[NFP] Ethiopia Update Discussion Thread

[Wielki Hegemon]

Honestly guys I don't know what this discussion is about?
Some of us just don't like the idea of fantasy elements in a game and do not want to rationalize Vampires with role-playing. Those people just want straight historically realistic features in a game. You may like it or not, you may agree with it or not, but that's the way it is.
On the other hand, some of us don't bother and are ok with vampires and more freedom with the design space. Again you may like it or not, you may agree with it or not, but that's the way it is.

This forum gives us an opportunity to express our expectations and emotions, not to argue if they are good or bad, proper or improper.

As for me and vampires. The world is not black and white. I would love Secret Societies (sorry but matching "love" with SS shortcut is not proper ) to be more "realistic", I would like assassins more than vampires, even with their castles (Isma'ili Fortresses) and teleport mechanic. Perhaps demonologists and Satanists would be better than Cthulu, perhaps Owls of Minerva should be more straightforward Illuminati and perhaps lay-lines should be just ruins of ancient pre-deluge civilizations. Is it the border of my "tolerance" that is crossed at this point. Rather not. Is that mean my feedback to Firaxis is "ok, green light for fantasy" now get on with Atlantis Civilization, zombies in a base game, and mummies as Egyptian UU? Hell no! I will not make a drama over vampires (i will play SS for sure), but I just want to say this is not a way I am 100% ok with. And again its neither good nor bad. just my personal feelings about it.

EDIT and last words. Putting more "fantasy" in a free standalone in-games like Red Death, or vampires in an optional game mode outside of a more conservative core game is a good compromise.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As for me and vampires. The world is not black and white. I would love Secret Societies (sorry but matching "love" with SS shortcut is not proper ) to be more "realistic", I would like assassins more than vampires, even with their castles (Isma'ili Fortresses) and teleport mechanic. Perhaps demonologists and Satanists would be better than Cthulu, perhaps Owls of Minerva should be more straightforward Illuminati and perhaps lay-lines should be just ruins of ancient pre-deluge civilizations. Is it the border of my "tolerance" that is crossed at this point. Rather not. Is that means my feedback to Firaxis is "ok, green light for fantasy" now get on with Atlantis Civilization, zombies in a base game, and mummies as Egyptian UU? Hell no! I will not make a drama over vampires (i will play SS for sure), but I just want to say this is not a way I am 100% ok with. And again its neither good nor bad. just my personal feelings about it.

This I can understand.
The fact of the matter is even though there are parts of Secret Societies that is fantasy based, they could have gone way more into it with the vampire unit turning into a bat and feeding off of blood animation, the cultists spawning Cthulu etc. but I'm glad they didn't. They released just enough to justify it getting into the game for me.
At least with the castle we now have Gothic architecture in the game.
Besides I'm pretty sure they've gotten all of the "fantasy" game modes out of the way now so I'm looking forward to more historical game modes.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Not to mention you evangelize by throwing thunder and lighting at opposite religion.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's just an abstraction of the action of evengelizing, because if not it would be visually extremely boring and this kind of abstraction is fairly easy to do. Easier, apparently, that accepting that some aristocrat would have castles with subterran infrastructures to communicate easily between them, with good moves to escape a fight just before they're killed, that have some gore fascination for blood and calling themselves "vampires", smh.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's just an abstraction of the action of evengelizing, because if not it would be visually extremely boring and this kind of abstraction is fairly easy to do.

Unless you are waiting for the Statue of Zeus wonder to appear and building it would make your religious combat/regular combat stronger.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

What I meant is for some of us vampires are justified as you have mentioned, for some of us nothing can justify vampires in Civ

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What I meant is for some of us vampires are justified as you have mentioned, for some of us nothing can justify vampires in Civ

I wouldn't have minded Vlad Tepes leading Romania in the game. This is probably the closest I'll get, so I'll take it.
I'm still looking forward to the more historical game modes as well.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I wouldn't have minded Vlad Tepes leading Romania in the game. This is probably the closest I'll get, so I'll take it.
I'm still looking forward to the more historical game modes as well.

And it's ok if you like it!
But please do not use argument they are objectively justified because the Statue of Zeus gives a boost for something. For some people, they are not justified. There is no one good objective measure for all that can say Vampires as they are ok, but mummies are not. Everyone has their own definition and their own measures

 

[sonicmyst]

I do not have issues with these fantastical elements. (Although I cringe at the sight of bermuda triangle with its teleport mechanic tbh). What I am more worried about is whether these modes will make diplomatic victory much easier (imagine if Apocalypse Mode with its Aid-fest is combined with SS Mode with some more tweaks to diplomatic favors), or will there be civs that will be so OP it felt like it is broken.

 

[tedhebert]

I certainly minded those as well, but that's a pretty disingenuous comparison, isn't it? Red Death is a separate scenario entirely, compared to Secret Societies being something that can be toggled for 'normal' games. That's like wondering why people would be fine with a mythological scenario but not a made-up Civ like Atlanteans or Native America -- the reality is that people don't usually take scenarios that seriously, particularly ones that are openly designed to cash in on relevant gaming trends like Battle Royale modes. Many people probably don't even touch scenarios at all. Something that's present in the 'main game' is much more likely to be interacted with, and therefore it will probably be held to a higher standard -- in the same way that I have higher expectations for the cook than the janitor from the same restaurant when it comes to their abilities to prepare food. And sure, you can toggle this content off, but (a) you can also toggle DLC civs off by just disabling their DLC (hi Australia), and (b) I'm still forced to pay for it if it comes with Civs I actually want.

While I appreciate your arguments, and the way your present them, I will have to still disagree.

To me, there is not a big difference between a scenario and a game mode. Both aren't mandatory, if you don't like them, both can be turned off. In the cases we're talking about, both are stuff that are included in NFP and so can be argued we 'paid for'.

Personally, I see games modes in the same light as I see scenarios, TSL Maps, alternate leaders, or even multiplayer as a matter of fact (Edit: I'll even add MUSIC here... I always play with sounds off, so I don't care about it... but other people do...A LOT); They're options I don't have to use, that are important and meaningful to some other players, so I'm quite allright with seeing them included as I feel they enrich the global value of the product, even if I don't intend or expect to use them. In the case of Apocalypse, I tried it once and will most likely never use it again. I feel Secret Society will become a staple for me and always be set to ON, but still reserve judgement on it until I actually get a chance to try it.

As for the value of the NFP pass, I also will reserve opinion until I get to know the entire content of what will be delivered. they have clearly stated that the first 2 of 6 DLC in NFP will be more fantastical and the 4 last one more historical in content. So my belief is that, in the end, everyone will get something that fits THEIR tastes,

Will it be good enough in the end. Wait and see. I'm again certain that some will be extremely negative, and some will be ecstatic. That's the nature of the beast I guess.

In my case, I'm extremely happy that this 4 year old game that I love is still getting some attention from the dev, and I am fortunate that I'm able to buy everything they come up without worrying about the expense.

can't wait for this DLC... Have fun with it everyone, this is supposed to be a happy aspect of this damnable 2020

 

[darkace77450]

For me, governors, while a good idea, where very poorly bad designed. Good mechanics, but design? Terrible. Everybody talked about it: before we only had our eternal immortal leaders that asked some level of abstraction some people don't like; now we had seven immortals governors that aren't only eternal but also appears to have the power to be at twelve differences places at the same time.

But this design excepted, I don't think we need more governers. The seven we have already cover mostly what's important and seems to be linked to the seven Social Policies trees of Civ V:

• Liang - city planning and districts - Tradition
• Magnus - production and expansion - Liberty
• Victor - defense and warfare - Honnor
• Moksha- religion and faith - Piety
• Amani - diplomaty, loyalty and city-States - Patronage
• Reyna - trade, economy, gold and features - Commerce
• Pingala - science, culture and tourism - Rationalism

Maybe two new governors could be interesting only to fit the two new SPT in BNW: Aesthetics and Exploration. But I doubt it because Exploration is already covered by Pingala and Reyna and Aesthetics is completely covered by Pingala.

Also, there was something I really like in the first version of R&F was that the governors, while kind of specialized, still had some sort of generalization. Reyna was the Financiary, but she also had bonuses to artifacts and museums; Pingala was the nerd of the group but he could also speed up nukes... All made sense but you really had to manage your governors.

Now it's too simple. "I have a high science/culture city" => Pingala. "I want production and food" => Magnus. "It's a Holy City" => Moksha. The game is already telling you which governor to take for each city. There is not enough diversity I think.

So having more governors would only make them too specialized and just make us lost in this screen (even if I'm curious which kind of governors you'd want).

Regarding immersion, abstraction permeates too much of the game for me to be bothered by multiple Amanis being parked in the same city-state. As to unfilled niches, I think there's room for a coastal/naval-focused governor (or Exploration inspired, if we're drawing Civ5 parallels). They could also add a governor who enhances specialists, which is something I think the game would benefit from.

@acluewithout 's idea is an interesting one too. If we had mutually exclusive ideological governors unlocked with Tier 3 Governments then we could have governors representing Freedom, Order, and Autocracy. These could play with Loyalty in ways that emulate Civ5's ideological pressure and add some much-needed decision making to the late game.

 

[Revanchist]

I for one would love vlad, but with him leading wallachia instead. He was one of the few to scare the piss out of the Ottomans after their early expansions, and he was a great military leader. Also, seeing him in a game mode with matthias would be cool

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But please do not use argument they are objectively justified because the Statue of Zeus gives a boost for something. For some people, they are not justified.

Well I wish the Statue of Zeus did give me something. That way it would be in the game.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well I wish the Statue of Zeus did give me something. That way it would be in the game.

I'm thinking that it acts as a city walls with a range of like 30. That way you can just lightning bolt zap people whenever you want.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm thinking that it acts as a city walls with a range of like 30. That way you can just lightning bolt zap people whenever you want.

So an Ancient Era wonder, similar to a missile silo, that Gandhi would always try to go for?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Firaxis is hardly known for it's awesome communications efforts.

They read this, reddit, discord as well as replies on facebook, twitter and instagram, and a TON of the new civs in civ 6 are ones which fans asked for.

Secret Societies - oh dear! For me, when I saw this I was excited to see things like the Knights Templar or other orders/organisations throughout history who have meddled behind the scenes. This though is not what I wanted and will now join GDRs, Red Death, and Apocalypse mode as parts of the game I am not happy with. GDR's are something I can mod out, but that misses the point of my disappointment. There are so many aspects of the game that could do with further polish, balancing etc that spending resources on fantasy stuff in a game which is by far mostly historical is really not gelling well with me. I've read people say fantasy has been there in the past - yup, in a minor way, and I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. If I want to do fantasy in CIV there are some very dedicated modders who do a great job at this without costing a cent to the community. Yes I can switch them off, but I still am paying for it, right? Moreso, as I inferred, it's not that SS or Apocalypse mode or even Red Death were bad ideas before the detail was given. Apocalypse mode could have been an opportunity to improve on the disaster system, instead now I not only don't get that improvement, I have this dead space (i.e they have not added to the game for me) in the game I love. Red Death, I thought might have been introducing epidemics and pandemics to the game - could have introduced a quarantine mechanic etc. It's been such a huge part of human history, the game begged for it in a certain sense. It could have made trade & combat more interesting. Secret Societies could have had costs associated with adopting them, so they weren't just bonuses.They could effect relations in similar ways spies do, but hey - why not include an overhaul of spies with secret societies? I'm really happy for those people who are looking forward to these things, but for me it's time to wait for modders to make them more appealing to me.

The Game Modes were built to be optional. I don’t like the argument ppl make saying ‘We paid for it so it should appeal to us’ because if the goal was to make a game mode which everyone would like or play, they wouldn’t have made it toggle-able. They also said that they’d do a mix of realistic and unrealistic game modes to both mix it up, make it fun, and appeal to what different audiences want. This game mode might not be the most historically accurate, but it’s not terribly unrealistic either. Furthermore, it looks incredibly fun in terms of mechanics and mixes it up. They said this specific game mode would be fantasy ahead of time and that the next game modes will be historical, so it’s not a big deal imo.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's just an abstraction of the action of evengelizing, because if not it would be visually extremely boring and this kind of abstraction is fairly easy to do. Easier, apparently, that accepting that some aristocrat would have castles with subterran infrastructures to communicate easily between them, with good moves to escape a fight just before they're killed, that have some gore fascination for blood and calling themselves "vampires", smh.

Civ has always been big on abstraction. The theological combat is quite obviously a visual abstraction for debates, while the eternal leaders obviously aren’t literally immortal leaders but rather the legacies or values of leaders who left a delible impact on their countries or the world. Likewise, envoys are currency representing diplomatic closeness, governors are essentially abstract, personified policies being implemented in certain cities. Units are hundreds of times larger than they should be, and are abstract in that regard as well.

 

[Zaimejs]

I know this has been talked about to death, but I just had to join in the chimes of WTF? Vampires? There are so many cool secret societies that do not need vampires to be cool. Bilderbergs? Huge financial bonuses... Illuminati? Any of those kinds of things. Political and economic power to rule the world. I sure wish they would make the world congress have options that you can pick like in Civ V. I hate the random crappy choices and limited ideas that they have. I want to sanction people for attacking city states.

Vampires?

 

[Ezumiyr]

Honestly guys I don't know what this discussion is about?
Some of us just don't like the idea of fantasy elements in a game and do not want to rationalize Vampires with role-playing. Those people just want straight historically realistic features in a game. You may like it or not, you may agree with it or not, but that's the way it is.
On the other hand, some of us don't bother and are ok with vampires and more freedom with the design space. Again you may like it or not, you may agree with it or not, but that's the way it is.

Then they shouldn't play Civilization, because nothing about this game is historical.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Or maybe people want Vlad Tepes because he was an interesting historical figure and a capable leader of an area not yet represented in the series. One of the greatest leaders? Nah. Better than some already in the series? Surely. Not quite sure what makes it a "stupid" request on its own. I'm fairly certain Vlad is more well known for his work as an impaler than a vampire besides. People from Romanians have to be getting pretty tired of the vampire references themselves and it would be a pretty shallow view of their culture to include fictional vampires as any sort of representation for them.

The vampire mythos and the impaling are often quite intertwined, and make up the bulk of Vlad's intrigue; beyond that he really wasn't that "interesting." And I don't find either very compelling, personally, since the impaling is just a slightly more accurate flavor of morbidity and terror that attracts the same sort of vampire fanatics. To what degree his monstrosity was fictionalized doesn't matter much when it's still the only thing he was known for.

Also, given that we have had three years without a single civ that wasn't imperialist or expansionist, I think it somewhat deluded to believe that the devs would go for Wallachia/Romania over Bulgaria or even Serbia or Albania, civs which were actually empires and had massive regional influence. That Romania has a poor history of unification, being constantly fragmented and controlled by its neighbors, and was never unified under Vlad...it's all so much stretching to try to elevate Romania to something it never was just because people have a fetish for impaling--a concept, I might add, which would not translate visually or mechanically into any civ design, and if it could, would be avoided by the developers because this is a game for all ages.

Maybe in a future civ game where we see smaller kingdoms like Ireland, Switzerland, Bohemia, Finland get a chance, I would think Romania might have a chance to shine. But that hasn't happened yet, and I would still prioritize all of those civs before Romania because they still have a stronger history of political and cultural unification and aren't resting on a single, dumb impaling gimmick.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I know this has been talked about to death

And somehow it keeps on being resurrected, like Vampires. I couldn't resist that joke.

There are so many cool secret societies that do not need vampires to be cool. Bilderbergs? Huge financial bonuses... Illuminati? Any of those kinds of things. Political and economic power to rule the world.

You are basically describing the Owls of Minerva, which are effectively the Illuminati of the game.

 

[Revanchist]

They could have called the vampires bloodletters and there would be 90% less outrage