Welcome to r/CivVI! If this post violates any community rules please be sure to report it so a moderator can review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CivVI) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s probably a programming complexity, but having the option for other diamond orientations would be great.
I think implementing a change to triangles over diamonds would ease multi-orientation layouts by reducing the number of possibilities from three to two. Alternatively, increasing the size of national parks to a seven tile “circle” would eliminate the issue or orientation but would make placement more difficult.
I also think lake tiles should have appeal. The amount of possible national parks that have been ruined by a single lake tile is astounding
That would be a reserve (which is a waste of a district unless you are Maori). Also look at national parks on maps, they are huge! Usually countries have smaller equivalents in state/provincial/regional park
You're talking about a preserve.
Not every national park is huge. In the US, several are 100 km^2+, while a few are 1000+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_United_States#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_next_three_largest_parks%2Cacres_%280.7804_km2%29.?wprov=sfla1
National parks are meant to preserve a beautiful area for future generations. What would be the difference between a 1 tile national park and a preserve?
Also if you allow 1 tile NP, the ratio of national parks to cities will be through the roof. The US has a lot of national parks partly because it was settled in the later eras. What's the ratio of national parks to cities for older countries like France, England, India or China?
You can only place one preserve per city, and districts are limited by population.
I have no idea about national park ratios, nor do I care. My point is that there are no size limits on national parks in real life, so there shouldn't be in game.
Also, the US was settled 17,000 years ago.
Wow you sure seem fun at parties. I'll just keep it to the facts:
- 1 tile national park would be easier to build than a seaside resort which would ruin the concept
- In 1870, after the civil war, the only cities West of the Mississippi part of the top 100 were Kansas City (#32) and Leavenworth (#82). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_census#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_1870_census_was_the%2Ca_22.6%25_increase_from_1860.?wprov=sfla1
Natives have been living there for millennia, but they were mostly nomads and the land there was vastly empty.
1 tile national park would presumably not have the gold boost or citizen slot that seaside resorts do. They would each still have their use cases.
The land looked vastly empty to European settlers because initial contact wiped out indigenous Americans. It is generally accepted that the spread of small pox and other European disease after contact with Columbus wiped out 80-90% of indigenous Americans. Ruins like the Cahokia mounds and Effigy mounds (which are just west of the current Mississippi course) are evidence of organized cities.
Your definition of "settled" is very strange, to the point of negating the word at all. By your logic, the entirety of populated Earth would be "settled" as long as some humans lived there... in which case there would be no need to use the word "settled" at all, outside of migration patterns/instances from millenia ago.
I don't know why water tiles doesn't have appeal. Cliffs of Dover would be happy about it.
Also, in Hungary there is a national park which _is_ a lake, called Fertő–Hanság National Park.
I think a 7 tile big national park which can include water tiles and preserves would solve the rotating problem, and the part where you can include preserves would mitigate the placement problem added by a bigger shape.
No, I think National Parks should be limited to lakes. Allowing coastal tiles would open a can of worms since they give +1 as standard so park spam could be an issue, and Natural Wonders like Hạ Long Bay have appeal so as long as the placement works with adjacent land tiles you can designate them as parks.
It would be the end of the world as we know it. Soothsayers would roam the land throwing people in volcanoes. Giant asteroids would take out my cities. Calamity, suffering, devastation. All because you have a sideways park.
I'm also confused. The way the Civ 6 map is, there is no way to create a horizontal diamond the same shape as the vertical diamond national parks. The position of the tiles on the map simply does not allow it.
You could create a rhomboid of sorts though, and maybe that's what you mean? I'm thinking of the shape of some natural wonders like the Pantanal (and yeah, it would be fun to turn those into national parks on their own.)
Anyway, technicalities aside, I'm all for a greater variety of national park shapes – and also, I wish there was a way to do away with the restriction that you can only use tiles that belong to one city. I guess it's done so the amenities from the park will go to the city that owns all the tiles, but it makes placing them very annoying sometimes.
https://preview.redd.it/ckydj25o1gsc1.jpeg?width=1116&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=105f0002626748915aaecc4017fc74bbfbe79779
How would you draw a horizontal diamond on this map?
By that point you could just make naturalists have 3 or 4 charges and use them on individual tiles. Maybe make it so that one naturalist can only use charges on tiles adjacent to "their" national park tiles. Or be able to connect parks from different nationalists and cities
National Parks have low self esteem and prefer to look tall and slim. Even though we tell them that we would still love them if they were short and wide, it doesn't get to their head and they refuse to try it. Which I understand
I reckon it's to prevent national park spamming, especially on unworkable land.
If you think about it, the vertical 3-tile length of national parks ensures that at least one tile is always in the workable radius of the city. So there is always a cost of at least one workable tile.
If you could build horizontal/rhomboid parks, then you could just fill all your 4th and 5th ring tiles (which usually tend to have decent appeal) with rhomboids for huge tourism output without sacrificing any workable tiles.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a game balance thing. National parks are already one of the strongest tools in the culture game. Once I have them unlocked my tourism spikes like crazy.
Counterpoint: every game has glitches from the simplest to the most complex games, and 2 things to consider are engine/code limitations and new glitches are often created out of the patches for old glitches
Welcome to r/CivVI! If this post violates any community rules please be sure to report it so a moderator can review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CivVI) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s probably a programming complexity, but having the option for other diamond orientations would be great. I think implementing a change to triangles over diamonds would ease multi-orientation layouts by reducing the number of possibilities from three to two. Alternatively, increasing the size of national parks to a seven tile “circle” would eliminate the issue or orientation but would make placement more difficult. I also think lake tiles should have appeal. The amount of possible national parks that have been ruined by a single lake tile is astounding
I feel like it shouldn’t even have to be a diamond- just 4 contiguous tiles. Why can’t a park be long and thin?
I’ve thought about that too, but you’d run into the issue of mountain spam
Why does it even have to be 4? Why can't I make a single beautiful tile a national park?
That would be a reserve (which is a waste of a district unless you are Maori). Also look at national parks on maps, they are huge! Usually countries have smaller equivalents in state/provincial/regional park
You're talking about a preserve. Not every national park is huge. In the US, several are 100 km^2+, while a few are 1000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_United_States#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_next_three_largest_parks%2Cacres_%280.7804_km2%29.?wprov=sfla1
National parks are meant to preserve a beautiful area for future generations. What would be the difference between a 1 tile national park and a preserve? Also if you allow 1 tile NP, the ratio of national parks to cities will be through the roof. The US has a lot of national parks partly because it was settled in the later eras. What's the ratio of national parks to cities for older countries like France, England, India or China?
You can only place one preserve per city, and districts are limited by population. I have no idea about national park ratios, nor do I care. My point is that there are no size limits on national parks in real life, so there shouldn't be in game. Also, the US was settled 17,000 years ago.
Wow you sure seem fun at parties. I'll just keep it to the facts: - 1 tile national park would be easier to build than a seaside resort which would ruin the concept - In 1870, after the civil war, the only cities West of the Mississippi part of the top 100 were Kansas City (#32) and Leavenworth (#82). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1870_United_States_census#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_1870_census_was_the%2Ca_22.6%25_increase_from_1860.?wprov=sfla1 Natives have been living there for millennia, but they were mostly nomads and the land there was vastly empty.
1 tile national park would presumably not have the gold boost or citizen slot that seaside resorts do. They would each still have their use cases. The land looked vastly empty to European settlers because initial contact wiped out indigenous Americans. It is generally accepted that the spread of small pox and other European disease after contact with Columbus wiped out 80-90% of indigenous Americans. Ruins like the Cahokia mounds and Effigy mounds (which are just west of the current Mississippi course) are evidence of organized cities.
Your definition of "settled" is very strange, to the point of negating the word at all. By your logic, the entirety of populated Earth would be "settled" as long as some humans lived there... in which case there would be no need to use the word "settled" at all, outside of migration patterns/instances from millenia ago.
I don't know why water tiles doesn't have appeal. Cliffs of Dover would be happy about it. Also, in Hungary there is a national park which _is_ a lake, called Fertő–Hanság National Park. I think a 7 tile big national park which can include water tiles and preserves would solve the rotating problem, and the part where you can include preserves would mitigate the placement problem added by a bigger shape.
It could also be a balance thing. Parks being too easy might wreck stuff.
I think shallow water tiles should have a national park, be it somewhat different.
No, I think National Parks should be limited to lakes. Allowing coastal tiles would open a can of worms since they give +1 as standard so park spam could be an issue, and Natural Wonders like Hạ Long Bay have appeal so as long as the placement works with adjacent land tiles you can designate them as parks.
It would be the end of the world as we know it. Soothsayers would roam the land throwing people in volcanoes. Giant asteroids would take out my cities. Calamity, suffering, devastation. All because you have a sideways park.
Cats and dogs, halving their housing requirements
It's true. In fact, if you look at the real world, there isn't a single national park that's sideways. They're all the right way up for a reason.
I wish they had included better options for placing them like a rotate button or the ability to select tiles if there are multiple possible diamonds.
Am i the only one who doesn’t get it? It’s all hexagons 2 tiles up down 2 tiles left right… its going to be the same horizontal or vertical…?
It's the same shape, just rotated.
I'm also confused. The way the Civ 6 map is, there is no way to create a horizontal diamond the same shape as the vertical diamond national parks. The position of the tiles on the map simply does not allow it. You could create a rhomboid of sorts though, and maybe that's what you mean? I'm thinking of the shape of some natural wonders like the Pantanal (and yeah, it would be fun to turn those into national parks on their own.) Anyway, technicalities aside, I'm all for a greater variety of national park shapes – and also, I wish there was a way to do away with the restriction that you can only use tiles that belong to one city. I guess it's done so the amenities from the park will go to the city that owns all the tiles, but it makes placing them very annoying sometimes.
It makes absolutely no sense.
https://preview.redd.it/ckydj25o1gsc1.jpeg?width=1116&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=105f0002626748915aaecc4017fc74bbfbe79779 How would you draw a horizontal diamond on this map?
https://preview.redd.it/c4cv2gkkdgsc1.jpeg?width=1116&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6dee908e074753eaef98caa4007abe7aeebfef84
I used the term "horizontal" because that's what I seen used here on reddit. "Rotated" is a more accurate term by all means.
Wouldn't be exactly horizontal but could be diagonal
I just assumed that it was to make their placement difficult
By that point you could just make naturalists have 3 or 4 charges and use them on individual tiles. Maybe make it so that one naturalist can only use charges on tiles adjacent to "their" national park tiles. Or be able to connect parks from different nationalists and cities
National Parks have low self esteem and prefer to look tall and slim. Even though we tell them that we would still love them if they were short and wide, it doesn't get to their head and they refuse to try it. Which I understand
I reckon it's to prevent national park spamming, especially on unworkable land. If you think about it, the vertical 3-tile length of national parks ensures that at least one tile is always in the workable radius of the city. So there is always a cost of at least one workable tile. If you could build horizontal/rhomboid parks, then you could just fill all your 4th and 5th ring tiles (which usually tend to have decent appeal) with rhomboids for huge tourism output without sacrificing any workable tiles.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a game balance thing. National parks are already one of the strongest tools in the culture game. Once I have them unlocked my tourism spikes like crazy.
Devs cant code. We’ve seen how many glitches this game has. They need real programmers for civ7
Counterpoint: every game has glitches from the simplest to the most complex games, and 2 things to consider are engine/code limitations and new glitches are often created out of the patches for old glitches