 6 because of the way that game was setup (district yields and all that). I only occasionally want to play TSL maps, but when I do, I like to put as many civs as possible into them and see how it all turns out.

 

[durfal]

I find TSL only fun if you start in the America's and you put all the other civs in the Old World which gives you some time to build your civ up.
But because Europe and the Middle East are insanely densely filled with civilizations even on the biggest tsl worldmap it's never fun to start there for me (or you have to fill the map with AI civs far away from you).
Furthermore for most civs you basicly have your original territory covered by your first or maybe with your second city (With the exception for a few civs that spanned big areas of the map, like Mongolia or Russia).

But if you love to play those maps I'm sorry but I think they are only good for one age at a time in civ 7. Or you can only use civs that more or less stay in the same area like India or China (maybe there will be more).
It also will work weird with the expanding map over the ages.

 

[I was NC]

It's the core system of the game, though. It would be like making districts optional in Civ6. So it's really not as simple as "making it optional" when everything is built around it. That being said, once modding tools are available, I wouldn't be surprised to see modders find a way to make non-switching viable.

Admittedly the entirety of my programming knowledge comes from a week at middle school computer camp in the 1980s, but I don't think it's at all the same as districts. A closer analogy would be 1UPT (could've allowed small stacks), but even that seems less optional considering the need for the AI to handle multiple variations.

In other words, why does civ switching have to be mandatory? I'm genuinely asking. We have six versions of the game without it. Players just keep going as-is, perhaps with units/buildings that don't help in the new era, but that's their choice (and also happens now).

Thus the charge of vanity: only allowing people play a certain way when it's optional to do so.

 

[Zaarin]

In other words, why does civ switching have to be mandatory? I'm genuinely asking. We have six versions of the game without it. Players just keep going as-is, perhaps with units/buildings that don't help in the new era, but that's their choice (and also happens now).

Because the game mechanics as we understand them are built around civ switching. If you're going to modify core parts of the gameplay, I'd say that's better left to modders than expecting the devs to hamstring their own design.

 

[Krajzen]

Ok, so I tried to imagine civ7 with fully functional TSL Earth (biggest size possible) with forced civ switching and no option to turn it off, ao worst case scenario - how could transitions look?
I use bold to mark civs which are already confirmed or are very likely anyway

ancient NA -> Missisipi -> Lakota, any Native Americans really, 19th century is modern era! You may even make two such evolution lines
Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico
Tairona(?) -> Muisca -> Colombia
Caral -> Inca -> Peru
Achaemenids -> Safavids -> Iran
Nabateans -> Abbasids -> Saudi Arabia
ancient Egypt -> Fatimids -> Egypt
Hittites -> Ottomans -> Turkey
Numidians -> Almoravids -> Morocco
Axum -> Zagwe -> Ethiopia
Djenne -> Songhai -> Mali
Bantu -> Swahilli -> Kenya
Athens -> Byzantium -> Greece
Rome -> Florence -> Italy
Celts -> Normans -> France/England
Goths? -> Nordic -> Sweden/etc
Slavs -> Muscovy -> Russia
Han -> Song -> PRC
Maurya -> Chola -> India
Funan? -> Medang -> Indonesia
Jomon -> Edo Japan -> Meiji Japan
Scythians? -> Mongolia -> modern Mongolia or uhh Kazakhstan? Honestly I'd totally accept the latter!

It is worth noting that with the possible exception of four or five ancient civs, Kazakhstan and modern not very impressive state of Mali all other would be major civilizations being very sensible object of DLC or mods anyway...

Now that I think...

...we could simply combine efforts of modders to create huge TSL projects also containing all necessary transitory modded civs...

All that gets much simpler anyway once if can mod in the ability to retain civs past each era.

 

[abj9562]

It seems like the dev's have made sure you cannot play TSL America in America, Canada in Canada, Australia in Australia, etc.... It seems that many colonies that evolved into countries have been thrown to the wayside for any attempt at a TSL map.

 

[Trengilly]

Admittedly the entirety of my programming knowledge comes from a week at middle school computer camp in the 1980s, but I don't think it's at all the same as districts. A closer analogy would be 1UPT (could've allowed small stacks), but even that seems less optional considering the need for the AI to handle multiple variations.

In other words, why does civ switching have to be mandatory? I'm genuinely asking. We have six versions of the game without it. Players just keep going as-is, perhaps with units/buildings that don't help in the new era, but that's their choice (and also happens now).

Thus the charge of vanity: only allowing people play a certain way when it's optional to do so.

Because Civ 7 is designed to be played in three separate Acts. This is being done to counter the biggest complaint of 4x games . . . that the middle and late portions of the game are boring.

Each Civ designed to fit its specific Age. Everything about the civ, unique units, custom Civics tree, buildings, special people.

And each of the three Ages will have unique game systems and mechanics making them very different from each other. This is designed to make each Act unique and FUN.

Sure you could have Egypt (Antiquity), Egypt (Exploration), Egypt (Modern) . . . three Egypt Civs. But that would LOCK you into one path. And it would force silly situation like America in the Antiquity age etc.

By allowing you to choose different options with each Age you get agency and the ability to customize your empire over time.

I expect the game to allow you to Rename your Civ (or have this feature added soon after release) . . . this seems super easy to implement and resolves most of the 'force change' concerns. Unlock Mongols if you want to go with an aggressive horse direction and then just check the 'retain civ name' box so you are still called Egypt.

The BIG change for Civ 7 is NOT Civ switching . . . its breaking the game into Three distinct Ages. Civ switching is just a byproduct of that.

 

[I was NC]

Because the game mechanics as we understand them are built around civ switching. If you're going to modify core parts of the gameplay, I'd say that's better left to modders than expecting the devs to hamstring their own design.

Guess we don't really know, but I just don't see how it's so fundamental to gameplay as to be unavoidable. Instead my fear is the devs won't make it optional because doing so would undermine their position that the change was good.

 

[I was NC]

Because Civ 7 is designed to be played in three separate Acts. This is being done to counter the biggest complaint of 4x games . . . that the middle and late portions of the game are boring.

Each Civ designed to fit its specific Age. Everything about the civ, unique units, custom Civics tree, buildings, special people.

And each of the three Ages will have unique game systems and mechanics making them very different from each other. This is designed to make each Act unique and FUN.

Appreciate the explanation, I'm starting to get it. Maybe should have already but haven't read all the pre-game content. Sounds like it will be a neat approach for random maps, possibly a huge improvement in that context. Maybe even enough to merit the collateral damage of ending TSL games. I'll still be sad about it though.

 

[Krikkit1]

It seems like the dev's have made sure you cannot play TSL America in America, Canada in Canada, Australia in Australia, etc.... It seems that many colonies that evolved into countries have been thrown to the wayside for any attempt at a TSL map.

All they need to do is let you rename your civ. Choose Ben Franklin of the ?Mississippi?Maya? (call them Americans) and go to Shawnee (call them Americans) then America.

 

[Trengilly]

It seems like the dev's have made sure you cannot play TSL America in America, Canada in Canada, Australia in Australia, etc.... It seems that many colonies that evolved into countries have been thrown to the wayside for any attempt at a TSL map.

You will easily be able to play TSL America (or anywhere else) if you play a Single Act game.

I realize people are used to playing one single Civ game from ancient times to modern . . . but I actually think single Age TSL games make more sense. Its much more 'realistic' to have all the Modern civs competing with each other, or ancient, etc. How 'true start' is a game if civilizations from all different times competing against each other?

I think people are under appreciating how the game will lend itself toward Single Age games. I think these will be especially popular in Multiplayer where shorter games are generally an advantage.

 

[ColtSeavers]

You will easily be able to play TSL America (or anywhere else) if you play a Single Act game.

I realize people are used to playing one single Civ game from ancient times to modern . . . but I actually think single Age TSL games make more sense. Its much more 'realistic' to have all the Modern civs competing with each other, or ancient, etc. How 'true start' is a game if civilizations from all different times competing against each other?

I think people are under appreciating how the game will lend itself toward Single Age games. I think these will be especially popular in Multiplayer where shorter games are generally an advantage.

We could also do a poll on how popular Single Age Gaming is, however in this case I'm very sure, that most people prefer a classic game throughout the ages! Single Age Games would mean for me, you miss 2/3 of the tech tree, the policies and the overall experience, eventually. I can't imagine playing these.

 

[I was NC]

I think people are under appreciating how the game will lend itself toward Single Age games.

If the ages are long enough, then yes that could make sense. I already weed out modern-only civs from my games.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

4.) I need an option, where I can select my opponents, including potential modern day Civs. So if I want to play against American in the Modern age, I have to be able to select a Civ for the Antiquity Age, who has a historical path set up to become America (not sure whether this could get problematic for political reasons, see my opening post).

Does the civ that becomes American (or Brazil for example) have to be a country in real life that became those countries? I'm hoping for a civ like America to be only reachable by meeting certain conditions. Explorations age India could become America instead of Exploration age European civ. On a TSL map the European civ would have and advantage but it would still be possible.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Does the civ that becomes American (or Brazil for example) have to be a country in real life that became those countries? I'm hoping for a civ like America to be only reachable by meeting certain conditions. Explorations age India could become America instead of Exploration age European civ. On a TSL map the European civ would have and advantage but it would still be possible.

So if you give Anglo Saxons for the instance the "task" to discover America, that could theoretically work. However I have some concerns whether it will be acctually feasible in practice. Sounds somewhat like a scripted event, not sure how that can be implemented acctually.

 

[Krikkit1]

Does the civ that becomes American (or Brazil for example) have to be a country in real life that became those countries? I'm hoping for a civ like America to be only reachable by meeting certain conditions. Explorations age India could become America instead of Exploration age European civ. On a TSL map the European civ would have and advantage but it would still be possible.

We do know
that in the base game

1. Civs can be unlocked 3 ways (Previous Civ: Historical/Regional, Leader: Historical, Gameplay ie Mongols if you have 3 Horses)
The only civ we have seen all of its unlock options (Songhai) had other Civs and Leaders... we don't know if Gameplay unlocked civs can also be unlocked by previous civs... although the developers talked about the fun of unlocking multiple civs, so I would guess some civs...
Could be like

America
Norman (Historical)[probably one of 3... England,France, America]
Shawnee (Regional)
Ben Franklin (Leader)
3 cities on a separate landmass from where your Capital was at the beginning of the Age (Gameplay)

But we don't know.... Some civs might be only unlocked by gameplay with no 'precursor civs' in the game yet Mongol, Inca, ?America?

2. The AI automatically chooses one of its (Historical) options (so Shawnee probably wouldn't become America, unless another civ took the Modern Native Civ they turned into.)

 

[I was NC]

Shawnee probably wouldn't become America

Adding my own, less happy historical aside, I sure as heck hope this doesn't happen.

When Native Americans Were Slaughtered in the Name of ‘Civilization’ | HISTORY

By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained

www.history.com