Do you think the prerquisite civs will change as more fitting civs are released?

[sTAPler27]

Mongolia for example more or less will be expected to slot itself into the Chinese route given it's one of the few East Asian paths. What I'm not sure about is how many "historical choice" options they want each civ to have. Like if they add the Xiongnu to the game will they remove the ease of transitioning from Han into Mongolia in favor of a Xiongnu -> Mongolia route. I mean it makes sense. That being said I still hope we get the option to have civs with multiple evolution paths. Like having the option to go HRE or Byzantium as Rome and then from Byzantium maybe having Russia or the Ottomans as your choice. I get that we already have leaders, civs and gameplay goals that unlock civs but I think it would be cool if the "historical choice" wasn't clear cut given how many civs don't have direct predecessors given how often states split up and join together, each having claims to a shared ancestry.

 

[Archanist]

I definitely think that DLC or Expansions will change civ unlocks as they release. Anything we have at release is just going to be broadly serviceable (which explains the African and American unlocks), then more finely tuned the more civs come out.

 

[untitledjuan]

Also, I think that it was mentioned in some developer livestream that tgerr are multiple "historical paths" that can lead to and from a single civilization.

I imagine that, let's say, Rome has Spain and Normandy as its "historical paths", but Greece changed into Spain, then I guess Rome would take the second option from within its list of available "historical paths".

This "list of historical paths" that every civilizations has will probably keep on expanding and being modified as new DLCs begin appearing.

We might see Rome in the future with Byzantium as part of their "list of historical paths" together with Spain and Normandy.

 

[Archanist]

The only thing I'm not sure of is if they'd remove some paths. Hawaii (as a broad example) could come from some antiquity Oceanic civ, or an antiquity South East Asian civ. Will they remove the unlock for them from Mississipii?

Or if South America gets Brazil and another one modern civ, would Inca not unlock Mexico anymore? (If they will on v1.0)

 

[Krikkit1]

I don’t think they will remove any links… so if Khmer unlocks Hawaii and they add Tonga, then Both Khmer and Tonga will unlock Hawaii.
Different priorities might form… the Romans might unlock Normans and Spain, once they add Byzantium that may be the preferred unlock (although that may depend on the leader rather than the preceding civ)

 

[chaosprophet]

I think it is more like they just add more. A new civ from a dlc is added to progression to and from other civs in the game, without deleting any previous exists paths.

 

[Siptah]

I‘m convinced that no existing unlocks will be removed.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yeh, I think we'll just see a layering of new paths added to those we already have, no point overcomplicating it.

 

[Evie]

I'm convinced of the exact opposite as the last two posters. Existing unlocks will be updated as new civilizations get into the game. Maybe not right at first, as they may be willing to increase the number of paths a little, but there will be a point in the game lifetime where they don't want to let the number of paths grow beyond a certain size, and they will start adjusting paths accordingly.

Variable paths (eg, what paths are available vary depending on which DLC you own) are easily coded enough to make this an option.

 

[evonannoredars]

I expect they'll keep most pre-existing unlocks, but if one civ eventually ends up with, like, five other civs that can unlock it (which I imagine might end up being the case in Europe), I imagine they'd trim it down a little. That being said, the Inca -> Mexico unlock I can see being removed pretty quickly once there's a couple modern South American civs because that's one of the more extreme geographical jumps.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

There will be a point in the game lifetime where they don't want to let the number of paths grow beyond a certain size, and they will start adjusting paths accordingly.

Interested to know why you think that? What's wrong with letting the potential paths grow?

 

[Krikkit1]

I expect they'll keep most pre-existing unlocks, but if one civ eventually ends up with, like, five other civs that can unlock it (which I imagine might end up being the case in Europe), I imagine they'd trim it down a little. That being said, the Inca -> Mexico unlock I can see being removed pretty quickly once there's a couple modern South American civs because that's one of the more extreme geographical jumps.

The problem with that is getting a DLC suddenly removes an option from the player. If I like going Inca-Mexico, Firaxis still wants to sell me the Brazil DLC…so it’s better if that doesn’t remove the option.

 

[Leucarum]

Interested to know why you think that? What's wrong with letting the potential paths grow?

For certain civs it could get out of hand. Rome could arguably unlock most of Europe pretty easily for example. You probably want to exercise some restraint there.

But I don't expect they'll keep the number of paths uniform accross all civs - that would be a logistical nightmare, especially with a slow trickle of civs in smaller packs, so some will end up with more paths and that's fine.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

For certain civs it could get out of hand. Rome could arguably unlock most of Europe pretty easily for example. You probably want to exercise some restraint there.

But I don't expect they'll keep the number of paths uniform accross all civs - that would be a logistical nightmare, especially with a slow trickle of civs in smaller packs, so some will end up with more paths and that's fine.

I don't really see the benefit in exercising restraint, to be honest. In fact, I think it's quite neat that certain civs like Rome offer the player a much greater degree of flexibility. But then, I'm not convinced by having historical paths at all!

 

[Leucarum]

I don't really see the benefit in exercising restraint, to be honest. In fact, I think it's quite neat that certain civs like Rome offer the player a much greater degree of flexibility. But then, I'm not convinced by having historical paths at all!

I'll see your "uncertainty about historic paths" and raise you "uncertainty about civ switching at all."*

I do think historic paths are a can of worms and a free for all might have been better but since they are in, I doubt firaxis will want one civ to unlock everything.

* I'd been getting increasingly down on the available exploration era civ transitions, as I had minimal interest in the civs they were revealing - but it looked like firaxis did save my favourite 2 till last so maybe I'm back on an unswing about civ switching now. Expecting a big dip back down again in modern era civs though given the roster. The rollercoaster ride of being a fanatic...

 

[queenpea]

I'll see your "uncertainty about historic paths" and raise you "uncertainty about civ switching at all."*

I do think historic paths are a can of worms and a free for all might have been better but since they are in, I doubt firaxis will want one civ to unlock everything.

* I'd been getting increasingly down on the available exploration era civ transitions, as I had minimal interest in the civs they were revealing - but it looked like firaxis did save my favourite 2 till last so maybe I'm back on an unswing about civ switching now. Expecting a big dip back down again in modern era civs though given the roster. The rollercoaster ride of being a fanatic...

Which civs were you bummed about, and which ones are you excited for?

 

[Leucarum]

Which civs were you bummed about, and which ones are you excited for?

Less bummed more unenthused. Which made me realise that in previous civ games I have gravitated towards ancient civs and generally the closer to the present day the less I like a civ...

i'd definitely favour having less restrictions on civ transitions as it does look like the number of civs I am interested in will constrict each age. There's 7/10 of the antiquity era civs I'm excited for, but only 3/11 in exploration, and just off vibes, a similar number in modern.

Hawaii and Songhai have me excited. Being fair Shawnee do too, but it was so early on that my excitement faded.

I can't ever see myself picking Normans or Ming. Especially Normans - would you like some blandness to go with your gray?

Chola, Spain and Inca are civs I thought I'd gravitate towards, but the designs didn't grab me as much as I expected. The others I suspected weren't going to be my jam, and probably still aren't.

At the risk of going off more topic - we have enough to revive elimination threads of by era? Would be fun to find out people's opinions.

 

[Evie]

It seems quite self-evident to me that the purpose of the design is (in no small part) to avoid overwhelming players, especially more casual players, with too many civs to chose from. Another purpose is to limit the AI to a predictable paths. Both of these are undone if some civ get more than a handful of historical paths, hence, I expect the number of historical-ish paths each civ has to remain limited.

Given that less casual players who may want to play a specific civilization path that's not allowed by default will likely be able to unlock them via fulfilling certain game requirements, to me that's a best of both worlds scenario: people who risk being overwhelmed by choice, are not, and people who want to take specific paths outside the historical ones, may do so.

Far better design than having some civilizations overstacked with potential paths in the name of historical realism. Let alone having some civilizations overstacked with potential paths in the name of not changing the vanilla paths.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I'll see your "uncertainty about historic paths" and raise you "uncertainty about civ switching at all."*

I do think historic paths are a can of worms and a free for all might have been better but since they are in, I doubt firaxis will want one civ to unlock everything.

I think the whole concept of switching will always be an issue for a considerable group of people.

It's the second point for me, though. A free for all fits better with the whole philosophy of the game imo, I hope they don't limit historical paths just to appease people, I'd rather they stick to their guns if they believe in their idea!

 

[Leucarum]

I think the whole concept of switching will always be an issue for a considerable group of people.

It's a rollercoaster for me. I see exactly why they did it and the advantages it brings, am trying to hold off judgement based on how badly humankind did it, but my innate skeptic keeps on winning out.

It's the second point for me, though. A free for all fits better with the whole philosophy of the game imo, I hope they don't limit historical paths just to appease people, I'd rather they stick to their guns if they believe in their idea!

I think Evie's response above sums up their likely motivations perfectly. It was probably to help not overwhelm new players. The can of worms I think they opened was calling them "historic" rather than say "geographical" or something less loaded.