TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Not to mention they would annoucne taht Ethiophia is also included in the game (like Spain was)
Beefjack interview (Morocco hinted?)
- Thread starter Nujabes
- Start date
Not to mention they would annoucne taht Ethiophia is also included in the game (like Spain was)
There is of course still time for them to do that.
Since they haven't really divulged much information about the Scramble for Africa, it's not at all improbable that they will announce the inclusion of Ethiopia when they eventually do give us more details on the scenario. It's not exactly a huge selling point for the expansion that they would announce from the beginning.
Personally I think a Scramble scenario without Ethiopia would be extremely remiss.
As long as Ethiopia isn't one of the 9, I'll be happy... (or any already existant civ to that matter)... But I'd also hope Ethiopia would get into the Scenario somehow...
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
It won't be one of the nine. If they ship BNW with Ethiopia for use in the scenario, it'll be as an extra like Spain was in G&K. They won't tell us there are nine new civs and then give us eight new civs and one old civ.
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
Not as a whole, no. You won't be able to get Sweden and Byzantium and the Huns by buying BNW. But if they need Ethiopia in the Scramble for Africa scenario, they'll include Ethiopia for that reason, just as they included Spain in G&K for the Into the Renaissance scenario. That wouldn't be a problem.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I'm pretty sure they would've announced that there's Ethiophia either way,
Oh, that's good to know; I honestly didn't know how was Spain announced.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
There is still plenty of time for details like that.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I recall Spain being announced straight away.
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
I don't remember how long it took, but what difference does it make? It's a pretty minor announcement, as these things go. They could just as well casually mention it in some interview because it happens to be relevant to what they're discussing. It could be that it just hasn't come up yet. I don't think we can assume the timetable on this release is going to match G&K point for point.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
Whenever they get around to really talking about the scenarios, they will probably say something then.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
I've been thinking about the Kasbah. According to the wikipedia article, it's a defensive structure for defense of a town. But the game wouldn't have such an elaborate 3D image for a building we will never see, so it's probably a UI. That's not my point.
As a defensive improvement, it would be like a fort, which is not particularly useful. What if a Caravan can be in the Kasbah and be immune to auto-capture? And you could build it outside of your borders and it gives you vision of the surrounding territory? It would be the perfect thing for protecting caravans along much-used routes. Just build it at places where your caravan stops along the route.
As a defensive improvement, it would be like a fort, which is not particularly useful. What if a Caravan can be in the Kasbah and be immune to auto-capture? And you could build it outside of your borders and it gives you vision of the surrounding territory? It would be the perfect thing for protecting caravans along much-used routes. Just build it at places where your caravan stops along the route.
ferretbacon
Obsessor
I was imagining it would function in a similar manner.
One thought I had was that perhaps a Kasbah generates a "bubble" in a one hex radius that blocks barbarian units from entering.
Actually... they should do that for all forts regardless. As is, forts and citadels are only useful in specific situations. But if they can passively protect trade-routes. Good stuff. I'd be more likely to spam them around my border and roads. (which simulates a fort's historic use much of time too)
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,237
I'm afraid it doesn't make sense... UI's aren't replacements. They are an additional tile improvement.
Yes, but Kasbahs and Caravansaries are almost too identical if we're thinking about Kasbahs in this way; I think they will function in a similar manner, with the Kasbah being stronger. The only other option is that caravansaries are a building in your city, which is kind of weird, and even in that context, I think Kasbahs will serve as fortifications, particularly for trade units.
mitsho
Deity
Corrected. You assume something because it has been like this for what now, 5 civs? I didn't count them all, but it doesn't really matter. The developers can practically change anything they want if they think it's best. They don't have to follow some metaphysical rule. If they want to make the Kasbah a replacement for a Unique Improvement, they can do it.
That's why I didn't even read the whole CS->Venice theory through (just skimmed the posts referring to it, apparently). They can change anything they want, if they want to do so.
Similar threads
