Recent content by Australopithecine

I am a bit of a min/max-er and the district placement puzzle is one of the aspects of the game that I enjoy more. It feels reasonably easy at first glance, but when wonders, unique districts, and multiple eras come into play it can become a pleasant head-scratcher. If you have a lot of space...

Since we have navigable rivers, I would love to have Viking longboats raiding along them :) I would therefore love a Nordic Civ or the North Sea Empire along with the Normans, and eventually England In order of personal preference, Cnut > Sweyn Forkbeard > Rollo.

I quite like this concept. It makes the civ switch feel more organic and less jarring. Especially if the IP is a precursor of the chosen civ, for those that did not exist in a direct form in the previous age.

Exactly how I feel as well. It should be a meaningful choice. I do like the idea that farming happiness can be rewarding as well, rather than just being a capping mechanism, so perhaps splitting it into a persistent set of buffs / maluses, and then have the celebration provide a reward on top...

Add Ostriv to that list, with similarities to the those..

I'm throwing out Rollo the Viking for the Normans, just to be different. He can sail down the navigable rivers and lay siege.

I would be up for a few turns in that. A touch of 'Populous' in Civ. If that reference still has relevance.

I could still play as Kongo from start to end, with a Kongolese leader, or Egypt. In 7 I have to go Egypt / Aksum ==> Songhai ==> Buganda, with a miss-matched leader. In my mind that's less choice, with the potential to be more later on. Still, it is not my intention to compare one edition...

Fair enough, now that I think of it, I would probably also prefer leaders with strong historical flavour. I guess in my mind I was thinking of the 'leader' representing 'myself' as some kind of immortal avatar, leading the civs through the ages. :)

I could, yes, and probably would. It is the one alternative, that I am aware of. I was just using Egypt as an example, since it is one of civs iconic entries, and illustrates the disconnect going through the eras a little better. The same reasoning holds for many different regions and themes.

Theoretically, we will have more choice than ever before in terms of the civs and leaders we would like to play. In reality, that choice is less than ever, if you want to play somewhat thematically. If I wanted to play a game with an African flavor, for example, there is no real choice at all...

I think that civ switching gets increasingly better with more civs, since there are then more natural paths to traverse, though the ages. When there are not enough options, you end up with an 'All civs lead to Buganda' situation or you have to make really tenuous jumps to get to get to where...

Could Rollo work as an associated leader? He can then also be linked to a Danish, Norwegian, Norse / Viking Civ, should we get something like that.

Has anyone stated the reason for the Greek link to the Normans? A Celtic / Belgic tribe, Denmark, Norway, (Viking), or Frankish line makes more sense to me, along with Rome, assuming we get any of those of course.

The Boers (Afrikaners) are predominantly of Dutch descent, yes. As mentioned, they also have notable French Huguenot and German roots, and even, (to a lesser extent,) Flemish, Danish, Norwegian, Swiss and Swedish ones. In a broader context, South Africa makes a good modern amalgamation point...