I guess to be fair, have forts ever impeded movement on their own? Technically they do have walls; and as others have mentioned, this requires you to think about where your units will be positioned rather than spamming the wall and sitting back.
I guess to be fair, have forts ever impeded movement on their own? Technically they do have walls; and as others have mentioned, this requires you to think about where your units will be positioned rather than spamming the wall and sitting back.
Yeah, that's the thing. I mean compared to Forts, all the GW does is just give Gold and later Culture. Otherwise it doesn't make that much of a difference.
I think if you are entering a tile with an improvement you are entering that improvement. There is no way to go around an improvement while staying in the same hex. Any improvement that is defensive in nature shouldn't hinder movement I think because they could be just spammed and encourage passive playing.
Even just in the ancient and classical eras of Civ V, China has two wonders, which isn't insignificant with the number of wonders in the game. Greece and Egypt have a lot, too, although in part because the idea of wonders in Civ is based on that list of Seven Wonders, which was created by Greeks and for Greeks... But for all we know, Greece also gets an early wonders bonus of some sort.
Everyone here is making huge assumptions about the state of combat in Civ 6. The only reason the fort was so useless in Civ V was because melee units just tanked and sat there anyway, and it was too much of a sacrafice to waste time with excess units on an optimal strategy.
Civ VI isn't going to require 100% focus on science for a speedy victory, it needs diversification including the incentivisation of military production. Everyone will generally have bigger investment into armed forces than civ 5 it seems. And to that the fact that the specialised parts of cities are now vulnerable and pillageable and military can really slow down a competitor who's starting to get away, without having the big cost of taking cities. Moreover, without global happiness, there could be actual benefit to taking a number of cities now without the pain of impeding growth.
Then there is the whole barbarian dynamic with scouts and big invasions that are gunna be a pain in the ass early game.
Warfare could make a return big time as a strategy in Civ 6 and the great wall could give China a serious advantage in preventing harassment and maintaining their course to victory. Given they have boosts to Eurekas and wonders too, there's gunna be plenty of reason to think China will be able to get ahead of the curve early on, so there's extra incentive to attack them and bring them down to size. This is a UI China could really take advantage of.
I'm guessing that the Great Wall improvement was designed with the worker bonus charge in mind. IE, if your border expands beyond your wall, you'll need to build more walls, and later tear down some older parts of the wall for new improvements/districts. The extra charge on workers helps make this less of a burden.
The Great Wall does cost movement points to cross- if it's garrisoned!!
I really don't understand the desire for a movement-slowing wall. Is the idea that you build it, forget about it, and use it as a speed bump to buy time for your defenders to arrive? NO! It's the Great Wall, the boundary between civilization and the barbarians! If the enemy ever breaches it (the only circumstance in which the "movement cost" thing would occur) then something has gone terribly wrong.
A lot of people seem to still be in civ 5 mode, where you almost want the enemy to siege your city becuase of how hard cities are to take and how many enemies cities can kill. In 6, however, a single enemy getting past your borders and pilaging your science district or your trade district will be almost as disastrous as losing a city. Strong, sealed borders are going to be essential- combat is going to shift from the cities to the borders- and China has just been given a massive boost in this area...
I think people have convinced me on the Great Wall. I still think it's a little underwhelming, but the eureka boost sounds tremendously OP. It's probably just going to be tricky to figure out the balance of wall: other tiles, but that's going to be a learning curve no matter the civ, as it's the major new feature of the game.
I think it's pretty important to note that the wall need not be contiguous... So you can seemingly plop it anywhere along your border that you feel is necessary. I for one am interested in seeing what it's like to have an Encampment surrounded by a portion of the wall.
Also, in terms of "wasting" builds on the wall, which appears to be another concern... I'm pretty sure that's why China has an Extra Build. If the average empire builds say, about 8 builders across the early game... Well that gives you the ability to have a wall that spans 8 tiles while matching the same amount of output of other civ's builders.
IMHO the bonus for wonders should have been assigned to Greece or Egypt instead of China, it would have made much more sense from a historical point of view.
Has Greece ever been a wonder building Civ? Maybe with Pericles this time finally. Frankly Egypt has not much other than Pyramids so not sure how they got it, China kinda makes sense but Greece especially should one of these times.
Has Greece ever been a wonder building Civ? Maybe with Pericles this time finally. Frankly Egypt has not much other than Pyramids so not sure how they got it, China kinda makes sense but Greece especially should one of these times.
The Pyramids may be the only Ancient Egyptian structure to make the game, but there are plenty more that could be added, like Abu Simbel or the temple complex at Karnak or the Valley of the Kings. Monument-building was a big deal to the Ancient Egyptians because, to them, immortality was dependent on being remembered. That the Egyptians would get bonuses to wonder construction is extremely logical.
Has Greece ever been a wonder building Civ? Maybe with Pericles this time finally. Frankly Egypt has not much other than Pyramids so not sure how they got it, China kinda makes sense but Greece especially should one of these times.
Someone I believe already brought up the rather comical fact that the Greeks were the ones to come up with the Seven Wonders to begin with, but it bears repeating probably. it's just HAPPENSTANCE that this list we came up with includes three local infrastructures!
that said, Pericles definitely points to some sort of- if not wonders, than infrastructure building bonus of some kind. Either that or early game military, but maybe that's covered with the UU.
Manually building the greatwall can be interesting.
If you expand fast enough with big culture push when its viable? You can have rings of walls inside your china.
If invaders overcome the first wall, they'll have to punch through the second, and third, and fourth, and fifth.. and they get wiped out and you retake it all easily.
China looks great! It could be quite OP depending on specifics.
I do believe that workers can only use one charge to rush wonders and/or that it's probably a set number of hammers and not percentage. Since LA are kind of era-specific, it would make since that this ability may lose strength as the game goes on. Just a guess.
I only hear that the Great Wall "adds defense", not "gives a defensive bonus" like a fort as some have suggested. It may do that. It may cost all movement points. It may have hit points and have to be destroyed before venturing forward (that gets my vote). It may be just like a fort, but have accumulative strength based on the number of adjacent walls. I'm not sure where the right balance is.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to giving China a try. I didn't like China in Civ V too much. This China looks much more robust and gives you lots of angles to work with.
I think China's UA may be more influential than people are giving it credit for. It makes China a strong science and culture civ, but it allows them to acheive that goal not by doubling down on conventional science sources (like Babylon and Korea in Civ V) but by building a large empire that does a lot of things. I am concerned about the balance, though. A Eureka bonus is a percentage cost reduction, so, to use the most generous interpretation that's been proposed, increasing the bonus from 50% to 75% would cut in half the cost of every tech and civic that China completes the Eureka bonus for. I don't the bonus will actually be that big, but given how fundamental tech cultural progression presumably are to the game, even a fraction of that seems like it could be massively game-breaking. The only remotely comparable bonus I can think of in a past civ game is Machine Assisted Free Will in pre-patch Civ BERT, and even with the bonus contingent on Eureka conditions, that seems like a very ominous comparison.
I also dont think the UAs bonus matches up well with its bonus. To me, what the name suggests is a set of bonuses that change during dynastic transitions, perhaps with one dynasty giving military bonuses and the next focusing on culture (I had actually brainstormed such an ability, with the transition symbolized by a repeatable dynastic palace national wonder). I think the bonus they chose instead is also a good choice (except for balance concerns), but it doesnt seem like it has anything to do with dynastic cycles.
I guess to be fair, have forts ever impeded movement on their own? Technically they do have walls; and as others have mentioned, this requires you to think about where your units will be positioned rather than spamming the wall and sitting back.
The Great Wall does cost movement points to cross- if it's garrisoned!!
I really don't understand the desire for a movement-slowing wall. Is the idea that you build it, forget about it, and use it as a speed bump to buy time for your defenders to arrive? NO! It's the Great Wall, the boundary between civilization and the barbarians! If the enemy ever breaches it (the only circumstance in which the "movement cost" thing would occur) then something has gone terribly wrong.
I think thats exactly the idea. A UA focused on Eureka bonuses presumably incentivizes a large, empire to unlock a wide range of bonuses, and such an empire cant possibly station troops on every tile of its border. And if an unmanned wall tile is useless, theres no point in using the UI to build an actual wall instead of having isolated wall tiles every 3 spaces or so where youll actually have a unit stationed. On the other hand, a wall that slows movement would allow a small border garrison to hold out for an extra turn or two against attackers, and would provide time to mobilize a larger army if the wall is breached.
Manually building the greatwall can be interesting.
If you expand fast enough with big culture push when its viable? You can have rings of walls inside your china.
If invaders overcome the first wall, they'll have to punch through the second, and third, and fourth, and fifth.. and they get wiped out and you retake it all easily.
True, but committing even a single layer of tiles to the Great Wall is already a pretty significant opportunity cost. By the time youre adding in second and third walls, youve essentially sacrificed half a citys land to fortifications.
Qin Shi Huang looks OK, I guess. Couple of points:
- As with many, I'd rather Firaxis pick a different Emperor. There are an abundance of great emperors in China, so let's not be fixated with the first one.
- He looks a bit menacing and less stately than I would have imagined. The crown should have more bead-strings, and he's usually associated with long robes of his time (and usually black).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
