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

[Pikachao]

You can stop digging on the bottom of barrel for ideas for Venice. Founding a city on a coast tile for a UA is worthless. You would just be setting yourself up where 5 melee naval units can all attack at once, and most of your tiles would be 1 food till you built a lighthouse. It would be worthless just like how the Indonesia UA is worthless.

well that's just silly, starting an argument on Indonesia.
Although I agree, it'd have to be more than just settling on coast tiles, that's not really much of a good thing by itself.

 

[King William I]

well that's just silly, starting an argument on Indonesia.
Although I agree, it'd have to be more than just settling on coast tiles, that's not really much of a good thing by itself.

Ok how about

Venice
Capital: Venice
Leader: Enrico Dandolo
UU: War Galley (for lack of a better term) Replaces Galleas, Stronger version that costs more production
UB: Venetian Arsenal: Replaces Seaport, +25% toward naval units, +1 and +1 from sea resources.
UA: One with the Sea (Cities may be built on coast tiles adjacent to land and on lakes. +1 food from all water tiles)

 

[Crodface]

Ok how about

Venice
Capital: Venice
Leader: Enrico Dandolo
UU: War Galley (for lack of a better term) Replaces Galleas, Stronger version that costs more production
UB: Venetian Arsenal: Replaces Seaport, +25% toward naval units, +1 and +1 from sea resources.
UA: One with the Sea (Cities may be built on coast tiles adjacent to land and on lakes. +1 food from all water tiles)

To be honest, it seems kind of meh. It's not bad, but there's really nothing it offers that I feel would make for interesting gameplay. I really don't see the benefits of settling cities on coastal tiles.

 

[gunnergoz]

If anything, all Venetian coastal tiles should reap +1

 

[cybrxkhan]

If anything, all Venetian coastal tiles should reap +1

That'd be a bland bonus, but at least it'd be much more interesting gameplay-wise than settling on coasts. While settling on coasts sounds cool in theory, in reality it isn't really that useful at all.

 

[seancolorado]

That'd be a bland bonus, but at least it'd be much more interesting gameplay-wise than settling on coasts. While settling on coasts sounds cool in theory, in reality it isn't really that useful at all.

Not to mention we already have Carthage, which rewards coastal land settling. It may not be coastal tile settling, but that would still be too similar in some regards

 

[grandgeneralbob]

Of course, but it's still a part of the Constitution. I can't have the entire Constitution as my signature

I doubt we'd get fictional civs, but we would get something more on the line of a civilization with a very unique aspect that makes it "hypercubed"

Of course you can correct it by putting "preamble" on there, but I honestly won't lose sleep over it.

Back to topic, maybe they will add a "would be" civ, that could've done something. I guess the best way to put it is, an "alternate history" civ. Imagine if Ulm was a badass, or if instead of having a powerful Inuit civ, but what do I know?

 

[Loaf Warden]

I sincerely hope that canals are not put in as a unique element for any civ. I've been wanting canals in this series for twenty years, but it should be something any civ can build once they get to a certain technology. I don't want any civ to have a monopoly on canal building.

Of course you can correct it by putting "preamble" on there, but I honestly won't lose sleep over it.

There's nothing incorrect about it. When one quotes a document, it's perfectly customary to attribute the quote by naming the document. Normally people don't just assume that the quotation is supposed to be the entire document named. The sig means that quote is from the Constitution. It doesn't mean it is the Constitution.

 

[theodorious]

If we do end up with the Shoshone and Sacagawea with some sort of exploration related UA - what could it be? Starting with some of the map revealed? Starting with a scout? I'm not sure if these are hypercubie enough, but it's interesting to think about what an exploration related UA would be (other than likely underpowered).

 

[Talcove]

If we do end up with the Shoshone and Sacagawea with some sort of exploration related UA - what could it be? Starting with some of the map revealed? Starting with a scout? I'm not sure if these are hypercubie enough, but it's interesting to think about what an exploration related UA would be (other than likely underpowered).

If you gift a unit to another civ/city state, you retain the ability to view it's surroundings.
Just a guess.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

A scout UU seems likely for the Shoshone.

Although, to be honest, America's whole Manifest Destiny UA riffs off of the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark Expedition. I don't know that it's a good idea to have a different civ that uses the same events for the basis of their own uniques.

 

[codepoet]

I could see Venice being the "Hypercube" civ... if it simulates that it's a Merchant Republic with a creating city-states mechanic:

UA: Pactum Warmundi - When Venice captures a city through war, it can make the city a new independent city-state with maximum influence points towards Venice. Venice selects the city-state type on creation.

UU: War Galley - Replaces Galleas, same stats but costs less to make (Venice had many ships, not necessarily better ones)

UB: Canal Works - Replaces Seaport. City must be built on the coast. +1 and and from sea resources worked by this city. +15% when building Naval Units. Provides +1 Great Artist Point



... so kind of the opposite of Austria (which removes city-states from the map)

 

[seancolorado]

Fun ideas, but is that really 'hypercube'?

When I think of hypercube, I think of a civ that plays different to a core level.

 

[TimeWeaver]

Seancolorado: Agreed, like a civ that's piggybacking other civs through unique diplomatic capabilities or spreads via barb camps. This actually strengthens the case for Shoshone being the hypercube civ.

 

[slowmotion7]

I could see Venice being the "Hypercube" civ... if it simulates that it's a Merchant Republic with a creating city-states mechanic:

UA: Pactum Warmundi - When Venice captures a city through war, it can make the city a new independent city-state with maximum influence points towards Venice. Venice selects the city-state type on creation.

UU: War Galley - Replaces Galleas, same stats but costs less to make (Venice had many ships, not necessarily better ones)

UB: Canal Works - Replaces Seaport. City must be built on the coast. +1 and and from sea resources worked by this city. +15% when building Naval Units. Provides +1 Great Artist Point



... so kind of the opposite of Austria (which removes city-states from the map)

Interesting idea for the UA.

 

[codepoet]

Fun ideas, but is that really 'hypercube'?

When I think of hypercube, I think of a civ that plays different to a core level.

A hypercube is literally a set of (6) 3D cubes folded up into an extra dimension.
So... a civ that spins off completely new city-states that are loyal rather than conquering would fit that description IMO since the new city-states would immediately be allied and contribute their respective bonuses. Maybe the new city-state can spawn a few new units to use when this happens too.

Picture playing against such a civ. You lose your city, it's now a city-state and at war with you... and you cannot take it back through war without taking a diplomacy hit from other civs (you warmonger you).

 

[baptismbyfire]

Canals would be outstanding as a game play option. I hate when the Great Admiral spawns in a lake in the middle of your empire instead of an ocean. That would be a great way to solve that problem, as well as generally allowing your ships to get past ice barriers if you can't build a city in just the right spot to avoid it.

 

[Yzman]

You can stop digging on the bottom of barrel for ideas for Venice. Founding a city on a coast tile for a UA is worthless. You would just be setting yourself up where 5 melee naval units can all attack at once, and most of your tiles would be 1 food till you built a lighthouse. It would be worthless just like how the Indonesia UA is worthless.

Troll much? They said they have a unique new gameplay style. That would make sense, especially if Venice truly is one of the new civs. I never said that I PERSONALLY cared for the idea, it is my best guess as to what they may be thinking. Look at the facts

1. It sounds like its going to be a playstyle that someone couldn't have done before in Civ.
2. It has to still be within current game mechanics. They aren't going to rewrite the game for one civ.
3. Sea Cities were done in Alpha Centauri, so its not something they have never thought of, it would just be new to civ.

You are not thinking outside the box enough. Who says that the only part of the unique ability would be coastal cities? They may also get some bonus to those coastal tiles that other civs do not get.

To your other point about 5 melee ships. You should obviously never build a city on land, because you are just asking to be surrounded by 5 melee units. Lets also point out that this city would be almost unattackable by land, and ships are far less common than land units. More importantly, it would be an option, not a requirement, as is important to any UA like that.

To others that have said that all maps have some form of water on them like lakes, 2 points.

1. That is not true, there are maps that have no water on them like great plains, desert, the really mountainous one.
2. They can not limit a civ to only coastal tiles. What happens if I put all civs random, choose a map with 1 or no suitable starting locations for Venice and Venice is chosen? Instant lose? No of course not. Its the more obvious and simple solution that they should be ABLE to found on coastal tiles, not be REQUIRED to. Any UA that forced you to found cities on a certain type of tile would be the worst UA in the game and wouldn't work with current game mechanics.

 

[DonStamos]

A hypercube is literally a set of (6) 3D cubes folded up into an extra dimension.
So... a civ that spins off completely new city-states that are loyal rather than conquering would fit that description IMO since the new city-states would immediately be allied and contribute their respective bonuses. Maybe the new city-state can spawn a few new units to use when this happens too.

Picture playing against such a civ. You lose your city, it's now a city-state and at war with you... and you cannot take it back through war without taking a diplomacy hit from other civs (you warmonger you).

rofl "you warmonger you."

You just made my day. And I'd play that kind of Civ all day, every day. Think of how ticked off people would get in MP. The rage....

 

[Alatan]

Venice
UA: Your ally City States give you X/N% (N-number of cities) of science, culture and faith they produce for themselves and alow you to use their production for building units while you are their ally.

Being able to use production (only build units) of city states that you have alied would give you the benefit of having a large empire and keeping the tall empire bonuses like national wonders, social policy costs and happines.
It doesnt require major game changes and it is enough different from other civs beause it opens a new way of growing your empire through trade and diplomacy, while having one dominant city, much like Venice did.

It is kind of similar to Austria but Austria needs to anect the city before it can do anything with it and when she does so she loses the tall empire bonuses.

This ability would also require the civ to protect their allies witch are often far away, thus either keeping a small army near them or having one big mobile army. Since the fastest way for reaching places is by sea it would also fit Venice play style.

Geting allies with CSs requires time and CSs dont have enough production until they grow a bit witch also needs time. So the potential UA would be weak at first but as turns pas and you and CSs grow it would start exponencialy to strenghten or in other words, blow out like a "bombshell".
In terms of balance the oposite player could get in a diplomacy war trying to bribe the City states on his side spoiling the UA or simply killing the CS losing a trade partner, troops and geting a diplomatic penalty.
Tell me what you guys think.