Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by SxSnts9, Nov 24, 2018.
All I can see is 9 more unique units based again on either the Warrior, Horseman or Heavy Chariot.
Well we do have some more units to play with now, and many of these nations were contemporaries with colonial France, Britain and the United States. I think you can go beyond ancient era, like Unique Cavalry for the Pueblo and a Skirmisher for the Maya, Iroquois can be a new rifleman and so on.
This is the same system I’ve been bucking for for years: you build up a few big armies, they have to deal with attrition/supply lines/zone of control issues. If two hostile armies enter the same zone of control, you switch to a map generated from the tiles under the ZOC (so if a district is involved some troops will be fighting in urban warfare). Fight on the fight map in turn-based combats, and collateral damage can harm structures so there is an incentive to keep your armies in forts or away from cities in general.
This and the suggestion above sound cool and interesting, it’s just not civ. I don’t think a micromanaged battle would really work in the game. That being said I think there is plenty they can do to improve battle game play. Seems like a battle overhaul would be a CivVII thing and not expansion.
Personally, I think we should start speculating about the fourth expansion.
Eh I feel that mechanics such as supply lines are better off in games like Total War.
Hopefully given other games of this nature and developers such as Paradox. One would hope Firaxis would keep working on Civ VI rather than just two expansion and done then rinse and repeating the same process over and over again.
This is what made me play more and more paradox games (EU4) instead of civilization in the last 5 years: long term support.
To me, it just seems like what Civ has become: a hugely micromanaged battle. But it occurs across the whole world, with units in every free space at higher levels, the carpet of doom. I think the solution is a world-view that has cities, tile improvements, navies and armies visible. Armies have some limits keep them from getting too large (maintenance, attrition, maybe even food penalties to the nearest city if they get too large, with certain techs or policies that mitigate this). Invading armies can move across the map, exerting a zone of control. If they enter into another army’s zone, the fight begins and moves to a battle view, attacker moves his units first with the defender getting terrain benefits. The battle is still turn based, but it fights until one side withdraws or all units of one side are dead. You can auto play engagements with the computer or both parties agreeing.
Anyway, I agree that’s for Civ VII. I also hope Civ VII will have fewer civs but have more flexibility, like earned bonuses that unlock through the eras you can select. So there’s a base civ Britons with some basic bonuses (say maybe settlers can defend from barb attacks and ships can move +1). After a while you can fulfill requirements kind of like the Eurekas, so if you build a certain number of ships in the classical era you can pick a naval bonus and you’re England and will be able to train Longbowmen and Ships of the Line, or if you build a bunch of pastures and settle three cities on hills, you can select to be Scotland, can train Highlanders and factories are more productive. From there come choices that either reinforce your “Englishness” or “Scottishness”, or you can pick up a new traits entirely and morph into Canada, Australia, or America. Maybe you could elect leaders, like when you become America you can either be Washington and train Minutemen, or be Jefferson and have can buy tiles for way cheaper. By the time the modern game ends you’ve really passed through all the tests of time. Each civ can be replayed several times because you pick different bonus branches.
Oh, and while I’m dreaming: The best way to solve domination victory is: You have to hold every capital city, for 20 turns in a row, in the Atomic Era. Conquer everything too soon and you’ll have loyalty issues, uprisings, civil wars, and other things to manage well into the modern era. Once you’ve taken that last capital every remaining civ is going to try to fight you to free one, which is realistic if a military despot is taking over the world. The era requirement makes the late game necessary.
I'm not sure about the era requirements, but having to hold them for a number of turns, rather than winning right away, sounds interesting
Once you get down to the last couple of civs to conquer, the steamrolling really kicks in and they can't offer much resistance. Usually by this point I starta a new game instead of clicking through the next 50 turns. Making me hold those capitals for a number of turns after wouldn't change much. By then their armies have been annihilated.
Well domination victory is not problem in my thoughts ... its almost imposible to achive in TSL map and really hard on continents large-huge, in most of my games victory is either science or culture , sometimes somebody comes close with religion --- but these two are primarly
Haven't read the whole thread, but it seems likely to me. The whole game industry is gravitating towards DLC and microtransactions over full releases because they take far fewer resources for the money.
Additionally, the Maya, Portugal, Ethiopia and the Byzantines are still missing after GS if the leak is correct and that's just enough heavy hitting returnees for 1 more XPAC. 2 if they stretch it.
AssemblingTyphoon said that the following would be left for a possible third xpac:
- Assyria or Babylon
- another native civ
as well a mechanic around diseases. Not sure how legit it all is (he literally said "Assyria/Babylon" as if the devs hadn't decided on which one, or maybe a hybrid of both), but if it is, the three "unknown" civs will probably be new additions to the franchise. We're likely looking at:
- A new asian civ such as Vietnam or Burma
- A new European civ such as Italy or Gaul
Babylon is my favourite civ, I sure hope they wont get usurped by Assyria.
Arrived... Sukritact's Trisong Detsen (Tibet)
That would be one hell of an XPAC
Well there is always the Akkadian Empire, if they wanted to combine both Assyria and Babylon, which would technically make it 4 returning and 4 new just like the other expansions.
Yeah that's what I thought as well. (Sargon fits the Big Personality Theme like a glove), though Akkad works way better as a substitute for Ancient Sumer imo. (Well technically the evolutionary track is Sumer => Akkadia => Babylon, with Assyria developing itself separately in the Akkadian borderlands). I strongly prefer Assyria myself for that CLASSICAL mesopotamian civ feel though.
I would rather Assyria personally as well, but I wouldn't mind seeing Akkad for the sole reason of not leaving out either Babylon as a city-state, or at least a whole bunch of Assyrian cities out of the game.
Even assuming for the moment that the leaker did have knowledge of a third expansion, it is doubtful that he knew what the civs would be, because it is doubtful that even Friaxis would have confirmed them at this point
Separate names with a comma.