While there is great biodiversity found in marshes around the world, there is a good reason why most of them remain far from human activity - they are dangerous to humans.

For example the polish marshes were well travelled in World War II and engulfed entire tanks. It is dangerous to take a walk, hunt or even go mushroom picking there. This is properly reflected by the fact that you really can not properly exploit them - you can do some hunting and get 1-2 food (3 food in Civ 6) but nothing more.

This is the same type of argument that rose regarding tundra tiles in Civ 6 - people wanted to do more with them and hence came the buff to Canada. However in the real world farming is almost impossible in tundra and permafrost lands and any food you receive should come from hunting animals.

At least in civilization hunting is recognized with various occasional tiles with like 'game' and stuff and here it doesn't seem to be which is wildly at odds with how many animals and stuff roam the landscape. Carpentry gives you archers but the only hunting is ... done by units ... farming an entire 'herd' ... but the same justification of these animals being present for hunting would be true on plains and stuff right? Or maybe woodlands should give you one food from carpentry/hunting. Or maybe organized warfare should - organized hunting parties as well?

What might work is simply to enhance a few of the terrain/tile features :
- Forests should give at least one food per tile. Currently they give only production, which does not account for any hunting that can be done there.
- Marshes could keep their current tile output, but have a higher probability of having a special feature on them. Thus you will be able to build later on them Preserves and increase your yields.
- A special infrastructure building chain can be added that deals only with hunting. Tier one can add food to forests, tier two can add food to marshes and tundra. Thus you will be inclined to keep those features, much like rivers have special infrastructure building that improve yields from them.

+1

I hope there's a full review of all terrain types.

I do like that more tiles produce a mix of production and food.

Right now, the game relies too heavily on mountains and forest for production. While it's true that if you "work" them, you're more likely to get production than food, but it's NOT true that most people get production from them. Mountains should basically be sterile unless they have special resources on them. Nobody lives there to get production from them. Really, it's hills - where people can live - that allow production, not actual impassable mountains..

I mean ... rocks are useful ... but ... I mean the idea is that you exploit them... and I think in this case their meant to be forested mountains - which is also a bit of a misnowmer not all forests

Melliores wrote:

What might work is simply to enhance a few of the terrain/tile features :
- Forests should give at least one food per tile. Currently they give only production, which does not account for any hunting that can be done there.
- Marshes could keep their current tile output, but have a higher probability of having a special feature on them. Thus you will be able to build later on them Preserves and increase your yields.
- A special infrastructure building chain can be added that deals only with hunting. Tier one can add food to forests, tier two can add food to marshes and tundra. Thus you will be inclined to keep those features, much like rivers have special infrastructure building that improve yields from them.

My memory is lacking, but is that the case in Endless Legend ?

Man, Humankind broke all the expectations while pretending to be a magnum opus. We are so sceptical of the game that everything is put into question.

They had mutant marsh anomaly +2 food and +4 science. I think it was temperate (green base terrain) only?