Civ Ultimate

[God of Kings]

Upon watching Nintendo's E3, which featured Smash Bros. Ultimate, it would be an interesting idea for a Civ game to be called Civ Ultimate.

It will have all the civs from all previous iterations.

Imagine the Cree with Polynesia and Mali!

It will have all the leaders as well.

Washington's United States vs. both Roosevelts' United States against each other!

All the previous natural wonders, world wonders, and city-states as well!

You can choose between square tiles or hex tiles!

You can choose between stacks of doom or one unit per tile!

What do you think?

 

[TPangolin]

If this means we revive the Native America civ from IV then kill me now.

 

[God of Kings]

If this means we revive the Native America civ from IV then kill me now.

There are some exceptions though.

Because the Iroquois, the Sioux, the Shoshone, and the Cree would be in, Native Americans would be superfluous.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

All the Civs in one game would sound interesting barring the Native Americans and the Vikings for obvious reasons. I also wouldn't like all the leaders back like Shakala or Hippolyta.

 

[Terry_pdx]

Ultimate Civ for me is not about who or where, but in general aspects like the interface and pace of the game. Recently, with an upgrade to Windows 10, I found I could not play Civ4 Warlords anymore. Recommended fixes didn't work or looked like they messed too much with the operating system, so I pulled out Civ5. Replayed and found it horrible, worse than Civ3. Interface blocked the map, and many complicated keystrokes to reach info screens. Most of all, in one game I built all the wonders and still could not keep the population happy. Found Civ6 is out now and moved to see how that works. Spent the last week playing heavily and abandoned it. They got the message to give us back the map, but no city screen now, way too many details, and not the right info. It takes forever to build anything. You can't afford to build much of an army. The hexes make sense, but now you can't move with the keyboard, and in fact, none of the basic keystrokes are available. The basic info screens available with the function keys are gone. The report they did have did not link to the map or allow you to sort, and did not have all the info you need, like a summary of production. I could not find stray units, or easily upgrade my army, or manage my cities according to production and other values. Really frustrating. I had to look hard to find the number for food and happiness that I need every turn. Also, slow loading and turn cycles, you can't control roads until late in the game, and overall it feels like playing a pinball machine with poofs and pops and magic lights. Even simple things like building a wonder gives you no info on what it does. Had to recheck the wonders page. Another search and three keystrokes. I decided to repurchase Civ4 from Steam and it plays fine again. What a relief. The pace, the info, the music, everything is well balanced and attractive. The push for fools to keep innovating is frustrating when they fail to respect the past. An ultimate Civ could incorporate Civ6 features, but only if it keeps the craft developed in Civ4.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Actually I think Polynesia should be replaced with different civs like Hawaii

 

[Siptah]

There are some exceptions though.

Because the Iroquois, the Sioux, the Shoshone, and the Cree would be in, Native Americans would be superfluous.

But I want to play with the Iroquois and the Sioux against the Native Americans

It's way less confusing than when you fight with multiple Frances and all share the same cities

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This is an awful idea. No one actually wants Polynesia or the Celts now that we have Scotland and the Maori, and might get Ireland or Hawaii. And everyone who thinks they want Babylon or Assyria or Byzantium isn't paying attention to the new design paradigm.

And as for leaders, many of them were pretty iffy, especially the Civ II leaders. We don't need all of them back.

The sort of halfhazard Moderator Action: <SNIP> flinging at the wall that was earlier games would severely undermine a very clear and thoughtful creative vision in VI. I don't want an Ultimate Civ if it means we go back to a bunch of Moderator Action: <SNIP> imperial And WW II fantasies. You have Civ V. Go play that.

Moderator Action: Please use appropriate language when posting on site. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Guandao]

This is an awful idea. No one actually wants Polynesia or the Celts now that we have Scotland and the Maori, and might get Ireland or Hawaii. And everyone who thinks they want Babylon or Assyria or Byzantium isn't paying attention to the new design paradigm.

Are you an employee of Firaxis?

No Byzantine cities on Civ6's Roman City-list. How will they fold the Byzantines into Rome then?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Civ 7 Somewhat Ultimate:
1. America
2. Egypt
3. China
4. Rome
5. Greece
6. England
7. France
8. Germany
9. Russia
10. India
11. Aztec
12. Babylon
13. Mongolia
14. Zulu
15. Phoenicia ( as Carthage)
16. Gaul or Iceni instead of Celts or medieval Ireland?
17. Persia
18. Inca
19. Spain
20. Japan
21. Sioux
22. Iroquois
23. Arabia
24. Korea
25. Ottoman
26. Austria
27. Dutch
28. Portugal
29. Hittites
30. Maya
31. Sumeria
32. Byzantium
33. Mali
34. Khmer
35. Ethiopia
36. Denmark
37. Siam
38. Assyria
39. Brazil
40. Sweden
41. Poland
42. Indonesia
43. Morocco
44. Kongo
45. Scythia
46. Norway
47. Australia
48. Macedon- Why not?
49. Nubia
50. Georgia
51. Scotland
52. Mapuche
53. Hungary
54. Maori
55. Canada- Pending
56. Italy
57. Navajo for SW U.S.A. hopefully- Not sure if the Cree or the Shoshone would return again though the Iroquois and Sioux would be too similar and less controversial. Alternatively a PNW tribe could do.
58. Colombia or Argentina for a New World Spanish speaking nation.
59. Benin or Dahomey for West Coast Africa
60. Vietnam
Obviously the Celts would be split as well as Holy Roman Empire and Vikings as well. Venice would be under Italy.
We didn't need the Huns anyway and the Maori are fine to represent Polynesia as well as Carthage being combined with Phoenicia-pending.
Songhai covers the same region and a lot of cities with Mali, and I prefer the former.

 

[Naokaukodem]

And what all those civs will make you once you started ruling one civ only in a map with 8 civs total ?

Would be better if they dig up some never seen civs like the Francs.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

And what all those civs will make you once you started ruling one civ only in a map with 8 civs total ?

Would be better if they dig up some never seen civs like the Francs.

I have good news and bad news for you. Eleanor.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Are you an employee of Firaxis?

No Byzantine cities on Civ6's Roman City-list. How will they fold the Byzantines into Rome then?

Changing city lists is literally, without exaggeration, the easiest thing to mod. That is a dumb argument when they have changed substantially more to accommodate other expansions

I'd really appreciate it if, for once, you could present an actual debate instead of approaching everything with a willfully ignorant, blindly conservative attitude. Civ VI has shown, time and again, that it doesn't care about what you or the prior installments considered "historically important." All you ever come at me with is "that's how it's always been in civ," or "that's historically inaccurate." That's not an argument, especially when the entire game that is Civ VI stands as a contradiction to your stagnant, traditionalist attitude. If you want to actually engage in debate with me, demonstrate that you understand and can work with/aganst the paradigm that already clearly is governing VI design instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

It's like every expansion, you all Moderator Action: <SNIP about how wrong it is, as if it's such a surprise. Those of us paying attention to the last few expansions saw it coming, and made peace with it. If you bothered to anticipate rather than reminisce, maybe you'd be less salty all the time.

Moderator Action: It would be nice for us all if you made your argument instead of insulting other posters. Please find a way to discuss issues instead of others with civility. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Naokaukodem]

I have good news and bad news for you. Eleanor.

Whaaaaat ?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is an awful idea. No one actually wants Polynesia or the Celts now that we have Scotland and the Maori, and might get Ireland or Hawaii. And everyone who thinks they want Babylon or Assyria or Byzantium isn't paying attention to the new design paradigm.

I'd really appreciate it if, for once, you could present an actual debate instead of approaching everything with a willfully ignorant, blindly conservative attitude. Civ VI has shown, time and again, that it doesn't care about what you or the prior installments considered "historically important." All you ever come at me with is "that's how it's always been in civ," or "that's historically inaccurate." That's not an argument, especially when the entire game that is Civ VI stands as a contradiction to your stagnant, traditionalist attitude. If you want to actually engage in debate with me, demonstrate that you understand and can work with/aganst the paradigm that already clearly is governing VI design instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

I'm actually curious as to why you think you know what Civs we will and won't be getting based off of your knowledge of Firaxis apparent new design?
You keep mentioning that the Byzantines and Assyria/Babylon will not make the cut, but what makes you so sure we would get Ireland or Hawaii? How would Hawaii be different than the Maori who already have a Polynesia wayfinding ability and a UA that encompasses all of the Polynesia culture?
Also why would they give us another Celtic nation like Ireland as opposed to another ancient Near East Civ not including Phoenicia? I'm not saying I wouldn't want Ireland, but it seems more redundant than Scotland as opposed to Byzantines or Assyria/Babylon.

 

[Guandao]

Changing city lists is literally, without exaggeration, the easiest thing to mod. That is a dumb argument when they have changed substantially more to accommodate other expansions

I'd really appreciate it if, for once, you could present an actual debate instead of approaching everything with a willfully ignorant, blindly conservative attitude. Civ VI has shown, time and again, that it doesn't care about what you or the prior installments considered "historically important." All you ever come at me with is "that's how it's always been in civ," or "that's historically inaccurate." That's not an argument, especially when the entire game that is Civ VI stands as a contradiction to your stagnant, traditionalist attitude. If you want to actually engage in debate with me, demonstrate that you understand and can work with/aganst the paradigm that already clearly is governing VI design instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

It's like every expansion, you all Moderator Action: <SNIP> about how wrong it is, as if it's such a surprise. Those of us paying attention to the last few expansions saw it coming, and made peace with it. If you bothered to anticipate rather than reminisce, maybe you'd be less salty all the time.

Ok, that's it, I'm done arguing with you. You're extremely arrogant. Don't be shocked when the Byzantines return to Civ6 (Though I think GS is the last expansion). Me conservative and traditionalist? Ha! Us? Who's us? It's only you spouting these views!

You're not a part of the Firaxis design team and never will be. Your paradigm only exists inside your head. Firaxis hasn't changed any of the City Lists to merge veteran Civs into them. What makes you think they will for Rome? Chandragupta uses a capital which already existed on the vanilla India city-list. Eleanor will do the same. They even made Antioch a City-State instead of adding it to the Roman City-List.

You're much ruder in Ideas & Suggestions than the main forum, hmm, I wonder why...
Anyways, this is my last reply to you ever. Don't post on my wishlist threads anymore please.

Moderator Action: It is always better to ignore trolls and report them than to answer them. leif