[R&F] First Look: Robert the Bruce | Scotland

[Goliht]

Everytime I hear that music I think someones getting married.

 

[Draehl]

I was looking forward to Scotland quite a bit- that said I'm a bit bummed they didn't take a more science/financial slant on the civ but instead opted to go science/industrial- especially with Adam Smith being from Scotland and Edinburgh being such a financial hub. That said I like the bonuses given the direction they decided to take, but Bannockburn is pretty meh. Might play them after a new leader is released. So far I'm liking the Cree and Dutch much more. Maybe I'll get my financial fix with either the Inca or Swiss at some point...

 

[KayAU]

Here's my take:

Leader Ability - Bannockburn

• Unlocks War of Liberation at Defensive Tactics
• +100% production and +2 movement for all units during the first 10 turns after declaring a War of Liberation

This is situational, but potentially powerful. It is also potentially something which could be abused, by declaring war without making any effort to capture the city in question, just to get the production and movement.

A nice ability, although I am not hugely excited about an ability which requires me to go to war.


Civilization Ability - Scottish Enlightenment

• Happy cities get +5% science and +5% production, +1 Great Scientist point per Campus and +1 Great Engineer point per Industrial Zone
• Ecstatic cities get +10% science and +10% production, +2 Great Scientist points per Campus and +2 Great Engineer points per Industrial Zone

Now this is very interesting. Initially, I thought it encourages taller play, and to some degree, I still think so. At the very least, it will enable you to do more with fewer cities. Of course, you can still go fairly wide and get cities up to happy or even ecstatic. This is possible today, and will be even more possible with the Golf Course improvement, and the new Water Park district, which stacks with the Entertainment district. Still, playing as Scotland, you will probably pay more attention to happiness.

A powerful ability, I think.


Unique Infrastructure - Golf Course (tile improvement)

• +1 Amenity
• +2 Gold
• +1 Culture if adjacent to City Center
• +1 Culture if adjacent to Entertainment district

The tile yields are not great, but this sure seems like a very quick and easy way to solve amenity issues in a city. I assume you will get the amenity without working the tile. It synergizes very well with the civilization ability.

I like it.


Unique Unit - Highlander

• Replaces Ranger
• 65 Ranged strength (vs. 60 for Ranger)
• 50 Melee strength (vs. 45 for Ranger)
• +5 strength in Hills or Forests

I am not sure about this one. I rarely use many Scouts or Rangers in my games. I may rethink that when playing Rise and Fall, as they can now be upgraded to Spec Ops, which seems like a somewhat useful unit in the late game. I still don't think it will be a very significant part of my army, though.

Perhaps there will only be one.


Overall, this seems like a good civ, fairly powerful, nicely flavored. My favorite ability is Scottish Enlightenment, which might change the way I play, as I happiness becomes a bigger concern. I also love the outfit Robert is wearing, the red lion on gold is glorious. He reminds me of the Lego figures of my childhood.

 

[StrideColossus]

I am not sure about this one. I rarely use many Scouts or Rangers in my games. I may rethink that when playing Rise and Fall, as they can now be upgraded to Spec Ops, which seems like a somewhat useful unit in the late game. I still don't think it will be a very significant part of my army, though.

Agreed, I doubt many people build more than a couple of scouting units in any civ game, and they generally get automated/killed once the early map has been scouted for goody huts. However for the Scots I think that would have to change, I can imagine building a small army of these guys later in the game - imagine upgraded Highlanders with the Camoflage promotion (essentially invisible) and the other one that allows you to move after attacking (name escapes me), you'd be able to decimate contemporary melee units such as musketman, infantry and probably even Mech Infrantry! and then melt away into the forests, cool.

Still not convinced by Golf Courses mind.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Agreed, I doubt many people build more than a couple of scouting units in any civ game, and they generally get automated/killed once the early map has been scouted for goody huts. However for the Scots I think that would have to change, I can imagine building a small army of these guys later in the game - imagine upgraded Highlanders with the Camoflage promotion (essentially invisible) and the other one that allows you to move after attacking (name escapes me), you'd be able to decimate contemporary melee units such as musketman, infantry and probably even Mech Infrantry! and then melt away into the forests, cool.

Still not convinced by Golf Courses mind.

And then you upgrade them into a super strong Spec Ops.

 

[God of Kings]

And then you upgrade them into a super strong Spec Ops.

The Cree and Scotland both have the potential for strongest Spec Ops.

 

[empresskiova]

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!

The Gold Course is silly, but the Highlanders make up for it.

 

[God of Kings]

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungi_Creole

The Bungi would make the ultimate Spec Ops: being descended from both the unique Cree scout and the Scottish Highlander.

 

[CivLuvah]

Scots are Brits, by definition.

All Scots are Brits, but not all Brits are Scots, by any measure.

Don't forget that there are Scots who see themselves as more British than Scottish and vice versa.

@Republic of San Montuoso I'd replace "Brits" with "English" and I understand what you mean.

 

[Uberfrog]

The Cree and Scotland both have the potential for strongest Spec Ops.

Don't forget that unique units lose all their uniqueness when they're upgraded. The only advantage an Okichitaw Spec-Ops unit will have over any other is the extra promotion (and, having been around longer, more EXP anyway).

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Don't forget that there are Scots who see themselves as more British than Scottish and vice versa.

@Republic of San Montuoso I'd replace "Brits" with "English" and I understand what you mean.

I know, I know, I made a terrible mistake. I was thinking "English", not "Brits", but my fingers are dumber than me.

For repentance, I will play a game with Kongo with only religious victory enabled as punishment (yes, Im that bad...)

 

[KayAU]

The Cree and Scotland both have the potential for strongest Spec Ops.

Yes, this could be interesting. I think I like the Cree Scout replacement better though, as it comes into play earlier, and should be easier to get a few upgrades for. It could also hit the timing for Terracotta Army. On the other hand, the Highlander may be a good enough combat unit to hard build a few and take into battle when they become available.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yes, this could be interesting. I think I like the Cree Scout replacement better though, as it comes into play earlier, and should be easier to get a few upgrades for. It could also hit the timing for Terracotta Army. On the other hand, the Highlander may be a good enough combat unit to hard build a few and take into battle when they become available.

The one advantage of having such a huge gap between Scouts and Rangers is that you can quickly build a bunch of Scouts just before completing Rifling and spend Gold to upgrade to Highlanders.

 

[Uberfrog]

The one advantage of having such a huge gap between Scouts and Rangers is that you can quickly build a bunch of Scouts just before completing Rifling and spend Gold to upgrade to Highlanders.

This is true, but I think I'd rather the gap was plugged. I think an Explorer unit available at Cartography to coincide with Caravels would be quite nice. It's odd that since Civ IV the midgame Recon line has been rather neglected, especially considering this is the Age of Exploration. It can then transition nicely into the more guerilla-focussed Ranger and Spec-Ops late game (especially with the later Recon promotions).

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I know, I know, I made a terrible mistake. I was thinking "English", not "Brits", but my fingers are dumber than me.

For repentance, I will play a game with Kongo with only religious victory enabled as punishment (yes, Im that bad...)

Also I know a Scot who drinks tea without milk, which is frankly just pure barbarism with no civilisation in sight. So that’s two counts you’re wrong on.

 

[andrewlt]

UB should've been a pub district, replaces all other districts (holy site, entertainment, commerce, culture, you name it), no restrictions on number of pub districts per city. It would've been a unique playstyle.

 

[drubell]

The one advantage of having such a huge gap between Scouts and Rangers is that you can quickly build a bunch of Scouts just before completing Rifling and spend Gold to upgrade to Highlanders.

I don't think I'd have any respect for completely ungraded rangers. You can somewhat make a case (a flimsy one, in my opinion) to use rangers that have some good movement promotions or Ambush, but unupgraded? At that point why not just use field cannons, which comes from a required prerequisite tech and has better range than 1?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The one advantage of having such a huge gap between Scouts and Rangers is that you can quickly build a bunch of Scouts just before completing Rifling and spend Gold to upgrade to Highlanders.

Do we know if it unlocks at Rifling? Could it unlock earlier at Gunpowder? It looks like they could be holding muskets instead of rifles.

UB should've been a pub district, replaces all other districts (holy site, entertainment, commerce, culture, you name it), no restrictions on number of pub districts per city. It would've been a unique playstyle.

You might be thinking more of Ireland.

Moderator Action: We're heading in the wrong direction here. leif

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Do we know if it unlocks at Rifling? Could it unlock earlier at Gunpowder? It looks like they could be holding muskets instead of rifles.

I didn't notice it in the FL. Maybe someone could review it quickly to see if the tech is shown. But if not, we will probably see it in the Livestream today.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The problem with this approach is how much it would squish entirely different nations/ethnicities into one blob.

If it were done poorly and without knowledge of real unique qualities, yes, but I'm not suggesting that it be done poorly.

How would you do a Sumerian civ, for instance? Or the Aztecs? What would you call them? I guess Mexico and Iraq?

No, I would call them Sumer and Aztecs (well, correctly, the 'Triple Alliance') just as the game does now. And, just as the game does now, any uniques for them from after the period in which they existed would have to be 'generic' based on their terrain/climate preferences - just as the game does now.

This whole issue just stems from lack of a clear definition of a civilization by firaxis. A lot are specific empires, some are regions, or countries.

We generally expect the regional civs to include the whole swathe of history in that region, while the empires stick exclusively to their time period. The countries are the toughest as we expect them to cover a lot of time, but only the periods of history that most remind us of their culture.

The problem actually, is lack of a clear definition of a 'civilization' by everybody: Firaxis and the Player Community both. Precisely, a Civilization is a group that builds and lives in Cities. That means, even by the widest possible definition of 'city', many 'civilizations' in the Civ franchise were never civilizations: Huns, Iroquois, Commanches, 'Polynesia', etc.
Most people, and Firaxis from their actions, widen the definition to include any recognizable cultural/political group. That leaves everybody with the problem that this definition includes numerous 'groups' that were either extremely short-lived in game terms (Sumer, USA, Carthage, Huns again) or over time included numerous other cultural/political/linquistic/ethnic influences, to the point of changing their nature completely. In strictly historical terms, in 4000 BCE there were no recognizable Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, Huns, Scythians, Chinese, or any other of the 'Civs' included in the game. They all developed their recognizable characteristics within the time frame of the game.
So, from the beginning, Civilization the game was a fantasy game, and so it remains.

And, I think, so it will have to remain.

Think about it. To do otherwise, you'd have to start with a wandering tribe with pretty generic Neolithic Attributes in 4000 BCE. Yes, some 'tribes' have pottery, primitive boating, Animal Domestication, or Agriculture, but none of them are building anything 'unique' yet, or showing more than the Photo- versions of their languages or religions.
Then, to progress to 'recognizable' Civilizations, you'd have to model the influences, and (I've thought about this a lot) that is monstrously difficult.
Just, for example, the Greeks: start as nomads, wander into an area with fertile land next to the sea divided into 'compartments' by mountains, already inhabited by an agricultural people. The 'Proto-Greeks' conquer them, absorbing some cultural/religious/technological/linquistic elements from them. Then they interact with other civilizations like the Hittites, Minoan Cretans, and (early) Phoenicians. Then the Mycenean Bronze Age civilization collapses, and out of the Greek Dark Age comes a set of city states with Aristocratic/Oligarchic governments relying on citizen spearmen who insist on a say in government and so develop various forms of inclusive to semi-inclusive Democracy with Hoplites - and semi-secular Philosophy, which comes from of a way of looking at the world and examining it almost unique in the entire world.

Bluntly, not once in a 100 games will you get a recognizable Greek Civilization by the Classical Era, because the various cultural, technological, climactic and geographical influences make a total that is very nearly statistically impossible to reproduce.

And that is very nearly true of ALL recognizable civilizations in history.

So, we go with fantasy, and start the civs with recognizable but anachronistic Unique Attributes and assume they will still be recognizably unique even thousands of years after that particular civilization historically disappeared.

What I would like to see is not 'historically accurate' civs - an impossibility even if we knew exactly what that meant in every case, which we don't - but more dynamic Civilizations that may or may not develop the same way every time based on the in-game conditions.
What If? is always an intriguing question, but right now, I don't think the Civ games provide a good answer.

What If - Greeks developed a wide empire, and maintained it? How would that change their political/government/cultural uniques.
What If - outside monotheistic religions did not influence Greek religion? What kind of religion would they end up with by fuzing the old Polytheocratic Agglutinative 'Hellenic' religion with Greek Philosophy?
What If - The Greeks did not settle in a climate/terrain like Greece, but on the Eurasian plains/steppes where they came from, or in a volcanic semi-tropical area like the Aztecs? How would that change the Unique Attributes they develop? Right now, the game assumes that it would have no effect on them at all, which is ridiculous and forces the gamer to deal with the map without the adaptability of the historical peoples.