One think i don't understand is why theses even try to be woke. It's a 4x game how the fuck do you make it woke? Add rainbow colors, niggers who were never world leaders?.
Sid Meier's Civilization
- Thread starter MrWarioWare
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
You just described Civ VII.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
Something that Civ games are lacking: a globe view.
Test of Time has a crappy globe view, and 4 has some globe view. I think Civ Rev on XBox and PS has a globe too. But the rest do not.
Test of Time has a crappy globe view, and 4 has some globe view. I think Civ Rev on XBox and PS has a globe too. But the rest do not.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
Just got civ5 on a hyper mega giga sale on steam. Yup, it's kino gaming time
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
I started playing Old World. The upside is that it's a tightly made 4X themed on a narrow slice of history (a vague ancient Mediterranean, geographically cultures from Achaemenid Persia to the Roman Empire in terms of geographical spread and time). The downside is that same thing (lack of variety), and I'm not really sold on it yet.
What you've got is, as people pitched it, an attempt at mixing Civilization (basic 4X formula) and Crusader Kings (character system; time in this game is always a year a turn, although the explicit and consistent nature of time is only there for characters, the development of the civilization still happens really fast) with, of all things, Hex Empires. You remember how Paradox loves monarch mana? I used to argue that EU should have a bureaucracy system where you generate state capacity that's used as a resource for literally everything. State has limited attention. That's literally what this game has, just in a more gamey form. Monarch has limited attention to pay.
The CK gimmick's big drawback, so far, is the UI and the lack of time. CK2 was very gracefully designed and the fact that it rolled by, automatically, day by day meant that it was easy to feel time passing with your characters, play around with looking at them as you wait for things to happen, explore around. The problem here is that with a manual "pass time" button there is never that kind of downtime. The UI also attempts to extremely functional in the sense of giving you everything upfront, but there is a merit to simplicity even when simplicity means more clicking. So it's just kind of hard to get a handle on who these people are. I don't think it's inherently flawed; I do think it's more like a proof of concept. The idea that people (both randomly generated and real historical characters shorn of context) appear and you get this human drama is genuinely very important and fitting for this era, but it feels bare bones. I have trouble getting a sense of what they're really doing compared to CK2. That said, it's infinitely better than Civ. When I tried Civ VI I hated everything to do with Great People, how Zulus would invent Nikola Tesla and then he'd be used for nothing but to burn to get some bonus, that type of nonsense. It feels much better seeing something like Jonah or Roxelana or Vercingetorix pop up. It isn't so detached from the real person that it's just complete meaningless nonsense.
City construction is fine so far. A little jarring going from Civ as its core economy mechanics are different. I like that workers don't just keel over as you use them. I find the growth/food/population thing a little confusing, in Civ it was more intuitive to me with how food --> people --> people to actually WORK the structures i build.
Game doesn't have much flavor in terms of flavor text, encyclopedia entries. It may seem a petty thing to bitch about, but a big part of the fun of any of these things is the little educational details. Civ VI only ever had smartass, "witty" things to say. This just says nothing.
Edit: I will say this too, for having three of its seven default civs be republics (Carthage, Rome, Greece), there's no real reason it shouldn't have republican (even if it's the oligarchic, personalistic kind the classical world ran on) forms of govt as an option in the game.
What you've got is, as people pitched it, an attempt at mixing Civilization (basic 4X formula) and Crusader Kings (character system; time in this game is always a year a turn, although the explicit and consistent nature of time is only there for characters, the development of the civilization still happens really fast) with, of all things, Hex Empires. You remember how Paradox loves monarch mana? I used to argue that EU should have a bureaucracy system where you generate state capacity that's used as a resource for literally everything. State has limited attention. That's literally what this game has, just in a more gamey form. Monarch has limited attention to pay.
The CK gimmick's big drawback, so far, is the UI and the lack of time. CK2 was very gracefully designed and the fact that it rolled by, automatically, day by day meant that it was easy to feel time passing with your characters, play around with looking at them as you wait for things to happen, explore around. The problem here is that with a manual "pass time" button there is never that kind of downtime. The UI also attempts to extremely functional in the sense of giving you everything upfront, but there is a merit to simplicity even when simplicity means more clicking. So it's just kind of hard to get a handle on who these people are. I don't think it's inherently flawed; I do think it's more like a proof of concept. The idea that people (both randomly generated and real historical characters shorn of context) appear and you get this human drama is genuinely very important and fitting for this era, but it feels bare bones. I have trouble getting a sense of what they're really doing compared to CK2. That said, it's infinitely better than Civ. When I tried Civ VI I hated everything to do with Great People, how Zulus would invent Nikola Tesla and then he'd be used for nothing but to burn to get some bonus, that type of nonsense. It feels much better seeing something like Jonah or Roxelana or Vercingetorix pop up. It isn't so detached from the real person that it's just complete meaningless nonsense.
City construction is fine so far. A little jarring going from Civ as its core economy mechanics are different. I like that workers don't just keel over as you use them. I find the growth/food/population thing a little confusing, in Civ it was more intuitive to me with how food --> people --> people to actually WORK the structures i build.
Game doesn't have much flavor in terms of flavor text, encyclopedia entries. It may seem a petty thing to bitch about, but a big part of the fun of any of these things is the little educational details. Civ VI only ever had smartass, "witty" things to say. This just says nothing.
Edit: I will say this too, for having three of its seven default civs be republics (Carthage, Rome, Greece), there's no real reason it shouldn't have republican (even if it's the oligarchic, personalistic kind the classical world ran on) forms of govt as an option in the game.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2020
Its not petty at all civ 3 had a gigantic civclopedia that probably taught me a grade point average worth of history in University and that is to say nothing of the massive amount of lore in SMAC.
Dammit Mandrake!
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
I keep wishing that GalCiv IV would speed up or add more to its early game. Mid game is great but then late game starts to drag with the sheer size of the map and your empire.
They just announced that hyperlanes are coming back with 3.0, which should fix a lot of the late game.
Still, it has been an alright replacement for a new Civ, even if the core of the game hasn't changed much since GalCiv II.
They just announced that hyperlanes are coming back with 3.0, which should fix a lot of the late game.
Still, it has been an alright replacement for a new Civ, even if the core of the game hasn't changed much since GalCiv II.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Another little thing, I love the idea behind how religions spawn in Old World (with the DLC, people say it's the only DLC that's essential but it is essential).
I've rambled here about having a hard time investing myself in a religion that's just a label slapped on whatever nonsense you cobble together. In Old World you get four options besides your own paganism (which also has to be invented, like your culture may have had paganism but that doesn't mean it had organized priesthood) particular to your culture. You can be Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian or Manichaean. (Buddhism isn't relevant to the part of the world depicted; I'd hope that if they ever add an Indian civ they include it.) I haven't played enough to know what merits they have, but what's cool is that these ARE related to each other.
Zoroastrianism spawns quickly, basically just for being the first civ to actually develop basic religious infrastructure. Judaism (which in my game was lead by Jonah? Christianity is by Paul) requires pastures. Weird, arbitrary kind of, but sure, that's one way to say "act Jewish." I mean, it'd be hard to explain why exactly one culture invents Monotheism A and the other invents Monotheism B besides just making them both triggered by essentially the same condition.
How do you get Christianity? Have major Jewish cities + Metaphysics. That's really cool! It portrays, in a simple way, the idea that Christianity is basically a product of Greek philosophy applied to Judaism's nasty desert religion.
Finally, Manichaeism is like a Zoroastrian/Christian hybrid, I think, plus Monasticism. I barely remember it. I have to dust off a book on it. (I read In Search of Zarathustra many years ago in college, only text I ever read on the subject of that branch of ancient faith.)
So the game basically makes it a very rapid race (AI always wins) to Zoroastrianism, with a slight effort the loser can get Judaism (but it doesn't really require , and after that other losers have to make their religion out of the previous steps.
I very much like this. Much, much better than the way Civ does it, exactly what I wanted. If you miss the race to a religion, your consolation prize is getting to make that religion's spinoff. Very easy to imagine an extended tech tree that could trace it all the way down to things like Islam and Calvinism. I don't know if I'd call Hinduism (as the source of Buddhism) a paganism or a world religion, though. It's really more of a paganism. Confucianism would definitely be a world religion, and very late game I think ideologies could to some extent be treated like world religions.
I've rambled here about having a hard time investing myself in a religion that's just a label slapped on whatever nonsense you cobble together. In Old World you get four options besides your own paganism (which also has to be invented, like your culture may have had paganism but that doesn't mean it had organized priesthood) particular to your culture. You can be Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian or Manichaean. (Buddhism isn't relevant to the part of the world depicted; I'd hope that if they ever add an Indian civ they include it.) I haven't played enough to know what merits they have, but what's cool is that these ARE related to each other.
Zoroastrianism spawns quickly, basically just for being the first civ to actually develop basic religious infrastructure. Judaism (which in my game was lead by Jonah? Christianity is by Paul) requires pastures. Weird, arbitrary kind of, but sure, that's one way to say "act Jewish." I mean, it'd be hard to explain why exactly one culture invents Monotheism A and the other invents Monotheism B besides just making them both triggered by essentially the same condition.
How do you get Christianity? Have major Jewish cities + Metaphysics. That's really cool! It portrays, in a simple way, the idea that Christianity is basically a product of Greek philosophy applied to Judaism's nasty desert religion.
Finally, Manichaeism is like a Zoroastrian/Christian hybrid, I think, plus Monasticism. I barely remember it. I have to dust off a book on it. (I read In Search of Zarathustra many years ago in college, only text I ever read on the subject of that branch of ancient faith.)
So the game basically makes it a very rapid race (AI always wins) to Zoroastrianism, with a slight effort the loser can get Judaism (but it doesn't really require , and after that other losers have to make their religion out of the previous steps.
I very much like this. Much, much better than the way Civ does it, exactly what I wanted. If you miss the race to a religion, your consolation prize is getting to make that religion's spinoff. Very easy to imagine an extended tech tree that could trace it all the way down to things like Islam and Calvinism. I don't know if I'd call Hinduism (as the source of Buddhism) a paganism or a world religion, though. It's really more of a paganism. Confucianism would definitely be a world religion, and very late game I think ideologies could to some extent be treated like world religions.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
You're right. This is shit. It's especially necessary in a setting where things are so obscure (unless you're specifically a classicist).
Overall recommend checking it out
I haven't actually played enough 4X games, much less these specific franchises, for my opinions to be worth anything.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
I'd say this is Soren reaching back into Civ 4 for inspiration, where religions are unlocked semi-linearly as a consequence of tech (e.g. being the first to research Monotheism founds Judaism, being the first to research Theology founds Christianity, Monotheism is a prerequisite for Theology).
A big part of why I like Old World has been that it feels, in many ways, like it's picking up where Civ 4 left off. Sure, it's not a direct continuation; Civ V's success effectively killed squares and the CK elements show that Paradox's has been able to cross-pollinate the genre with their own erstwhile success, but a lot of fundamentals of Old World do feel like Soren wanted to go back to ideas that were never fully realized because of Civ 5 doing a soft reset of the series. Multiple leaders who have predetermined traits that will give further variation to their Civs? Cities having cultural levels that affects their output? Religions having some inherent bonuses and being tied to tech? Borders expanding organically? Having to pick and choose how you structure your Civ's government? Growing your tile improvements over time? The proof-of-concept aspect does make some of the execution seem uncanny valley territory but it's fun and I really hope we'll see a full Civlike competitor taking notes from Old World (especially as I'm not really interested in the classical period).
Manichaeism was basically to Zoroastrianism what Islam was to Christianity, it was popular amongst some urban intellectuals in the Persian and Mediterranean world but failed to get any real state or popular support and wound up just being one of many vaguely-Gnostic sects.
I've been doing a CK2 playthrough the past month and I can say in full earnestness that Old World and its mechanics actually do a few things better than it; giving you a warning when your character is going to die, having more agency over the events/actions you undertake towards other characters, not just arbitrarily slapping you with stressed or removing one of your traits because Paradox simultaneously wanted you to have to roleplay a character while being incredibly generous with the ability to make yours completely elastic, etc. There's definitely a lot of refining it could do but I think it ironically wound up approaching the human aspect of characters a bit better than CK2.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
That is an interesting (as in useful) way of putting it. I see Buddhism as being to Hinduism what Christianity was to Judaism. I wonder what kinds of "techs" (existing in these games or hypothetical techs) would be tied to the others. I imagine:
Feudalism: Orthodoxy --> Catholicism (in the very vague/kind of arbitrary sense of the Pope's immense power coming out of the circumstances of decentralized Western Europe vs Caesaropapism in the East)
Humanism: Catholicism --> Protestantism
Democracy: Protestantism --> Mormonism (in the sense that it's essentially a recreation of Christianity based around American exceptionalism)
I have to play more. I think it's probably fine as a system once a person gets used to it and it gets running (have to be a bit advanced in your playthrough to even have actual stuff for half these people to do).
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
You might have to branch metaphysics into mutually exclusive paths in order to capture this properly- "linear time" vs. "cyclical time" would be one of the big early decision points, for example.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
I think this does warrant examination into Civ 6 splitting tech between science and culture. I didn't like its execution but I do think it would be good in a game like this to have the tech tree branch or split somehow to be less linear or represent how there's a difference between theory and technique or how technology can diverge. Victoria II had inventions spawning from techs, Beyond Earth had a theoretically interesting tech web with sub-techs, Civ 6 obviously had its split tech trees, I'm honestly surprised there haven't been more attempts to make an interesting tech system that extends beyond basic sub-categories.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
CK2 and Victoria II had interesting tech systems.
I think that with tech all games really overestimate how important "science" is for human achievement. There's a book, How Innovation Works, that makes this argument in more detail, but until the Second Industrial Revolution it's arguable that the application usually comes first and the theoretical understanding second. It should be the craftsman that drives technological advancement, not the scholar. But this isn't really fun unless you're specifically making simulations, which Civ is not.
What I liked about CK2 was that it represented the fact that technology is something that has to diffuse, that is geographically differentiated. For some things only your capital mattered - does my government have access to this idea at all, yes or no - but for many things it does matter quite a bit that conquering backwards savages doesn't suddenly make them equally productive as an industrial homeland. But then it was kind of boring and sucky otherwise.
Victoria was certainly interesting, and what I really loved was that it was a rare game that seriously took on the idea that science, social thought and even art are worth representing as technology. As @Computer God Autism said, you get the inventions (let the player direct top-level technology, but have real world logic decide when specific things come along), which was quite good. But what it offered as technology was really cool too that you could actually have something like Keynesian Economics or Impressionism be technologies that are as meaningful as developing a steam-powered ship or the Bessemer process or whatever.
Which Civ games have to some extent, but not in the same way. And non-natural philosophy, of course, doesn't move in one direction (neither does natural, but that's besides the point).
I did like that Civ VI had culture be its own thing, like a second science.
I think that with tech all games really overestimate how important "science" is for human achievement. There's a book, How Innovation Works, that makes this argument in more detail, but until the Second Industrial Revolution it's arguable that the application usually comes first and the theoretical understanding second. It should be the craftsman that drives technological advancement, not the scholar. But this isn't really fun unless you're specifically making simulations, which Civ is not.
What I liked about CK2 was that it represented the fact that technology is something that has to diffuse, that is geographically differentiated. For some things only your capital mattered - does my government have access to this idea at all, yes or no - but for many things it does matter quite a bit that conquering backwards savages doesn't suddenly make them equally productive as an industrial homeland. But then it was kind of boring and sucky otherwise.
Victoria was certainly interesting, and what I really loved was that it was a rare game that seriously took on the idea that science, social thought and even art are worth representing as technology. As @Computer God Autism said, you get the inventions (let the player direct top-level technology, but have real world logic decide when specific things come along), which was quite good. But what it offered as technology was really cool too that you could actually have something like Keynesian Economics or Impressionism be technologies that are as meaningful as developing a steam-powered ship or the Bessemer process or whatever.
Which Civ games have to some extent, but not in the same way. And non-natural philosophy, of course, doesn't move in one direction (neither does natural, but that's besides the point).
I did like that Civ VI had culture be its own thing, like a second science.
I've especially thought a lot about art, because to me art movements are (along with science) a huge part of "History." Firaxis understands that enough to have Cultural victories, Great People (even if they're boring, wooden non-characters); Paradox does not. But it's REALLY hard to do in a way that isn't just completely absurd. You can tell a plausible story about how Invention X has to come before Invention Y, even if it isn't strictly true, but it's goofy to try to make it out like you have to invent Baroque Music before Jazz Music. Culture evolves, yet it doesn't evolve in any particular direction. It's likewise hard to explain what makes a culture more fruitful, even though we all know an impressive culture when we see one.
I've pondered this, and the best I can come up with (from more of a simulation point of view) is that you get Great Works of Art just because there's new art movements, and new art movements come about due to social change, whether because of:
1) Cross-cultural interaction
2) Social transformation (caused by economic transformation or political conflict of some sort)
3) Religious transformation (which kind of has the same problem as art, where does it come from?)
And somewhat conditional on:
1) Wealth, at least to a minimum level
2) Individual freedom, at least to a minimum level
And then art movements are politicized - often political in nature to begin with - and so there is potentially real gameplay to be had in how a state interacts with it, which could really become very interesting fodder for a 4X or grand strategy game. I picture it as kind of inverting the typical logic. Rather than buying your cultural change with all the art academies you build, you have to earn the conditions (just like earning a religion) to spawn art movements, but once spawned you can milk them for culture until they dry up and die.
So a culture that is industrializing hardcore, for example, could invent Romanticism. Then it can use its culture-producing infrastructure (the opera houses, painters workshops, symphony orchestras, whatevers) to pump out Culture in the old style, or in the new style. And the thing is, each art movement has its political effect. Romanticism may, for example, encourage backlash to industrialization but also nationalism (both good and bad: subversive to the regime and unifying in purpose, both for the leading nation and for its imperial subjects). Jazz would promote Communism. Classical stuff would promote republican values and reform (Age of Reason). So on. So you can have circumstances where you may choose to resist the art movement, support it or let it play itself out.
But the big thing is, you only get a lot of cultural prestige if you stay on the cutting edge. Nobody is impressed by people who are doing the same thing that's been done before. There could also be an element of a race to it: early on, you get these "invention" like great works/artistes that pop off, and so you really need to double down if you can get a first-mover advantage.
I especially think about it with EU4, because it starts off smack in the Renaissance and goes through the whole rise of classical music. Patronage - including the competition between states for specific people to patronize - is a big deal. Where in our world we may have seen the Italians lay down the vocabulary of music but really excel at sculptures and paintings, the Germans be great composers and the English be great playwrights and novelists, another world could have had it been, say, Swedish novelists, Portuguese composers and Turkish sculptors if you had the right circumstances.
I'd like to see a strategy game (either genre) really try to tackle this.
I've pondered this, and the best I can come up with (from more of a simulation point of view) is that you get Great Works of Art just because there's new art movements, and new art movements come about due to social change, whether because of:
1) Cross-cultural interaction
2) Social transformation (caused by economic transformation or political conflict of some sort)
3) Religious transformation (which kind of has the same problem as art, where does it come from?)
And somewhat conditional on:
1) Wealth, at least to a minimum level
2) Individual freedom, at least to a minimum level
And then art movements are politicized - often political in nature to begin with - and so there is potentially real gameplay to be had in how a state interacts with it, which could really become very interesting fodder for a 4X or grand strategy game. I picture it as kind of inverting the typical logic. Rather than buying your cultural change with all the art academies you build, you have to earn the conditions (just like earning a religion) to spawn art movements, but once spawned you can milk them for culture until they dry up and die.
So a culture that is industrializing hardcore, for example, could invent Romanticism. Then it can use its culture-producing infrastructure (the opera houses, painters workshops, symphony orchestras, whatevers) to pump out Culture in the old style, or in the new style. And the thing is, each art movement has its political effect. Romanticism may, for example, encourage backlash to industrialization but also nationalism (both good and bad: subversive to the regime and unifying in purpose, both for the leading nation and for its imperial subjects). Jazz would promote Communism. Classical stuff would promote republican values and reform (Age of Reason). So on. So you can have circumstances where you may choose to resist the art movement, support it or let it play itself out.
But the big thing is, you only get a lot of cultural prestige if you stay on the cutting edge. Nobody is impressed by people who are doing the same thing that's been done before. There could also be an element of a race to it: early on, you get these "invention" like great works/artistes that pop off, and so you really need to double down if you can get a first-mover advantage.
I especially think about it with EU4, because it starts off smack in the Renaissance and goes through the whole rise of classical music. Patronage - including the competition between states for specific people to patronize - is a big deal. Where in our world we may have seen the Italians lay down the vocabulary of music but really excel at sculptures and paintings, the Germans be great composers and the English be great playwrights and novelists, another world could have had it been, say, Swedish novelists, Portuguese composers and Turkish sculptors if you had the right circumstances.
I'd like to see a strategy game (either genre) really try to tackle this.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2024
Most of what you or AutismGod said was proper, but I think it's wrong to try to model humanity as a whole (in general). I do appreciate the changes in Civ6 where culture and tech are separate, or where propagating tech is different than developping tech (in CK2), but I actually pay money for those games. I'm not trying to get a truthful interpretation of mankind's history, I want my money's worth of fun, and removing player agency rarely amouts to more fun. Same with the governors in Old World or Civ6, it's easy to suggest limitations to better immitate the real world, but I'd rather game designers focus on making real world stuff fun for gamers.
Civ is about having a war hawk Gandhi send nukes to Babylon or to the Aztec. I understand the desire for historically-ish accurate gameplay in that type of game, but Civ is a sandbox more than it is a simulation. That's been a recent issue where devs do want to develop systems at the expense of the player, rather than to try to empower him.
Civ is about having a war hawk Gandhi send nukes to Babylon or to the Aztec. I understand the desire for historically-ish accurate gameplay in that type of game, but Civ is a sandbox more than it is a simulation. That's been a recent issue where devs do want to develop systems at the expense of the player, rather than to try to empower him.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2021
I bought Civ 7 due to curiosity and because I like the series. I have about 16 hours in it so far. I think it's playable but after completing a playthrough with the science victory, I feel kind of directionless. I've started a few other games but never finished any of them (which is ironic considering that's something they wanted to fix with the era system lmao). It's also one of the few times I bought a game and it was noticeably buggy.
Two things I want to complain about is:
1. All the leaders having a level up system. I wouldn't mind mementos being tied to your account's overall level or achievements but I don't want to grind as specific leaders for a memento I want.
2. Some leaders already having alternate versions. I disliked the concept in Civ 6 and think it's only justified if e.g. you already have 7 American presidents and think having (New Deal) FDR and (Pacific Theatre) FDR is worth it at that point.
Two things I want to complain about is:
1. All the leaders having a level up system. I wouldn't mind mementos being tied to your account's overall level or achievements but I don't want to grind as specific leaders for a memento I want.
2. Some leaders already having alternate versions. I disliked the concept in Civ 6 and think it's only justified if e.g. you already have 7 American presidents and think having (New Deal) FDR and (Pacific Theatre) FDR is worth it at that point.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
I understand where this is coming from, but I disagree. Yes, there's a trend in games like Civ 7 and Humankind to say that you have to do this or that to be competitive, but that's more of a consequence of pursuing a playerbase that is concerned more with spreadsheeting than larping. History and a simulation of it, ironically, is backseat to gameplay considerations despite making such changes in the name of representing history, and the player is given even more tools to break the simulation than before - and in the process break their own suspension of disbelief. It's more of a sandbox than before because of that; there's very little you're actually prevented from having a hand in or that can arise organically, and it's harder to handwave away things as abstractions when it tries and fails to meaningfully simulate things on a smaller level (e.g. Governors in 6). The result is just a shift in the meta playstyle, not a shift away from the sandbox.
A game where systems were developed at the actual expense of the player would look something more like Nobunaga's Ambition: Awakening where you are forced to delegate things to your AI subordinates instead of being capable of microing everything yourself. Sure, some cool systems were made to make it work and the AI can actually be competent, but at the end of the day you have less control over the game and its systems for it.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Robert Owen would be a better Industrial Revolution leader who was a heckin wholesome utopian socialist/coop starter.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
In Civ 1 and 2, how does the civilization have a map of the surrounding area without Map Making?
