Yeah, I think St. Basil's excludes the Kremlin. They've always used a St. Basil's graphic for the Kremlin, so it's nice they got the name right for once.
Now that Machu Picchu is (seemingly) included, Notre Dame is probably next on my list of missing wonders.
Yeah, I think St. Basil's excludes the Kremlin. They've always used a St. Basil's graphic for the Kremlin, so it's nice they got the name right for once.
That's true. But then it would make sense to have Notre Dame on that tech. However, they moved Hagia Sophia there instead (not inappropriately, I don't suppose). So that's a bit of a mark against Notre Dame overall.
I needed to check. 3/7 wonders are in cities on the Greek list (Ephesus, Rhodes, Olympia). 2/7 are on the Egyptian list (Giza and Ra Kedet). 1/7 are on the Persian list (Halicarnassus). 1/7 is in a City State (Babylon). The last one assumes that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were actually in Babylon and not in Nineveh (as is sometimes supposed).
I'm not a fan of Qin getting a wonder-building bonus given his actual history, but I won't complain that much.
Honestly, as much as I want to see Notre Dame, I think Mont-Saint-Michel is its replacement in civ6. If I were to try to guess a third French wonder, I think it would be the Palace of Versailles, since the World Congress is being included, I think it makes sense to have a diplomatic wonder.
As I do not think that mound is a wonder, I would say that there are still 2 wonders to be revealed. I would be quite surprised if we do not get any African and European wonders, so I think the remaining wonders are from Europe and Africa.
That's true. But then it would make sense to have Notre Dame on that tech. However, they moved Hagia Sophia there instead (not inappropriately, I don't suppose). So that's a bit of a mark against Notre Dame overall.
Statue of Zeus, Notre Dame, Borobudur, Mosque of Djenne and Neuschwanstein are on top of my list. Even with a third expansion, I have little hope to see them all modelized in the end :-(
Grandiosity isn't just size. It's literally just a big hill with huts and some stairs. Every other wonder in the game has much more detail and visual complexity. This isn't a knock to the art team - the level of detail is far more similar to that of the terrace farms or regular farms, which look fine for what they are.
It could possibly be a unique improvement from suzerainty of a Cahokia city-state, but it's considerably larger and more detailed than any other improvement in the game IMO.
Grandiosity isn't just size. It's literally just a big hill with huts and some stairs. Every other wonder in the game has much more detail and visual complexity. This isn't a knock to the art team - the level of detail is far more similar to that of the terrace farms or regular farms, which look fine for what they are.
I see what you mean, but what exactly would you expect from a potential Mississippian wonder? The mound itself is what makes it impressive, not the stuff on it. People don't travel to see it IRL in order to be blown away by the absolute detail of the huts. I'd like to remind you that Stonehenge is also in the game, and the detail there is considerably less than what you'd find on other wonders.
For me, the most obvious indication that it's a wonder is that it's the size of a wonder. There are no tile improvements that big. A unit would get buried beneath all that dirt.
I see what you mean, but what exactly would you expect from a potential Mississippian wonder? The mound itself is what makes it impressive, not the stuff on it. People don't travel to see it IRL in order to be blown away by the absolute detail of the huts. I'd like to remind you that Stonehenge is also in the game, and the detail there is considerably less than what you'd find on other wonders.
For me, the most obvious indication that it's a wonder is that it's the size of a wonder. There are no tile improvements that big. A unit would get buried beneath all that dirt.
Keeping my hat intact, for the moment, I don't see it being that much more 'detailed' than, say, the Chateau, which is an Improvement, but it is comparable to the detail in Stonehenge, which is a Wonder.
So, speculating...
Since it looks most like a constructed representation of the Cahokia Mound, what would its purpose be as either Wonder or Improvement?
Cahokia was built on bottomlands next to a major river, and Floodplains and Marsh tiles, it appears, will be very malleable in GS: subject to change by Flooding or Climate Change.
BUT Cahokia is, at best, a Medieval Wonder (and by technology, an Ancient one) and most Climate Change shouldn't kick in until Modern Era or Atomic Era at the earliest.
So, what is its Purpose?
Maintain Floodplains or Marsh tiles despite Flooding events?
Add Bonuses to tiles along a river?
Add Population/Amenities/Religion?
All of those could be either Wonder or Improvement effects, but I really don't see any of them being massively Game Changing unless you have a Civ guaranteed to start with lots of marsh/Floodplain/River tiles. Which still means either Wonder or Improvement, since many Wonders in Civ VI are extremely situational in both requirements and scope of their effects...
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.
Maybe tomorrow this will be settled in the livestream!
