Civs old and new

[Abaxial]

I find it curious the way some parts of the world are represented by tribes that really were around when the game starts, and others by modern nations. Thus there is Australia (modern) but no New Zealand (represented by Maori - ancient). In Latin America we have the Aztecs, the Incas and Mapuche, but no Mexico, Peru or Chile, yet we do have Brazil.

There's always something slightly weird about Canadian spearmen and Maori battleships! Which is the most unsettling anachronism?

 

[Chefofrats]

Which is the most unsettling anachronism?

Would that not be your post?

To be honest, this has been discussed so many times there seems to be no point to go over this again. The bottom line is, the game is about historical fantasy, not recreating actual world history.

 

[Victoria]

Which is the most unsettling anachronism?

Aztecs in 4000 BC I struggle with as much as anything else.
It does not even have to be anachronistic like a Zulu frigate is timely although feels weird.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Any Civ with a GDR besides Japan and America, although Korea is OK.

But seriously I don’t find anything odd because the game has been like this from the beginning.

Many of those “ancient” Civs you mentioned weren’t around at 4000 B.C. anyway, though their technology could be considered more primitive compared to other parts of the world at that time.

 

[Socrates99]

Isn't that kind of the point? To pit civs that had golden eras at different times and places against each other on the same blank slate? I'm confused, what's the criticism here?

 

[Icicle]

To be honest none of the year stuff bothers me nearly as much as labels that are relative to nothing.

North America. What are you north of? Eastern Orthodoxy. East of what? Etc.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be honest none of the year stuff bothers me nearly as much as labels that are relative to nothing.

North America. What are you north of?

South America.

 

[Abaxial]

Isn't that kind of the point? To pit civs that had golden eras at different times and places against each other on the same blank slate? I'm confused, what's the criticism here?

No criticism, just bemusement. It was the advent of the Maori rather than New Zealand that made it stand out for me.

 

[Icicle]

South America.

Not on a map where there is no South America.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not on a map where there is no South America.

Oh, I understand your statement now.

Still its fine as they have to have a list of names for continents and religions somehow.

 

[kryat]

East of what? Etc.

Everything... eventually....

 

[rockhpi]

It's not something I worry excessively about but I'd say I'd prefer all the Civs to be Rome or older. Long ago - was it Civ 2 or 3? - you could have a civil war or revolt and if successful it would turn into a new civ - I think that's how America, Australia, Canada, etc. should be handled.

For other unpopular opinions, I think a civ should actually have some sort of empire or global dominance to be in the game. I find the Canadians, Scots, etc. to be strange choices for Civs. But these are all minor quibbles. I'm mostly happy with this aspect of the game.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Here are the things that give me pause...

-you'll accept 6 gold for a silver? Someone else should be handling your finances.

-any society that adds more housing, or places for people to live, by adding sewers, is a society I don't want to live in.

-This tile has fish, so it gives a lot of food; that tile has crabs, so it gives some food. But this tile has no seafood at all, so what are people eating? And...

-...why does this area with fish in it produce more food after building a lighthouse?

-tank operators learn skills more quickly if they are trained with access to a horse stable. Similarly...

-this gallant knight has ruled the battlefield with heavy edged weapons upon his steed - and those skills transfer seamlessly to operating a tank. And that guy who's good at firing a gun from horseback? His skills will definitely help him fly that chopper.

-firing wooden arrows at that ironclad is effective.

-building a place where boats are built and repaired (a shipyard) can help me recruit infantry more quickly, or erect a theater.

-These two men (great generals) are so inspirational that I can now run as fast as a horse!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

-any society that adds more housing, or places for people to live, by adding sewers, is a society I don't want to live in.

It's not suppose to imply that the people actually live in the sewers, but adequate sanitation and making modern accommodations in those cities would allow more people to live there.

 

[The googles do nothing]

hich is the most unsettling anachronism?

For me it's the reverse - because of the anachronisms I don't really associate the civ's with a real country. I notice the anachronisms more when i''m reading something historical and notice how different civ its.

 

[TomKQT]

any society that adds more housing, or places for people to live, by adding sewers, is a society I don't want to live in

Housing in Civ6 is a complex number that describes how many people can live in that city and still reasonably prosper (have children etc.). Sewers help to make the place more healthy, so it absolutely fits the mechanics.

-This tile has fish, so it gives a lot of food; that tile has crabs, so it gives some food. But this tile has no seafood at all, so what are people eating? And...

Every coast water tile in Civ6 gives some food, so there are some fish everywhere. The actual "fish" resource (or crab) means that that area is especially rish in fish. Which is completely realistic, isn't it?

-...why does this area with fish in it produce more food after building a lighthouse?

Fishing boats can fish longer/better/faster, because the lighthouse shows them a save way home to the harbor. It doesn't mean that there is more fish on the tile, it just means that you can catch more of them (thus you get more food in the end).

-tank operators learn skills more quickly if they are trained with access to a horse stable. Similarly...
-this gallant knight has ruled the battlefield with heavy edged weapons upon his steed - and those skills transfer seamlessly to operating a tank. And that guy who's good at firing a gun from horseback? His skills will definitely help him fly that chopper.
-firing wooden arrows at that ironclad is effective.

And now you finaly named some really unlogical stuff. But, here comes the unpopular explanation - "gameplay reasons". This is not a simulation. Btw, you can see "barracks" and "stable" as a choice of whether the city specialises in infantry or cavalry. Where cavalry means any kind of cavalry.

-building a place where boats are built and repaired (a shipyard) can help me recruit infantry more quickly, or erect a theater.

Makes the city more industrial, gives people work, attracts other related craftsmen, overall increases the ability of the city to produce something (Plus - gameplay reasons and symbolism.)

 

[Victoria]

Ironclads moving faster than destroyers

 

[incroc]

A modern era French great general.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'd like to you know (other than gameplay obv which should trump all) why you can't grab those natural horse or wheat resources and take them with you wherever you go. I mean, those are two of the basic building blocks of civilization itself. A horse planted on one spot on the map wouldn't be that useful when you think about it.

 

[Victoria]

I'd like to you know ...why you can't grab those natural horse or wheat resources and take them with you wherever you go.

It is the soil not the wheat that grows a grass so sweet.
Wild horses only are in some places, when tamed they are traders, Cavalry and farms. The picture of a horse is the source. Yes it is a gameplay option we cannot shoot them all and build a prison there but that’s called compromises to make the mechanics work.