Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

I don’t want a vague pirate republic, I want a specific nation that partook in piracy. North African maybe. Piracy and privateer mechanics absolutely need to be added to the exploration age.
 
TheGrayFox said:
Yeah we know, many of us just don't think having a stateless pirate dominated city state/island of a few thousand that only briefly existed from 1706–1718 is very appropriate for Civ for a Civilization game
Click to expand...
Nah it’s based on the Caribbean pirates in general.
 
I wouldn't mind it as a special era-specific CS that you would befriend to proxy attack other civs. I know that is in the game to some extent already, but make them more unique.
 
stealth_nsk said:
Comparing civs per age in Civ7 with total number of civs in previous games doesn't make any sense.

If you want to measure the variety of potential games, you need to count all combinations of leaders and civs, which is much higher than anything before.
If you want to measure how diverse are the cultures represented in the game, you need to count all civs from all ages and again, Civ7 is ahead here.

The reason why I use this metric - civs per age - is not to compare it with other civ games, but to discuss potential atomic age civ roster.
Click to expand...

It absolutely makes sense, depending on your perspective: If it's the amount/combinations of civs you can have interact with at any given time within a match or when starting a match, then yes, the raw quantity of civs per era matter. The combinations of leaders and civs isn't relevant because (as far as I know), you can't have a match with duplicate civs but different leaders. And even if you can, that doesn't really matter as an option within certain contexts, such as for players who don't want to do that or only want somewhat-fitting leader choices per civs (which tbh isn't really even possible right now at all, which is a problem)

Fundamentally I would not consider civs being per-era a good tradeoff, even just from the perspective of # of civs and ignoring the gameplay implications, how it kinda screws over Prehispanic civilizations as not having later era reps (which is a huge deal to me) etc, unless the game ends up having at least 30 playable civs per era. I realize that is a LOT of content to develop for, especially when civs in civ 7 have more unique bonuses, units/buildings etc then in the past, and when you'll only be able to access that content for 1/3 (or 1/4th if there's an atomic era) of the game, but 30 civs per era/at any one time is still notably less then what Civ 5 or especially what Civ 6 ended up having once all the DLC and expansions are done.

If even doing that much is too much effort, and I get it very well might be, then I have to question, again, if the tradeoff of having civ switching is worth the effort: It seems like a big increase in development workload, with it arguably giving players less content (at least as much as you could argue it gives us more), and also creates a lot of fundamental historical/thematic and roleplaying issues for players.
 
TheSpaceCowboy said:
Edward Teach
Ability - Queen Anne’s Revenge

Can perform naval raids and capture Trade Routes & Treasure Fleets without being at War.
Aquire Treasure Fleet points immediately upon capturing a Treasure Fleet, without having to escort the fleet back to safe harbor.
Gain Gold when performing Naval Raids.

Blackbeard would be extremely well suited to the naval gameplay focus of the Exploration Age. We know for a fact that there’s not yet a Pirate civ 🏴‍☠️ in the game, but having Blackbeard as a Leader would work well enough in the meanwhile
Click to expand...
Called it!!!
Including Lafayette, that’s two of my long shot Leader predictions to come true
 
Jabberwockxeno said:
It absolutely makes sense, depending on your perspective: If it's the amount/combinations of civs you can have interact with at any given time within a match or when starting a match, then yes, the raw quantity of civs per era matter. The combinations of leaders and civs isn't relevant because (as far as I know), you can't have a match with duplicate civs but different leaders. And even if you can, that doesn't really matter as an option within certain contexts, such as for players who don't want to do that or only want somewhat-fitting leader choices per civs (which tbh isn't really even possible right now at all, which is a problem)

Fundamentally I would not consider civs being per-era a good tradeoff, even just from the perspective of # of civs and ignoring the gameplay implications, how it kinda screws over Prehispanic civilizations as not having later era reps (which is a huge deal to me) etc, unless the game ends up having at least 30 playable civs per era. I realize that is a LOT of content to develop for, especially when civs in civ 7 have more unique bonuses, units/buildings etc then in the past, and when you'll only be able to access that content for 1/3 (or 1/4th if there's an atomic era) of the game, but 30 civs per era/at any one time is still notably less then what Civ 5 or especially what Civ 6 ended up having once all the DLC and expansions are done.

If even doing that much is too much effort, and I get it very well might be, then I have to question, again, if the tradeoff of having civ switching is worth the effort: It seems like a big increase in development workload, with it arguably giving players less content (at least as much as you could argue it gives us more), and also creates a lot of fundamental historical/thematic and roleplaying issues for players.
Click to expand...
Ok, variety of opponents in multiplayer is third perspective, but it's still leader+civ combination. Each leader has very powerful abilities, which are often game-changers, like additional resource slots and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Beyond the Game - Competitive Expansion
2 3
Replies
50
Views
22K
P&nny
P
Back
Top Bottom