Future Update - Speculation Thread

[ButtBillionaire]

Has Simon Bolivar ever been present in a Civilization game, apart from mods? I would like to see him. Only three civilizations on the whole of South America (But America itself is pretty devoid of civs)

If you count the Civ4 remake of Colonization, then yes, he has appeared as a leader before, leading New Spain. But in that game his model appears to just be a heavily modified Brennus.

I would very much like to see him appear as a leader in a main game as well. He is such a major figure in the histories of so many South American nations, and one that rose from quite tragic or humble origins, if I remember correctly.

 

[Zaarin]

If we do have another 20th century leader make it Eva Peron so it can be a female from the Americas too.

If her defeat line isn't "Don't cry for me, Argentina," what is Firaxis even doing?

Though I would also take Lenin for Russia along with several more ancient leaders.

He's not the alternate leader for Georgia I would choose, especially since many Georgians will (understandably) defy all the laws of logic and reason to disown him. I'd prefer David the Builder, but TBH I'd really prefer Armenia over a second Georgian leader.

 

[DefiantMars]

I think Spain is more a religious warmonger than a colonizer, and it is a very weak civ in general. Said that, I don't think Portugal would be a design overlap with Spain. With England/Victoria, perhaps, but I think they can make Portugal sufficiently distinct from England given that most of England's colonizing abilities are with Victoria, while England itself is an industrialist.

I brought it up earlier in the thread, but I think the issue would be distinguishing Portual in terms of their overseas trade bonus in contrast to Spain's Treasure Fleet effect, which provides them an economic focus and a desire to pursue land on other continent.

If you can find an effect that encourages them to go overseas that isn't covered by the other historical colonial powers and build them an economic effect that circumvents the host of trade bonuses possessed by Spain and myriad other Civs in the game, I have no actual beef with Portugal.

Speaking of Spain and Georgia, I'm still hoping we get some more updates to Civs. Maybe not so oddly enough, most of the ones I have issues with have ties to the religion system: Spain, India, Khmer, Georgia, Kongo.

I just think Philip and Tamar could use some help in getting religions of their own. If they can get that rolling, I feel like most of their other effects would be more applicable. Maybe tweak the Conquistator and make the Tsikhe show up earlier?

I'm actually a bit baffled that the Khmer didn't get reworked when Gathering Storm was released or in the updates that followed. With how iconic their waterways are, I'm still surprised that their abilities weren't updated to accommodate the Canal district. Their Holy Site bonus is usually at odds with how you want to place them, Tall is not incredibly well supported, and the Relic system is all kinds of wonky. So I think they could be greatly improved.

The GS buffs for India are welcome, but I still think more could be done with their leaders. Diplomatic Favor was introduced with the return of the World Congress, so I was actually expecting Gandhi to get some kind of Diplomatic. As for Chandragupta, I don't like the Leaders from Rise and Fall that work off of a single Casus Belli, they're usually super narrow effects and often don't work with the other uniques of the Civ. He's less narrow compared to Tamar or Robert, but having just one domestic effect for Chandragupta to support him between conquests and accrue value over time would make me a lot more willing to play with him.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If her defeat line isn't "Don't cry for me, Argentina," what is Firaxis even doing?

Yes, it should be, although technically Argentina wouldn't exist if she was defeated, but I can live with that.

He's not the alternate leader for Georgia I would choose, especially since many Georgians will (understandably) defy all the laws of logic and reason to disown him. I'd prefer David the Builder, but TBH I'd really prefer Armenia over a second Georgian leader.

I said Russia? We don't need another Georgian leader, especially for Russia.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

Has Simon Bolivar ever been present in a Civilization game, apart from mods? I would like to see him. Only three civilizations on the whole of South America (But America itself is pretty devoid of civs)

Bolivar was present in Colonisation.

Yes, it should be, although technically Argentina wouldn't exist if she was defeated, but I can live with that

Pedro's ending asks for peace and prosperity for Brazil, so it wouldn't be an unprecedented paradoxical defeat quote.

 

[acluewithout]

... the issue would be distinguishing Portual in terms of their overseas trade bonus in contrast to Spain's Treasure Fleet effect...

I think the piece missing from Civ is some sort of Colonies / Vassal type mechanics. If the next expansion introduced something like that, then there would be mechanical room for a Civ like Portugal, but also for something like Italy / Venice.

I like that Civ 6 tends more towards wide play, and I think that is where the game should be, but it really needs some sort of Colonies / Vassal mechanic to help alleviate the micro wide creates and to make wide empires feel more varied.

I just think Philip and Tamar could use some help in getting religions of their own.

No, they don't. The fact they get benefits from Religion is itself a bonus to getting a Religion, because it makes the investment in Religion more valuable. If every Civ that gets a bonus to Religion gets a bonus towards getting a Religion, it's going to make Religion much less competitive and make the game much less dynamic.

What is needed is some rebalancing of Religious Beliefs (particular Religious Buildings), and maybe a bit more balance for Civs that don't manage to get a Religion.

I'm actually a bit baffled that the Khmer didn't get reworked when Gathering Storm was released or in the updates that followed.

I really like how Khmer is currently built. They are quite fun. But there is a lot of unrealised potential, and they could definetly be re-worked and end up as something better.

The GS buffs for India are welcome...

Loving India post GS and the last few patches. Yeah, Ghandi could be tweaked, but the whole package is pretty good as it is.

 

[Xandinho]

Pedro's ending asks for peace and prosperity for Brazil, so it wouldn't be an unprecedented paradoxical defeat quote.

Those were real last words of Pedro II, in fact.

 

[DefiantMars]

I think the piece missing from Civ is some sort of Colonies / Vassal type mechanics.

I like that Civ 6 tends more towards wide play, and I think that is where the game should be, but it really needs some sort of Colonies / Vassal mechanic to help alleviate the micro wide creates and to make wide empires feel more varied.

Some form of Puppet city mechanic would be nice and tackle several issues simultaneously. I don't have anything against Wide gameplay, especially for Civ6 which makes more use of the map for city building but I do think that Citizen Slots should be improved to make Tall-er gameplay a bit more viable.

No, they don't. The fact they get benefits from Religion is itself a bonus to getting a Religion, because it makes the investment in Religion more valuable.

What is needed is some rebalancing of Religious Beliefs (particular Religious Buildings), and maybe a bit more balance for Civs that don't manage to get a Religion.

I agree that Pantheons and Religious beliefs should absolutely be rebalanced. But I don't think El Escorial and Glory of the World, Kingdom and Faith should be left as they are now. Basically having to ignore half of Spains unique effects if you don't get a religion is kind of dumb. As for Georgia, the Protectorate War is so limited, I think I used it once.

They don't need to huge like the Workshop of the World replacing England's Civ ability. For example, GS America getting Diplomatic Favor per Wild Card policy slot sounds simple on paper, but it adds up significantly. If not a way to get Great Prophet Points, a single effect domestic effect that synergizes with their other uniques or offers a fallback plan would be fine by me. But I do think they need something.

I really like how Khmer is currently built. They are quite fun. But there is a lot of unrealised potential, and they could definetly be re-worked and end up as something better.

I just think Canals should be tied into Grand Barays and Monasteries of the King. It would integrate more of the game's infrastructure and be more flavorful. Maybe Canals could provide adjacency bonuses to Holy Sites? Having Relic be less Feast or Famine and making Citizen Slots more enticing somehow would also make me feel a lot better.

 

[Gwydden]

1. Classical
2. Classical
3. Classical
4. Borderline case, but close enough to the usual cutoff I'd call him Classical, especially since the rise of Persia and fall of Babylon is one of the hallmarks of the transition to the Classical era
5. Ancient
6. Ancient
7. Classical
8. Classical
9. See #4
10. Classical

You were saying?

Offical periodization, as far as I'm aware, simply goes Ancient > Medieval > Modern. Everything else is just for further granularity, and Classical Antiquity is typically considered part of... Antiquity.

That said, I'm a dirty premodernist, and would prefer as few twentieth century leaders as possible. In a game about the entire, 5000 year span of recorded history, choosing to focus on stuff that happened within living memory strikes me as cheap. And I agree the Bronze Age is extremely underrepresented. How am I supposed to play a Sinuhe egyptiläinen scenario without Babylonians, Hittites, and New Kingdom Egypt? And Minoans, but I'm not terribly hopeful there.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

Those were real last words of Pedro II, in fact.

Wonderful man, really.

 

[Zaarin]

Offical periodization, as far as I'm aware, simply goes Ancient > Medieval > Modern. Everything else is just for further granularity, and Classical Antiquity is typically considered part of... Antiquity.

There may be debates about when Antiquity starts, but I've never seen any sort of classification where the Classical period was not considered as a distinct period. Hellenization changed the entire face of the Mediterranean, marking a much larger shift in culture and thinking than the transition from Classical to Medieval or Medieval to Modern. Granted, that's a Mediterranean-centric view, but TBH ancient history simply is Mediterranean-centric.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I just think Canals should be tied into Grand Barays and Monasteries of the King. It would integrate more of the game's infrastructure and be more flavorful. Maybe Canals could provide adjacency bonuses to Holy Sites? Having Relic be less Feast or Famine and making Citizen Slots more enticing somehow would also make me feel a lot better.

Instead of Canals I would go for Dams being tied into the ability. I think that fits better with their playstyle building near rivers. When I think of a Baray, anyway, it would have been a perfect Dam replacement.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please remember this is a Speculation thread concerning Civ6, not a history thread. Six posts deleted. Back to topic please

 

[acluewithout]

Basically having to ignore half of Spains unique effects if you don't get a religion is kind of dumb. As for Georgia, the Protectorate War is so limited, I think I used it once.

Spain's abilities work fine without founding your own Religion. Not optimal, but fine. It's all about risk / reward if you play Spain - you ideally want to found a Religion, and get more of your abilities if you do, but you have to balance the cost of getting a Religion against everything else you want to do.

I think the issue is more about how Religion works for Civs that haven't founded their own Religion (which, in turn, is partly a problem about having mechanics around Civs that don't Found Religions being incentivised to adopt particular religions based on circumstances (e.g. desirability for Follower Beliefs), very little ability to actually adopt a particular Religion (instead of just hoping the right one spreads to you), and Religion being a Win Condition (meaning you're sort of also incentivised to not found a Religion) and Religion being weak overall (so, given all the other points, why bother).

Instead of Canals I would go for Dams being tied into the ability. I think that fits better with their playstyle building near rivers. When I think of a Baray, anyway, it would have been a perfect Dam replacement.

Unique Dam would be very cool, as would just abilities tied to both Dams and Aqueducts.

 

[DefiantMars]

Spain's abilities work fine without founding your own Religion. Not optimal, but fine. It's all about risk / reward if you play Spain - you ideally want to found a Religion, and get more of your abilities if you do, but you have to balance the cost of getting a Religion against everything else you want to do.

Do you still get the benefits from the extra combat strength if you don't found your own religion? Between that and the Conquistador wanting to be with a religious unit and flipping cities to your majority religion, not having one seems like a massive waste of potential for Spain.

If there IS a massive religion overhaul, I would simply drop the subject. But I'm worried about how Phillip's abilities works without completely retooling the religious systems; in which case I think he should get some kind of upgrade. Doesn't even need to be faith based necessarily.

Instead of Canals I would go for Dams being tied into the ability. I think that fits better with their playstyle building near rivers. When I think of a Baray, anyway, it would have been a perfect Dam replacement.

Unique Dam would be very cool, as would just abilities tied to both Dams and Aqueducts.

I was also contemplating what a Baray district might be like. As reservoirs, a Dam replacement makes way too much sense to me. Seeing as how Dams aren't incredibly frequent districts to build (at least compared to some others) bonuses tied to them could be quite potent. I'd be interested in seeing civs with more bonuses to the water related districts.

Now I'm thinking of what a unique Canal would even be...

 

[acluewithout]

Do you still get the benefits from the extra combat strength if you don't found your own religion?

El Escorio gives you additional combat strength v Civs with a different Religion. Spain doesn’t need to Found and Religion, although I can’t recall whether the ability is based on majority religion or the religion of the unit (which is based on the majority religion of the city where the unit was created). I think it’s the later, but not sure.

The UU combat bonus applies from just having an adjacent Religious unit.

The combat bonus for religious units, better inquisitors and UU converting Cities are obviously more useful if you’ve Founded your own Religion, but do have benefit if you haven’t Founded a Religion at least to the extent they give you more control over what is your Majority Religion.

I think the real problem is just that Religion is of such negligible value if you haven’t Founded a Religion because Follower Beliefs are weak, Religious T3 Buildings are weak, and investing in someone else’s Religion risks giving them a Religious Victory. If beliefs were better balanced, and you had a little more control over your Majority Religion, it wouldn’t be such a big deal.

 

[King of Prussia]

i doubt the next DLC/ xpac or whatever will have it, but i am always hoping they remove the race to religion, and make it so more Civs have access to it. I never enjoy that race, especially at higher difficulties. Even more frustrating playing a religious focused civ and not getting one.

 

[acluewithout]

I like the race to a Religion. It’s not really different to the race to particular Wonders. I just wish Religion wasn’t a separate win condition - it would be better as just an element to the CV or DipV.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Honestly, I don't like the idea of modern Nations/Civs in a game. So I prefer Muisca over Simon Bolivar. As for Argentina, having Canada and Australia, I think we have already reached the maximum point of modern Nations in a game.

 

[Krajzen]

Honestly, I don't like the idea of modern Nations/Civs in a game. So I prefer Muisca over Simon Bolivar. As for Argentina, having Canada and Australia, I think we have already reached the maximum point of modern Nations in a game.

I have realized my own real problem with Australia and Canada, and why do I dislike them being in game, is not even with modernity per se but rather the fact they are so culturally similar to other civs already present in the game. We have England, America, Australia and Canada - four Anglosaxon civilizations which emerged as powers in the industrial or postindustrial era.
Four English - speaking civs but only one civ for India, China, Arabia, Persia, Hispanic world, Germany (disunited before 1870) etc. That's so disproportional (10% of all civs!) And... Boring. At least Mexico would be something much more culturally unique and flavourful, as it is much more different from Spanish culture than Canada is from English, not to mention it existed for much longer time. Bolivar's state was very short lived but it is interesting embodiment of Spanish South America and its unique culture, that's why that proposal is constantly alive. Argentina would start feeling out of place for me, but I'd still prefer it over Australia and Canada as it simply is something more exotic and unique to me (I'd even argue more culturally influential, due to its literature, tango etc).
England, America and Canada or Australia would be acceptable, or Spain, Mexico and Argentina or Gran Colombia, just please no four sister civs in one game

And I don't give a damn about perfectionist TSL distribution balance. Earth has been extremely unequal in population density and historical significance, accept that, especially as it doesn't affect gameplay beyond one very specific map type and size.