All Quiet on the Civ Front

[Laurana Kanan]

Here's the video that was posted to social media to celebrate the 2nd Anniversary:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=686810468365853

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is some new animated sequences in there.

 

[Zaarin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is some new animated sequences in there.

Just looked like cuts of the vanilla and R&F trailers to me.

 

[Cerilis]

Here's the video that was posted to social media to celebrate the 2nd Anniversary:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=686810468365853

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is some new animated sequences in there.

They appear to be all from the original announcement trailer, what are you seeing?^^

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Just looked like cuts of the vanilla and R&F trailers to me.

Haha, you're right! I had to go watch the original launch trailer again and yep the sequences are all in there. I blame age and anticipation... Admit it, though, everyone got just a little bit excited for a second?

 

[Reckoner]

Come on, guys, surely we can do better than this!

I say they chose those sequences for a reason:

• Drawing maps - much anticipated world builder
• Test flight - bigger impact for air units
• Hussars charging - specialised barbarians???

On a different note - I probably missed the SteamDB crash-course in one of those threads, could the 3 different branches/depots (2Kqa_a-c) be for testing different combinations of base game / R&F / 2nd expansion?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Persia: Ctesiphon and some others

If they did release an alt leader for Persia would it require you to buy the Persia/Macedon DLC too?
That's one of the reason why I'm skeptical if they will give alt leaders to Civs from the DLC/Expansions unless they are released in the same one.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Come on, guys, surely we can do better than this!

I say they chose those sequences for a reason:

• Drawing maps - much anticipated world builder
• Test flight - bigger impact for air units
• Hussars charging - specialised barbarians???

On a different note - I probably missed the SteamDB crash-course in one of those threads, could the 3 different branches/depots (2Kqa_a-c) be for testing different combinations of base game / R&F / 2nd expansion?

A, b, and c all contain the same components. C might be testing some kind of alternate design, but a and b are updating in the typical fashion and probably represent progressively more refined versions of whatever they are making.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm by no means an expert on the matter, but from the outside (Dutch perspective) Sweden appears to possibly be the most politically correct country in Europe.

Isn't that just evidence in favour of my point that political correctness and 'things that make commercial sense' aren't always the same thing? Politically correct or not Sweden simply doesn't have a history that would make slavery a high-profile issue there. Granted they want to sell to an international, and largely American, market, but I don't think most of the people buying the games care all that much.

My point is that American companies in particular are extremely gun-shy around any locally high-profile issue that could seem contentious. It doesn't matter whether the reality is that even an American audience wouldn't mind slavery in the game - the point is that the companies are worried it might and are so highly risk-averse that, even if they think there is a fairly small chance it would harm sales, it's one they don't think is worth taking. A Swedish company selling to Americans is just going to go by sales figures, since it has no stake in local politics.

 

[Zaarin]

If they did release an alt leader for Persia would it require you to buy the Persia/Macedon DLC too?

I would say no. If you had the DLC, you would have Cyrus and Leader 2 leading Persia; if you did not have the DLC, then you would just have Leader 2 leading Persia. It would probably be very easy to do; the question is if Firaxis considers Persia worth a second leader (and as much as I'd love the answer to be yes, I'm guessing the answer is no ).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Going back to the conversation about creative scenarios being desirable, what are some creative ideas that you’d like to see implemented?

I’d like to see a solid Fall of Rome/Attila the Hun scenario with Visigoths and Vandals.

I also think a Sub-Roman Britain scenario with invading Saxons, Picts, etc. could be fun. The Romano-British faction leader could be “Artorius” just for fun. (Even though Ambrosius Aurelianus would be most accurate.)

An updated Jules Verne steampunk scenario a la Civ2 would be neat. Explore the world with quirky submarines and dirigibles.

I also really want to see an Age of Chariots scenario set in the ancient world. Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and the Hittites duke it out in a fight for dominance. Beware the Sea Peoples!

The last really solid Mesoamerica scenario I remember was Civ3’s, which if memory serves let you sacrifice captives caught in “Flower Wars”-style battles. Civ2’s ancient America scenario was delightful. In Civ2, you could build Teotihucan’s Pyramid of the Sun (which is a long-missed wonder which really needs to be included). You could also cultivate Chocolate and Vanilla, which together were another wonder increasing population happiness.

 

[Xur]

I wish they'd just display human history with all the ugly, gritty details that it deserves, and not some glorified Disney Show where some of history is wiped clean because it isn't politicly correct. People get stupid this way... entertain and enlighten me please. I seriously doubt people will boycott a game for simulating how things actually happened. I watch documentaries - that's a form of entertainment too and I don't see anyone boycotting historychannel for broadcasting the history of ww2 atrocities. The consumer base is simply just shifting from 20-80 to 10-20 year-olds... and it sucks.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I wish they'd just display human history with all the ugly, gritty details that it deserves, and not some glorified Disney Show where some of history is wiped clean because it isn't politicly correct. People get stupid this way... entertain and enlighten me please. I seriously doubt people will boycott a game for simulating how things actually happened. I watch documentaries - that's a form of entertainment too and I don't see anyone boycotting historychannel for broadcasting the history of ww2 atrocities. The consumer base is simply just shifting from 20-80 to 10-20 year-olds... and it sucks.

I saw a museum display once on the type of things that've been done to cats and other animals in public over the years to entertain the general public. This is intended to be a family friendly site so I won't share any details.

We've already lost a general awareness of much of the ugly, gritty details from history. Whether that's good or bad, the one thing I know for sure is I'm happy Civ doesn't depict in a historically accurate way the things that once constituted entertainment to keep your people happy.

And I don't see the trend in entertainment in my lifetime as a negative one. Quite the opposite.

 

[Leyrann]

Isn't that just evidence in favour of my point that political correctness and 'things that make commercial sense' aren't always the same thing? Politically correct or not Sweden simply doesn't have a history that would make slavery a high-profile issue there. Granted they want to sell to an international, and largely American, market, but I don't think most of the people buying the games care all that much.

My point is that American companies in particular are extremely gun-shy around any locally high-profile issue that could seem contentious. It doesn't matter whether the reality is that even an American audience wouldn't mind slavery in the game - the point is that the companies are worried it might and are so highly risk-averse that, even if they think there is a fairly small chance it would harm sales, it's one they don't think is worth taking. A Swedish company selling to Americans is just going to go by sales figures, since it has no stake in local politics.

There's a very high correlation between the sensitivity of topics like slavery and the degree of political correctness, even in countries where slavery has never been allowed (though most of those countries still traded slaves on the Atlantic).

 

[Cagarustus]

Are we going to see a teaser tomorrow? On the second year anniversary of Civ 6's release.

Please Fireaxis, the suspense is killing me! Give us something!

 

[Hans Castorp]

Honestly the only other Civs that I can realistically see getting a second leader definitely have those possibilities. That is I don't see any DLC Civs getting another leader and not all of the Civs in the base game.
America: Philadelphia for Washington
Arabia: Damascus, Baghdad, Medina etc.
China: Beijing, Nanjing, etc.
England: Winchester could make sense for Alfred the Great.
Egypt: any non Ptolemy leader would have a different capital.
France: Versailles
Germany: Berlin
Japan: Tokyo, however I don't think they need another leader.
Rome: Constantinople (preferably Byzantines as their own Civ though and I think Trajan is fine)
Russia: Moscow for a Soviet leader or pre Peter the Great.
Spain: Valladolid for Isabella

Changing leader needn't necessarily just involve changing capital in order to give a sense of historical flavour. They could equally change the ordering of subsequent city names. Eg. For England, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds should be high up the list for Victoria, but for, eg., Elizabeth I you would want them replaced by Norwich, Bristol, etc. London might remain the capital, but you would still get some historical flavour. Same goes for most civs - population and economic and military importance of towns and cities shifts over time. A city list for America under Washington would push Chicago, LA, San Francisco, etc. lower down the city list.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Are we going to see a teaser tomorrow? On the second year anniversary of Civ 6's release.

Please Fireaxis, the suspense is killing me! Give us something!

Ah yes...
On Monday, there was a small group of pictures forshadowing the First Look...
On Tuesday on 16:00 CET was the First Look followed by a wild discussion...
On Thursday evening was the livestream.

I also can't wait for this time to return.

 

[Siptah]

Going back to the conversation about creative scenarios being desirable, what are some creative ideas that you’d like to see implemented?

• 30 years war scenario where you can only play Spain or France. The war territory is populated by independent cities that fight each other and you have to make sure that your side (whatever that is) wins without direct intervention - you can only gift money, troops or culture/science points to individual cities.
• a King of the Hill type scenario. The city that founds the first religion will become the target. You win if you hold it for a certain number of turns. Are other players are automatically at permanent war against the owner of the target city. If the city switches hands, so does the target.
• a Venice/Ottomans naval domination scenario in the eastern mediterranean

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).

If an immortal Roosevelt in the ancient era does not disturb your immersion, having to choose between him, Lincoln and Washington in Medieval times should not do so either. It's simply just what you are used to and accepted as normal over time. Changing leaders is not really weirder a concept to than what civ is doing right now.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ehh on changing leaders. I'd rather have no leaders at all than choosing a new one every era. I'm still in favor of pairing one civ with one leader though, forgetting the "alternate leaders" and all of that. The civ abilities could be so much cleaner and up-front and balanced if they didn't have to deal with this nonsense needing to make half of the civ ability removable.

Plus, if they didn't have to mess around with alternate leaders we'd likely get more full civs. If every civ had to have like 5-8 leaders? Blah. We'd have ten civs.

 

[Siptah]

Ehh on changing leaders. I'd rather have no leaders at all than choosing a new one every era. I'm still in favor of pairing one civ with one leader though, forgetting the "alternate leaders" and all of that. The civ abilities could be so much cleaner and up-front and balanced if they didn't have to deal with this nonsense needing to make half of the civ ability removable.

Plus, if they didn't have to mess around with alternate leaders we'd likely get more full civs. If every civ had to have like 5-8 leaders? Blah. We'd have ten civs.

I agree that one leader per civ is preferable over alternate leaders and new civs are always preferable to new alternate leaders anyway. Having a fixed set of bonuses for each civ+leader would allow for much more interesting and adventurous combinations. However, I do not think that the disastrously boring and repetitive civ and leader abilities of R&F additions can be excused with the splitting of the bonuses between leaders and civs. I do hope that Firaxis surprises me and adds some more interesting to play civs in the next expansion. They won't abandon their way of doing things for civ VI anymore, but they still could be courageous.

I still think that changing leaders could bring some of the badly needed freshness to civ. Provided that it leads to strategically relevant and well balanced options during the game. And there we go again...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I agree that one leader per civ is preferable over alternate leaders and new civs are always preferable to new alternate leaders anyway. Having a fixed set of bonuses for each civ+leader would allow for much more interesting and adventurous combinations. However, I do not think that the disastrously boring and repetitive civ and leader abilities of R&F additions can be excused with the splitting of the bonuses between leaders and civs. I do hope that Firaxis surprises me and adds some more interesting to play civs in the next expansion. They won't abandon their way of doing things for civ VI anymore, but they still could be courageous.

I still think that changing leaders could bring some of the badly needed freshness to civ. Provided that it leads to strategically relevant and well balanced options during the game. And there we go again...

I hear you. New beginning of age dedication bonus choices could add some of that too, using current mechanics. I thought some of the new civs have been the most fun to play, but there were some of the "same old" as well. I think they might worry about power creep a bit at the same time they're adding entirely new mechanics? I don't know.