[NFP] Civilization VI: New Frontier Pass Discussion Thread

[blackcatatonic]

I should turn it off as well. I won an accidental DV as Gran Colombia, mostly because I had eliminated most of the competition but couldn't be bothered to finish the job.

 

[nzcamel]

I once accidentally won DV as persia out of all civs when I was going for CV.... similar thing happened as Korea when I was going for SV...

I accidentally won DV as Maya while going for SV. I've taken to turning DV off, just like Domination and RV.

I'm guessing they lowered the -3 diplo vote to -2 for MP, but it has made DV too easy in SP imo.

If that is the case; I don't see why there can't be some different rules for MP vs SP. It's clear the game works differently when you are playing against humans not the AI.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I just realized NFP says the leader requires Rise & Fall. While we have been generally under the assumption that the new leader is a dual leader, presumably for one base game civ and one R&F civ, or otherwise a small chance for one R&F civ and the new civ, look at the language again.

The scenarios are also listed as requiring one or both expansions. I.e., the scenarios literally cannot be used without those expansions. If we apply that same construction to the new leader, then the leader must also literally be unusable without the expansion. This, however, would not be the case if it were a dual leader, because at least the base/NFP civ would still be playable absent R&F. A dual leader would not require Rise & Fall, it would be enhanced by it.

As illustration:

* James I/VI does not require R&F, because he would still function as an English leader without R&F.
* William III/II does not require R&F, because he would still function as an English leader without R&F.
* Kublai Khan does not require R&F, because he would still function as a Chinese leader without R&F.
etc. etc.

Do we think this is just vague verbage on Firaxis' part and the leader still leads two civs? Or could it deliberately suggest that the new leader is simply just an alternate for a single R&F civ?

What if we just get Tamerlane leading the Mongols lol?

 

[Jeppetto]

We should just have a consolidated thread for all the times someone "comes up" with the idea for a Trung sisters double leader as if the V mod never existed.

Right between the one where people say Babylon should be in VI because it's the last civ which has been in every game; and the other one where people point out that the HRE was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire...

Ironic in another thread you complain about repeated topics then you bring something already discussed thousand times.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Ironic in another thread you complain about repeated topics then you bring something already discussed thousand times.

Did we actually go into the meaning of "require" previously? If so, (a) I apologize, I must have missed it, and (b) even if that be the case that I'm not the first person to make that particular observation, we definitely have never brought this up as often as the Trung sisters gimmick has been brought up over the years. Not even close.

Also, the sheer petulance of this post. I know ad homs aren't allowed, but feel free to infer my opinion of you.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please discuss the topic and not each other. Let's try to maintain civility in discussion. Thanks.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I just realized NFP says the leader requires Rise & Fall. While we have been generally under the assumption that the new leader is a dual leader, presumably for one base game civ and one R&F civ, or otherwise a small chance for one R&F civ and the new civ, look at the language again.

The scenarios are also listed as requiring one or both expansions. I.e., the scenarios literally cannot be used without those expansions. If we apply that same construction to the new leader, then the leader must also literally be unusable without the expansion. This, however, would not be the case if it were a dual leader, because at least the base/NFP civ would still be playable absent R&F. A dual leader would not require Rise & Fall, it would be enhanced by it.

As illustration:

* James I/VI does not require R&F, because he would still function as an English leader without R&F.
* William III/II does not require R&F, because he would still function as an English leader without R&F.
* Kublai Khan does not require R&F, because he would still function as a Chinese leader without R&F.
etc. etc.

Do we think this is just vague verbage on Firaxis' part and the leader still leads two civs? Or could it deliberately suggest that the new leader is simply just an alternate for a single R&F civ?

What if we just get Tamerlane leading the Mongols lol?

It's purely speculation that the new leader will be a dual leader, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did do that. Even if it is a dual leader, like Kublai Khan for both China and Mongolia, I would presume you still need R&F to play as him for China if he were to get loyalty bonuses in his ability etc.
Then again Kublai Khan could just end up being a Mongolia leader.

 

[darkace77450]

Any word if diplomacy is getting a pass in New Frontier Pass? I know they changed the voting for Diplomatic victory but it's still a god-awful implementation.

I honestly don't know why they struggle so hard to make diplomacy fun. You're about to win the game? Nope. Enjoy another 30 turns of clicking on "next turn"!

I feel the same way about the new Science Victory. Yes, we can speed it up via projects, but it's still just me clicking "next turn" until the colony ship reaches its destination. I thought SVs were fine when they ended with the Mars Mission.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I feel the same way about the new Science Victory. Yes, we can speed it up via projects, but it's still just me clicking "next turn" until the colony ship reaches its destination. I thought SVs were fine when they ended with the Mars Mission.

Back when Rise and Fall was introduced, an idea came to me that maybe they were using the moments as a test run for a future victory condition. I don't know what it would be called, but it would be for the civ that accomplished the most glorious deeds, or became the "best" overall instead of just satisfying one of the victory conditions at the end. My ideas were fuzzy at best, but perhaps you'd get credit for defeating another civ, or for being the first to different techs, or ruling a population that really really loves you. Maybe many wouldn't like the idea but I imagined it as being more of an overall generalist victory condition, building the best possible civ instead of narrowing your focus to one of the traditional routes midgame (which should still be possible and probably "easier").

I know there's always score victory but that doesn't really do it for me. You should be able to pass a certain threshold (and have more things counted in the tally) and win before the end.

 

[oSiyeza]

Back when Rise and Fall was introduced, an idea came to me that maybe they were using the moments as a test run for a future victory condition. I don't know what it would be called, but it would be for the civ that accomplished the most glorious deeds, or became the "best" overall instead of just satisfying one of the victory conditions at the end. My ideas were fuzzy at best, but perhaps you'd get credit for defeating another civ, or for being the first to different techs, or ruling a population that really really loves you. Maybe many wouldn't like the idea but I imagined it as being more of an overall generalist victory condition, building the best possible civ instead of narrowing your focus to one of the traditional routes midgame (which should still be possible and probably "easier").

I know there's always score victory but that doesn't really do it for me. You should be able to pass a certain threshold (and have more things counted in the tally) and win before the end.

I think you could implement that by adding up era scores. They count pretty how much impact will a civ have in history.

 

[Buktu]

I feel the same way about the new Science Victory. Yes, we can speed it up via projects, but it's still just me clicking "next turn" until the colony ship reaches its destination. I thought SVs were fine when they ended with the Mars Mission.

My best guess is they changed SV so the future techs they added have any importance at all. You don't need them for a CV or RV. Also there is limited importance for domination since only the GDR promotions are in the future era. For diplo you can get 1 victory point and that's it.

 

[Onii-chan]

No news yet on around when Ethiopia is scheduled to come out? If they want to have some time for previews/trailer/hype building etc prior to release then it has to be very soon seeing as it's supposed to be out in July

 

[Kwami]

No news yet on around when Ethiopia is scheduled to come out? If they want to have some time for previews/trailer/hype building etc prior to release then it has to be very soon seeing as it's supposed to be out in July

I'm sure that it will come out on July 20-something and that we'll get a preview 5-7 days before then. Like always.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

It's purely speculation that the new leader will be a dual leader, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did do that. Even if it is a dual leader, like Kublai Khan for both China and Mongolia, I would presume you still need R&F to play as him for China if he were to get loyalty bonuses in his ability etc.
Then again Kublai Khan could just end up being a Mongolia leader.

If that were the case, under a strict construction of "require," Mongo-Kublai requires R&F, but Sino-Kublai requires either R&F or GS. I.e., Kublai requires either R&F or GS to be playable, he's just less playable if you have GS. So if that scenario were the case, the most correct way to describe it would be "requires R&F or GS".

Again, I suspect this could just be poor verbage on the part of Firaxis. But construed as literally as possible, what it says it that the leader leads only civ(s) from R&F.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If that were the case, under a strict construction of "require," Mongo-Kublai requires R&F, but Sino-Kublai requires either R&F or GS. I.e., Kublai requires either R&F or GS to be playable, he's just less playable if you have GS. So if that scenario were the case, the most correct way to describe it would be "requires R&F or GS".

The only thing is Mongolia came in R&F. For those that bought GS, but not R&F, Mongolia presumably wouldn't be playable.

I think the same could be said about Eleanor who wouldn't be compatible with Vanilla France or England because of her loyalty ability if that makes any sense.
That's why I presume if Kublai were to lead China you would still need R&F anyway, which is what the marketing says.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The only thing is Mongolia came in R&F. For those that bought GS, but not R&F, Mongolia presumably wouldn't be playable.

Exactly. But he would be playable for China, and that's still technically new content.

I think the same could be said about Eleanor who wouldn't be compatible with Vanilla France or England because of her loyalty ability if that makes any sense.
That's why I presume if Kublai were to lead China you would still need R&F anyway, which is what the marketing says.

The problem is that it's hard comparing to Eleanor because we haven't had vague content descriptors like this before. But if Kublai had loyalty abilities or some other mechanics, he actually would be better described as requiring "R&F or GS", not just R&F, because even having GS would still make Kublai-with-loyalty playable for China, even if he still couldn't be used for Mongolia without R&F.

I'm presuming for my personal hope that it's just poor verbage and what they mean is the new leader requires R&F to be fully utilized.

 

[AvianBritish]

I think the wording suggests that to access *all* of the new content, you need R&F. Sure you can access some of it as advertised, but not all of it. So I still think Eleanor-esk leaders will still apply if one civ is vanilla and the other is R&F.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I also think you're a little overreacting over a simple word.

FXS is well-known for its poor communication skills. It's not only about the long silent times we can have, but everytime they actually talk, it's sometimes done so poorly that we still have questions about the real meaning of their communication, and we have to wait for the game release to truly have all the information.

Their only good communication skill is about giving us clues to guess the next First Look during the months preceding a Expansion release, like they did for GS (which was the most fun game I had for a long time). But besides that, after each communication, we have endless debates about what they truly meant by this or this.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I also think you're a little overreacting over a simple word.

FXS is well-known for its poor communication skills. It's not only about the long silent times we can have, but everytime they actually talk, it's sometimes done so poorly that we still have questions about the real meaning of their communication, and we have to wait for the game release to truly have all the information.

Their only good communication skill is about giving us clues to guess the next First Look during the months preceding a Expansion release, like they did for GS (which was the most fun game I had for a long time). But besides that, after each communication, we have endless debates about what they truly meant by this or this.

No big companies are good at communication these days

 

[shaglio]

If that is the case; I don't see why there can't be some different rules for MP vs SP. It's clear the game works differently when you are playing against humans not the AI.

If World of Warcraft can have abilities act differently in PvE vs. PvP, there's no reason Civ 6 can't do the same.