I find Bulgaria's inclusion quite interesting for some reasons:
1. It provides Greece with a fitting successor.
2. It gives Russia a very suitable predecessor.
3. It brings Eastern European representation to the Exploration Age, which was lacking.
I had never thought of Bulgaria as a civ that could fill so many gaps at once at this moment. It’s a really exciting addition, and I’m looking forward to seeing how it will be designed.
I had been betting on Byzantium serving this slot, since it works for all of those things on top of bringing Rome on par with India/China.
I'm not mad about this at all though. I think it's great representation of several geographical and cultural intersections, and the music is probably going to be amazing.
I had been betting on Byzantium serving this slot, since it works for all of those things on top of bringing Rome on par with India/China.
I'm not mad about this at all though. I think it's great representation of several geographical and cultural intersections, and the music is probably going to be amazing.
Indeed, the Byzantines would serve the same role, perhaps with even more connections. But they can’t use all the big names right away—many need to be saved for later to extend the game's lifespan. There's also the possibility that the Byzantines are being designed around an expansion mechanic.
For what it's worth, I find the choice of new civs filling the same or similar archetypes as older ones (i.e. Bulgaria acting as an Eastern European nation instead of Byzantium, Buganda as modern African representation instead of the Zulu) as refreshing. It's nice to see some less-spotlighted groups taking the stage, especially since they were often as historically relevant as the groups they replace. (Although I'd still be quite amenable to receive Byzantium and Zulu at some point in the future)
Indeed, the Byzantines would serve the same role, perhaps with even more connections. But they can’t use all the big names right away—many need to be saved for later to extend the game's lifespan. There's also the possibility that the Byzantines are being designed around an expansion mechanic.
I do like and prefer that they are getting some of the smaller guys out of the way, while the design space is still very open (kind of like what they did in Rise & Fall). Once you lock down Byzantium's design, you could be shutting out any number of potentially adjacent civs. But if you get all those civs in first, it's almost certain you could still find ways to design the Byzzies.
For what it's worth, I find the choice of new civs filling the same or similar archetypes as older ones (i.e. Bulgaria acting as an Eastern European nation instead of Byzantium, Buganda as modern African representation instead of the Zulu) as refreshing. It's nice to see some less-spotlighted groups taking the stage, especially since they were often as historically relevant as the groups they replace. (Although I'd still be quite amenable to receive Byzantium and Zulu at some point in the future)
They did that in VI to an extent as well, at least until they added some of the staples anyway:
Georgia was very "Byzantine" in many respects. Scotland was a pivot for the Celts. Cree and Mapuche were pretty much the Iroquois and Shoshone split and recombined.
What did she contribute to Computer technology? in Civ6 she is Great Scientist and her ability is to boost Computers when activated.
And Ada Lovelace to lead Britania? why not William Pitt the Elder? (he can be paired with either Britain or USA, when chosen he has a unique settlement named Fort Pitt that automatically comes with pre-built fortifications, founded only once.)
The other interesting 'Non Leader' PC choice is Xu Fu. Both as Court Alchemist and Explorer. Both personae, he can begin as Han, and end as Meiji. and both iterations he speaks classical Chinese.
For what it's worth, I find the choice of new civs filling the same or similar archetypes as older ones (i.e. Bulgaria acting as an Eastern European nation instead of Byzantium, Buganda as modern African representation instead of the Zulu) as refreshing. It's nice to see some less-spotlighted groups taking the stage, especially since they were often as historically relevant as the groups they replace. (Although I'd still be quite amenable to receive Byzantium and Zulu at some point in the future)
That's true, and I'm well aware that the Byzantines and Zulus will eventually be in the game. However, I think they will be fairly late additions. The Zulus, for example, might be absent for a few years since Buganda already serves as the militaristic civilization of modern Sub-Saharan Africa.
More speculations
1. British UU could be Redcoats (though this only valid at the start of the Age, unless 'self upgrading graphics' is confirmed).
And graphical representations can be preexisting 'Prussian Line Infantry' shown earlier (also saw use by Mexicans as part of Soldaderas--frontline male combatant which still not what Mexican Army Line Infantry of 1830s-1850s actually wears ).
2. Cartagenean (name reverted to Carthagenean and not Phoenician) UU can be either Bireme or Quinquereme. endonym should be used.
I don't think "fantastical" wonders really bother me any more. After all, real-world natural wonders don't usually do the kind of things they do in the game either.
I was looking closely for Churchills or Matildas, but they were all Shermans. (Also for Spitfires and the HMS Warspite). However, all the units in the Britain clip were generics. What was notably missing were infantry, so Redcoats do seem like a distinct possibility.
All generic unit types shown:
Air fighter - fighter (P-51 model)
air seige - heavy bomber (B-24 model)
seige - Howitzer
cavalry - tank (Sherman model)
heavy naval - Battleship (USS Iowa model, I think)
stealth naval - submarine
So that leaves us with the following categories:
Infantry (Redcoats or Tommies)
light naval (Tribal class destroyers or battlecruisers?)
air attack (Typhoon? Tempest? Beaufighter? Mosquito?)
Ranged (Maxim machine gun?)
I was looking closely for Churchills or Matildas, but they were all Shermans. (Also for Spitfires and the HMS Warspite). However, all the units in the Britain clip were generics. What was notably missing were infantry, so Redcoats do seem like a distinct possibility.
All generic unit types shown:
Air fighter - fighter (P-51 model)
air seige - heavy bomber (B-24 model)
seige - Howitzer
cavalry - tank (Sherman model)
heavy naval - Battleship (USS Iowa model, I think)
stealth naval - submarine
So that leaves us with the following categories:
Infantry (Redcoats or Tommies)
light naval (Tribal class destroyers or battlecruisers?)
air attack (Typhoon? Tempest? Beaufighter? Mosquito?)
Ranged (Maxim machine gun?)
I was looking closely for Churchills or Matildas, but they were all Shermans. (Also for Spitfires and the HMS Warspite). However, all the units in the Britain clip were generics. What was notably missing were infantry, so Redcoats do seem like a distinct possibility.
All generic unit types shown:
Air fighter - fighter (P-51 model)
air seige - heavy bomber (B-24 model)
seige - Howitzer
cavalry - tank (Sherman model)
heavy naval - Battleship (USS Iowa model, I think)
stealth naval - submarine
So that leaves us with the following categories:
Infantry (Redcoats or Tommies)
light naval (Tribal class destroyers or battlecruisers?)
air attack (Typhoon? Tempest? Beaufighter? Mosquito?)
Ranged (Maxim machine gun?)
Battlecruisers are british idea. while not really executed in detail (being a size of dreads means that these are used as capitol ships. and even the center of battle line, the end result is that many of these were sunk at Jutland in 1915). Brits made most of these.
Infantry name could be either Redcoats or Tommies. but so far UU graphical self upgrades aren't really confirmed.
Ada Lovelace was the first person to realize that you could do more than just mathematical calculations with a (then hypothetical) computer, and wrote what many consider to be the first ever computer program - although it never ended up being used as the computer never progressed from the hypothetical to the physical phase.
I don't think "fantastical" wonders really bother me any more. After all, real-world natural wonders don't usually do the kind of things they do in the game either.
They don't, but they do have the rather major benefit of existing, and I love learning more about the world through the natural wonders in Civilization.
For a mythical wonder that encourages early exploration, I would take St. Brendan's Island or Mount Penglai or Vinland over Bermuda at any chance.
Mythical locations with cultural significance that mobilized people sailing into the unknown waves historically ＞ a modern myth that just makes people randomly disappear.
And if people dislike mythical locations and just want a "nautical" wonder for exploration, I would suggest Canary Current over Bermuda. It could also make sailors disappear, and without it, Columbus wouldn't arrived in the Western Hemisphere.
Edit: For a possible Canary Current design -
Oceanic natural wonder. Always spawn on an Ocean tile near a Coastal tile.
Food base (Canary Current is very important for the Morocco fishing industry).
Give four movement points to naval units that moved on it (making naval units bypass the deep ocean movement penalty and explore further).
Well, the first thing that came to my mind when i read "mythical wonder that encourages early exploration" was Atlantis. I mean, if we are going that way with wonders, it´s a perfect candidate i think.
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.
