Looks like Civ 6 is done: Kevin called April "final game update"

I'm sorry about the multiquoting-kinda new here! It bothers me too when my entire respond appears as editing a quote for sure too...how does one actually do that on this forum so I can fix this problem lmao
If you highlight text in a post, you'll see a button that says "+Quote|Reply"; +quote adds it to your list of quotes (which will appear as "Insert Quotes" below reply box) and Reply will quote it directly. At least that's how it works in a browser.

Anyways I do agree that technically speaking, the Phoenicians are geographically asian. But they're just as asian as cypriots...
Indeed, and in the Bronze Age Cypriots were Asian. In fact, they were mostly Phoenician. :p

I think I misspoke when I said the Phoenicians were Europeans. I tend to go by cultural groupings instead of strict geographic or linguistic ones personally and therefore think of Europe as consisting of 3 groups...the anglo/germanic/nordic in the west, the slavic/nordic in the east, and the Mediterranean in the south. The final group is one that overlaps with north Africa and the near east (I.e. Lebanon, Turkey, Cyprus, etc.) based moreso on culture. So in my eyes they are part of a cultural group that includes more classically European states like Greece, Italy, and Spain.

Given that there are so many Mediterranean civs and that they all have a shared history/culture to some degree, I think the region acts as it's own continent of sorts-perhaps separate from Europe all together. There are some kinks in that mindset (Egypt and France immediately come to mind) but it's just my opinion. It's a subcontinent at least and imo should be treated as one to make the most sense instead of locking each cultural/civ into it's own continent
I think your analysis is fair for the Hellenistic Mediterranean and onward, but it doesn't fit for the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean. At that point, the Phoenicians ruled the Mediterranean, the Greeks and Romans were irrelevant (and deeply culturally indebted to the Phoenicians), and the Phoenicians themselves looked to Egypt and Babylo-Assyria for cultural influence. Prior to the rise of the Greek city-states to prominence circa the 5th century AD, the entire Mediterranean was very east-oriented. The Phoenicians weren't just geographically and linguistically Asian; they were also very much so culturally Asian.

By the time Carthage rises to prominence, the situation is different, and Greek culture has spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. This is long after Phoenicia's heyday, however, as Tyre takes a secondary place to her North African colony. Again, though, Phoenicia proper proved remarkably resistant to outside cultural dominance even after being annexed in turn by Assyria, Egypt, Macedon, Seleucia, and Rome.
 
I don't see a world in which Firaxis significantly improves these areas without some income to back it up, and I think Civ VI has enough systems & content at this point.
I tend to agree with you - I think a NFP Season 2 with bug fixes, polish and a bunch of persona packs would be fine (we need a Caesar for Rome!).
 
If you highlight text in a post, you'll see a button that says "+Quote|Reply"; +quote adds it to your list of quotes (which will appear as "Insert Quotes" below reply box) and Reply will quote it directly. At least that's how it works in a browser.


Indeed, and in the Bronze Age Cypriots were Asian. In fact, they were mostly Phoenician. :p


I think your analysis is fair for the Hellenistic Mediterranean and onward, but it doesn't fit for the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean. At that point, the Phoenicians ruled the Mediterranean, the Greeks and Romans were irrelevant (and deeply culturally indebted to the Phoenicians), and the Phoenicians themselves looked to Egypt and Babylo-Assyria for cultural influence. Prior to the rise of the Greek city-states to prominence circa the 5th century AD, the entire Mediterranean was very east-oriented. The Phoenicians weren't just geographically and linguistically Asian; they were also very much so culturally Asian.

By the time Carthage rises to prominence, the situation is different, and Greek culture has spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. This is long after Phoenicia's heyday, however, as Tyre takes a secondary place to her North African colony. Again, though, Phoenicia proper proved remarkably resistant to outside cultural dominance even after being annexed in turn by Assyria, Egypt, Macedon, Seleucia, and Rome.


Thanks for the tip!

Anyways I will agree that the earliest bronze age Phoenicians were in fact asian. But the issue moreso lies in how this culture is represented in Civ...it's a mix match of Carthage (With Dido and the Biremes) and traditional BE Phoenicia (I'm guessing the UA with the free eureka?). So we get this kind of Germany situation where we get bonuses from across the civs' timeline which makes it harder to pin down. I do think the Civ VI Phoenicia is the more hellanized/ classical "Phoenicia" though which comes off as more Mediterranean by default than near eastern. This is made more clear by their focus on naval play...

So where does Phoenicia lie then? The civ is built more culturally Mediterranean/ Hellanistic/ Southern European but the name Phoenicia is undoubtedly Near Eastern/Asian. So I have no idea...maybe they should have stuck with Carthage in the end rather than trying to throw in the Phoenicians...plus it would have filled in North Africa a bit more rather than stuffing another civ into the middle east. Makes for some interesting conversation though!!
 
But the issue moreso lies in how this culture is represented in Civ...it's a mix match of Carthage (With Dido and the Biremes)
That's not entirely correct. Dido founded Carthage, yes, but she was also the queen of Tyre, and if she existed she did so in the very early Iron Age when Phoenicia was still the premier power in the Mediterranean. I think Phoenicia's design is very well done, and it overwhelmingly focuses on Phoenicia's time of thalassocratic supremacy (for simplicity lets call it 1,000-500 BC, after which Tyre's star falls and Carthage's rises, with Dido ca. 800).

So I have no idea...maybe they should have stuck with Carthage in the end rather than trying to throw in the Phoenicians...plus it would have filled in North Africa a bit more rather than stuffing another civ into the middle east.
Personally I'm extremely pleased they went with Phoenicia if for no other reason than they consistently portray Carthage as "the rival of Rome," warlike, with Hannibal and elephants. Both Phoenicia and Carthage were primarily significant for trade, exploration, and colonization, so if calling it Phoenicia divorces it of Carthage's pop culture baggage I'm all for it. :D Plus I actually think Civ6's Middle East is rather sparsely populated...I do agree that North Africa is rather empty, but I'd rather keep Phoenicia and fill North Africa with the Berbers or Numidia.

Makes for some interesting conversation though!!
It does indeed. :)
 
Philosophically, I agree with you 100%. The game should be complete at launch and only get better from there. But practically, no game ever is nowadays, and with very few exceptions (most of them in the indie space) games stop getting bug fixes and balance improvements when they stop earning enough money to justify the expense. So, how do you get long-term support for something not earning revenue? "Player good will" is obviously not enough for a franchise as big as Civ; millions will buy each installment on release, regardless of what happened over the last installment's lifespan. A few boycotts here and there mean nothing at this scale.

I feel that most games hit a point of diminishing returns for new content, after which it doesn't really add to the fun of the experience. But, even when that time comes, I may still be enjoying the game. I just want additional layers of polish & refinement for what's already there. How can I get that without also paying for a bunch of extra stuff I have no interest in? And wouldn't I get better results if the resources invested were directed entirely towards said improvements, instead of being split towards generating and integrating new content as well?

If I'm being honest with myself I would (grudgingly) pay for a year dedicated entirely to AI / UI / balance. More than anything else, improvements in those areas would increase my enjoyment of the game. Since Firaxis wouldn't be chasing a moving target I think the results would be better. But (almost) no one will pay for that, even if we assume that there needs to be some revenue to justify the activity. The Paradox model is our current best approximation, but IMO polish takes a back seat to new content under that paradigm.

Given a choice between all polish / some polish with new content / nothing at all, I'd rather just pay directly for the polish, even if the idea of doing so is somewhat distasteful. It's a hot-take, but I don't see a world in which Firaxis significantly improves these areas without some income to back it up, and I think Civ VI has enough systems & content at this point.

You couldn’t be more wrong about Player Good Will and Franchise momentum

Lets look at the “moder’” Fallout series as the classic example

Fallout 3: sells 9.94 million units based on “its Oblivion with guns”

Fallout New Vegas: they change developers, and Obsidian ships a good but buggy mess that doesn’t have the sandbox elements, sales slip to 7.25 million units as a result

Fallout 4: we are going back to Fallout 3 but better with mods on consoles; 13.51 million unit sales

So the next Fallout should do Skyrim numbers right? Elder Scrolls went 4 million (Morrowind), 3.5 million (Oblivion), and then Skyrim’s 20 million

Right? All they have to do is continue the trend and not screw up too badly

Right?

“Hey, lets get rid of everything that the players want and expect! I mean a few nerds will boycott but they don’t matter lol silly nerds”

Fallout:76, 2.46 million units. A failure so ignominious Zenimax is forced to sell Bethesda and all it’s IP’s to Microsoft

Never, ever, ever make the assumption, especially with gamers, that they’ll just buy it anyways.

Outer Worlds literally made that part of their marketing “ha ha lol Fallout76, we made New Vegas, now buy you brand slaves!”

Game is mediocre, ships 2.5 million units

Bethesda was riding on the momentum of Skyrim and Fallout 4, took player goodwill for granted...

How many times shall Todd Howard bleed in sport, That now on Phil Spencer’s basis lies along
No worthier than the dust!
 
Thanks for the tip!

Anyways I will agree that the earliest bronze age Phoenicians were in fact asian. But the issue moreso lies in how this culture is represented in Civ...it's a mix match of Carthage (With Dido and the Biremes) and traditional BE Phoenicia (I'm guessing the UA with the free eureka?). So we get this kind of Germany situation where we get bonuses from across the civs' timeline which makes it harder to pin down. I do think the Civ VI Phoenicia is the more hellanized/ classical "Phoenicia" though which comes off as more Mediterranean by default than near eastern. This is made more clear by their focus on naval play...

So where does Phoenicia lie then? The civ is built more culturally Mediterranean/ Hellanistic/ Southern European but the name Phoenicia is undoubtedly Near Eastern/Asian. So I have no idea...maybe they should have stuck with Carthage in the end rather than trying to throw in the Phoenicians...plus it would have filled in North Africa a bit more rather than stuffing another civ into the middle east. Makes for some interesting conversation though!!
I was one of the few people that was pleasantly surprised that they went by Phoenicia proper, rather than just Carthage.

I would reply to more things though it looks like @Zaarin already said most of the things that I would have said. :)
Plus the biremes were most likely invented in Phoenicia, so not necessarily exclusive to the Carthaginian Empire. The Cothon is more associated with Carthage though but it's not like others weren't found in Phoenician cities either.

I was/am hoping that leaving out Carthage would open up the possibility for Berbers/Numidia to come along though.
 
That's not entirely correct. Dido founded Carthage, yes, but she was also the queen of Tyre, and if she existed she did so in the very early Iron Age when Phoenicia was still the premier power in the Mediterranean. I think Phoenicia's design is very well done, and it overwhelmingly focuses on Phoenicia's time of thalassocratic supremacy (for simplicity lets call it 1,000-500 BC, after which Tyre's star falls and Carthage's rises, with Dido ca. 800).


Personally I'm extremely pleased they went with Phoenicia if for no other reason than they consistently portray Carthage as "the rival of Rome," warlike, with Hannibal and elephants. Both Phoenicia and Carthage were primarily significant for trade, exploration, and colonization, so if calling it Phoenicia divorces it of Carthage's pop culture baggage I'm all for it. :D Plus I actually think Civ6's Middle East is rather sparsely populated...I do agree that North Africa is rather empty, but I'd rather keep Phoenicia and fill North Africa with the Berbers or Numidia.


It does indeed. :)


Interesting debate if founding a new city/new cultural center makes you "of that city"...but that may stray too far into the identity of the individual and we don't explicitly know a) what Dido would have seen herself as, and b) if Dido even properly existed. Would Aeneas be seen as a Trojan or a Roman? If we asked a Roman they would have said he was Roman but most modern historians would probably say Trojan. All speculative and legendary but it's really hard to pin down these kinds of things...I will note that the Cothon, arguably the most notable part of the Civ VI Phoenician toolkit is modeled after the famed Harbor of Carthage...plus the Biremes have a distinctly greco look to them. While the Dido and colonization aspects of the civ are to be contested, I would still say the majority of Phoenicia's bonuses point to them being very similar to Carthage-just minus the Punic Wars aspects which was highly appreciated by me. I think they can definitely portray Carthage as just another trade-focussed Mediterranean power with the bonuses they gave it...and I still would have preferred that given we never got a proper Morocco/Berbers/Numidia.

I still LOVED Phoenicia's design and pre-Portugal they were my favorite Civ. Just pointing that out if that wasn't clear lol :lol:

On the topic of the Middle East...what you talking about? Of course you *can* add as many civs as you want but it's pretty well represented with Sumeria, the Ottomans, Arabia, Persia, Egypt (Kinda) and now Babylon...it's pretty full considering we still only have 1 North American tribe and 1 West African civilization and...well we could go on forever on representation. We have a whole thread that's 620 pages on it XD. Anywho I'm not saying it's terrible they went with Tyrian Phoenicia over Carthage but in reality, the Carthaginian Empire was the "crown jewel" and biggest center of the Phoenician legacy so it makes a lot of sense to choose Carthage as the empire to represent these people...again you could have both but given in as how limited we are...I still think going with Carthage would have been better...and they kind of did which I appreciated.[/QUOTE]

I was one of the few people that was pleasantly surprised that they went by Phoenicia proper, rather than just Carthage.

I would reply to more things though it looks like @Zaarin already said most of the things that I would have said. :)
Plus the biremes were most likely invented in Phoenicia, so not necessarily exclusive to the Carthaginian Empire. The Cothon is more associated with Carthage though but it's not like others weren't found in Phoenician cities either.

I was/am hoping that leaving out Carthage would open up the possibility for Berbers/Numidia to come along though.


I was also surprised and fine with it. But I've become slightly annoyed at why they didn't go with Carthage given we didn't get any North African civs and (Debatedly) the civ has a few Carthaginian elements/bonuses. If it comes between stuffing one region while leaving one completely bare...I'd go with something rather than nothing. But it's really one or the other for Phoenicia and Carthage so...yeah. I would have preferred a Phoenicia civ and Moroccan/Berber civ. Both Civ V and Civ VI haven't struck that chord right which is so strange...but I digress
 
I was also surprised and fine with it. But I've become slightly annoyed at why they didn't go with Carthage given we didn't get any North African civs. If it comes between stuffing one region while leaving one completely bare...I'd go with something rather than nothing. But it's really one or the other for Phoenicia and Carthage so...yeah. I would have preferred a Phoenicia civ and Moroccan/Berber civ. Both Civ V and Civ VI haven't struck that chord right which is so strange...but I digress
To be fair even if we did get Carthage, instead of calling it Phoenicia, me and others still would have wanted a proper North African civ like Morocco/Berbers as well. :mischief:
 
To be fair even if we did get Carthage, instead of calling it Phoenicia, me and others still would have wanted a proper North African civ like Morocco/Berbers as well. :mischief:


Oh of course...I remember your posts on the other chat lmao :lol: And if we get a pack, Morocco/Berbers/Numidia (Anything lol) are on my list as well.

I'm just saying knowing what we do know now about Civ VI. It's a totally different argument on whether or not we'll get more civs, but given that we likely won't (Still speculative though) I would have rather seen Carthage to give North Africa SOMETHING. It'd be fine to make it just as the Phoenicia we got it as they are pretty similar-not exact-but close enough for me. Just N. Africa is such a cool part of the world that was shafted entirely by VI...we had 2 civs in V which makes the backpedal that much more surprising.
 
Interesting debate if founding a new city/new cultural center makes you "of that city"...but that may stray too far into the identity of the individual and we don't explicitly know a) what Dido would have seen herself as, and b) if Dido even properly existed.
Question B is very open to debate, but Question A is very easy to answer thanks to St. Augustine: in the 5th century AD, Carthaginians still referred to themselves as Canaanites. Also worth noting that Carthage literally means "New City," but the implication was "New Tyre." Whether it was Dido or not, whoever founded Carthage was very conscious that they were Tyrian.

On the topic of the Middle East...what you talking about? Of course you *can* add as many civs as you want but it's pretty well represented with Sumeria, the Ottomans, Arabia, Persia, Egypt (Kinda) and now Babylon...it's pretty full considering we still only have 1 North American tribe and 1 West African civilization and...well we could go on forever on representation.
We could use a few more--Assyria, Hittites, Elam, Judah, Philistia, Urartu, Palmyra, Armenia... :mischief: But I do agree we could do with more North American civs, and I wouldn't object to something from North Africa.
 
Question B is very open to debate, but Question A is very easy to answer thanks to St. Augustine: in the 5th century AD, Carthaginians still referred to themselves as Canaanites. Also worth noting that Carthage literally means "New City," but the implication was "New Tyre." Whether it was Dido or not, whoever founded Carthage was very conscious that they were Tyrian.


We could use a few more--Assyria, Hittites, Elam, Judah, Philistia, Urartu, Palmyra, Armenia... :mischief: But I do agree we could do with more North American civs, and I wouldn't object to something from North Africa.


Hmm! Didn't know about that St. Augustine bit but it's been years since I read Confessions or anything by him lol. Next question then...was the Carthaginian Empire ever distinct from Phoenicia? If Carthiginians always saw themselves as Phoenicians/Canaanites, then how are they distinct? Where is that line drawn, or does it even need to be? I fear we may be going into Byzantine territory...

But for the purposes of civ, I'm not sure that just because the founders were of one ethnicity (And knew they were/identified as) means that they can't/shouldn't be a distinct civ. Lol I know you're not a fan of modern history but by that logic, the English settlers that founded the USA, Australia, and Canada (Part French in the latter lol) wouldn't be considered separate civs from their mother civilization of England/Great Britain. The same would apply to Brazil+Gran Colombia too and yet...they are distinct civs.

And yeah we could use more ME if we wanted to play Bronze Age: The Game XD. But then again with so many it would genuinely be hard to give them all distinct bonuses and make them fun+viable options to play. From a realism standpoint-more civs the better. From a gameplay perspective-diversity and balance are more important. Plus the game feels stuffed at 50 civs...imagine if every region got what you described...we'd have EU4 which love it or hate it ain't Civilization.
 
Next question then...was the Carthaginian Empire ever distinct from Phoenicia? If Carthiginians always saw themselves as Phoenicians/Canaanites, then how are they distinct? Where is that line drawn, or does it even need to be?
It's complicated. The Carthaginians certainly saw themselves as Canaanites, Phoenicians, and specifically as Tyrians. Until their conquest by Rome they continued to pay nominal tribute to the mother city of Tyre. However, at some point Carthage rather than Tyre became the epicenter of the western Phoenician colonies. Carthage developed her own gods (in particular Tannit), and the Punic language became distinct from Phoenician. Carthage was more Hellenized than Phoenicia was, though it incorporated Hellenism into its own culture, and it developed a native theater tradition (preserved in a few lines from Plautus). And of course Carthage had a Numidian/Berber substrate. So yes, by the time of the Punic Wars I would say that Carthage was something distinct from Levantine Phoenicia, even if it maintained close ties with its motherland--I think early republic America vs. England is a fair comparison.

the English settlers that founded the USA, Australia, and Canada (Part French in the latter lol) wouldn't be considered separate civs from their mother civilization of England/Great Britain. The same would apply to Brazil+Gran Colombia too and yet...they are distinct civs.
I am very happy to go there and will gladly argue that the USA, Australia, and Canada are part of the English civilization. ;) On a serious note I was just reading a review of a rather massive multi-volume tome in which a historian argues that American regional culture is the result of the regions of Britain from which those regions were settled even into the present day. I think his argument was oversimplified, but I also think he made some compelling points. The book is Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer, should anyone be interested.

Plus the game feels stuffed at 50 civs
I strongly agree with this and don't actually want more civilizations at this point. There are a few I'd be happy to trade, though...

imagine if every region got what you described...
I'm not asking that every region got what I described; only the Ancient Near East. :mischief:
 
Humankind has announced they are delaying release to August. Now I wonder what Firaxis will do between April and August.

Perhaps another pass at balancing or maybe they have already decided whether to do a second NFP or not.

There's a weird obsession on this forum about how much Humankind influences Firaxis and Civ VI. I just really don't think it's a big deal at all.
 
I'm sorry about the multiquoting-kinda new here! It bothers me too when my entire respond appears as editing a quote for sure too...how does one actually do that on this forum so I can fix this problem lmao

Anyways I do agree that technically speaking, the Phoenicians are geographically asian. But they're just as asian as cypriots...but we also run into the issue that while the earliest parts of Phoenicia were undoubtedly more Babylonian/near eastern, the civ presented in the game is more a grouping of the various Mediterranean colonies (Lol it's their ability name) and it's partially-Carthiginian (Or at least she "founded" it...so does that make her Carthiginian???) leader...it's a mix match of all of the civilizations history so you tend to get mixing with North African and European cultures. It's just the slightly inaccurate portrayal of the civs in Civ...it's just a part of the game.

I really misspoke when I said the Phoenicians were moreso Europeans though. I tend to go by cultural groupings instead of strict geographic or linguistic ones personally and therefore think of Europe as consisting of 3 groups...the anglo/germanic/nordic in the west, the slavic/nordic in the east, and the Mediterranean in the south. The final group is one that overlaps with north Africa and the near east (I.e. Lebanon, Turkey, Cyprus, etc.) based moreso on culture. So in my eyes they are part of a cultural group that includes more classically European states like Greece, Italy, and Spain.

Given that there are so many Mediterranean civs and that they all have a shared history/culture to some degree, I think the region acts as it's own continent of sorts-perhaps separate from Europe all together. There are some kinks in that mindset (Egypt and France immediately come to mind) but it's just my opinion. It's a subcontinent at least and imo should be treated as one to make the most sense instead of locking each cultural/civ into it's own continent when there was much more mixing and the world didn't look like that then to the people living there.
I need to disagre, Phonencians are Asians, kind of an ancient Palestinians.
 
There's a weird obsession on this forum about how much Humankind influences Firaxis and Civ VI. I just really don't think it's a big deal at all.
I don't think Firaxis is waiting with baited breath to see how Humankind performs or making plans around it, but I do think they're aware of it and watching it.
 
Noooo! I'm not ready for this game to be "finished!" I still want Elizabeth I, Vlad Dracula, Lorenzo de Medici, and maybe even Erzabet Bathory. I want to be able to make marriage alliances! I want MORE secret societies! I'm not ready for this to be over yet!

Maybe Crusader Kings?
 
Top Bottom