It could be that as leader you choose your ideology and that influences which government you have. Putting specialists into a Theater square influences your government towards a democracy where as building a bunch of units guides you towards dictatorship.
I'm not keen on the nation of tying ideologies to actions. Both America and the Soviet Union built lots of troops during the Cold War and neither was a fascist government, and I'd hate for the game to force me in that direction just because I want a carrier fleet to shuttle my P-51s across the pond.
"Guys I have finally figured out who is the best candidate for dictator in out city. It's... me. I am the smartest greatest best most incorruptible etc etc etc... What? What do you mean you don't believe me? ..."
At what point in November (or December) would you consider that a 3rd expansion is no longer feasible, in case we don't get any kind of news in relation to it?
At what point in November (or December) would you consider that a 3rd expansion is no longer feasible, in case we don't get any kind of news in relation to it?
No one here has a crystal ball unfortunately and all we're going off is precedent. That said, a 3rd XP itself is breaking precedent so it it's not announced in the same expected timeframe as the first two that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Long story short: no one knows. Uncharted territory.
Something that I think was a lost opportunity in R&F and that maybe they can still do is to give each leader a unique alliance bonus, a weaker version of that leader ability. If I ally with Gorgo I get culture when I kill a unit equal to 5% of its combat strength. If I ally with Jadwiga I get +2 gold from my relics, if I ally with John Curtin I get 10% production when someone declare war on me and so on. It would improve alliances and encourage players to pursue specific alliances, increasing the importance of agendas since people would actually try to fulfill specific leader agendas.
At what point in November (or December) would you consider that a 3rd expansion is no longer feasible, in case we don't get any kind of news in relation to it?
At what point in November (or December) would you consider that a 3rd expansion is no longer feasible, in case we don't get any kind of news in relation to it?
My hope would start fading after the first week of December. I don't consider the last few weeks before Christmas to be the ideal time to begin a marketing push.
At what point in November (or December) would you consider that a 3rd expansion is no longer feasible, in case we don't get any kind of news in relation to it?
Personally, my only real clue that their would be a third expansion is the title of the second one, "Gathering Storm". "Gathering Storm" doesn't make things sound complete. Something tends to happen after a gathering storm. The storm breaks, there is an aftermath, etc.
On the ideology thing: I think the best way to stir up the conflict would be to massively increase the diplomatic penalty for different governments at government tier 3 and above while also lessening the weight on prior friendship/ally status. As a democracy, you should be able to be friends with smaller kingdoms or theocracies, but not with fascists or communists. Likewise, a civ in a tier 4 government shouldn’t care what tier 3 government you’re in, but if you pick a different tier 4 government, it should be abhorrent.
For bonus points, there should also be more engagement in lower governments with more contextual awareness. Two civs in theocracies should like each other, if they follow the same religion, but hate each other if they are in differing religions. Kingdoms should easily be friends with each other, unless they share borders. Merchant republics should love each other, unless they refuse to trade (trade routes or trade screen).
For more bonus points, civs should pick their next stage of government based on their mean opinion of other civs currently following that government. AND they should behave differently depending on what their current government is. Right now, I don’t get a good feeling of what government they are based on how they behave.
I'm not keen on the nation of tying ideologies to actions. Both America and the Soviet Union built lots of troops during the Cold War and neither was a fascist government, and I'd hate for the game to force me in that direction just because I want a carrier fleet to shuttle my P-51s across the pond.
These are the two views on government that they could address in a expansion. How you have to govern should change based on the government type without making it impossible to do things. If it was a simple as limiting a democracy to certain causes belli, an amenity penalty for merchant republic cities without a trade route... and so on.
These are the two views on government that they could address in a expansion. How you have to govern should change based on the government type without making it impossible to do things. If it was a simple as limiting a democracy to certain causes belli, an amenity penalty for merchant republic cities without a trade route... and so on.
They took baby steps towards this when they tied certain policy cards to specific T3 governments in GS. They could certainly lean further into it if they want to do so.
Something that I think was a lost opportunity in R&F and that maybe they can still do is to give each leader a unique alliance bonus, a weaker version of that leader ability. If I ally with Gorgo I get culture when I kill a unit equal to 5% of its combat strength. If I ally with Jadwiga I get +2 gold from my relics, if I ally with John Curtin I get 10% production when someone declare war on me and so on. It would improve alliances and encourage players to pursue specific alliances, increasing the importance of agendas since people would actually try to fulfill specific leader agendas.
Have you played Beyond Earth, Rising Tide? Instead of Alliances it has the deals, which I believe could work similarily. They didn't re-use the system for Civ 6 for some reason, and I am not sure If it didn't end up so good or there's something else, because I liked it.
Have you played Beyond Earth, Rising Tide? Instead of Alliances it has the deals, which I believe could work similarily. They didn't re-use the system for Civ 6 for some reason, and I am not sure If it didn't end up so good or there's something else, because I liked 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.
