Yes, but I said that until Civ5 the franchise was informed entirely by pop culture. It wasn't until Civ5 that the franchise started taking history more seriously (and good heavens did Civ5 take itself too seriously, but that's a different topic).
Just to point out, at least the Shoshone and Comanche were Related tribes, the Comanche being essentially those Shoshone who moved farthest south.
And Tecumseh called for a coalition of tribes to oppose the white Americans, so putting him in charge of a collection of only semi-related tribes is also fairly appropriate and, at least, arguable.
Both, in any case, better than the earlier completely Amoeba-like "Native American" blob.
Yes they are highly related, and I do agree both end up being much better executions on the concept. Personally I think a tribal alliance like the Anishinaabe is an even better idea than Shoshone-Comanche, but that was Civ V where Hawaii, Maori and Rapa Nui were all blobbed together so it was par for the course at the time.
Yes, but I said that until Civ5 the franchise was informed entirely by pop culture. It wasn't until Civ5 that the franchise started taking history more seriously (and good heavens did Civ5 take itself too seriously, but that's a different topic).
Hehe, that it did. At any rate I've never felt the need to go back and play 1-4, or even 5 much. Even in spite of the leaps in historical and cultural accuracy, the franchise has a tendency to recycle a LOT of ideas, such that it really does feel like "most of the same things, but less" in earlier installments.
I had Persia down as DLC because it would (obviously) sell. I guess either now we have an unusual amount of ancient civilisations (with a view that if you want more variety in the end game you have to buy DLC) or the much more likely outcome that the attached photo is now an unattached wonder.
Buying DLC civilisations but their wonder is already in the game feels a bit weird to me because it’s like you are only getting 90% of a new civilisation. There is an argument that would limit wonder bloat, in term keeping the cultural wonder win the same level of difficulty. I think just having a global limit on the number of wonders per age is a more elegant solution for that…
I had Persia down as DLC because it would (obviously) sell. I guess either now we have an unusual amount of ancient civilisations (with a view that if you want more variety in the end game you have to buy DLC) or the much more likely outcome that the attached photo is now an unattached wonder.
Buying DLC civilisations but their wonder is already in the game feels a bit weird to me because it’s like you are only getting 90% of a new civilisation. There is an argument that would limit wonder bloat, in term keeping the cultural wonder win the same level of difficulty. I think just having a global limit on the number of wonders per age is a more elegant solution for that…
I have a predictive model I'm currently feeling out where, even with approaching 60 civs at launch, there are plenty of marketable staples to sell DLC: Aztecs, Poland, Sweden, Ethiopia/Zulu, Scotland/Ireland, Nubia/Mali, Morocco, alternate Indian and Chinese dynasties and leaders, probably more Turko-Mongolic civs and leaders (Attila, Genghis/Kublai, Suleiman). I think the argument that any civ "needs" to be saved for DLC is pretty weak here when they will have a lot of options even with an implausibly large starting roster. Especially where we, somehow, have a Vietnamese leader at launch. I'm just not concerned about there being returning favorites to sell DLC, the model practically guarantees that unless we get some insane 80-100 civ release at launch where "the gang is all here" (which, to be clear, I am optimistic but not that out of touch lol).
I had Persia down as DLC because it would (obviously) sell. I guess either now we have an unusual amount of ancient civilisations (with a view that if you want more variety in the end game you have to buy DLC) or the much more likely outcome that the attached photo is now an unattached wonder.
Buying DLC civilisations but their wonder is already in the game feels a bit weird to me because it’s like you are only getting 90% of a new civilisation. There is an argument that would limit wonder bloat, in term keeping the cultural wonder win the same level of difficulty. I think just having a global limit on the number of wonders per age is a more elegant solution for that…
I think it was probably the other way around. The wonders from the first DLC pack were moved up into the base game to avoid the antiquity age being *underdeveloped* in terms of wonder count.
I think it was probably the other way around. The wonders from the first DLC pack were moved up into the base game to avoid the antiquity age being *underdeveloped* in terms of wonder count.
This may be the case, but it would imply that the first DLC pack's civs will all be from Antiquity, which I don't think is very likely. I think they wanted to overcrowd Antiquity with wonders because the cultural victory depends on it, but the DLC packs will come with civs from all eras.
This may be the case, but it would imply that the first DLC pack's civs will all be from Antiquity, which I don't think is very likely. I think they wanted to overcrowd Antiquity with wonders because the cultural victory depends on it, but the DLC packs will come with civs from all eras.
At least how I'm speculating, I think we will have more exploration civs than antiquity civs at launch, and more modern civs than exploration civs. In which case, a DLC pack with, say, two antiquity and two exploration civs, might be their way of restoring a little balance of options (as well as getting those critical Mesopotamian civs in for veterans).
Okay, so given that the Chola have now received an official video by week's end, I think it is very safe to continue presuming each civ will get their own twitter teaser drop.
I also think that, given the vagueness of the steam announcement, I can recommend opening up guesses to two civs this week, at least until we see indications otherwise. Even if that turns out not to be the case, I see nothing wrong with allowing guessers two bites at the apple.
I am going to repeat my guess from last week, mostly out of laziness for changing the formatting, heh (plus the evidence hasn't changed much for me):
Norse (maybe Persia) Valknut (if Persia, Lamassu) Heddal Stave Church (if Persia, Gate of All Nations) Cnut (if Persia, Zarathustra) Red on Blue (if Persia, Maroon on Purple)
Leader type: Military/Expansionist (if Zarathustra, Scientific/Expansionist)
I'm also going to predict that the Cnut RL comes with a teaser for the Normans, or the Zarathustra FL comes with a teaser for the Sasanid civ.
Given the surprise reveals Monday and Saturday this week, I am now recommending people get some guesses in before 15:00 Universal Time Monday (11: AM EST, 8:00 AM PST), although don't stress yourselves out loves, it's just a game thread.
IF MID-WEEK YOU CHANGE PREDICTIONS WHICH APPLY TO THE REST OF THE WEEK (I.E. BEFORE THE NEXT MONDAY/TUESDAY CYCLE) PLEASE QUOTE YOUR PREVIOUS PREDICTION, THANKS!
I’m betting on the game guide for Antiquity Persia on Tuesday. Thursday will give us the Norman game guide, a Norman associated leader (I want Eleanor, we're probably getting William,) and the scheduled day for the Exploration Age stream. None of this is based on any existing evidence or logic, just vibes.
The curveball is that when they talk about Asoka leading Persia they mean in the exploration age because we are getting full Zoroastrianism and trade focused Persia “which fits what’s happening in the exploration age better”.
I do doubt that idea myself but it’s a fun hypothetical.
I think they skipped ahead to the Chola because Persia and the Abbasids both have relevant leaders. Or alternatively they are still balancing Persia and the Abbasids. I don’t think there’s much point guessing which specific leader though, feels like there could be at least 20 different good choices in that case.
Anyway I don’t think we get anything new in the we don’t already know about them sense for a little while now. Hawaii is alphabetically after Chola based on the general consensus.
I think it's definitely worth considering that they might have skipped Persia for behind-the-scenes reasons. If that's the case, we may not see it for a while. And they may have picked Chola for late last week because it corresponds better with Ashoka-WR than the Abbasids would.
This week, I'm expecting the Abbasids and/or Songhai and Amina. The blurb on Steam didn't provide a timeframe or quantity, only "more civs", which might mean multiple civs in one week or multiple civs over multiple weeks.
I'll go for a little different prediction for no particular reason. Inca are finally revealed, then later in the week we get Songhai and Amina in a first look. Her video may show off more Buganda footage too, as a suggested civ for her to lead into.
Expansionist + Scientist
Starting bias: floodplains
CUU: unique scientists
MUU: Hujariyya
Wonder: Bayt al Hikmah
UBs: Madrasa and some form of Mosque (Abbasid mosques are pretty unique with their large hypostyle halls and open squares, but I don’t know any official name for that style) to form a „university“ kind of district (although Iranian civs would be better suited for this to make a Registan UD).
Civics: something that gives bonuses from ancient codices.
For the leader, I think there is one paired with the Abbasids: al-Mamun. We‘ll see him and his rough desert starting bias this week. He‘ll be cultural and scientist.
I think it's definitely worth considering that they might have skipped Persia for behind-the-scenes reasons. If that's the case, we may not see it for a while. And they may have picked Chola for late last week because it corresponds better with Ashoka-WR than the Abbasids would.
This week, I'm expecting the Abbasids and/or Songhai and Amina. The blurb on Steam didn't provide a timeframe or quantity, only "more civs", which might mean multiple civs in one week or multiple civs over multiple weeks.
a) FXS realized that alphabetical reveals within an age are too predictable and changed the paradigm
b) It was Ashoka‘s turn as last of the leaders associated with an ancient civ (excluding Himiko here as she might not have an associated ancient civ), and Chola was considered the optimal pairing (due to Maurya being one of the initial civs). However, if this is true (and the sole reason for Chola) we should see Persia this week.
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.
