chaosprophet
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
- Messages
- 491
I had the impression that it was limited, like Egypt can become Mongolia with the horses thing, but not all other antiquity civs could do so. But it would make sense for it to be fully open. And in that case, the leader option would just be a free option then, if you pick a leader associated with Mongolia, you can always pick Mongolia on the transition to exploration regardless if you have enough horses.That's my understanding of what we're getting: civs are unlocked by your leader, your past civs, and the actions you take in the game, but the AI will take the "most historic" choice.
Yeah, like you said it close on some what-ifs, but opens others. It is hard to quantify, but it possibly open more what-ifs than it closes as you can have a combination of three civs of each era.Fundamentally, it's a trade off between (1) having lots of "what-if's" where everyone can do anything in any playthrough and (2) unique traits that limit what the player can do as a specific civilization/leader. The former arguably gives the player more freedom in a single playthrough, but the latter more replayability (and so more freedom) between multiple playthroughs. It's just that some of the possibilities were moved from the game itself to the "meta" part of the game (aka, everything on the new game screen) in the transition to Civ3 and now, paradoxically, being partially moved back to the core part of the game.
For me ultimately it seems like a great game play idea and fresh one to make the new civ be very interesting, and some of the complains like being historical/ahistorical, immersion, make a civilization stand the test of time, etc, don't really matter to me.