I still think supervillain leaders could actually work, in the right context. I don't think a lot of us first world cultures would be offended as long as (a) we still had "good leader options" and (b) probably released the villains as a pack so as not to single anyone out. I think it's an honest depiction of history to associate imperialism with villainy. And I think a lot of players would love setting up scenarios with them.
I'm...dubious it will happen in VII, if the game is structured how I think it will be structured. Alt personae may be the closest we come to that.
I don't disagree America out is a possibility. I would however like to mention that it is a huge market which would voice its extreme displeasure if an American company thought it wise to leave America out.
The story of its(7) release would change. We wouldn't hear the end of it for quite some time. If they did indeed go that route, I hope they're ready for it. The angry youtube videos(in English, a widely understood language) are already going to be forthcoming regardless, but imagine the scale if that many native speakers are angered quite like that. They'd risk the formation of both good and bad faith narratives that plague their franchise from that point forward.
I have to believe they put America in simply because it's so obvious that such a major controversy is not to their financial interest.
This format does lend itself to a lot more edge lord modding. I could see a modern Rhodesia civ being a thing quite quickly, or a Palestine civ with a Benjamin Netanyahu leader. I think this will game has the capacity to test modern sensibilities a bit, and some hate bait capacity to spread on social media.
EU4 maps get used in news coverage, history lessons and propaganda already, I can already see "Vladimir Putin rules Ukraine" showing up on RT
This format does lend itself to a lot more edge lord modding. I could see a modern Rhodesia civ being a thing quite quickly, or a Palestine civ with a Benjamin Netanyahu leader. I think this will game has the capacity to test modern sensibilities a bit, and some hate bait capacity to spread on social media.
EU4 maps get used in news coverage, history lessons and propaganda already, I can already see "Vladimir Putin rules Ukraine" showing up on RT
Well it also makes designing/balancing civs much easier, because you don't have to care about how they balance into the other two eras, or against the full civ roster. You already know the "era" you want to assign uniques to (you're already in the era), and it just, to use a phrase used in the Pax Australia stream, creates a more efficient "pipeline" both for devs and modders.
Put another way, 3-era model can very comfortably accommodate production, unique design, and balancing of, well, 3 times as many civs.
Well it also makes designing/balancing civs much easier, because you don't have to care about how they balance into the other two eras, or against the full civ roster. You already know the "era" you want to assign uniques to (you're already in the era), and it just, to use a phrase used in the Pax Australia stream, creates a more efficient "pipeline" both for devs and modders.
Put another way, 3-era model can very comfortably accommodate production, unique design, and balancing of, well, 3 times as many civs.
I disagree on the balance, I think its going to lead to monstrously unbalanced meta with obvious synergies that romp through even harder difficulties. Firaxis aren't balancing civs in an era in isolation (or they shouldn't be if balance is something they care about!)
I disagree on the balance, I think its going to lead to monstrously unbalanced meta with obvious synergies that romp through even harder difficulties. Firaxis aren't balancing civs in an era in isolation (or they shouldn't be if balance is something they care about!)
They may be taking a smash bros approach. Just make each civ distinct with some reasonable attempts not to make anything too powerful. And then let the players be the testers to see where some civs need to be nerfed and some need to be buffed.
That seems to be the fairest approach for games with large rosters. Plus rebalancing is just another way to engage with the fanbase regularly, it's actually not that unhealthy for large-roster MP games.
I don't think it will affect solo play much no matter how many civs are in the game. It never did in prior civ games lol, just resulted in even more snowballing and yield porn.
If I were to guess which of the 5 strong possibilities for modern age is out, I would pick Germany, and then it being the focus of one of the two post release packs giving it a full line and alternative possibilities. One reason is that it doesn't have a very good path so far, and that it would make sense for one of those to add some of the extra miles to all ages in Europe that they didn't put on the base game to not have too much of europe in the base game (and have a more varied base to support possible additions later.)
Not necessarily. For example, a Minoan City List can be made that approximates the original Minoan titles for the cities, because any 'Greek' city that ends in 'os' is pre-Greek. So, on Crete, Knossos could still be the Minoan capital. A careful study of Mycenean words suggests many that may have been borrowed from Linear A/Minoan, so there's another source for more accurate terms.
Finally, Crete's civilization was written about by others in languages we can read. In addition to Mycenean/Early Greek, it is referred to from the 18th century BCE in Syria as Captara, in the Jewish Old testament as Capthor, and in Egyptian as Keftiu, which has been suggested as at least close to the Cretan name for their own island or themselves.
Certainly not as easy as just looking at a modern gazeteer, but not impossible to approximate the level of detail needed for a Civ construct.
The real problem is how to differentiate them from any Phoenician or Punic (Carthage) Civ. Naval oriented, trade oriented, religious sailers - how do you make their peculiar form of bull fighting/dancing and exceptional art work into useful Civ Uniques?
Moving this from the Mississippian discussion...I agree they're treading on Phoenicia's toes, though I do think they have an obvious unique building in the Labyrinth. The Palace at Knossos would be a reasonable associated wonder, as well.
Given that Red Fort is a more specific representation of Mughal heritage via Persian and Hindu heritage, I would probably guess that is the Mughal-associated wonder and Taj is the unassociated "universal" wonder.
Also, given the "layering" these civ wonders seem to be suggesting, we can't really know for certain if Borobudur is Srivijaya (likely a universal placeholder) in antiquity, or Majapahit in exploration. The Majapahit could feasibly have a different wonder, although I put the odds at about 50/50 since Borobudur kind of rides the line. Maybe a bit less because I think it fits very nicely as the "SEA rep" alongside a starting "universal wonder" list of, approximately: Mausoleum of Theodoric (west Med), Colossus of Rhodes (east Med), Petra (Middle East), Nalanda (India), Terracotta Army (China), Ha'amonga 'a Maui (Polynesia) (and then Dur and Gardens which are likely our Crossroads wonders). But since your chart isn't designed to distinguish that I think it's fine as it is.
On that regard, we are pretty certain the Indonesian civ (be it Srivijaya, or more likely Majapahit, or simple Java) is a Exploration civ. In the Switch trailer the diplomacy screen that shows the symbol behind Himiko also have Ben Franklin in front of the Normandy symbol
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.