Betting and Speculation - The "Entirely Separate Hypercube" Civ!

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I need a graph that shows me how many uses the word "hypercube" got before and after this Q&A

 

[Louis XXIV]

Venice is probably in the game

Then stop calling people who think they're in the game delusional. That's really my only objection. To me, the evidence is so strong that, while it's not absolute, it's to the point where I can afford to skip words like "assuming Venice is in" and just talk about the implications of them likely being in.

If you want me to change my avatar if Venice is revealed, I will not resist; however, I do not desire to change yours.

If it would be anything, it would probably be Enrico Dandalo wearing sunglasses with some kind of caption. I'd have to give it some thought.

 

[Scaramanga]

All this speculation about Venice and Enrico Dandolo is just the blind leading the blind anyway.

 

[sukritact]

All this speculation about Venice and Enrico Dandolo is just the blind leading the blind anyway.

So you don't believe Venice is in?

I sincerely hope Venice isn't ridiculous (OCC, can only conquer, etc.)

 

[Pikachao]

All this speculation about Venice and Enrico Dandolo is just the blind leading the blind anyway.

I see what you did there.

 

[Leugi]

I see what you did there.

But I don't see what he did there!

 

[ImperialChaos]

Watch the big surprise being no leader for Venice.

 

[Lord Xavius]

Watch the big surprise being no leader for Venice.

Dandolo got lost on his way to the leader screen?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Maybe a civ which has its units spawn a barbarian copy of itself when it is damaged for more than 50% of its health (and is immune to that barbarian unit's attack).

 

[dowd001]

So after the last featurette, I am really convinced that the new hypercube civ are the barbs.

No cities, just camps that constantly pop out units. You make cash from interrupting trade routes and sacking cities. The only victory condition is domination. Constant war, unless another civ hires you. Threatening city states. Can buy units only. They get the prize ships promotion. Other civs can hire you to attack civs/city states.

Something like that. There were way too many barbs in that featurette and with battleships, etc.

 

[ImperialChaos]

I don't think a barb civilization is something I see happening. Like Eagle proposed, perhaps a civilization can recruit or copy barbarian units. Something similar to Germany's current UA which, in my opinion, will be replaced.

 

[Arachnofiend]

A new civ that can only win by domination seems bizarre for an expansion pack ostensibly about expanding the peaceful side of the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

So after the last featurette, I am really convinced that the new hypercube civ are the barbs.

No cities, just camps that constantly pop out units. You make cash from interrupting trade routes and sacking cities. The only victory condition is domination. Constant war, unless another civ hires you. Threatening city states. Can buy units only. They get the prize ships promotion. Other civs can hire you to attack civs/city states.

Something like that. There were way too many barbs in that featurette and with battleships, etc.

Oh, the old Civ 1 days... If barbs conquered a city you were able to change the player civ number in save file to zero (it was the first byte of the file if I remember right) and play as barbs. Units popping out of nowhere, endless war...

Not a single chance we'll see real barbarian civ, though.

 

[Gucumatz]

In Civ 4 they did so too. You could play as the barbarians. In previous civ iterations we have had Mongol scenarios (including Civ 5) where we had mobile camps that produced units on their own, so its not that out of the box imo as people are suggesting.

I think all signs point to the hypercube still being Venice though

 

[dowd001]

And come to think of it, that tomahawk bararian unit could be a captured UU of the new indian civ.

 

[fat_tonle]

A Sioux civilization could expand, in terms of permanent Sioux territory, by leaving a trail of claimed hexes each time their nomadic capital moved on, possibly relocating to follow a mobile buffalo resource that the Sioux capital has to settle on.

Upon reaching the Industrialisation Era the Sioux capital then becomes permanently fixed.

However, it would also make sense if both the Huns and Mongol civilisations could be changed (or convertible) to this nomadic mode, as well as a potential Aboriginal civilization (Australia).

Exactly. Huns and Mongols need to be nomads as well, but as of now, there is no mechanic to work this feature into the game. However, mobile cities, assuming you were going for Wonders and other permanent buildings, are stupid. You can't just fold up a theatre or university and bring it with you in reality, and even gameplaywise it is a stretch, because you should lose all the building perks for a "city in motion". Or maybe the player would lose or abandon all the buildings constructed in such a city once it has been set in motion. These features don't fit the context of a civ. Perhaps another way to represent nomads is to be able to shift populus from city to city. I think that could be a very cool ability to beef up certain cities.

 

[baptismbyfire]

I don't want a OCC for Venice because that would mean I would never play as them. And they'd be a ridiculously weak opponent. While others build armies with four or five powerhouse cities, Venice will be churning out one unit per every five to ten turns. Forget about building wonders, you're going to need the production for buildings and units.

 

[Calouste]

I don't want a OCC for Venice because that would mean I would never play as them. And they'd be a ridiculously weak opponent. While others build armies with four or five powerhouse cities, Venice will be churning out one unit per every five to ten turns. Forget about building wonders, you're going to need the production for buildings and units.

You don't play OCC much, do you?

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

The obvious choice is ATLANTIS.

The difference is that the entire civ is destroyed in the B.C. era, so you have a very limited time to win the game as them.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Exactly. Huns and Mongols need to be nomads as well, but as of now, there is no mechanic to work this feature into the game. However, mobile cities, assuming you were going for Wonders and other permanent buildings, are stupid. You can't just fold up a theatre or university and bring it with you in reality, and even gameplaywise it is a stretch, because you should lose all the building perks for a "city in motion". Or maybe the player would lose or abandon all the buildings constructed in such a city once it has been set in motion. These features don't fit the context of a civ. Perhaps another way to represent nomads is to be able to shift populus from city to city. I think that could be a very cool ability to beef up certain cities.

I could see a 'nomad civ' that could have 2 types of cities
1. "Mobile city unit", can build units, and maybe a simple UB for faith+culture, generates science+unhappiness
2. Normal cities

If their Original Capital was able to be a "Mobile city unit", then that would be much better than one City Challenge... it could be a Zero City Challenge. (until you wanted to start building more advanced buildings