[NFP] Civilization 6 February Update

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Fast forward to today, and you get a community that argues wherther ancient Gauls wore one tunic or two.

Some Gauls wore no tunics.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Some Gauls wore no tunics.

Indeed. Some wore pants.

it's a joke

 

[PhilBowles]

Haven't played any of the optional game modes other than a brief trial of randomised techs, but barbarians and the monopolies mode in the last update sound very much the sort of thing I'd want from game modes - added ways to explore the main game rather than the previous scenario-like gimmicks. Also, intentional or not the 'treat with tribes' graphics look to me as though the recall the acclaimed barbarian simulator King of Dragon Pass and its sequel.

Hopefully the air AI update will actually deliver on its promise in a way past claims to have focused attention on Civ VI's air AI never did.

 

[Ansive]

I wonder if we could ransom other civ's civilian units, like a poor lost settler.

 

[Zaarin]

Also, intentional or not the 'treat with tribes' graphics look to me as though the recall the acclaimed barbarian simulator King of Dragon Pass and its sequel.

I thought I was the only person who played those games.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

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.

Civilization-the game-has come so far since those days. Back then we had no Culture, no Religion (except as some techs), no borders, no workers/builders, Bombers that could be killed by Pikemen.......

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I thought I was the only person who played those games.

You mean the Paradox Strategy Games?

 

[Zaarin]

You mean the Paradox Strategy Games?

No, King of Dragon Pass and its spiritual successor Six Ages: Ride Like the Wind. Great tribal management games set in a Bronze Age world. I highly recommend them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Indeed. Some wore pants.

it's a joke

And some Gauls wore no pants, but you aren't going to find them in any game trying for a better than R rating . . .

 

[onepurpose]

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.

Sign of the times..

Firexis' cheesy stupid vids announcements and SJW discussion about SUDOKU of leader genres and geographical representation in these forums

good old civ 2 days...

 

[Guynemer]

Hard to think of a way to make yourself be taken less seriously than to use the term "SJW"

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hard to think of a way to make yourself be taken less seriously than to use the term "SJW"

Yep, those people instantly go on my "ignore" list.

 

[hornfaust]

I mean, I wouldn't go as far as Humankind does it, but at least a semblance of change or progress in the leader area would be welcome, to me It's the other way around, in a game all about the progress of civilization, having 1 static leader all game seems contradictory. (I would love to see civ switching, but I can see how that could go too far)

new civ games always take something familiar and re imagine it, so It's not something that couldn't happen. That said, I'd rather they stay with civ 6 for a bit more, go another NFP pass, rework boring areas like they did with corporations and barbarians, and add a whole bunch of civs, alt personnas and leaders.

I mean I miss things like the

*palace you'd build.
*the list of top cities in the world

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.

Yea I think continuing to build on the game and see where it takes you is far more appealing to me.

We are missing far too many leaders.
We are missing political parties in the game in our civs to cause us problems. I love the Dove vs. Hawk Party

I think they can stretch out late game even more for future, make scientific victory even harder. I end 90% of my games with science victory vs. friends.

If you roll out a CIV VII at this point, you have to really say this game is going to be better than CIV VI and I just don't see it rolling out being so great as there is some new mechanic.

I really like the idea of 30 civs playing at once, if they can make it so there are that many in a stable environment i am kinda excited about that, but if it's just same thing basically I don't see i t worth restarting instead of releasing seasons.

 

[DWilson]

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...

To be fair, Imperator has steadily progressed, and feels much better today (especially after the very recent update). But yes, you can be confident Firaxis wants to avoid a game seen as a flop until so many free content updates in that it is fighting for an audience, all the while likely being a net loss in value.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Hard to think of a way to make yourself be taken less seriously than to use the term "SJW"

The key part is mentioning the SJW term when none of us even mentioned politics, etc. We have forums and threads for that, but this is not where to discuss those beliefs.

Anyway, can we talk about the Cliffs of Dover buff? We haven't really talked about that part.

 

[PenngwynXVII]

Barbarians --> city states is excellent.
Makes me wonder... Could we be getting a game mode next where free cities --> a new civ? With dramatic ages, often end up with whole civs collapsing into huge blocks of permanent free cities, would be cool if they banded together at some point into a new civ.

That air power fix though... I'll believe it when I see it LOL

 

[King William I]

Cliff of Dover still suck. You can't build on them and in a game where every tile counts, it's just not worth having in your empire.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Cliff of Dover still suck. You can't build on them and in a game where every tile counts, it's just not worth having in your empire.

They're now semi-workable, though, and with the Preserve, ho boy, it's gonna be good.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Anyway, can we talk about the Cliffs of Dover buff? We haven't really talked about that part.

2 food 3 culture 3 gold is adequate enough to assign a citizen to work it.

Cliffs of Dover is now much better than, say, Gobustan, unless you try to put 3 HS around Gobustan for adjacency. (CoD is clearly more of a National Park Wonder than a HS Wonder.)

 

[pokiehl]

Cliff of Dover still suck. You can't build on them and in a game where every tile counts, it's just not worth having in your empire.

So you think every passable Natural Wonder sucks then?