To get away from all this... serious stuff, I have found an interesting nugget hidden away.
Firaxis has started posting random videos of "How ot earn culture" and other stuff on youTube/Twitter, and one fo the videos seem to pertain to the idea of "settling on the first turn". Yeah, irrelevant, but something caught my eye.
If they are adding the ability to select district and tile improvement icons for map pins then I would be very happy with that! I know there is a mod for that but I would rather that be in the base game so I can use it in multiplayer without the faff.
If they are adding the ability to select district and tile improvement icons for map pins then I would be very happy with that! I know there is a mod for that but I would rather that be in the base game so I can use it in multiplayer without the faff.
Oh... You got my hopes up. I started looking for the Twitter/Youtube post where they had those icons because I didn't recall them; that explains why.
But otherwise I hope that new "flat concave" look is a mistake... It dosen't look nice to me. They had a longer version on twitter with Brazil and they made them an eerie Lemon-and-Lime green with a pale yellow which just looks off-putting.
Oh... You got my hopes up. I started looking for the Twitter/Youtube post where they had those icons because I didn't recall them; that explains why.
But otherwise I hope that new "flat concave" look is a mistake... It dosen't look nice to me. They had a longer version on twitter with Brazil and they made them an eerie Lemon-and-Lime green with a pale yellow which just looks off-putting.
I agree with that, but I kind of enjoy the flat concave look, I think it worked well in Civ 5, and the whole glossy shiny thingy in Civ 6 looks bit weird to me.
I think that, given how the current alternate leader system works (I.e. different capital cities), Washington (maybe Adams? Idk) is the only American leader to truly have had the nation’s capital be in a different city (Philadelphia).
Personally I think the idea that alternate leaders need different capitals is extremely unnecessary. It worked out for India and Greece, but it wouldn't work so well for other civs nor do I think it needs to.
I'm inclined to think that Anton will lead the 2nd Expansion again with Ed Beach overseeing and influencing it again as the franchise lead; but I'm sure we won't know until it's announced.
Maybe we shouldn't be putting out games that suggest that war is fun and comes with no consequences. As a parent, I wouldn't let my child play that type of game. As an adult, one of my biggest disappointments with Civ 6 is it continues to portray the conquest of other civs as a one-and-done event. "There, we took them over. Now they're happy to be part of my empire." That's so divorced from reality as to be a big immersion breaker for me.
I appreciate that it's unrealistic given that any game is going to be seen through a modern cultural lens partly because of the developers' own background and partly because of their target audience, but I don't much like the idea of a Civ game as a vehicle for lessons in morality as opposed to simply trying to model major historical developments and processes. There should be consequences to game actions, but in a way that makes strategic sense. The issue I have with Civ's 'you're defeated, game over' approach is that it reduces the challenge and the level of interaction with other factions, that's all. Discontent from dominated populations (as in Civ IV), possible risks of civil war or the re-emergence of a dead faction under a 'rebel' leader present gameplay possibilities the current system doesn't.
As for slavery specifically, I suspect Firaxis would fall into the same trap it did in Civ IV and Hollywoodise it as plantation owners/pharaohs cracking whips to work people to death in sufficiently large numbers to depopulate cities. Not only is it not accurate for the most part (the "Helot" areas depopulated by the Spartans would probably disagree), and not only does it treat the phenomenon of slavery as practiced by most cultures since ancient times as the same system as European industrialised slavery (which is not really correct), it doesn't really reflect the major legacy of slavery as a historical event. Not that a few public works were completed a bit sooner, but in the movement of enslaved people (or those escaping slavery) to new territories and establishment of new cultures as a result. Mostly that applies to colonial era slavery but the same phenomenon happened on more local scales historically: take the Jewish diaspora's stories of escape from Egypt and enslavement in Babylon, for example.
Personally I think the idea that alternate leaders need different capitals is extremely unnecessary. It worked out for India and Greece, but it wouldn't work so well for other civs nor do I think it needs to.
I wouldn't consider 250 years a long history. In fact, I'd call it a very, very short history.
We honestly don't need alt leaders from modern settled nations like the USA, Australia, South American nations unless they are traditional indigenous leaders. I definitely do not need or want a second president.
I've often thought that civ needs to get away from one standard leader per civ and instead as you go through the eras you have a selection of leaders from your nation with ties to that era each with different traits and perks. So you select your leader with their traits to suit the way you'd like your nation to play for that era.
So as you play through the game you actually have a different ruler for each era.
I've often thought that civ needs to get away from one standard leader per civ and instead as you go through the eras you have a selection of leaders from your nation with ties to that era each with different traits and perks. So you select your leader with their traits to suit the way you'd like your nation to play for that era.
So as you play through the game you actually have a different ruler for each era.
I think so, too. The thing is that many people got attached to the animated leader screens and those would not be feasible with changing leaders per civ. It could go à la Age of Mythology: you choose a civ and every new age you choose a new leader with different traits. Some people might dislike that this would mean having historically unfitting rulers or fantasy rulers for civs that weren't around from 4000 BC to today. However, I wouldn't have a problem with this (as I also don't have a problem with that in the paradox games that handle it like that). The age bonuses of R&F go somewhat in that direction mechanically - albeit very dull and brought into line for everyone.
I've often thought that civ needs to get away from one standard leader per civ and instead as you go through the eras you have a selection of leaders from your nation with ties to that era each with different traits and perks. So you select your leader with their traits to suit the way you'd like your nation to play for that era.
So as you play through the game you actually have a different ruler for each era.
This has a problem though. There aren't many Civs that have gone through ancient era to modern. Babylon, Assyria, Sumer were all Civs that ceased to exist very "soon". Fan favourite Ottoman Empire was established in the medieval era. Inca and Aztec ceased to exist as independent nations when the Spanish came (Maya even sooner). Nations like Brazil or USA have no ancient, classical, medieval and renaissance leaders. Carthage was wiped out by Rome. And I could continue with the Zulu, Native American tribes, Poland, Netherlands... We would be left with very little amount of nations to play. China, Greece (counting Byzantium), Egypt (although there might be a lack of industrial leader), Persia, India, Japan, maybe Rome (if we count Italian CS like Venice or Florence and later unified Italy as its successor).
This has a problem though. There aren't many Civs that have gone through ancient era to modern. Babylon, Assyria, Sumer were all Civs that ceased to exist very "soon". Fan favourite Ottoman Empire was established in the medieval era. Inca and Aztec ceased to exist as independent nations when the Spanish came (Maya even sooner). Nations like Brazil or USA have no ancient, classical, medieval and renaissance leaders. Carthage was wiped out by Rome. And I could continue with the Zulu, Native American tribes, Poland, Netherlands... We would be left with very little amount of nations to play. China, Greece (counting Byzantium), Egypt (although there might be a lack of industrial leader), Persia, India, Japan, maybe Rome (if we count Italian CS like Venice or Florence and later unified Italy as its successor).
I wouldn't mind seeing a Civ-like game (with historical civilizations) that has a leader for every time frame, but I don't want it to be Civilization doing it, as it would be such a big departure from what Civilization normally does. Then I'd rather see the same leader clothed differently (perhaps even looking different?) in every time frame. Though, they'd have to do a better job than they apparently did with Civ 3, which I have never played.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
