In that sense, perhaps England could be Renaissance and leave Britain for the Industrial era, which could be transcended to the Modern era with little issue. But the thing is England does have a significant presence in the Middle Ages, and has iconic stuff like longbowmen. Redcoats and Royal Navy-related things could be subject of either the Renaissance or Industrial eras, as British more than English.
There is also the possibility that they go with dynasty names and in the Renaissance they could call it Tudor instead of England. It wouldn't be my preference.
Personally I would go with Anglo-Saxons then England, then Great Britain/United Kingdom for Medieval/Renaissance/Industrial.
I wonder, does anyone else see this concept of identity progression in relation to alternate history and think that the game not only could include alternative history, but probably should (at least, were it not for concerns about "realism") given that things deliberately generally won't play out in game as they did in real life.
There is also the possibility that they go with dynasty names and in the Renaissance they could call it Tudor instead of England. It wouldn't be my preference.
Personally I would go with Anglo-Saxons then England, then Great Britain/United Kingdom for Medieval/Renaissance/Industrial.
Man, I hope this game does well and lives up to the hype. I'm a life-long Civ & 4X fan, but I feel like Firaxis is getting a bit lazy with their progression with the series. Districts were a nice idea, but I think Civ VI takes a number of steps back as well and kinda stagnates the series. Amplitude does a lot of great work with their other games, so I hope Humankind is a phenomenal game that forces Firaxis to push themselves to keep up with the competition.
I do hope that the Civ choices feel more distinct than just a unique unit a single building though; I get they want you to mix-and-match a bunch of unique buildings, which is great, but what if I just happen to want to go for a full Hittite run? Maybe having each Civ carry a set of unique bonuses, and forcing you to choose which bonuses to keep, or which ones to abandon might be a really cool idea.
EDIT: Another really cool idea would be to have a sort of Civ progression tree. It might be a bit jarring to have you choose mostly East-Asian civilizations for most of the game, and suddenly switch to Germany in the Industrial Era. Maybe gatelock certain Civs by their geographic or cultural proximity. And through this "proximity", you could still start with say, Egypt, and eventually make your way towards Germany, by continually choosing "adjacent" Civs that move you towards that direction. That would be a really interesting mechanic IMO, than just making them all available at once.
I've been playing Amplitude games since the original Endless Space, and I've been consistently impressed with how they treat and interact with their fanbase. They're one of the few studios that has my implicit trust.
I've been playing Amplitude games since the original Endless Space, and I've been consistently impressed with how they treat and interact with their fanbase. They're one of the few studios that has my implicit trust.
I bought Endless Legend a couple of years ago and didn't play that much.
I started playing it recently again (I only have 2 or 3 expansions), and I really really like it. I particularly love how the city/district expansions work, and I am looking forward to seeing it in HK.
It looks beautiful and has amazing lore and faction intros, I just can't play empire building strategy games in fantasy settings, something about that type of setting kills my motivation.
It doesn't even happen with sci fi settings (which makes me willing to try Endless Space 2 soon)
It looks beautiful and has amazing lore and faction intros, I just can't play empire building strategy games in fantasy settings, something about that type of setting kills my motivation.
It doesn't even happen with sci fi settings (which makes me willing to try Endless Space 2 soon)
I also found Endless Legends inaccessible for some reason, despite loving the lore and art direction. Endless Space 2 has been my favorite 4X game for some time, however, and I loved the original Endless Space as well.
Someone posted from a chat with the developers some posts ago and they mentioned the stability of a city. I'm really intrigued by that hint. Can we hope for a refined take on Civ6's or Rhye's stability mechanisms whereby cities can revolt and defect from your empire??
Someone posted from a chat with the developers some posts ago and they mentioned the stability of a city. I'm really intrigued by that hint. Can we hope for a refined take on Civ6's or Rhye's stability mechanisms whereby cities can revolt and defect from your empire??
It's handled differently in RFC and Civ6. Civ6 is determined mainly by city proximity and size. In RFC it's much more related to empire size, government and policies.
Civ 6 is noticeably deficient in ancient leaders. It's just Gilgabro. If there is a 3rd expansion coming, I expect Babylon and a second Pharaonic leader for Egypt.
I'm surprised there is this much hype for Humankind. I always felt like Amplitude games didn't have nearly the following Civ does (though I play and love Endless Space 2). I like Games2Gether but it always felt stagnant.
I'm surprised there is this much hype for Humankind. I always felt like Amplitude games didn't have nearly the following Civ does (though I play and love Endless Space 2). I like Games2Gether but it always felt stagnant.
Civ 6 is noticeably deficient in ancient leaders. It's just Gilgabro. If there is a 3rd expansion coming, I expect Babylon and a second Pharaonic leader for Egypt.
Civ 6 is noticeably deficient in ancient leaders. It's just Gilgabro. If there is a 3rd expansion coming, I expect Babylon and a second Pharaonic leader for Egypt.
Maya, Byzantium, Portugal, Assyria/Babylon, a Native American Civ, and Ethiopia have already been pre-leaked to be part of a likely 3rd expansion by our Typhoon of an inside source (I am assuming) who predicted everything about Gathering Storm.
I am a bit worried about the "Fame" victory condition. That just sounds like playing civ for a Score win with all the other Victory conditions turned off. That actually sounds a bit boring to me, not new and innovative.
Just like with Civ6, this new game clearly is all about re-writing history. I have marked it on my wish list, but I won't be pre-ordering it. I'll wait for reviews, and likely wait for a patch or two as well. I haven't played any of the Endless series of games, but it sounds like people are happy with the Dev Studio.
How quick are they to patch launch day bugs, and deal with other updates over the first 12-18 months?
Maya, Byzantium, Portugal, Assyria/Babylon, a Native American Civ, and Ethiopia have already been pre-leaked to be part of a likely 3rd expansion by our Typhoon of an inside source (I am assuming) who predicted everything about Gathering Storm.
I am a bit worried about the "Fame" victory condition. That just sounds like playing civ for a Score win with all the other Victory conditions turned off. That actually sounds a bit boring to me, not new and innovative.
It's more like smashing all the victory conditions together. You get bonus fame for doing things aligned with your civ in whatever given Age. So a warmonger might get more Fame for conquest while a builder might get more Fame for Wonders, and a Science civ might get more Fame for completing all the techs in an Age or something.
Civ 6 is noticeably deficient in ancient leaders. It's just Gilgabro. If there is a 3rd expansion coming, I expect Babylon and a second Pharaonic leader for Egypt.
I'd consider Dido an ancient leader with the founding of Carthage, though her later years may have stretched into the beginning of classical antiquity. But yes we still need more.
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.
