TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Just throwing out there that there is a bridge in the Civil War scenario, maybe it's related to that? I doubt it though, it would be pretty much useless anyway.
Betting and Speculation - The "Entirely Separate Hypercube" Civ!
- Thread starter Leugi
- Start date
You just can't connect a NA civ to barbarians. They didn't want to offend Pueblo so they do this? It would have to be something where you have to conquer the camp first. Just like Germany's ability, which sucked btw. So I am assuming some upgrade of that could be in the works. Conquer the camps, and maybe it becomes one of these tribes or mobile cities that spawn the UU we see in the screen shot. That way, assuming they have "mobile" cities, they still have a secondary source to produce units while cities are on the move.
True, but they'd only have to rebrand them as indigenous people or braves as they did in Colonization.
One thing just occurred to me: if it's a civ that creates a radically new playing style it must mean they are not only giving them some crazy UA, they must also take something away or else you'd just play them like any other civ. Think India.
Irkalla
ENTP POWWWEEEEEER
What would be more of a respectful nod to certain native tribes of this land than to portray the struggles they faced, what with being seen as barbarians?
It's like "Hey, now you sort of understand how my people felt."
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I think their new playing style IS their unique ability? Think of Austria. They are the only nation that has something that NOBODY can achieve any way, they marry City States (eliminating them from the game for good), nobody else can do that, The Mayans get free GP, but you can get a free GP via Pisa and Liberty finisher. Celts get faith from Forest, but you can get Faith from other tiles as any nation.
PrinceFartsalot
Chieftain
The big surprise is the total conversion of hexes to tiles. Huehuehuehue
In all seriousness, I think it has something to do with Venice's playstyle. Although not historically accurate, it would be really cool if the roads were replaced by canals through which naval units could move. Or, naval units could travel through rivers. Both are unique and change their playstyle even though the canals and canal travel was within the city itself and not between them
In all seriousness, I think it has something to do with Venice's playstyle. Although not historically accurate, it would be really cool if the roads were replaced by canals through which naval units could move. Or, naval units could travel through rivers. Both are unique and change their playstyle even though the canals and canal travel was within the city itself and not between them
So far i think there are 2 possibilities:
- Venice as a Civ that only can build cities on coastal tiles.
- A NA Civ that can control, assimilate or ally with the barbs.
I don't like the first idea, it seems pretty restrictive. What if you find that the only iron that is near to you is 4 tiles inland?... annoying.
The second idea seems more plausible and more fun. I don't agree with the notion that having a NA Civ link to Barbarians is offensive. On the contrary, a civ that forms "tribal leagues" or can welcome the barbs in their ranks would be a nice way to represent Native Americans Confederations and tribal descentralized goverment, like the Powhatans as I speculated before. Also there is the Tomahawk UU that still needs an explanation.
That mechanic could introduce a fun turn on the way you expand your empire in the early-mid game. Still, for this to work properly with the rest of the game rules, the barb camps should become full-fledged cities after a fixed number of turns.
- Venice as a Civ that only can build cities on coastal tiles.
- A NA Civ that can control, assimilate or ally with the barbs.
I don't like the first idea, it seems pretty restrictive. What if you find that the only iron that is near to you is 4 tiles inland?... annoying.
The second idea seems more plausible and more fun. I don't agree with the notion that having a NA Civ link to Barbarians is offensive. On the contrary, a civ that forms "tribal leagues" or can welcome the barbs in their ranks would be a nice way to represent Native Americans Confederations and tribal descentralized goverment, like the Powhatans as I speculated before. Also there is the Tomahawk UU that still needs an explanation.
That mechanic could introduce a fun turn on the way you expand your empire in the early-mid game. Still, for this to work properly with the rest of the game rules, the barb camps should become full-fledged cities after a fixed number of turns.
A little off-topic, but it just occurred to me that with the new World Congress mechanic Austria will no longer be overpowered. Assimilating an allied city-state means one less vote in the Congress which can be a big drawback... Some new decisions to make as Austria.
Olleus
Deity
Some sort of nomadism is the only thing extreme enough in my mind. Not entirely sure how that would work though... Cities can only work the first radius of their tiles, but can move 1 tile per turn?
They're out because we have seen the city-state of Hanoi.
Hans Castorp
Prince
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think that would indeed be extreme. I agree it could be interesting. What would also be cool is, if they got enough food doing this, the nomads split into a second group that can do it again - a sort of automatic settler. I do think they would eventually need to settle down and build cities because this game is Civilization, not Nomads. Really, the Huns would have been an excellent choice to be this civ, but I digress.
I'm still leaning towards Venice based on other reviews. If not for those reviews, I would just take this as teasing and not something to truly derive clues from.
What about a civ that is forced to move their cities? Every 5 turns they are required to move 1 hex they have not occupied before and every 25 turns it clears the ineligible hexes. This would force them to atleast patrol through a certain 5 hex area until the 25 turn reset on tile restrictions. To offset this all strat/luxury tiles within the city radius are automatically counted as being improved. Limit the radius the city can expand to a 1 or 2 hex radius. At a certain era they are forced to become legit stationary cities that automatically get tile improvements for all strategic and luxury in their radius when they become permanent (but have to manually improve future tiles after their borders expand). They could even cap population with the option of automatically creating a settler when it would exceed the cap. Just some random ideas.
It could be just a percentage change in current mechanics that has huge impacts on gameplay. Venice in particular would work will with that
UA - Live by Gold - The hammer cost for all buildings and units is increased by 50%, but the gold cost is decreased by 50%.
It would be a very small change in terms of the mechanics, but a huge impact in terms of gameplay. Creating trade routes, gold profitable tiles, trading away resources would become a huge factor as it would nearly replace your conventional construction.
UA - Live by Gold - The hammer cost for all buildings and units is increased by 50%, but the gold cost is decreased by 50%.
It would be a very small change in terms of the mechanics, but a huge impact in terms of gameplay. Creating trade routes, gold profitable tiles, trading away resources would become a huge factor as it would nearly replace your conventional construction.
adwcta
King
I highly doubt this whole thing is any more of a game-changer than Austria or Aztec were.
Unless there are two super unique civs coming out, then the PCGamer hints at Venice and the blog reveal of "for each international trade route" as being part of the UA of the purple/white civ are pointing at the same thing. This also means that the UA for Venice is not exactly super-unique.
I'm thinking it's something creative, but not game-changing that they're hyping too much, and when it gets revealed no one'll really have a huge objection to it.
I think the barbarian thing is a red herring. Why can't barbs just get a unique unit? If it is anything, I'm pretty sure it's something very basic, like non-aggressive default + allowing for diplomacy with barbs (as if they were city states), with the only ways to improve relations to give gold, units, or kill a civ/city/city-state, maybe turning allied camps into raging barbs when you're at war. Again, not really game-changing or super-powerful, but probably a fun mechanic.
Unless there are two super unique civs coming out, then the PCGamer hints at Venice and the blog reveal of "for each international trade route" as being part of the UA of the purple/white civ are pointing at the same thing. This also means that the UA for Venice is not exactly super-unique.
I'm thinking it's something creative, but not game-changing that they're hyping too much, and when it gets revealed no one'll really have a huge objection to it.
I think the barbarian thing is a red herring. Why can't barbs just get a unique unit? If it is anything, I'm pretty sure it's something very basic, like non-aggressive default + allowing for diplomacy with barbs (as if they were city states), with the only ways to improve relations to give gold, units, or kill a civ/city/city-state, maybe turning allied camps into raging barbs when you're at war. Again, not really game-changing or super-powerful, but probably a fun mechanic.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Ummm, you're slightly misinformed
Receives +3 Gold and +1 Culture for each International Trade Route with a different civ or City-State. The Trade Route owners receive +2 Gold for each Trade Route sent to Morocco.
)
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I'm a master ninja on these forums 
xD
xDSimilar threads
