[NFP] Civilization 6 February Update

[Yudhisthira]

Ngl, not a very big fan of immortal leader. I mean it kinda funny meeting Victoria even before learning sailing or seeing Gilgamesh hanging around while launching rocket into space.

But I'm not sure how feasible it would be for all civs such as Gran Colombia, not to mention what would an Ancient/Classical leader for America or Brazil be, let alone for England?

Rightly this is a very big problem for most if not all civs.
But alternating leaders for every civ in different era will bring much freshness & will be historically more sound.
Thou difficult firaxis should look into something like this for Civ 7,especially with Humankind around.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be fair, their Leaders don't have nearly as much animation budget as Civ 6 Leaders do, as well as Civ 6 having a stick-to-one-Civ approach and Humankind having a Mayans-turning-into-Siamese approach.

"Welcome to the Jungle."
"We live on opposite sides of the world in real life, but in this game here we are the same."

 

[Tuvok694]

Let me point out this: Changing some yields on the Cliffs of Dover is still more important than giving us an acceptable user interface when trading with other civilizations. I am not a fan of that.

 

[Shadowstrike]

I kind of wish we could build on the Cliffs of Dover. As an alternative, perhaps the "natural wonder" tiles on Cliffs of Dover could be shifted to the sea tiles, and have it give bonuses to the neighboring land tiles (which would then be buildable, because they aren't natural wonder tiles).

 

[Zaarin]

But alternating leaders for every civ in different era will bring much freshness & will be historically more sound.

Not really. More likely it would just push nationalist pseudo-histories like "the Iraqis are Babylonian" or "the Hungarians are Huns" or "the English are Britons *grumbles in Welsh*." Civ's current model works best: the leader isn't meant to be an historical in-game figure but a face for the civilization (s)he represents.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Not really. More likely it would just push nationalist pseudo-histories like "the Iraqis are Babylonian" or "the Hungarians are Huns" or "the English are Britons *grumbles in Welsh*."

Yes, that's true,it can push such arguments but since we got Gauls & France both this time, so I thought this can work.

 

[UWHabs]

I kind of wish we could build on the Cliffs of Dover. As an alternative, perhaps the "natural wonder" tiles on Cliffs of Dover could be shifted to the sea tiles, and have it give bonuses to the neighboring land tiles (which would then be buildable, because they aren't natural wonder tiles).

Yeah, I think that would have made a lot more sense, but my guess is that would screw up the visuals or placement, since it would have to "steal" the cliffs from the neighbour tiles to draw on, so probably a challenge to display.

At least this way, they become marginally workable, and with the Preserve, I can more accept them. In my last game, I had them nearby me and was going to preserve them up, that is, until I ended up with like triple iron spawn next to them to take the preserve spot. With that, they would have *almost* been workable.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, that's true,it can push such arguments but since we got Gauls & France both this time, so I thought this can work.

The thing is Gaul "/=" France so you can't reasonably have Ambiorix and Catherine De Medici leading the same civilization.
I think one reason, if not the main one, why decided to put a Belgae leader like Ambiorix for Gaul was to show that the region of Gaul was not relegated to the modern day borders of France.

 

[AsH2]

The thing is Gaul "/=" France so you can't reasonably have Ambiorix and Catherine De Medici leading the same civilization.
..

But Charles de Gaulle could..

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I kind of wish we could build on the Cliffs of Dover. As an alternative, perhaps the "natural wonder" tiles on Cliffs of Dover could be shifted to the sea tiles, and have it give bonuses to the neighboring land tiles (which would then be buildable, because they aren't natural wonder tiles).

Cliffs of dover adjacent to a preserve are going to be very nice tiles to work

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But Charles de Gaulle could..

Yes he could alternate with Catherine for France.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Much as I would love to see a Progressive Civ mechanic, within the boundaries of the Civ System (Immortal animated Leader, Unique bonuses/maluses lasting 6000 years) it ain't gonna happen.

On the other hand, Barb to City State shows that there is a possibility to add more Dynamism to the game.
I assume everybody knows that the City States all start as Settlers in Civ VI. Now, with the new Mode, some of them essentially start as Barbarian Camps.

So, why (probably in Civ VII) can't some of the Civs start as City States or Barbarian Camps?
Only AI Civs, but possibly even a game mode in which you start playing as a Civ in X Era as a Ready-For-Conversion City State with a random set of constructions/units already.

But even just expanding the current Barbarian Mode by One Step: Barb to City State, then potentially City State to (Not-In-The-Game-Yet) Civ, the latter part of the game so often now wallowing in ennui suddenly becomes a lot more interesting: you're churning right along beating on your normal opponent Civs when suddenly the Bangalore (example) City State becomes India, or 1 - 3 City States band together into the Helvetian (Switzerland) Confederacy, or Russia appears looming bear-like out of a Russian City State like Vladimir or Suzdal or the (Russianic) City State Kiyev.

By keeping the conversions not entirely narrowly historical, and the conversion process subject to in-game influences as the Barb to City State conversion process appears to be now, you would be hard put to predict when something new and different will appear in any particular game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that is going to be a real problem. Are they going to release Civ VII with a dozen civs and have everyone go "Hey! Where is my Vietnam/ Gaul/ Whatever your favourite civ is?" Civ VI has so much bolted on now, VII is going to have to be pretty special.

To be fair, though, Civ6 retained far more of the full experience of Civ5 than Civ5 did of Civ4. Hopefully Civ7 will be the same, & retain clearly popular features in the base game-like Ages & Natural Disasters.

The danger for civ 7 is what happened to Paradox with Imperator Rome. The new game just couldn't match up to the scope of other titles in their catalogue that were decades old and it left a bitter taste in lots of mouths. Sadly, as I do actually enjoy the game.

The 'season' hint makes me think/hope more might be coming though...

Yet then they released CK3, & it has recieved high praise indeed.

 

[Haig]

I really hope the catapult at the end means they rebalance walls a bit. Like make all units be able to capture cities when the city health bar is zero, not just melee.

 

[anonxanemone]

I'm late to the party and didn't read all the way through the comments yet but my idea for using the civ picker is to mutually exclude leaders with reused animations in NFP. I had Suleiman and Hammurabi in the same game as neighbors so it was weird to see them have similar mannerism during trade deals and whatnot. One disadvantage is you'd know which list you're playing as soon as you meet one of the non-excluded civ.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

To be fair, though, Civ6 retained far more of the full experience of Civ5 than Civ5 did of Civ4. Hopefully Civ7 will be the same, & retain clearly popular features in the base game-like Ages & Natural Disasters.

Disasters might be better later once everything is ironed out. Ages would be better if they were there from the start. I'd probably keep/expound on corporations. They might want to look at a different way to do governors and districts.

 

[Leucarum]

Yet then they released CK3, & it has recieved high praise indeed.

Very true. High praise from me included. I guess I wasn't trying to say that a fresh release can't be well recieved but rather that there is a danger if it's percieved as less complete than what it's succeeding.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Very true. High praise from me included. I guess I wasn't trying to say that a fresh release can't be well recieved but rather that there is a danger if it's percieved as less complete than what it's succeeding.

Well it's not going to have the kitchen sink thrown in there--at least I'd hope not. I'd rather they have all of the initial concepts tied to each other nicely instead of having things in there because they were in the last one.

 

[8housesofelixir]

In case of "will Civ VII inherit experiences of Civ VI", remember that VI had a lot of features and yields directly inherited from V - especially in the Religion, Pantheon, and Tourism section. Some of the Religious Beliefs doesn't even have their numbers altered much, and as a result become fairly weak in VI.

 

[Abaxial]

Let me mention this - when was the original Civilisation title? 1991? 30 years ago? Let those who can, cast their minds back to gaming as it was then. Sticking Abraham Lincoln or whoever it was in charge of a side and calling them Americans (from 4000 BC onwards) was about par for the course. Fast forward to today, and you get a community that argues wherther ancient Gauls wore one tunic or two. But we have the mechanic of one nation - one leader because it has always been like that. And forever will be, or it wouldn't be Sid Meier's Civilisation.