All Quiet on the Civ Front

[kingofsealand]

Poor specialists just barely getting by.

To throw another option in the roads debate, did anyone like the mechanic in revolution? Roads could be instantly built for a flat gold cost. Might be interesting to have them at gold plus slight time cost, and then a flat cost for each eras road upgrades. Theyd be more of a tactical choice as a larger one time expense vs. A continual maintenance drain

 

[pokiehl]

Poor specialists just barely getting by.

To throw another option in the roads debate, did anyone like the mechanic in revolution? Roads could be instantly built for a flat gold cost. Might be interesting to have them at gold plus slight time cost, and then a flat cost for each eras road upgrades. Theyd be more of a tactical choice as a larger one time expense vs. A continual maintenance drain

That's a really cool idea - having to pay for your roads to upgrade when the era comes around. I like it!

 

[Leyrann]

Your idea is interesting. But if you make industrial zones late game. They become less effective. And you might be better off to save the production on industrial zones for other stuff. I would keep the industrial zone as it is and add a special district. You could build like once on every 3/4 cities that focusses on electricity/steam power.

Switch power plant to this district and give the industrial zone’s third building something related to industrial revolution or mideaval era. Create an early and late game district for production. So there is a bit more focus on late game.

Same could be done for markets. Like make a district that focusses more on wall street or big corporations. Or let it work in synergy with the player who has a dominance on a single trade resource.

This entire "effectiveness going down if you delay building them" with Industrial Zones debate didn't exist before Civ VI though, for the simple reason that in earlier games, they didn't suck. I say Firaxis should just abandon this idea of "everything has a mathematically derived cost depending only on it's type (unit, building, etc) and the column it unlocks in the tech tree" and go back to just manually assigning everything a cost relative to it's power and game time, and then return Industrial Zones and it's buildings to giving %bonus production.

Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the game would piss off Korean players for sure....

(probably because it would offend certain people in Japan).

Some people are pissed off or offended far too easily. Is anything those people did worse than what these did?

Genghis Khan
Qin Shi Huang
Philip II (Hey! You pissed me off as a Dutch person, because we had to fight 80 friggin' years because his rule was so bad!)
Frederick Barbarossa
Saladin
Montezuma
Gorgo('s husband)
Chandragupta
Alexander the Great
Harald Hardrada
Tomyris
Shaka

I mean that's quite a list of people who haven't been too nice historically.

Which, y'know, is kinda the point in a game about history and empires.

 

[sukritact]

Some people are pissed off or offended far too easily. Is anything those people did worse than what these did?

Specifically with Emperor Meiji (and related figures), there are laws concerning how and where he can be depicted in Japan. (Which makes sense given there are still shrines to the man).

It's not so much a "we don't want to offend someone" as much as "we don't want to run afoul of Japanese law" in that case.

 

[acluewithout]

British Museums makes total sense to England...

...ah, you might want to look at that again...

England is a basket case. It really does a need a rethink - along with (maybe) Spain and (just my 2 cents) America.

Some random thoughts:

• The “British Museum” ability is very cool, but I wonder if maybe the actual British Museum would work better as a World Wonder.

• Leaving that aside, England’s UA needs to be a little weak (or at least, situational), because England is a Civ likely to have quite a few alternate leaders. You need a weaker UA so the Leader Ability still has room for some power.

• I’d be very sad if England (Victoria) got an ability around railways or industrial zones. It’s a tricky balance, but while the game sometimes needs Civs to have abilities so they can imitate their historical counterpart, sometimes they need to not have specific abilities so you the player have the chance to recreate some historical points yourself. To me, England should be “gifted” Navy and Trade. The rest I’d rather earn myself.

• England’s alternate leader should be Elizabeth. In the context of Civ, Lizzie just makes way, way too much sense.

• I have many gripes about America as a Civ. But if I put those aside, I do think there is a case for an alternate leader for America win the current build. Teddy is a great choice, and captures all sorts of ideas about America that maybe get overlooked usually. But I think some people would like to play a more straightforward and “muscular” version of America, which the game doesn’t currently enable.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Railroads do not have anything to do with the Inca unless somehow the function would be tied to regular roads as well, and in that case Rome and Persia would get some sort of related bonuses towards railroads.
Anyways regarding the Inca I had in mind adjacency bonuses for Commercial Hubs, Industrial Zones, and Theatre Squares for each adjacent mountains and farms can be built on hill tiles at Irrigation.
As for the roads that would go under the leader ability of Huyana Capac where domestic routes provide more food, production, and gold and units can move even faster on hills, especially with a road. Also the Tambo their UI will automatically create a road to the closest city to which it is built.

I can see a "Macchu Picchu" themed UD, a gov plaza that you build directly on a mountain tile and give some kind of cool powers.

Another truly unique ability would be the ability to build any district on a mountain. There would have to be some sort of rules concerning what kind of unit can enter those discticts though.

 

[Cerilis]

I can see a "Macchu Picchu" themed UD, a gov plaza that you build directly on a mountain tile and give some kind of cool powers.

Another truly unique ability would be the ability to build any district on a mountain. There would have to be some sort of rules concerning what kind of unit can enter those discticts though.

Mhrm, I'm not sure a unique gov plaza works well, considering you only ever build one. Unless that specific UD also comes with the ability to be built in more than one city, but I don't think that would fit Macchu Picchu (and there also would be a problem with multiple gov plaza buildings).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Mhrm, I'm not sure a unique gov plaza works well, considering you only ever built one. Unless that specific UD also comes with the ability to be built in more than one city, but I don't think that would fit Macchu Picchu (and there also would be a problem with multiple gov plaza buildings).

I imagine it would grant some sort of civ-wide ability (like a wonder that only Inca can build).

 

[Duuk]

If the expansion really does have canals and railroads, Teddy Roosevelt getting a complete rework with bonuses to canal production is a given.

One American leader that would give a "new spin" to America that we've never seen would be Jefferson, an ACTUAL American expansionist/imperialist. UA would be Manifest Destiny (tile purchase ability significantly cheaper, scout units have bonus movement and LOS, may convert enemy barbarian units?)

One thing I'd like to see when it comes to roads is that later in the game (say around urbanization) is that ALL cities start (even without trade routes) to naturally connect themselves with roads over time to represent the "shrinking world". One urbanization occurs roads begin to form connecting all districts to each other and to each city center.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can see a "Macchu Picchu" themed UD, a gov plaza that you build directly on a mountain tile and give some kind of cool powers.

Another truly unique ability would be the ability to build any district on a mountain. There would have to be some sort of rules concerning what kind of unit can enter those discticts though.

I'm holding out for the Kremlin UD with another Russia leader, but I can see the appeal giving a Macchu Picchu District to the Inca although I still think we'll get it as a wonder eventually. And if not, it could still be represented by the palace in the capital differentiating it from the other SA civs.

One American leader that would give a "new spin" to America that we've never seen would be Jefferson, an ACTUAL American expansionist/imperialist. UA would be Manifest Destiny (tile purchase ability significantly cheaper, scout units have bonus movement and LOS, may convert enemy barbarian units?)

I'd call it Louisiana Purchase specifically for Jefferson, but I've been on board with idea for a long time.

 

[Arent11]

Your idea is interesting. But if you make industrial zones late game. They become less effective.

One of the mayor points for good games is to start small & add more and more options. In 3d Shooters you start with a crowbar or a simple pistol & work your way up to rocket launchers and sniper rifles. In civ 1 you started with a single settler and through research opened more and more options.

In civ 6 all major districts are thrown at you at the beginning of the game. Encampments, campuses, theatres, holy sites, commercial hubs, harbors, industrial zones, government districts, entertainment zones. You don't even have time to grow to love your puny cities & simple farms, because, hell, you already discovered bronze working & writing & you immediately have to start to build a government district although you only have a civ of barely 3 cities!

Honestly, let me chill a little. Let me start with a small village and dumb barbarians. And then, in the middle of the game (late classical/medieval ages?) I get campuses. And then I'm like "Wow, now I can speed ahead and overcome my enemies with science!". Don't give me everything at once. I won't appreciate it.

 

[Zaarin]

If the expansion really does have canals and railroads, Teddy Roosevelt getting a complete rework with bonuses to canal production is a given.

One American leader that would give a "new spin" to America that we've never seen would be Jefferson, an ACTUAL American expansionist/imperialist. UA would be Manifest Destiny (tile purchase ability significantly cheaper, scout units have bonus movement and LOS, may convert enemy barbarian units?)

One thing I'd like to see when it comes to roads is that later in the game (say around urbanization) is that ALL cities start (even without trade routes) to naturally connect themselves with roads over time to represent the "shrinking world". One urbanization occurs roads begin to form connecting all districts to each other and to each city center.

Jefferson predates Manifest Destiny, but yes, call it Louisiana Purchase like Alexander's Hetaroi said and it works. Funny thing: Jefferson was intellectually opposed to the Louisiana Purchase but did it anyway. Jefferson would have been a lot better person if he'd consistently acted according to his ideas. (Not criticizing the Louisiana Purchase specifically--more Jefferson's ideas vs. behavior in general. )

 

[Disgustipated]

Not a big fan of America getting another leader. While I'm one of those people who support America being in the game, I don't want to overdo it. I'm the guy who would play America nearly every game in Civ2. I mean, why not? All the civs were the same back then. Of course now I almost never play them, but that's due to them not being good at anything in this game. I would love to see Jefferson in Civ 7 however.

Honestly, I'd rather see Napoleon.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I, for one, am not interested in seeing America getting an alternate leader. Theodore Roosevelt is one of the best choices Americans have. Also, I'd take thousands of years of Egyptian, Chinese or Persian history getting represented by another leader instead of about 300 years of the United States any day.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I for one think Teddy Roosevelt is fine and I don't believe America does need a new leader. However I would choose Jefferson,, if they needed an alternate, and have those abilities mentioned above.

 

[Xandinho]

America does not need another leader, not while Egypt, France, China, Persia, England, Russia, Germany, Indonesia, Spain, Korea ... and a few others acquire their leaders before. And honestly, I would include another Indian leader more easily than I would include another American leader.

 

[The Kingmaker]

One of the mayor points for good games is to start small & add more and more options. In 3d Shooters you start with a crowbar or a simple pistol & work your way up to rocket launchers and sniper rifles. In civ 1 you started with a single settler and through research opened more and more options.

In civ 6 all major districts are thrown at you at the beginning of the game. Encampments, campuses, theatres, holy sites, commercial hubs, harbors, industrial zones, government districts, entertainment zones. You don't even have time to grow to love your puny cities & simple farms, because, hell, you already discovered bronze working & writing & you immediately have to start to build a government district although you only have a civ of barely 3 cities!

Honestly, let me chill a little. Let me start with a small village and dumb barbarians. And then, in the middle of the game (late classical/medieval ages?) I get campuses. And then I'm like "Wow, now I can speed ahead and overcome my enemies with science!". Don't give me everything at once. I won't appreciate it.

Agreed. I say we should start in 5000 bc and fret about the agricultural revolution and some good basic Stone Age tech and mess about in the ancient world before jumping right into the classical age like always happens.

Also, I feel like I always choose the same civics path to rush for govt’s, which means the civics tree needs to be diversified. Always starting with code of laws means there’s no choice.

Religion is also too simple. Do a religion/ideology tech tree starting w/ ceremonial burial, mysticism and animism. Let us custom build religions w/ cards like we do for governments. One-off pantheons and then locked-in trait religions don’t make sense and run counter to how belief systems actually work.

Tier I - Animism, Ancestor Worship
Tier II - Polytheism, Monotheism, Henotheism
Tier III - Freedom of Religion, Fundamentalism, Secular Humanism, Atheism

 

[UWHabs]

America does not need another leader, not while Egypt, France, China, Persia, England, Russia, Germany, Indonesia, Spain, Korea ... and a few others acquire their leaders before. And honestly, I would include another Indian leader more easily than I would include another American leader.

I have nothing wrong with another leader for America, but yeah, I'd agree that they don't really need it ahead of most of those other civs mentioned. But I'm also pro having multiple leaders for a civ, and would love it if every civ had 2-3 leader choices, to have even more variety there.

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly, I'd rather see Napoleon.

I agree with the rest of your post, but France already got stuck with one Italian. The next French leader should be, I don't know, French.

I, for one, am not interested in seeing America getting an alternate leader. Theodore Roosevelt is one of the best choices Americans have. Also, I'd take thousands of years of Egyptian, Chinese or Persian history getting represented by another leader instead of about 300 years of the United States any day.

Yes.

Agreed. I say we should start in 5000 bc and fret about the agricultural revolution and some good basic Stone Age tech and mess about in the ancient world before jumping right into the classical age like always happens.

It would certainly make the early game make more sense, given that most of the early techs had been around for centuries if not millennia when the game starts.

Religion is also too simple. Do a religion/ideology tech tree starting w/ ceremonial burial, mysticism and animism. Let us custom build religions w/ cards like we do for governments. One-off pantheons and then locked-in trait religions don’t make sense and run counter to how belief systems actually work.

Tier I - Animism, Ancestor Worship
Tier II - Polytheism, Monotheism, Henotheism
Tier III - Freedom of Religion, Fundamentalism, Secular Humanism, Atheism

Yes, religion needs a from-the-ground-up overhaul. I more or less like your idea--it deals with the fact that beliefs and doctrines are not zero-sum games, it deals with the fact that beliefs change over time (though I'd make them a little more complicated and/or costly to change than governments), and it addresses the counter-currents of religious revivals and anti-religious sentiments that have been building up since the 18th century. I have a few quibbles about the second tier--I don't think there's good anthropological evidence for making polytheism/henotheism further down the tree than animism/ancestor worship; instead I might move henotheism to tier I, relabel "Polytheism" as "Polytheistic Cults" (here meaning organized cult practices à la post-Vedic Hinduism, not the colloquial meaning of "small heretical group"), and replace Henotheism's tier II slot with Imperial Cult and Mystical Philosophy (the former was a big deal in a lot of Classical societies, from Egypt to Rome to China to the Inca, while the latter was the major competitor with Christianity in the forms of Pythagorism, Stoicism, Epicurism, Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism [and its religious variants like Nestorian Christianity, Manichaeism, and Mandaenism], as well as Confucianism in Asia). That would be a good start, at any rate.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

America does not need another leader, not while Egypt, France, China, Persia, England, Russia, Germany, Indonesia, Spain, Korea ... and a few others acquire their leaders before. And honestly, I would include another Indian leader more easily than I would include another American leader.

When it comes to adding another alternative leader, if they do so, I'm pretty sure Firaxis will be motivated primarily by what sells. Rightly, too, as they've provided the tools for people who want to add more leaders to do so, so they can focus on what lets them move more product.

Now, with adding new civs, they know that some are popular and will motivate sales. And I expect they're sophisticated enough to identify certain geographical tendencies to that. They can potentially sell the base game, expansion one, and expansion two to new buyers, all by adding the right new civs to a new expansion. And they know they can also appeal to another group of gamers by adding one or two new civs who've never been featured before, though a lot of those people are committed now and will buy the expansion anyway, so that's likely less a consideration this late in the game's development compared to the base game and first expansion..

With adding a new leader, I expect the consideration's slightly different. The civ is already in the game, so the target is presumably the casual player who bought the base game, but didn't buy any expansions, and who Firaxis believes could be motivated to buy both expansions by adding the right new leader to expansion two. On that basis, I'd lean to a new leader for America, or a leader with high global familiarity, such as Napoleon or maybe Churchill.

Maybe an outside chance for someone like Bismark if this expansion is diplomacy-based and he fits a mechanic really well, as someone who provides a little bit of both (German market, some cultural familiarity elsewhere), but I'd consider him or an alternative leader without high "person on the street" global recognition from any of the mid-tier markets much less likely. Not sure what sales numbers of the base game in China looked like, but maybe they're good enough to go that route instead of a second American leader.