How okay would you be with losing mainstays for new civs?

The issue with Ancient civs (and this is why I'm not particularly desperate for Assyria) is that early game bonuses (particularly strong units) can easily make for overpowered early snowballs. Just look at Gilgamesh and his War Carts...

I agree in principle that it would be nice to see some more truly ancient civs (and an ancient leader for Egypt, please...), but their abilities need to be carefully managed. I don't want the return of the Civ 5 Assyrians and their Siege Tower rush :p.

That's a good point, but Civ VI hasn't been overly fastidious with tying civs' uniques and abilities to their eras - look at Macedon, a Bronze Age civ that unlocks a unique with Iron Working. Nor are bonuses like Egypt's production boost to ancient Wonders exactly overpowered.

The ancient era is fairly short and unlike Civ V uniques don't retain their abilities through the upgrade tree in Civ VI, so there's scope for making fair units. It's a bit tricky with ranged units, such as a Babylonian bowman, but warrior, scout, galley or spearmen upgrades would be relatively harmless. We're missing unique counterparts for the granary and ancient walls, neither of which would lead to early snowballing as ziggurats can - and again Egypt shows that improvements with sufficiently minor bonuses can be safe.
 
Macedonia and Alexander the great were not Bronze Age. That ended (around Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean) around 1000BC. Alexander was around 350BC, over 6 centuries later.
 
One thing to keep in mind with DLC civs –– they're fairly expensive, and they basically never go on sale. A lot of people got the deluxe edition, which wasn't a bad deal in the end. But only because they charged so much. The going rate for new civs has been $5 per, and if you wanted the full set of interim civs, it would cost nearly $40 on top of the base game. And like I said, barely any of these DLC civs have gone on sale at all.

On the subject of civs by era:

There aren't a whole lot of ancient civs to run with. I think it's a very interesting period, but also a limited one in terms of what we know about it and what you could do with ancient-focused civs in the game.

The civ series has never distinguished much between high medieval and low medieval. It is interesting that they haven't added any at all. That 1000-1400 period is weirdly saturated IMO, especially because it wasn't even much of a high point for many of the civs represented there.

It does feel weird to me that we see barely any leaders from the back half of the game, especially given there are so many great ones in the industrial and modern eras.
 
Every civ has dozens of reasons to be included, this will never be the case.

So what weight factor would you apply for considering TSL?

None myself. The game will come with enough Civ's for a couple per continent pretty much regardless of what is chosen, and that is enough to play TSL with.

Whereas,
1) The first Civ6 DLC season seemed longer and more prolific than Civ5's, and
2) R&F is being released much earlier in the life of the game than G&K was for Civ5

It is therefore recommended that fans of the series strongly and vocally assert that
1) We would like a second DLC season to keep us playing the game between expansions
2) We would like more content after XP2 is released.

This 100%! :agree::stupid:

I guess it's a matter of perspective: I would have said Civ6 has way too many modern leaders and needs more ancient through Renaissance leaders. :p

I agree in principle that it would be nice to see some more truly ancient civs (and an ancient leader for Egypt, please...), but their abilities need to be carefully managed.

Setting aside any debate about the suitability of Cleo, you'd think that nine times out of ten, your Egyptian leader would from the ancient period...? Given their dominance in that time.

A lot of people got the deluxe edition, which wasn't a bad deal in the end. But only because they charged so much.

The issue with the Deluxe edition wasn't it's price - it was the change in exchange rates between some parts of the world, from the time people purchased it to the time the relevant DLC's
were released.
 
There aren't a whole lot of ancient civs to run with. I think it's a very interesting period, but also a limited one in terms of what we know about it and what you could do with ancient-focused civs in the game.
There are plenty of civs and leaders from that era--they're just all in the Near East. :p Also it's baffling that the most obvious civ from that era got a classical era leader. But there's still Babylon and Assyria, but I'd love to substitute a newcomer for Assyria: Elam, Mitanni, and Urartu would all be excellent ancient era candidates. And Babylon the city-state could easily be replaced with Byblos, Ebla, or Urkesh (unless they went with the Mitanni). Elam and Urartu would be better candidates than the Mitanni, simply because the Indo-Aryan language spoken by the Mitanni leaders is poorly attested.
 
There are plenty of civs and leaders from that era--they're just all in the Near East. :p Also it's baffling that the most obvious civ from that era got a classical era leader. But there's still Babylon and Assyria, but I'd love to substitute a newcomer for Assyria: Elam, Mitanni, and Urartu would all be excellent ancient era candidates. And Babylon the city-state could easily be replaced with Byblos, Ebla, or Urkesh (unless they went with the Mitanni). Elam and Urartu would be better candidates than the Mitanni, simply because the Indo-Aryan language spoken by the Mitanni leaders is poorly attested.

Can't they just make the Mitanni leader speak Hurrian? :p It's still amazing to me that the Mitanni leadership were Indo-Aryans...
 
Can't they just make the Mitanni leader speak Hurrian? :p It's still amazing to me that the Mitanni leadership were Indo-Aryans...
Maybe, but the leaders were indeed Indo-Aryans, not Hurrians. :p (Early Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages can be hard to tell apart, but apparently there's some specific vocabulary that points to the Mitanni elites being indeed Indo-Aryan and not Iranian--which I think is the really weird part: Indo-Aryan speakers west of Iran.)

Either way, I'd rather have Babylon plus one of Elam or Urartu, with the Babylon city-state replaced by Ebla or Byblos/Gebal.
 
Maybe, but the leaders were indeed Indo-Aryans, not Hurrians. :p (Early Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages can be hard to tell apart, but apparently there's some specific vocabulary that points to the Mitanni elites being indeed Indo-Aryan and not Iranian--which I think is the really weird part: Indo-Aryan speakers west of Iran.)

Either way, I'd rather have Babylon plus one of Elam or Urartu, with the Babylon city-state replaced by Ebla or Byblos/Gebal.

Well, if the Roma/Romani were descendants of Indo-Aryan speakers who moved West during the Middle Ages. Who's to say there wasn't an even more ancient migration to the Middle East from India? :D
 
Well, if the Roma/Romani were descendants of Indo-Aryan speakers who moved West during the Middle Ages. Who's to say there wasn't an even more ancient migration to the Middle East from India? :D
Clearly there was: the Mitanni. :p But yeah, I thought about Romani after I posted. Still surprising, though; before studying it more in depth I just assumed the Mitanni were Iranian. Especially since we don't usually associate Indo-Aryans with equestrianism the same way we do the Iranians. I suppose there's the off chance that the Mitanni were actually Nuristani. :p
 
I'd still like Assyria to come alongside Babylon. They were a major civilization but have only been featured once in the series.

Besides, the back and forth rivalry between Babylon and Assyria was a hallmark of the ancient world.

Babylon/Assyria double DLC pack, please.
 
I'd still like Assyria to come alongside Babylon. They were a major civilization but have only been featured once in the series.

Besides, the back and forth rivalry between Babylon and Assyria was a hallmark of the ancient world.

Babylon/Assyria double DLC pack, please.
Honestly, I'd love to see Babylon and Assyria and Elam and Urartu and the Kingdom of Judah and any other ancient Near Eastern civ they care to feature. :D
 
Honestly, I'd love to see Babylon and Assyria and Elam and Urartu and the Kingdom of Judah and any other ancient Near Eastern civ they care to feature. :D

If they give us that choice... more is more!
 
I'd still like Assyria to come alongside Babylon. They were a major civilization but have only been featured once in the series.

Yeah, it's astounding that Assyria has only been in once, and only V. Personally I'd put that down to the drive for diversity over merit :sad:
 
Definitely there should be Japanese, China, Russia, Persia, Arabia, Egypt, Rome, Ethiopia, Mali, German, French, Britain, Iroquois, Inca, Aztec in every Civ series. Countries like USA, Brazil, that were born out of european colonialism should be DLCs.
 
Is there a table of civs vs eras out there somewhere? As in, which eras each civ existed in, and particularly the era in which the leader was chosen from. So, England would be medieval-present 'peaking' in Industrial. Would be interested to see if there are any notable gaps or over crowded areas.
 
Top Bottom