bevelnator
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Messages
- 67
A thread detailing new civa and wonders was put up, then it was taken down. The link is invalid if you try to search it from your history
Betting and Speculation - The "Entirely Separate Hypercube" Civ!
- Thread starter Leugi
- Start date
Arkangelus
Prince
Which is why you open things in a new tab
I'm guessing/hopeful that if multiple people saw it I wont get THE BANHAMMER~ for discussing what was in the post, and what will doubtless be all over similar sites. Venice cannot annex or found cities, only puppet... but can purchase things in puppet cities. They also have a unique great merchant who can puppet city-states.
This will actually suit me and my playstyle surprisingly well. I tend to load up one city (not usually the capital, in fairness) with the Heroic Epic and all the XP buildings for my small but elite fighting force. If I can nudge along my puppets in the direction I want by buying buildings, this could be pretty useful.
It'll be pretty restrictive for wonders though. Unless that capital is PERFECTLY situated, you're gonna miss a ton, plus it'll need to be a production beast to be picking up units AND wonders.
bevelnator
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Messages
- 67
I was skeptical as well because the leader according to the polish guy was sacagewaea, while the other guy said Pocatello
kingchris20
Wisdom Seeker
It must've went up and went down in minutes, if I missed it.
kingchris20
Wisdom Seeker
This I do not believe, I'm not saying I don't believe you saw it, but I don't believe that whoever posted it was accurate at all. I can't imagine a civ that cannot found cities.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Amen, it makes no sense game-play wise, Civ has always been about expanding your nation but crippiling you like that is a horrible design, I mean, on Diety you have NO shot at winning, you won't have a high enough economy to puppet cities/city states, and it sounds too similiar to Austria's UA.
Arkangelus
Prince
Hence hypercube!
It also had double trade routes, if I recall. So that will give you one MONSTER capital.
Kinda funny that the two civs on the Italian landmass both have capital benefits!
The other UU was a Great Galleass which sounded dull. I didn't really like the Quinquereme either for its "basic, but slightly gooder" thing.
Still though, outside the ability, a particularly nondescript UU and a UGP who can be gifted via Patronage to other civs? Interesting...
It also had double trade routes, if I recall. So that will give you one MONSTER capital.
Kinda funny that the two civs on the Italian landmass both have capital benefits!
The other UU was a Great Galleass which sounded dull. I didn't really like the Quinquereme either for its "basic, but slightly gooder" thing.
Still though, outside the ability, a particularly nondescript UU and a UGP who can be gifted via Patronage to other civs? Interesting...
kingchris20
Wisdom Seeker
There's several things wrong with it, you wont have a big enough army to take cities to puppet them. City states are spread throughout the map, and lots of them get taken by other civs...............and then of course, games without city states would render "Venice" completely useless
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I guess we will find out in due time, but i'm hopeful all of the rumours are not true, except that it's Venice.
Here's what makes no logic
When playing as Venice, sure, you can built a monster capital, but then just stick to OCC challenges, and if you can't expand naturally you are crippled because no matter how hard you try, having low population (even if it's 20 in a single city) doesn't give you enough science, and although I guess puppets would fill that up, you are crippled (yes, yes, I know it's meant to be the Pro-Civ, but quite frankly I would prefer a Scenario for that instead)
On the other hand, if you are playing AGAINST Venice, then you will have one hell of an issue taking it over.
Here's what makes no logic
When playing as Venice, sure, you can built a monster capital, but then just stick to OCC challenges, and if you can't expand naturally you are crippled because no matter how hard you try, having low population (even if it's 20 in a single city) doesn't give you enough science, and although I guess puppets would fill that up, you are crippled (yes, yes, I know it's meant to be the Pro-Civ, but quite frankly I would prefer a Scenario for that instead)
On the other hand, if you are playing AGAINST Venice, then you will have one hell of an issue taking it over.
Arkangelus
Prince
It does kind of make sense as an overall package. The "no settlers/no annex" thing is a pretty huge block to traditional gameplay, but the other aspects seem to make up for it.
Essentially what this means is that you cannot produce wonders in any city other than your capital, and units can only be bought by gold outside of Venezia itself. Militarily there are no bonuses, so this aspect could be a struggle - it'll definitely be a good idea spending time and effort on ensuring this is up to scratch. With double trade routes though thats a HUGE financial advantage, in a single main city you can be loaded up on GPs, Morale for your units, science from NC, Hermitage as soon as its available, and you'll have policies flying in to boost you every few turns - plus, you can still direct what your other cities are doing if you can buy things while they're puppetted. If you can buy up a granary, library, university etc, it'll still be pretty productive.
And to top it off, one of your GPs (which you should be getting a ton of via your kinda-OCC-ing) can help you to expand non-militarily. I'd assume if it doesnt puppet the city it'll also offer an increased influence amount, since it might well be a rather good idea to work on keeping a lot of city states allied, and be more worthwhile (especially with Patronage giving you extra boosts in science, GPs etc) to stay their ally and take resources and units from them.
I definitely think its very interesting, and I'd be intrigued at giving them a shot on King/Emperor level. An outright doubling of trade routes is a pretty big leg up to try and cover some of the other obvious shortfalls, and I wouldnt describe them as insurmountable by any means with some clever 'pro' play with your elites.
The Galleass sucks though.
Essentially what this means is that you cannot produce wonders in any city other than your capital, and units can only be bought by gold outside of Venezia itself. Militarily there are no bonuses, so this aspect could be a struggle - it'll definitely be a good idea spending time and effort on ensuring this is up to scratch. With double trade routes though thats a HUGE financial advantage, in a single main city you can be loaded up on GPs, Morale for your units, science from NC, Hermitage as soon as its available, and you'll have policies flying in to boost you every few turns - plus, you can still direct what your other cities are doing if you can buy things while they're puppetted. If you can buy up a granary, library, university etc, it'll still be pretty productive.
And to top it off, one of your GPs (which you should be getting a ton of via your kinda-OCC-ing) can help you to expand non-militarily. I'd assume if it doesnt puppet the city it'll also offer an increased influence amount, since it might well be a rather good idea to work on keeping a lot of city states allied, and be more worthwhile (especially with Patronage giving you extra boosts in science, GPs etc) to stay their ally and take resources and units from them.
I definitely think its very interesting, and I'd be intrigued at giving them a shot on King/Emperor level. An outright doubling of trade routes is a pretty big leg up to try and cover some of the other obvious shortfalls, and I wouldnt describe them as insurmountable by any means with some clever 'pro' play with your elites.
The Galleass sucks though.
Seek
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,773
Did you try using the "back" button? If you still have the tab open the thread is probably still stored in your browser's cache.
JFD
Kathigitarkh
@Arkangelus Regardless, I don't think you should be saying all this.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
1. It's been proven by CivFanatics that Venice had an empire, what you are saying is that they, like Attila, have only one city name on their city list, but Venice coudl very easily have other cities since it had an empire
2. Like I've said many times, I don't think such a cripple should even exist in a game like Civilization 5, it does sound fun but it just doesn't make sense game-play wise. If it does work then I'll be impressed.
3. I don't understand why they would go to such lengths to put this into the main game, why not make it like the Mongolia's scenario where they get numerous riches via conquest, but are a normal civ in main game.
2. Like I've said many times, I don't think such a cripple should even exist in a game like Civilization 5, it does sound fun but it just doesn't make sense game-play wise. If it does work then I'll be impressed.
3. I don't understand why they would go to such lengths to put this into the main game, why not make it like the Mongolia's scenario where they get numerous riches via conquest, but are a normal civ in main game.
bevelnator
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Messages
- 67
Even the name sounds uninspired, " great galleas," really?
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
^ They were famous for Galleases, though. "Great" as a modifier is an odd one unless there is some historical support for it. There were hints of a Crossbowman replacement, though. I suppose it could be for the Shoshonee. Or maybe that was just noise, who knows.
FWIW, although I'm not a fan of limiting Venice to only their city because they clearly had other cities, there is at least one thing in support of it. Venice had a spread-out empire. Unlike the Huns, who conquered but conquered in a relatively confined area, Venice picked off cities along the coast for quite a large distance. That at least makes sense.
My wish would be this: Let them build settlers and found cities, but make the settlers more expensive. That way it's disadvantageous to build your own cities, but it can still be done.
Of course, the thought occurs to me that it could be completely made up. The closing of the thread added to its credibility, but it doesn't make it real.
FWIW, although I'm not a fan of limiting Venice to only their city because they clearly had other cities, there is at least one thing in support of it. Venice had a spread-out empire. Unlike the Huns, who conquered but conquered in a relatively confined area, Venice picked off cities along the coast for quite a large distance. That at least makes sense.
My wish would be this: Let them build settlers and found cities, but make the settlers more expensive. That way it's disadvantageous to build your own cities, but it can still be done.
Of course, the thought occurs to me that it could be completely made up. The closing of the thread added to its credibility, but it doesn't make it real.
ImperialChaos
President
No, just Venice and Shoshone being the final two. I don't think any leaders or abilities were discussed.
bevelnator
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Messages
- 67
Pretty much, it also said the Axeman was a barbarian chariot archer replacement. I'm not sure if that part is legit though, it seems unlikely.
bevelnator
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Messages
- 67
It said the UUs, UAs, as well as what the Internet and national visitors center did. It had a lot of info.
Similar threads
