Huge map

[Guigui]

Do the developers have any news about when we can expect the map editor or support for huge maps, especially with a realistic Earth map, in Civilization VII?

I know a lot of players are waiting for the option to play on larger, more authentic world maps. Is this feature planned for an upcoming update, or is there any official roadmap for when it might be released?

Thanks in advance for any info

[Rhapsody]

I have not seen any mentions of specific map sizes, just "additional map sizes". No clue when they are supposed to be delivered either. But if I had to guess, I think it would make sense to have them available at same time or after the auto-exploration feature, and possibly after the balance update mentioned in previous dev update video.

The latest minor update's improvement to game performance and other such improvements will likely contribute too. Some users are still reporting crashes and other issues, but it's hard to tell how many of these are result of lacking driver updates or other system incompatibility. Using Vulkan over DirectX has helped in some cases.

IIRC the game was originally balanced for the small map size with 6 players. I doubt Civ VII will run massive games beyond the officially set limits very well compared to Civ VI, but we'll see about that. It wouldn't surprise me terribly if the limit for players was set on 10 with huge map size only being made available as an extra option. Some of the core features of the game like legacy paths and progressing between civilizations don't really support a vast quantity of players.

[Guigui]

Ok thank you

I’ve been a Civilization fan for years, but this launch has destroyed any faith I had in Firaxis and 2K. This is the last time I pre order anything from them. They’ve managed to turn one of the most beloved strategy franchises into a cautionary tale of corporate indifference and mediocrity. If this is the new standard, I’d rather go back to Civ VI or better yet, spend my money elsewhere.

Basic features like map size customization or auto exploration are either absent or buried behind vague promises. Enough is enough.

[PhalseDemeise]

there is a roadmap, it's been online for 3 months. additional map sizes are in the "beyond" section

a basic google search can tell you this. No guess work, it's written out for you.

[Rhapsody]

Well, you're both right there, but not fully right... Blindly buying anything is not a good idea. But you can still make an informed purchase without immersing yourself in hopium of roadmaps or potential future expansions or anything. No Civ has launched with full compliment of features – every single title from the very beginning has introduced basic or core features like multiplayer, map options, basic gameplay settings and so on after the original release.

[misesfan]

The answer is that Distant Lands prevent really huge maps. And since Distant Lands is one of the rails that you are railroaded in this game on rails it will never happen.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by misesfan:

The answer is that Distant Lands prevent really huge maps.

Nah, it's more like distant lands merely complicates things. There are already mods that enable larger map sizes hosted on Civfanatics. Whether they are stable or not is another matter.

[Guigui]

Originally posted by PhalseDemeise:

there is a roadmap, it's been online for 3 months. additional map sizes are in the "beyond" section

a basic google search can tell you this. No guess work, it's written out for you.

The issue is not about whether future content is planned, but about the current state of the game. Many players expect a huge map option at release, as was standard in previous Civilization titles. The absence of this feature means that anyone wanting a more expansive, epic game experience is left waiting for an unspecified future update, with no clear timeline for when huge maps will actually arrive. It's been about 3 months now that the game is release.

So while the roadmap does promise more in the future, it’s fair for players to be disappointed that such a core feature is missing at launch.

[Rhapsody]

Well, one thing you can do presently is control the number of players in the game. If you set number of players to five, on a standard sized map, it will make everyone spawn in homelands and leave distant lands ripe for colonization, as if it were "Terra" map. Another option is to look for the mods or simply wait. Larger maps aren't really a core feature though. Civ has always been balanced to standard or one size lower. But it's still entirely understandable to be disappointed on this matter. The larger maps can scarcely come soon enough... I just hope they are stable, because in my experience the past two games didn't run larger games very well and it has relatively little to do with system capabilities.

[Esau]

Originally posted by Guigui:

Originally posted by PhalseDemeise:

there is a roadmap, it's been online for 3 months. additional map sizes are in the "beyond" section

a basic google search can tell you this. No guess work, it's written out for you.

The issue is not about whether future content is planned, but about the current state of the game. Many players expect a huge map option at release, as was standard in previous Civilization titles. The absence of this feature means that anyone wanting a more expansive, epic game experience is left waiting for an unspecified future update, with no clear timeline for when huge maps will actually arrive. It's been about 3 months now that the game is release.

So while the roadmap does promise more in the future, it’s fair for players to be disappointed that such a core feature is missing at launch.

Just wanted to chime in and say I agree, but that you should be aware Rhapsody will argue about literally any negative commentary on this game so you're wasting your time trying to discuss this. He has been doing this for months in virtually every single topic that criticizes the game.

[wcbarney]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Originally posted by misesfan:

The answer is that Distant Lands prevent really huge maps.

Nah, it's more like distant lands merely complicates things. There are already mods that enable larger map sizes hosted on Civfanatics. Whether they are stable or not is another matter.

You can get really huge maps here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ynamp-larger-map-tsl-continents-beta.694821/
I have been using this mod successfully since mid-February; I usually play on a mammoth continents+ map with 8 players, at the Deity difficulty level. Have never had any trouble with the maps, so I have concluded that they are stable.

[z3rk]

Originally posted by Guigui:

Originally posted by PhalseDemeise:

there is a roadmap, it's been online for 3 months. additional map sizes are in the "beyond" section

a basic google search can tell you this. No guess work, it's written out for you.

The issue is not about whether future content is planned, but about the current state of the game. Many players expect a huge map option at release, as was standard in previous Civilization titles. The absence of this feature means that anyone wanting a more expansive, epic game experience is left waiting for an unspecified future update, with no clear timeline for when huge maps will actually arrive. It's been about 3 months now that the game is release.

So while the roadmap does promise more in the future, it’s fair for players to be disappointed that such a core feature is missing at launch.

I agree totally and I must say that i think that I missed this moment in our timeline where we started this apologetic movement "leave them corporations alone!", when we are being somewhat shamed that we have expectations towards the product we pay evergrowing price.

Maybe mentally i'm still in 2000 where, when you bought a game on CD, it has to be working flawlessly cause there was no 'we will patch it'. So the games were tested and tested because if they released a crap, then that would be it for them.

Onlline distribution made them lazy and greedy, somehow it 'should' be acceptable to receive a cut/sloppy content for full price because "OK! WE WILL FIX IT", like they are doing us a favour or some ♥♥♥♥. especially X months into the future. after you bought a game( FOR A FULL PRICE M'KAY) , the next iteration of previous games where some stuff was not only available but also expected. I could probably understand it, if it was a brand new game with nothing to compare, aka, you don't know what you don't know. But here, existing for couple of previous games, improvements and mechanics were NOT included in the base game and developer benevolently told the masses "WE WILL WORK ON IT! FOR YOU". I guess we should be thankfull, like in this stalin joke after he slapped the children and tv host goes 'well, he could kill him!"

[steven777]

I feel like Huge maps are coming in the June update. I will start another game when they arrive.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by z3rk:

Maybe mentally i'm still in 2000 where, when you bought a game on CD, it has to be working flawlessly cause there was no 'we will patch it'. So the games were tested and tested because if they released a crap, then that would be it for them.

Onlline distribution made them lazy and greedy, somehow it 'should' be acceptable to receive a cut/sloppy content for full price because "OK! WE WILL FIX IT", like they are doing us a favour or some ♥♥♥♥. especially X months into the future. after you bought a game( FOR A FULL PRICE M'KAY) , the next iteration of previous games where some stuff was not only available but also expected.

You do raise a fair point, but games weren't shipped in flawless condition back then either and often bugs could go unrepaired entirely. The state of modern releases can sometimes be deplorable and frustrating, but overall I'd say digital distribution has made things better, not worse. It's easier for new IPs to enter the market even against established franchises, and not just in this genre. The situation isn't as clearly black and white as "old games were made better" as it may seem to be... in this case the critique may be fair and justified on many areas, but it's good to try to be as accurate and punctual as possible since blanket statements probably won't help reach understanding.

I'm not sure if they ever gave any proper justification to why VII didn't launch with full compliment of map size options, I simply don't remember every comment they made during the live streams. But even then I don't really buy into that stuff. The justification they give us doesn't have to be untrue, but sometimes it's a bit like a curtain pulled in front of a window into development and production factors and priorities that we're not meant to see.

[Guigui]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Originally posted by z3rk:

Maybe mentally i'm still in 2000 where, when you bought a game on CD, it has to be working flawlessly cause there was no 'we will patch it'. So the games were tested and tested because if they released a crap, then that would be it for them.

Onlline distribution made them lazy and greedy, somehow it 'should' be acceptable to receive a cut/sloppy content for full price because "OK! WE WILL FIX IT", like they are doing us a favour or some ♥♥♥♥. especially X months into the future. after you bought a game( FOR A FULL PRICE M'KAY) , the next iteration of previous games where some stuff was not only available but also expected.

You do raise a fair point, but games weren't shipped in flawless condition back then either and often bugs could go unrepaired entirely. The state of modern releases can sometimes be deplorable and frustrating, but overall I'd say digital distribution has made things better, not worse. It's easier for new IPs to enter the market even against established franchises, and not just in this genre. The situation isn't as clearly black and white as "old games were made better" as it may seem to be... in this case the critique may be fair and justified on many areas, but it's good to try to be as accurate and punctual as possible since blanket statements probably won't help reach understanding.

I'm not sure if they ever gave any proper justification to why VII didn't launch with full compliment of map size options, I simply don't remember every comment they made during the live streams. But even then I don't really buy into that stuff. The justification they give us doesn't have to be untrue, but sometimes it's a bit like a curtain pulled in front of a window into development and production factors and priorities that we're not meant to see.

While I agree that no game has ever launched in a truly flawless state, I think it’s important not to downplay just how much the landscape has changed. Yes, older games had bugs too, but the difference is that developers back then had to ship a finished product there was no reliable way to patch major issues after release. That pressure often resulted in tighter quality control and more complete features at launch, especially for high profile titles.

Today, with digital distribution and day one patches, there’s a tendency for publishers to treat launch as just another milestone, not the finish line. This can lead to games releasing with missing features or significant bugs that would have been unacceptable in the past. The fact that Civ 7 launched without a full set of map size options is a perfect example; this simply wouldn’t have happened in the era of boxed releases.

Digital distribution has definitely made it easier for new IPs and indie developers to enter the market, and that’s a huge positive. But for big franchises like Civilization, the expectation for a polished, feature complete experience at launch is justified. When those expectations aren’t met, it’s fair for the community to be frustrated.

I agree that blanket statements like “old games were made better” aren’t always accurate, but it’s also not fair to suggest that things are mostly better now just because patching is easier. The reality is more nuanced: while some aspects have improved, others like launch day quality have arguably gotten worse, especially for major releases.

As for developer justifications, transparency is always welcome, but sometimes it does feel like we’re only getting part of the story.

Ultimately, players have every right to hold developers accountable for the state of a game at launch, regardless of the explanations given.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Guigui:

The fact that Civ 7 launched without a full set of map size options is a perfect example; this simply wouldn’t have happened in the era of boxed releases.

I wouldn't go that far... but the point is sound at any rate. I don't think larger map sizes are integral enough part of the experience presently, since they were no stable enough for multiplayer in V and VI, at least for me. But when it comes to other things like civilopedia, bugs and poor usability, and what funny thing they did with reworking how modern age culture legacy path works, those are some things that would have left a permanent bad impression back in the day before online patching.

As far as I'm concerned, the launch of Civ VII could have been delayed by some months. February was packed anyways. But that didn't happen and I think everyone knows who to blame for that, for most part at least.