Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
I would not advise using First Looks as your guide to pronunciation...
I go with Sean Bean.Of course Sarah! But I'm still curious at least how you pronounced it.
I would not advise using First Looks as your guide to pronunciation...
I go with Sean Bean.Of course Sarah! But I'm still curious at least how you pronounced it.
I bet he dislikes civs in a Golden Age.
At first, this Civ seemed interesting and that it would incentivize a unique 'pillage and flip' kind of guerilla strategy. But thinking about it some more, the abilities of the Mapuche seem very unsynergetic.
1) If enemy cities lose Loyalty when I kill units in their territory, I want to fight in their territory. But then again, I have a unique unit which is strong in my territory. So should I aim to war in my territory or in the territory of my enemy?
2) If I get a Combat Bonus to fight enemies in a Golden Age, that's when I want to war them, right? But on the other hand, being able to flip the cities of my enemies is much more viable when they are in a Dark Age, and certainly flipping cities of a Civ in a Golden Age will be pretty damn hard, if even possible. So, should I war Civs in a Golden Age or in a Dark Age?
Am I missing something? How is the Mapuche intended to be played?
At first, this Civ seemed interesting and that it would incentivize a unique 'pillage and flip' kind of guerilla strategy. But thinking about it some more, the abilities of the Mapuche seem very unsynergetic.
1) If enemy cities lose Loyalty when I kill units in their territory, I want to fight in their territory. But then again, I have a unique unit which is strong in my territory. So should I aim to war in my territory or in the territory of my enemy?
2) If I get a Combat Bonus to fight enemies in a Golden Age, that's when I want to war them, right? But on the other hand, being able to flip the cities of my enemies is much more viable when they are in a Dark Age, and certainly flipping cities of a Civ in a Golden Age will be pretty damn hard, if even possible. So, should I war Civs in a Golden Age or in a Dark Age?
Am I missing something? How is the Mapuche intended to be played?
At first, this Civ seemed interesting and that it would incentivize a unique 'pillage and flip' kind of guerilla strategy. But thinking about it some more, the abilities of the Mapuche seem very unsynergetic.
1) If enemy cities lose Loyalty when I kill units in their territory, I want to fight in their territory. But then again, I have a unique unit which is strong in my territory. So should I aim to war in my territory or in the territory of my enemy?
2) If I get a Combat Bonus to fight enemies in a Golden Age, that's when I want to war them, right? But on the other hand, being able to flip the cities of my enemies is much more viable when they are in a Dark Age, and certainly flipping cities of a Civ in a Golden Age will be pretty damn hard, if even possible. So, should I war Civs in a Golden Age or in a Dark Age?
Am I missing something? How is the Mapuche intended to be played?
At first, this Civ seemed interesting and that it would incentivize a unique 'pillage and flip' kind of guerilla strategy. But thinking about it some more, the abilities of the Mapuche seem very unsynergetic.
1) If enemy cities lose Loyalty when I kill units in their territory, I want to fight in their territory. But then again, I have a unique unit which is strong in my territory. So should I aim to war in my territory or in the territory of my enemy?
2) If I get a Combat Bonus to fight enemies in a Golden Age, that's when I want to war them, right? But on the other hand, being able to flip the cities of my enemies is much more viable when they are in a Dark Age, and certainly flipping cities of a Civ in a Golden Age will be pretty damn hard, if even possible. So, should I war Civs in a Golden Age or in a Dark Age?
Am I missing something? How is the Mapuche intended to be played?
Maybe Georgia all the time, but the rest of the civs sporadically.
Sure, because if there's any point to championing enlightened attitudes about diversity and representation, it's to taunt and denigrate targets of opportunity.It would have been totally unthinkable. For all the Ottoman/Byzantine/Inca whining on social media, it's great to see how far the series has come in terms of left-field choices and representation.
I think the assumption is that aggressors adopt the skirmishing route, pillaging tiles with cavalry sorties to loosen the tooth, getting it to flip.Second, the loyalty bonus. Well, if I am on an enemy territory, I’m attacking it, right? So I want to take the city anyway. The bonus just means: instead of attacking your opponent, you... attack a free city. Just a color change, then..
"Taovaraman"?I go with Sean Bean.
There are already generic 'likes dark age civs and dislikes golden age civ' and the reverse as generic traits, so having that as a default trait would be a bit strange. Imagine if he got both and it doubled down? Or worse, he naturally hated golden age civs and then got the 'hates dark age civ' trait? That would be obnoxious. He probably hates civs with high loyalty near his borders, or foreign invaders.
The problem I foresee with the -loyalty mechanic is if you flip an enemy city, it becomes a free city... and your units get magically teleported out of their territory. That seems more annoying than anything. Oh, and some new units that are probably hostile to you appear. That's if you can even manage a flip with a measly -5 loyalty per kill. I'm honestly not impressed with that ability given the numbers we've seen so far in regards to loyalty and this ability, you might be able to flip a city that was on the verge of flipping anyway, but I'm not convinced that's actually a good idea. And the free city isn't likely to have enough units to kill to flip it.
I like the rest of the Civ's abilities but that one seems weak to me. I'm all for more interesting improvements, farming every flatland tile gets dull and makes me miss cottages.
I think they're supposed to not synergize. The idea is that they get powerful combat bonuses to make sure they can resist against basically anything, but they're not good at offensive warfare.
This is not a conquest civ, it's a cultural turtle that bites back. A cultural snapping turtle, if you will.
I think this time around, they aim to have civs that are all around/ balanced than have civs that has an OP but very situational ability, so each civ in civ 6 pretty much all have abilities that could come into use very early in the game and each civ would have a ability that’s relatively crappy to balance out.
Keep in mind that this is 5 loyalty per ill on top of any existing loyalty effects. So throw Amani in your closest city and you'll already be bleeding them dry from loyalty. The 5 per kill isn't supposed to be enough to flip a city on its own.