Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[Jabberwockxeno]

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.

It's not just in multiplayer, it's singleplayer too

If I'm for example, trying to play an all Asian or Middle Eastern, let alone all Indigenous American match, then even in solo play, it doesn't matter if the game has like 6-7 total civs from those regions across all the eras, because I only play one era at a time and then I can only have 2-3 other civs in the game (if even that) else for some eras there will have to be non fitting ones.

I also think you, like Firaxis, might be overestimating how much the people into the series for the history set dressing care about Leaders: I have always seen leaders just as a figurehead proxy for the civilization they are representing. From that historically minded perspective, the gameplay combinations you get by mix and matching leaders and civs is, I guess, neat, but it is vastly outweighed by the negatives of not every civ having a fitting leader and especially the fact that even the ones which *do* have a fitting leader, will be forced to have them not fit in specific eras where they are a different civ, or because two civs might share the only somewhat sensical leader option and only one of them can use it

Anyways, at this point the conversation is becoming less about the merits or downsides of a fourth "Atomic" era, and more about the civ switching and leader mechanics in general, which isn't what this thread is about, so I think maybe we should leave it here, ahaha

 

[The_J]

This is from Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1889429552331640996

. Seems another UI version was in the works, or this is a very early version.

 

[Potworny]

View attachment 719235

This is from Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1889429552331640996

. Seems another UI version was in the works, or this is a very early version.

For the record, this tweet is me reposting SeelingCat's findings from the previous page

There are even more parts of the old UI we have though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/iAtausvbQw

 

[The_J]

I'm stupid .

 

[moysturfurmer]

That’s pretty rich coming from a streamer who throws thin black strokes on all of his text. Would have failed out of my design classes.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

These maps are speculative. The earliest written records referencing the Danes are in the 500s.

Specifically, they are mentioned for the first time anywhere in Jordanes' Getica as the 'Dani' 'in 551 CE, and afterwards by Procopius and Gregory of Tours - all non-Danish, non-Scandinavian, Christian (non-Pagan) writers.

The earliest account by a Danish writer is from the 1200s, when the poems Beowulf and Widsith were first written down along with some Danish mythological 'history' - like the tale of a King Dan giving the Danes' their name.

And note that Jordanes says that the Dani and gthe Suetidi (Swedes) "were of the same stock" - indicating, as I posted earlier, that it was very hard to tell the various North German/Scandinavians apart when looking at them from the outside. Archeology doesn't help differentiate them - they all seem to have used the same Runes to carve out the same or very similar language and used the same tools and weapons, clothing and personal adornment styles, architecture, and boat-building technologies.

 

[Willie5000]

The pirates of the carribean didn't have a state or polity outside of this short lived republic though

No but playing as Caribbean pirates is still fun. And in Civ their polity can last much longer than ten years…

 

[Gen.Washington]

the pirate republic was a real place…

The republic of Texas was a real place but I don’t thinks a good fit for a civilization.

 

[TheGrayFox]

No but playing as Caribbean pirates is still fun.
And in Civ their polity can last much longer than ten years…

Sure, playing as Elves is fun too but I wouldn't want Elves in a mainline Civ game as a civ. I don't think Carribean pirates are good choice for a civ, that's just my opinion of course but I don't seem to be alone in that thought in this topic

 

[Willie5000]

Sure, playing as Elves is fun too but I wouldn't want Elves in a mainline Civ game as a civ. I don't think Carribean pirates are good choice for a civ, that's just my opinion of course but I don't seem to be alone in that thought in this topic

The difference is Caribbean pirates were real.

I could have reframed it as “could be fun” but point still stands.

 

[AD1730]

The difference is Caribbean pirates were real.

I could have reframed it as “could be fun” but point still stands.

And now we're back to where I was with the Ada Lovelace debate, and I find this one even more ridiculous. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere about what leaders and what civs are appropriate to have in these games. For me, and many others, a Caribbean inspired "Pirate Republic" falls on the wrong side of the line.

 

[Riconatic]

And now we're back to where I was with the Ada Lovelace debate, and I find this one even more ridiculous. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere about what leaders and what civs are appropriate to have in these games. For me, and many others, a Caribbean inspired "Pirate Republic" falls on the wrong side of the line.

No there does not need to be any line. All of these future things are dlc. You do not need to purchase them. And if already did they can be turned off.

For me all new things (pirates, Ada etc) sound extremely good.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Well this is fun. Still gunning for Nafanua for a sort of "Confucius" of Polynesia, but I am not all that surprised to see Tonga and the Maori. Very consistent with my observation that we will be trending toward logical, full civ paths more than away from them.

Ottomans are great. Sayyida Al Hurra is amazing, been wanting her forever. I think her along with Battuta practically confirms an eventual Morocco addition, which I am all for.

Pirate Republic makes enough sense to me, inasmuch as it was the closest thing to an "empire" in the region. I hope it doesn't preclude an antiquity Taino, though (and obviously a modern Haiti/Cuba) so we get at least some modern representation. Very glad to see Edward Teach too, let's gay this game up. (actually, if this is pointing at an antiquity Taino/Arawak, then we may get some nice pathing through the Muisca and Gran Colombia).

A bit puzzled by Iceland. I don't think it is as necessary an addition as getting an antiquity Norse civ on the map for the Normans to progress from. So I am hoping this is just pointing toward a larger Scandi expansion of Norse/Denmark/Sweden, with maybe some hope for Greenland/Inuit.

All around, super happy with this. Hope it comes true.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The difference is Caribbean pirates were real.

I could have reframed it as “could be fun” but point still stands.

I wasn't even being sarcastic. fantasy and Carribean pirate factons could be fun but I really don't think either would be an appropriate civ to have in the mainline Civilization series outside of scenarios/mods.. I think putting the Pirate Republic in the same breathe as the nation-states typically represented and playable in the Civilization series is starting to bridge into fantasy territory. Yes I understand that elves are actually a fantasy race and the pirate republic was real but the Nassau republic is largely exaggerated and in reality amounted to a single unruly city on an incredibly tiny and backwater colony island that consisted of less pirates than there are people in small English towns.... which existed for a fraction of the time that i've been alive. Why should Nassau get a spot over other more deserving civs?

 

[Tcat246]

For the record, this tweet is me reposting SeelingCat's findings from the previous page

There are even more parts of the old UI we have though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/iAtausvbQw

I’m hoping this UI is what they release! I think it looks amazing. My theory is they just didn’t have time to finish it because they wanted to focus on main gameplay. If this is the UI we get, then I’ll fall in love with this game even more

 

[canadamufc]

No there does not need to be any line. All of these future things are dlc. You do not need to purchase them. And if already did they can be turned off.

I disagree with this sentiment. I have no foot in this argument.

But just because something is in a DLC (or can be disabled), means you can't complain about it? How is that supposed to work?

 

[AD1730]

No there does not need to be any line. All of these future things are dlc. You do not need to purchase them. And if already did they can be turned off.

For me all new things (pirates, Ada etc) sound extremely good.

No, there needs to be a line. Civilization is not a fantasy series. If they wanted to do a fantasy series, they could. They've already done a sci-fi one.

 

[Riconatic]

No, there needs to be a line. Civilization is not a fantasy series. If they wanted to do a fantasy series, they could. They've already done a sci-fi one.

It is not you or me who decide what kind of game this is or rather will be.

Yesterdays stream mentioned several times that main feedback source is discord. Maybe they ask opinions there of future content directions.

Only thing I know that I do not do discord, but if there is pirate poll over there some day I will change my mind and go answer yes.

 

[RedCourtJester]

No, there needs to be a line. Civilization is not a fantasy series. If they wanted to do a fantasy series, they could. They've already done a sci-fi one.

I think the line was crossed ages ago. If loose confederacies of tribes and city-states qualify (Maya, Iroquois, Phoenicia, Scythia, Mapuche, Cree, Maori), the Pirate Republic is hardly a stretch.

I'm fine with it, it's very along the lines of Harriet, Machiavelli, and Ada. I like that we get to see the opposite side of colonial imperialism in the game. And even if it might seem fantastical, it's really not that far off from being a seafaring equivalent of the lawless American west. Not every period of territorial domination was monarchical and centralized.

 

[TheGrayFox]

But just because something is in a DLC (or can be disabled), means you can't complain about it? How is that supposed to work?

The thing people who say "you don't have to buy it" don't seem to understand is that devolopment, resources, and time are wasted creating such DLC that could be better spent elsewhere. We're missing HUGE pathways and key civilizations and we're really talking about adding an exaggerate pirate republic? We have every right to complain

I think the line was crossed ages ago. If loose confederacies of tribes and city-states qualify (Maya, Iroquois, Phoenicia, Scythia, Mapuche, Cree, Maori), the Pirate Republic is hardly a stretch.

I'm fine with it, it's very along the lines of Harriet, Machiavelli, and Ada. I like that we get to see the opposite side of colonial imperialism in the game. And even if it might seem fantastical, it's really not that far off from being a seafaring equivalent of the lawless American west. Not every period of territorial domination was monarchical and centralized.

We're not seriously comparing actual empires, kingdoms, confederations, and tribal polities of ethnic groups like the Maya, Sycthians, and the Iroquois to a pirate republic that existed for only 12 years on a tiny island with a population smaller than most English towns right?

You're right this is along the lines of Harriet, Machiavelli, and Ada which is to say completely antiethical to past Civ titles. Personally I don't like this slippery slope.