Will we get dynamic environment?

[Cyon]

They have stated earlier that one weakness of Civ 5s engine was that it could not change one hex' terrain to another, will this now be fixed and what will they do with it?

I have several things I wish for:

Changing climate, each 50 turns a region could get one step dryer or wetter, according to some climate model so that a cosy grasslands start to turn to steppe and later maybe desert, which would force a player to migrate and could lead to wars

Change because our decisions, if you cut down to many forest tiles then you risk grasslands turning to steppe or desert.

River could be diverted, irrigation dikes could turn steppe to grass, and increase food yields, rivers that are over use for irrigation could dry up down streams, hydro dams could create lakes

Building canals, it would be very cool and useful to be able to connect seas, would make a lot of sense now then wonders are placed on the map to have the Suez canal (or maybe that other one) as an actual canal on the map, up to the hexes long.

Global warming, with rising seas and desertification could make the late game a interesting struggle both diplomatically to prevent Global Warming or and interesting last war for the last arable land and water.

A dynamic environment could be both a friend or foe. An interesting book on this topic is : Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond, where he basically claims that all civilizations will face the risk of Ecological suicide sooner or later, and that a lot have fallen this way, Easter Island, Khmers, Maya, Vikings on greenland to mention a few.

 

[sugerdady87]

In Civ 4, there was global warming and the ability to replant trees. I'm totally in favor of changing environment, even if it's merely cosmetic.

 

[DefiantMars]

I think we might get a changing environment, but I don't think it will be in the base game. I have no ability to confirm this, but a hunch tells me we won't have this ability. It would make for excellent DLC content regardless.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'd love Global Warming, I'd actually love a Future Era with a possibility of a Apocalyptic setting just as a result of endless wars. Would fit with Civ nicely.

The great thing about Civ 6 is that it seems to lay a groundwork for amazing future content, because a lot of the good systems are already in place so nothing is "missing".

Global Warming woudl be cool, and I think the engine might actually support changing terrain as well.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Natural disasters would be a great dynamic. Such a big part of history

 

[Westwall]

Natural disasters would be a great dynamic. Such a big part of history

They would also help shake up the late game along with riots, terrorist attacks, cultural upheavals and any other random events/damage control situations.

It always felt a little silly seeing your empire turn into one continuous stretch of static uniform orderliness with all remaining problems being external.

As early game problems fade away, late game dilemmas arising from periods of relative stability should take their place.

 

[stealth_nsk]

They have stated earlier that one weakness of Civ 5s engine was that it could not change one hex' terrain to another, will this now be fixed and what will they do with it?

It's not exactly true. The Civ5 engine was unable to change landscape (the base model). Features like forests or improvements could be added/removed freely. So, it affected ability to add/remove hills, mountains, lakes, rivers and sea. So the only real gameplay limitation the developers faced was inability to make Polders to be done on sea tiles. Of course, if Civ6 have no such limits, devs will be able to do more things, like channels.

They would also help shake up the late game along with riots, terrorist attacks, cultural upheavals and any other random events/damage control situations.

Fully random events suck. The don't add anything to gameplay. I'm ok with things like random riots if happiness is low or terrorist attacks if you're at war with city-state. Random events with clear cause which could be prevented and clear way to deal with them are ok.

 

[dexters]

Random events have been possible as far back as Civ3 so it's not really technical limitations that we don't see it, but rather gameplay balance.

Random events do suck. I think an acceptable implantation are the kinds we see in Civ4. Random events giving people choices between bad and less bad (with with some more extra costs) ; or good and less good (but with other bonuses)

An example would be random events like
'A tribe in X Civ's territory is seeking asylum '
Choice A - welcome them (+2 pop) Choice B - turn them back (+5 relationship bonus with neighbour) Choice C - turn a blind eye (+1 pop / no reputation damage)

 

[Westwall]

Fully random events suck. The don't add anything to gameplay. I'm ok with things like random riots if happiness is low or terrorist attacks if you're at war with city-state. Random events with clear cause which could be prevented and clear way to deal with them are ok.

That's what a mean though.

If things are too calm and stable, I want the population to start getting lazy and igniting riots over trivial issues stemming from complacency and boredom. Divisions and oppositions should start forming from there no longer being a common threat to unite behind.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I like the unpredictable nature of random events myself. It makes the game more challenging and makes the world feel alive and immersive. I'm all for making the world as dynamic as possible. Similar to real life. Random events force the player to react and formulate different strategies.

 

[darko82]

Fully random events suck. The don't add anything to gameplay. I'm ok with things like random riots if happiness is low or terrorist attacks if you're at war with city-state. Random events with clear cause which could be prevented and clear way to deal with them are ok.

There should be events that are based on our choices, decisions, and playstyle etc. They should a consequence of what we do in the game.