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

Yeah Eagle I agree. Another fear I have is that the AI can not handle its unique nature and having the civ on a map distorts balance due to its weakness. I think they are hyping this too much and its going to disappoint.
 
Perhaps ALL of Venice's new cities (outside Venice) can only use sea resources or gets a huge perk to sea tiles to the point that you'd want to have cities with as many surrounding sea tiles as possible.
 
If it's a "Cities in Motion"-like UA then it's almost certainly the Sioux.

I see it like that : Cities can be founded anywhere in neutral territory. Cities within 3 tiles range of a fixed city are nomadic ie. can be relocated and therefore cannot grow territory or work tiles outside immediate vicinity. Cities beyond the 3 tiles limit can settle down permanently.

Maybe they want to reflect losing land to the white man? So lets say you build a "city" or a tribe that can move. Maybe it has automatic access to everything within range 3 of that tile. That could be a HUGE bonus early in the game. But then opposing civs could contruct cities anywhere in that range, effectively forcing that tribe to relocate after its key resources fall into the hands of the opposition. Maybe to disrupt expansion, they rely on barbarian conversions to sack settlers in motion. So the UA could be:

UA: Cities start with 3 tile range borders that remains neutral land. Barbarian camps can be captured and used to spawn Tomahawk UU.

UU: Extra movement and flanking bonus. (To outpace and capture opposing settlers)
 
Yeah Eagle I agree. Another fear I have is that the AI can not handle its unique nature and having the civ on a map distorts balance due to its weakness. I think they are hyping this too much and its going to disappoint.

She just said her opinion of what she liked; it's not really being hyped by Fireaxis. At least I don't think so.

How would Mobile Cities work?
 
Once a city attains X population, it's permanent. Simple fix. Where would you cap that number though?
 
Having an official press release say the civ is the most unique civ in the entirety of civ 5 is hype.
 
How would Mobile Cities work?

Every X number of turns, a city can move one hex in any direction so long as (i) the hex you want to move to is eligible (i.e. not a mountain or ocean) and (ii) the hex you want to move to is not within 3 hexes of any other city.
 
Maybe they want to reflect losing land to the white man? So lets say you build a "city" or a tribe that can move. Maybe it has automatic access to everything within range 3 of that tile. That could be a HUGE bonus early in the game. But then opposing civs could contruct cities anywhere in that range, effectively forcing that tribe to relocate after its key resources fall into the hands of the opposition. Maybe to disrupt expansion, they rely on barbarian conversions to sack settlers in motion. So the UA could be:

UA: Cities start with 3 tile range borders that remains neutral land. Barbarian camps can be captured and used to spawn Tomahawk UU.

UU: Extra movement and flanking bonus. (To outpace and sack opposing settlers)

I actually really like this idea. It would be reminiscent of the Lakota nation from Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots. http://riseofnations.wikia.com/wiki/Lakota

They really don't have borders and can use neutral land and are "mobile." Having barbarians raid civs and capture settlers without declaring war would be interesting to say the least.

It wouldn't really confuse a human player, but would work well against the AI. And at the very least, it would give the NA civ player the ability to harass and stall encroachment on their lands.
 
X-Com Civilization.
 
I actually really like this idea. It would be reminiscent of the Lakota nation from Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots. http://riseofnations.wikia.com/wiki/Lakota

They really don't have borders and can use neutral land and are "mobile." Having barbarians raid civs and capture settlers without declaring war would be interesting to say the least.

It wouldn't really confuse a human player, but would work well against the AI. And at the very least, it would give the NA civ player the ability to harass and stall encroachment on their lands.

They would also have mobile Bison resource/UI to harvest when resources are scarce. I think it is a slam dunk. But they cities would have to become permanent after some era or tech or something. You can't have neutral land the entire game. So what's the cut off? Population? Industrial era? I don't see how a civ like that is sustainable, but it would obviously fit the Pro-Civ monicker.

The imbalance is of course the AI of the NA civ would have to prioritize attacking settlers. Also, would opposing AI's really discern that the NA civ is responsible for all the barbarian raids or will they just turn the blind eye? Mobile cities just doesn't fit with the barbarian color we got in the screen shot.
 
I could see it being the actual barbarians...

I've been hoping quietly that BNW would overhaul the barbarians to make them less drone-like and more like actual barbarians--- that is, cunning, fierce, sometimes even diplomatic when it suits them.

So I'd love to see this be some way of playing as the barbarians. Ideally, the entire concept of "barbarian" would be overhauled to include some more realistic details.... like instead of barbarians, they become "mercenaries" starting towards the end of the medieval era. Then "organized/cyber crime" in the modern era...

sooo basically the point & role of a barbarian-based civ would be to act as the anti-government, chaos-stirring forces. Currently, Civ 5 worlds are dominated solely by official political entities. Having crime, subversion, etc. play a more active, optionally player-bsed role would add a great layer of depth to the game, I think.

Oh, and all of their units would be unique units. They would have less variety than regular civs, but their units wold be more powerful and entirely unique to them (like the axeman)
 
I love rampant speculation. :) Here's the ideas I thought up while contemplating the new Q&A.

1)The civ has no unique units or buildings of it's own. Instead, it can build the UU and Buildings of any civ that it has a high enough level of tourism over. (~20%)


2)The civ does not produce science. Instead, it gains technologies for free when they have been discovered by enough other players. Also, the civ can buy discovered, but not yet free, technologies directly with gold.


3)The civ is able to 'claim' land near the new, unanounced, resource using any military unit. (Unit cannot move) This prevents other civs from building cities nearby as if there were a city at that location, but confers no direct benefit to the civ other than the resource that is claimed. Opponents can kill the unit to remove the 'claim'.
 
X-Com Civilization.

For this, or any sci-fi/fantasy civ, I would laugh, and laugh, and laugh,

WHILE (true)
{
print("and laugh, ")
}

But I get the strange feeling others would be mildly displeased by this turn of event.

Also, there's a lot of speculation about a NA civ that is in some way linked to the barbarians. Yeah, a fundamentally barbaric Native American civ... if I were part of Firaxis' PR department and I heard that was the plan, I'd be demanding a raise right about now.

A mobile/nomadic civ sounds like the likeliest bet right about now from the ones I've heard here, but I wouldn't call it a sure thing.
 
this is gonna suck....i REALLY hope it isnt playing as barbarians or mobile cities....
 
Yeah, I hope it's something that isn't stupid, mobile cities would be completely unfair, and playing as Barbarians would be bleh.
 
Top Bottom