If you consider that in Civ 4 the Native American "civilisation" covered the Iroquois, then they've appeared as often as each other, and the Iroquois have appeared first each time.
Are the Iroquois called the "Romans of the New World?" Never heard of that before. I'm not meaning to diss the Iroquois at all as they would still be my 2nd Native American pick under the Navajo.
Yes, it's a YouTube history video, probably with a few missteps (though I do like that Extra Credits do have an extra episode at the end of each series highlighting any mistakes they made); but you get the drift in easy to digest 10 min clips. I call the Iroquois -or rather the Haudenosaunee- Romans of the New World due to their advanced constitutional arrangements. And yes, of course I'm comparing them to the Republic, not the Empire
Firaxis is stingy with alt-leader slots. The ratio is currently 1 alt-leader for every 14 civs. They probably won't have more than one alt-leader in the next round of content.
As such, I would much prefer Egypt get its iconic pharaoh (and the game's second Ancient Era leader) and Byzantium be a civ than see Rome get an alt-leader to represent Byzantium.
Depends on the content. We don't know if we are getting another expack yet, or no expack, or an expack followed by DLC.
I will say that alternate leaders, if already partially designed and developed (and there could be any number under consideration and in various states of completion), would be a lot cheaper as small, late cycle DLC than designing and balancing entire civs. I think the moment we start seeing a lot of alternate leader announcements is when we know the development is reaching an end.
(I do think Egypt is also extremely likely to get a second leader at some point. But I don't think the signs are any more or less favorable for Egypt as they are for, at minimum, Germany and Russia (between Aachen being further down Germany's city list and Russia having the odd choice of the lavra for a UB). Add other obvious two-leader civs like Arabia and China and I think the game was always intended to give about half the base game civs a second leader.)
Lol it actually is, particularly as to how Byzantium returns. There are primarily two camps:
1) Those who just love Byzantium and want it back wholesale, perhaps implemented better than in V because it really was one of the worst designed civs.
2) Those who see alternate leaders as the perfect opportunity to consolidate Byzantium into Rome and open up design space for civs like Bulgaria, Romania, Kievan Rus'.
I happen to be in the second camp, because I think Georgia covers a lot of the feel and playstyle people want for Byzantium. And I think getting Simeon leading Bulgaria, Olga leading Russia, and Theodora leading Rome is more interesting than just Theodora leading Byzantium. But there are tradeoffs.
Put me as the only crazy person in the 3rd camp: Have someone like Justinian or Theodora lead both or only one of them.
Plus I don't think anyone wanted Georgia to have the playstyle that they currently have, let alone give it to the Byzantines to have it. The Byzantine Civ/leader I want would be focused more on government/infrastructure and building projects while faith and religion would be secondary.
As such, I would much prefer Egypt get its iconic pharaoh (and the game's second Ancient Era leader) and Byzantium be a civ than see Rome get an alt-leader to represent Byzantium.
If you consider that in Civ 4 the Native American "civilisation" covered the Iroquois, then they've appeared as often as each other, and the Iroquois have appeared first each time.
I suppose it matters where you draw the line. When I formulated my list of leaders broken down by era, I counted 1000BCE as the beginning of the classical for a nice round number. Ostensibly, she was born in 839BCE.
Oh, I'm not going to debate that the Native American Civ in 4 was far more some native American tribes than others. But it still was a blob Civ covering all of them with that name. Point is that -while they should have been added sooner than Civ III- the Iroquois are rightly the most represented Nth American* native tribe in the game; and as they took significant steps into a government beyond Chiefdom, they always should be. Prior to the 19th century very few countries had a better civic arrangement.
I will say that alternate leaders, if already partially designed and developed (and there could be any number under consideration and in various states of completion), would be a lot cheaper as small, late cycle DLC than designing and balancing entire civs.
This statement is not true at all. It couldn't be much further from the truth.
The difference in cost between designing and balancing an alt leader and designing and balancing an entirely new civ is negligible. The gameplay aspects, including balancing and playtesting, are the least expensive parts of creating any new civ in general. That cost is trivial compared to the rest of the process.
The most expensive parts of any new civ, by far, are the art assets, particularly the detailed and animated leader model. And since alt leaders also have their own model, this means creating an alt leader isn't much cheaper than just adding an entirely new civilization. This is exactly the reason why Firaxis has mostly stuck to adding civs and left alt leaders to the mod community. Alt leaders are not cheaper for them to make, nor would they be cheaper for consumers to purchase.
I suppose it matters where you draw the line. When I formulated my list of leaders broken down by era, I counted 1000BCE as the beginning of the classical for a nice round number. Ostensibly, she was born in 839BCE.
It’s clearly arbitrary to some degree, but in the West, classical antiquity is often considered to start with the Homeric epics, which were probably written in the late 8th century BC.
(The possibly mythical) Dido would be considered late Ancient era by this metric.
It is quite strange that large cities are so lackluster in civilizaton VI if we compared to reality. New York city have something like 1.5 times the GDP per capita of US average or in game terms each pop in it would be 1.5 times more productive than the average city in your civilization and maybe twice or more compared to the small cities.
The purpose of small cities should be to Control territories and such, not be scientific, economic or cultural powerhouses. 20 poor 5 pop cities should probably be less productive than a 40 pop metropolis.
Oh, I'm not going to debate that the Native American Civ in 4 was far more some native American tribes than others. But it still was a blob Civ covering all of them with that name. Point is that -while they should have been added sooner than Civ III- the Iroquois are rightly the most represented Nth American* native tribe in the game; and as they took significant steps into a government beyond Chiefdom, they always should be. Prior to the 19th century very few countries had a better civic arrangement.
I'm not disagreeing that the Iroquois are the most represented, rightly so. My point still stands that I considered the Byzantines more represented and deserving of a "veteran" status ever so slightly because I don't count the Native American civilization as wholly representing them.
In that case both Norway, Denmark, and possibly Sweden, are considered Civ veterans having appeared in Civ 2,3 and 4 before both 5 and 6, as the Vikings, and people will be happy to know that the Pueblo did appear in Civ 4.
SGF has a trailer up. There was only one part that may have been Civ-related. It was a short clip from a cinematic of some Samurai standing on a hill, but it certainly could have been for virtually any other game with a historical context.
There's supposed to be a "surprise game announcement" on May 12th. There's still nothing from 2K on the schedule.
There was only one part that may have been Civ-related. It was a short clip from a cinematic of some Samurai standing on a hill, but it certainly could have been for virtually any other game with a historical context.
I think it's more likely that it's from Ghost of Tsushima, which is set to release in July and might have some marketing as part of Sony/Playstation's contributions to SGF, if those occur this month or the next.
I think it's more likely that it's from Ghost of Tsushima, which is set to release in July and might have some marketing as part of Sony/Playstation's contributions to SGF, if those occur this month or the next.
Depends on the content. We don't know if we are getting another expack yet, or no expack, or an expack followed by DLC.
I will say that alternate leaders, if already partially designed and developed (and there could be any number under consideration and in various states of completion), would be a lot cheaper as small, late cycle DLC than designing and balancing entire civs. I think the moment we start seeing a lot of alternate leader announcements is when we know the development is reaching an end.
(I do think Egypt is also extremely likely to get a second leader at some point. But I don't think the signs are any more or less favorable for Egypt as they are for, at minimum, Germany and Russia (between Aachen being further down Germany's city list and Russia having the odd choice of the lavra for a UB). Add other obvious two-leader civs like Arabia and China and I think the game was always intended to give about half the base game civs a second leader.)
I prefer Akhenaten or Ramesses II for Egypt as alternate leader, or even Thutmese III while Hatshepsut could lead Egypt in CIV 7. Akhenaten could have a strong religious bonus, while Ramesses II a military focus. Russia, China could use a second leader as well. Less convinced Germany needs one, but you could make a case for it. I'm glad France and India got a second leader. I like that Greece has two leaders and Macedon as well.
This statement is not true at all. It couldn't be much further from the truth.
The difference in cost between designing and balancing an alt leader and designing and balancing an entirely new civ is negligible. The gameplay aspects, including balancing and playtesting, are the least expensive parts of creating any new civ in general. That cost is trivial compared to the rest of the process.
The most expensive parts of any new civ, by far, are the art assets, particularly the detailed and animated leader model. And since alt leaders also have their own model, this means creating an alt leader isn't much cheaper than just adding an entirely new civilization. This is exactly the reason why Firaxis has mostly stuck to adding civs and left alt leaders to the mod community. Alt leaders are not cheaper for them to make, nor would they be cheaper for consumers to purchase.
This is a bit presumptive. For one, the actual leader design is as easy as a few sketches thrown together by a single artist; the design for the rest of a civ's assets takes a lot more research and development. Not to mention other moving parts that need to be planned and funded like the music.
For two, you are presuming that Firaxis is starting from scratch on both new civs and new leaders, when in all likelihood there exist examples of both in various states of completion. I would argue that it is far more likely there are more partially developed leaders than civs (and further along in development), given that civs are likely not greenlit past early development unless it is fairly certain they will be released, if not in an expack then as bonus DLC. The music department said at some point that they were given a list for each expack.
By contrast, if alternate leaders are only planned for existing civs, particularly if they are only planned for base game civs (really, the only base game civs with strong cases for alternate leaders), and especially if they are series staple leaders intended to pander to long-time fans, then the devs have already known their alternate leader shortlist for years. They don't need to be designing off the cuff, they could have been working on alternate leaders piecemeal since the release of vanilla VI.
So, no, unless you have some special insider info that the devs intentionally put off alternate leader design expack by expack, I don't think I'm far from the truth at all.
It is deliberate. Having the maya’s or portugal in the mix of new dlc/expansion civs. Will make them sell well. If say firaxis offers a dlc with 2 leaders. And one of them is Montezuma, Caesar or Napoleon (just my preference). I dont bother much which civ is the 2nd one. Even if it is Nubia. To own one of my staple civ leaders.
With SGF being a new factor into this, is it safe to assume that the future announcement will not fall on the usual Tuesday or occasional Thursday? I mean they can always schedule for that but I think this will give them the freedom to announce it on any day of the week
With SGF being a new factor into this, is it safe to assume that the future announcement will not fall on the usual Tuesday or occasional Thursday? I mean they can always schedule for that but I think this will give them the freedom to announce it on any day of the week
It may be a factor. We won't know until we find out what 2K's contribution is. So far, the scheduled events are all Tuesdays through Thursdays, so I doubt it will deviate from Firaxis's M.O. too much.
I don't ever write on forums. I had to sign up just to say that, with over 4000 hrs on 6, 3000 on 5 and probably that much on 4, constantly following this thread and waiting for an update of any kind is a horrible addiction. Keep up the good work friends, I'm not smart or patient enough to figure it out on my own.
Yes. I agree this supports that suspicion. But I don't understand why it has it's own launcher. If I knew what the various different launchers did, it might help.
To go out on a very tenuous branch, I postulate that they will be doing some kind of remote demo from 2kqa_d, showing whatever special content is on it.
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.
