Betting and Speculation - The "Entirely Separate Hypercube" Civ!

I don't think that being forced to only have one city is a good idea, as it is borderline impossible to get a good game (there's NO way that on Diety you can achieve a win with that as a nation). It doesn't make much sense in logical way (although, it would be cool I won't lie).

If Pueblo for some reason did make in, in the PAX they did mention mountain dwellings?
 
I don't think that being forced to only have one city is a good idea, as it is borderline impossible to get a good game (there's NO way that on Diety you can achieve a win with that as a nation)

Pretty sure people have beaten the game on Deity using OCC.
 
I agree that a OCC civ is a bad idea, but I like the idea of a civ with limited options for expansion, like only through conquest, city flipping through trade routes, or something like that. Maybe you can only settle puppet cities or something like that.
 
I don't think that being forced to only have one city is a good idea, as it is borderline impossible to get a good game (there's NO way that on Diety you can achieve a win with that as a nation). It doesn't make much sense in logical way (although, it would be cool I won't lie).

If Pueblo for some reason did make in, in the PAX they did mention mountain dwellings?

I agree. Given that the game requires you to have access to resources to defend yourself, especially once coal and oil come around, there is no way you could win. Forget about the space victory if 400 turns in you reveal aluminum and find out you don't have any.
 
Tecumseh of the Shawnee.

They grow as multiple, independent civs, that eventually unite. You get one city to start, and the other cities are created by you by creating a unit like a settler that is cheaper, something like a new tribe unit. Maybe even you pop the new tribe unit from a goodie hut. They are placed by you but autonomous until you unite them. They give you bonuses like city states or something until united, and are permanently allied with you.

Total wild guess.
 
Tecumseh of the Shawnee.

They grow as multiple, independent civs, that eventually unite. You get one city to start, and the other cities are created by you by creating a unit like a settler that is cheaper, something like a new tribe unit. Maybe even you pop the new tribe unit from a goodie hut. They are placed by you but autonomous until you unite them. They give you bonuses like city states or something until united, and are permanently allied with you.

Total wild guess.

That would be interesting. Honestly, a permanently allied city-state is better than founding a new city, though, so that would mean unity would be a step back, gameplay-wise.
 
It’s a Civ with such a unique play style that no civ ever before has ever been designed this way. It’s not just outside the box, it’s in an entirely separate hypercube.

What I understand from this:
2D: you expand on the map.
3D (box) : you expand on the map and you expand vertically with your growing cities.
hypecube: you expand through a new fourth dimension.

And now my mind is starting to blow up.
 
Hmmm look at this:

This is the model of the Native American "Brave" Warrior in Empire Total War:



And the screen from BNW:



The art is too Similar.

I'm conviced that the last Civ is a Native-American Civ that can do something to the barb camps.
 
Venice can only be on coastal tiles?
 
Being able to pick up and move cities would be cool as . And it would totally make sense for a NA civ.

But then again it may require some revisions to the Huns.
 
What I understand from this:
2D: you expand on the map.
3D (box) : you expand on the map and you expand vertically with your growing cities.
hypecube: you expand through a new fourth dimension.

And now my mind is starting to blow up.

Well, considering the Fourth Dimension is sometimes regarded as time, it could fit well with the "Moving your city" concept some are thinking...
 
my guess? Nomadic plains indian civ, with some kind of cheap, movable mini-cities instead of the big ones we are used to. its probably the Sioux, as they are well known and nomadic. of course, how that works is another story, as you'd have to figure out what happens if its conquered, how it obtains resources, how borders work, and how you actually move/build the cities... still, if this IS what the civ is, i would DEFINITELY play it. in a way i feel its kinda likely, as all the other native civs have been some degree of city builders, while a good part of native north american civs were nomatic. my one question tho is "why didn't they do this for the huns"
 
Perhaps the New Civ is the Shawnee with Tecumseh as the leader. They could be playing off his dream/goal to unite the native tribes against the European settlers. UA could involve a prophet/missionary-like unit that converts barbarian camps into cities, or at least to the player's side.

Essentially Kahless26's idea, but with the Shawnee (I saw his post after this, as I posted it in another thread too).
 
I don't think mobile cities would work. It's fine in the early eras, but other civs would crowd you into tight spots over time. And how would trade routes work with that?

I'm quite torn. On the one hand, we have TJ Hafer's bombshell comment that would indicate that "The Most Serene" Venice is outside the box. On the other hand, we've seen a NA unit appear as a barbarian.

Hyperboles aside, how outside the box are we talking? Huns? Austria? Sweden? Is it even more different than that?

Additionally, all civs should have unique gameplay experiences. However, they should all still be similar enough to be balanced. An "outside the box" civ might be so different that it is hard to make it balanced with the rest of the game.
 
Is this really such an insane thing as to warrant the type of hyperbole we've been getting? This doesn't seem like that crazy a restriction.

It's bad game design though. It'd be like saying "Inca can only settle cities near at least six hills" or "Carthage can only settle cities on coastal tiles adjacent to a mountain." It's better design to give players incentives for settling in certain locations than it is to force them into it or to penalize them for not doing so.
 
I don't think mobile cities would work. It's fine in the early eras, but other civs would crowd you into tight spots over time. And how would trade routes work with that?

Presumably the same restriction would apply - you can't move a city if it would be within 3 tiles of another city. As long as you obey that rule you can move it. Also there might be a rule that once you hit a certain tech or era, you can't do it anymore.
 
Top Bottom