If we can get civilizations that start in a similar geographic area for each age then I could possibly be more accepting of the fact I am forced to jump from Civ to Civ.
Don't worry. In one of the interviews (WritingBull's?!?), it was clearly said, that the player will not be forced to select "a new Civ".Contrary to this you will gain extra Fame ("victory points"), if you forego the benefits of any new civ. Like you get in civ6 civ-specific unique abilities, districts, units, improvements ... perhaps one can think of it just like a BIG pantheon in every new era you can choose (or forego).
I find it quite interesting, how much some players want to play a civilization / nation (often completely regardless of the specific properties - eg. Canada, but only in the NORTH! - playing with tundra in the south is absolutely impossible! ...). In civ4 I chose often playing as Genghis Khan, because he started with a 'Scout' & 'The wheel'.
However the fact the Nubia, Libya, and Egypt have already been confirmed is a little worrisome. Giving a pretty good parallel to our "Three Greece" situation, only having all of these in the SAME ancient age means that the initial lineup may be too europe/north africa heavy. I don't think there is going to be an even geographical split among our choices for each age...
I'd be surprised if we at least don't get China in the bronze age. Also since there appear to be no leaders we could finally get the Olmecs too. Would Norte Chico be too much of a stretch? Interesting about Libya being in the first age as I hadn't heard of that yet or seen it confirmed.
Anyway I expected the Bronze Age to be Middle Eastern/North African Heavy as that is where most of the major ancient civilizations emerged but I would also like to see the other three mentioned above at least.
The Bronze Age is going to be Mediterranean focused. Why? Because the Mediterranean is where most of the action that we know about was taking place in the Bronze Age. That said, there's also whoever wrote the Avesta in Afghanistan, Harappa in South Asia, China in, well, China, and the Olmec and the Maya in Mesoamerica. We also know that the Mycenaeans, Minoans, and Phoenicians were trading for tin in the British Isles, which means there was someone mining tin in the British Isles (though unfortunately we don't have a better name for them than "Megalith Builders").
Don't worry. In one of the interviews (WritingBull's?!?), it was clearly said, that the player will not be forced to select "a new Civ".Contrary to this you will gain extra Fame ("victory points"), if you forego the benefits of any new civ. Like you get in civ6 civ-specific unique abilities, districts, units, improvements ... perhaps one can think of it just like a BIG pantheon in every new era you can choose (or forego).
I find it quite interesting, how much some players want to play a civilization / nation (often completely regardless of the specific properties - eg. Canada, but only in the NORTH! - playing with tundra in the south is absolutely impossible! ...). In civ4 I chose often playing as Genghis Khan, because he started with a 'Scout' & 'The wheel'.
I don't think you saw my earlier post, you can only monoculture one of the 10 starting civs, so you are forced to jump from civ to civ if you want to play any non-starting civ.
We can already see they have China in two Ages, Qin (Great Wall card) and Tang (playing Go card) , so it seems probable that they will have Bronze Age China as well. What I'm a little concerned about was the lack of African cultures. We only have evidence of Nubia.
Someone on the HK forums said they saw Japanese unique units in the video, but I didn't see anything definitively Japanese. There were some musketmen in East Asian conical farmer hats, but those are common everywhere in East Asia.
The Libyans might had become Carthage but the Phoenician inclusion is odd. Maybe they become Carthage if they interact with Greece and Phoenician, and move on to be Morocco?
The Libyans might had become Carthage but the Phoenician inclusion is odd. Maybe they become Carthage if they interact with Greece and Phoenician, and move on to be Morocco?
HRE and Franks being separate entities seems crazy to me, especially in the same era. Maybe they are same entity spelled differently, or maybe they are in different eras but it would be so damn weird for these two being in medieval roster.
Also, Phoenicians in classical? Heh I guess they mean 'Carthage++' too.
Anyway, here are my speculations for missing civs.
Bronze - 'China' (as whatever, Zhou for example), some ancient Subsaharan civilization (I'm actually surprised they didn't put Nubians here), Celts if they are sane but Jews (Hebrews) if they have balls
Classical - Maurya (India), Precolombian Civ (I actually think about Maya despite not formally fitting typical chronology), Scythians (to represent horsepower gameplay style).
Medieval - I would be really angry if Arabia didn't get here. Also Mali or Swahilli (most spectacular two of this period besides Ethiopia which can go somewhere else) as Subsaharan rep and Aztecs/Inca as Precolombian rep. And India should get yet another rep here! And what about Mongolia...
Renaissance - Poland, because God forbid winged hussars, they were invented in 16th century! And commonly agress Polish golden age was 16th. Other than that -
*Aztecs/Inca. No seriously, they borderline fit here and otherwise one of the Great Precolombian Three would need to be out of the game.
*Ottomans 100% sure
*Mughals or Marathas (India)
*Ming or Qing (or even Manchus)
*Ashanti or Songhai from Africa
*Spain (100% sure), Italians (here or industrial because medieval is too crowded), Netherlands/Portugal.
Industrial:
*British (although 'England' could also appear earlier)
*Russians (well, technically same with Rus, Muscovy etc)
*Japanese (here or modern)
*Remaining European powers - especially Austria and Sweden.
*Actually this era is my biggest problem, how to diversity the roster in the period of such extreme Western dominance? You could give now Ethiopia, Lakota, Thailand, Iran, Afghanistan as 'succesful' examples of resisting West but...
I actually only put Ethiopia here instead of y know any earlier age because it is the only good African choice here. Unless they add Zulu... Dear God pls no...
Modern:
Even bigger pain, totally no idea how they are going to select modern roster. Let's just go with the latest possible yet diverse set of 'powerful' cultures:
America, Japan (the only two obvious ones unless they somehow get earlier), India, China (as in: finally directly named, in modern form), Brazil, Nigeria (?), and yeah I'm desperate now, whatever - Iran, Vietnam, two other big powers getting here instead of earlier?
The Libyans might had become Carthage but the Phoenician inclusion is odd. Maybe they become Carthage if they interact with Greece and Phoenician, and move on to be Morocco?
HRE and Franks being separate entities seems crazy to me, especially in the same era. Maybe they are same entity spelled differently, or maybe they are in different eras but it would be so damn weird for these two being in medieval roster.
Well, here's the card I'm interpreting as either the Franks or Merovingians. HRE was said by the devs on the livestream.
It appears to me to be too early in the Medieval era to be the HRE proper and that's not the crown style associated with Charlemagne. The best I can come up with for the crown is the early Merovingians. They has spikes. Not quite like that, and usually with a fleur de lis, but it looks like what they put on their coins.
Well, here's the card I'm interpreting as either the Franks or Merovingians. HRE was said by the devs on the livestream.
It appears to me to be too early in the Medieval era to be the HRE proper and that's not the crown style associated with Charlemagne. The best I can come up with for the crown is the early Merovingians. They has spikes. Not quite like that, and usually with a fleur de lis, but it looks like what they put on their coins.
I agree. The HRE could easily be based off of medieval Germany in order to make them separate entities.
Although if it were up to me they could easily of made the HRE into one entity to make room for more Civs from other eras of the medieval world.
Also I think Korea would fit in better in the Renaissance/Enlightenment era since that's when the Hwacha was invented and when the Joseon Dynasty was at it's peak.
A new civ game needs a feature of Humankind and some sort of CK II leader system. Leaders that die, have children etc. Civ games are not realistic at all. Eternal leaders seem so silly. But Civ I came out over 25 years ago. Time for a change.
The same applies to Civs like Canada that you choose to play in 4.000 BC. They did not even existed. That is why I always liked/prefered the ancient civs, not the modern ones. That's why, I did not want or like Canada/Australia etc. civs to be added in the game. Because it did not feel natural. Now I know why I did not like to play those civs. It got to me.
Also graphically, I choose to play a civ in 4,000 BC. And the guy from Canada wears a suit from modern times. XD This is CIV VI. Even in CIV l leaders changed their clothes according to eras.
This is not immersive at all. Firaxis should fix it, especially because they charge too much for their games nowdays. And the 25th Collectors' Edition was some kind of a joke. It was even hard to sell it, but I managed to do so after many years!
If the devs are clever, they invest well into a sophisticated advanced start system. That way, you can satisfy everyone that just wants to play f.e. the Khmer.
As for modern Civs, I have things like America, the Soviets, India, Australia, Brazil, Iran, South Africa, Vietnam, maybe even the European Union, because would they not have a European Civ? Can they resist putting "the Nazis" there?
You can probably start all of them as well in the Industrial Age where for example the United States should start, but they got their heyday in the Modern Era, so they should belong there as well. Maybe it really makes sense to combine the two eras or have the Modern Era as a seventh one (like the Neolithic era at the start). And then do the ideologies like Communism and Fascism differently.
I agree. The HRE could easily be based off of medieval Germany in order to make them separate entities.
Although if it were up to me they could easily of made the HRE into one entity to make room for more Civs from other eras of the medieval world.
Also I think Korea would fit in better in the Renaissance/Enlightenment era since that's when the Hwacha was invented and when the Joseon Dynasty was at it's peak.
Korea's Goryeo dynasty (famous for its celadon) definitely originated in the medieval era, but some of its significant developments like early gunpowder weapons (including the hwacha) came during the late 14th century. I guess the question is whether we consider the 14th century to be Renaissance-era. If yes, arguably Korea's Goryeo dynasty straddled medieval and Renaissance/Enlightenment eras.
I'm quite interested in this game. I especially like the victory conditions for several reasons: First, you really have to stand the test of time and cannot end the game e.g. by winning before reaching the industrial age. Second, losing a huge empire doesn't seem to be a game breaker. Losing many cities in a Civ game really hurts and is really crippling for your science progress, culture output and so on whereas it seems to be a much less devastating event in a Humankind game so that it encourages you to continue playing your game til the end.
I'm really courious about how they will handle the science progress because this is something that must be quite balanced to avoid snowballing civilizations which would brake the intended game expierience.
I'm really courious about how they will handle the science progress because this is something that must be quite balanced to avoid snowballing civilizations which would brake the intended game expierience.
Will scientific progress transfer across civs, so that the science leader in any given era gets Fame points for major discoveries, but every civ then gains the benefits of those breakthroughs over time?
Will all techs be researched through science? One of the best innovations of Civ 6 for me was breaking the tech tree apart. Many human innovations, including military ones prior to the industrial era, were more of a social evolution than a technological one. For me, it would be a step backwards for those innovations to go back into a single tree.
At this stage, we have little (no?) idea how HK will handle "progress". There are a lot of possible approaches. I'm personally hoping they try something quite different from what's been done before.
If the devs are clever, they invest well into a sophisticated advanced start system. That way, you can satisfy everyone that just wants to play f.e. the Khmer.
As for modern Civs, I have things like America, the Soviets, India, Australia, Brazil, Iran, South Africa, Vietnam, maybe even the European Union, because would they not have a European Civ? Can they resist putting "the Nazis" there?
You can probably start all of them as well in the Industrial Age where for example the United States should start, but they got their heyday in the Modern Era, so they should belong there as well. Maybe it really makes sense to combine the two eras or have the Modern Era as a seventh one (like the Neolithic era at the start). And then do the ideologies like Communism and Fascism differently.
The Industrial Germans apparently have u-boats, so it would seem likely that Nazis are bypassed. Would they try Unified Germany for the Modern Age?
@SaiH@Trav'ling Canuck I like that it forces you to play the whole game and not to beeline at the end towards specific victory goals.
There is a tech tree and that's all we know. The lone Technology shown was carpentry.
I would like to know how Ages change, that would resolve several concerns that I have about whether everyone advances through the Ages at the same rate or if Scientific civs push through first (and if not, why play a Science civ?).
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.
