Thinking about it, I think this civ will be most suited to a game that starts directly in the modern age. With the starting bias of the lakes and the possibility of terraforming its environment, it has the means to grow quickly, more than other civs of the modern age and reach most of the objectives faster than the others. But in a more classic game depending on the passives of the previous civs I have a hard time finding any interest in it at the moment.
I think that, unlike the Inca, Hawai'i, and Russia, Buganda will still be pretty good without their primary terrain type. After all, they make their own lakes.
And since Unique Improvements don't remove warehouse bonuses, you can throw these down in place of a farm or whatever and still get some of the original Improvements yields.
I'm not concerned about wonder bloat; building wonders is one of the top reasons I play the game. Some civs deserve to have multiple wonders represented, like China and Egypt. I also dislike the "associated wonder" concept, but that ship has sailed.
As demonstrated by Taj Mahal and Red Fort, two Mughal-era Indian landmarks, both being in the game btw.
Including associated wonders absolutely does NOT grief the inclusion of important, recognisable wonders. If a wonder is important enough, it'll be included anyway, regardless of Civ.
And if an important wonder is missing now, it's probably because the Civ will be added later (Cristo Redentor, Hagia Sofia, etc)
Thinking about it, I think this civ will be most suited to a game that starts directly in the modern age. With the starting bias of the lakes and the possibility of terraforming its environment, it has the means to grow quickly, more than other civs of the modern age and reach most of the objectives faster than the others. But in a more classic game depending on the passives of the previous civs I have a hard time finding any interest in it at the moment.
Yeah that checks out. How important are pillaging yields when you and your oppontents makes hundreds of yields per turn? The bonuses are strong early into the Modern Age, and then fall off a cliff if you cannot turn it into a meaningful advantage.
Agreed. Both are frustrating one as their abilities are cool, but feel much more map dependant... But it's down in no small part to RNG if you'll have the map position to use them. For planners like me, it's a definite irritant and may lead to a lot of restarts if I have a specific idea in mind for how I want a game to go in terms of civs...
Agreed. Both are frustrating one as their abilities are cool, but feel much more map dependant... But it's down in no small part to RNG if you'll have the map position to use them. For planners like me, it's a definite irritant and may lead to a lot of restarts if I have a specific idea in mind for how I want a game to go in terms of civs...
That's why the Inca and Russia have closely associated leaders with the same terrain biases; if you really want to play the Inca, start with Pachacuti. Russia, with Catherine.
Is everyone here unknowledgeable for never having heard of the oil terminal near me, or ignorant if they don't find it worth learning about?
Dev resources are finite. If they had to choose between representing New York City through the Statue or Liberty or Hudson Yards, as much as I personally prefer visiting the later in person, the former is obviously the more important landmark to include in game.
Would more players learn about Hudson Yards than would learn about the Statue of Liberty? Absolutely! But who cares?
If educating players on things from the past that they're unaware of is the most important consideration, Civ should eliminate the Pyramids, the Hanging Gardens, Greece, Rome, Augustus, Harriet Tubman, and most everything else in the game.
That's why the Inca and Russia have closely associated leaders with the same terrain biases; if you really want to play the Inca, start with Pachacuti. Russia, with Catherine.
Yes... But... Also this is the game that's designed to encourage leader mixing/matching?
I think in general "cares about X terrain" would have been better being an antiquity-only mechanic. Having it crop up in later eras either constrains player choice at setup, or it's a non-decision where the map leads you to have a "correct" answer much of the time...
Yes... But... Also this is the game that's designed to encourage leader mixing/matching?
I think in general "cares about X terrain" would have been better being an antiquity-only mechanic. Having it crop up in later eras either constrains player choice at setup, or it's a non-decision where the map leads you to have a "correct" answer much of the time...
Yeah, they buck the trend of mixing leaders and civs. I don't hate that though. Ed has talked about how the first rule of designing civs is to break the rules.
Yeah, they buck the trend of mixing leaders and civs. I don't hate that though. Ed has talked about how the first rule of designing civs is to break the rules.
Hmm... It doesn't feel so much like breaking the rules, as putting rules in place? Which kind of goes against Civ 7?
In that sense, I like that Buganda isn't as lake dependant as they could have been - and I'm in favour of making start biases another thing the player can choose (with reccomendations derived from their leader/civ).
There should be a balance of staples and new civs, leaders, and wonders. But "is mentioned in sixth grade textbooks" should not be the sole criterion for selecting civs, leaders, and wonders. (Also, I'm all for eliminating Augustus the Boring. Rome has centuries of interesting emperors, to say nothing of non-emperors.) For my part, I haven't had to look up a single leader for Civ7, and Buganda is the only civ I hadn't heard of, and I find that disappointing.
I will say when picking wonders, at least this fits the idea of a world wonder.
I'm trying to figure out if they bring back the Zulu, what their associated wonder would even be, if not the Royal Kraal of Kwa-Bulawayo?
To me, the most important thing about a wonder is that it looks beautiful on the map. I unfortunately have to say that not all of Civ7's wonders meet that criterion, though.
Dislike the associated wonders and always have. Think it's better for each civ to be able to build any wonder and just have a palace representing their civ that becomes a tourist site in later eras. I will probably make a small mod that gets rid of that feature.
Love the design of the civ in general. The colonial spanish architecture felt off until I looked at some old photos. Not perfect, but better than I thought:
To me, the most important thing about a wonder is that it looks beautiful on the map. I unfortunately have to say that not all of Civ7's wonders meet that criterion, though.
How they butchered my poor Monk's Mound... overshadowing it with that giant building and harming the sense of scale that makes it inspiring in the first place...
Dislike the associated wonders and always have. Think it's better for each civ to be able to build any wonder and just have a palace representing their civ that becomes a tourist site in later eras. I will probably make a small mod that gets rid of that feature.
To be clear, any Civ can build any wonder. The difference with associated wonders, as far as I understand, is that they can be unlocked earlier, via the civ's civic tree, and can be built faster.
How they butchered my poor Monk's Mound... overshadowing it with that giant building and harming the sense of scale that makes it inspiring in the first place...
I really like Buganda as a choice in general, because it's one of those parts of African continent which even amidst enlightened "Africa actually has history" crowd is often designated to be "uncivilized wilderness". Literally nobody predicted Buganda on release, I am honestly not even sure if I have ever seen it proposed on these forums, maybe once? And it is actually quite well documented and highly organized society, similarly to Rwanda.
Yeah I agree the wooden hut modern era wonder is very awkward though, and racists are going to ridiculure it while not being aware of a refined culture behind it. It's such a pity that for some reason (...does anyone know any explanation?) precolonial Subsaharan Africa was extremely sparse in terms of monumental architecture which is the fastest way to checkmate such contemptuous perspectives. At least Ethiopia or Merina could feature their royal palaces, idk about Sokoto. If modern era went past 1960s the problem could be fairly easily solved using some of the more succesful African countries and their architecture, but I still seem to be the only fan of including postcolonial African states
Having looked at images of the Kasubi Tombs, I have two things to say:
1) They are quite large!
2) The structure holding up the roof layer is super complex and intricate. It may be a wooden hut but is a WELL MADE wooden hut with hundreds of tightly bundled reeds(?) supporting a massive roof.
I think it’s impressive enough to be a wonder, looking at it in context.
If 99% of players have never heard of a Wonder (civ, or leader, etc.), it doesn't come across as "well-researched"; it comes across as lacking historical flavor.
There's a reason why games like Beyond Earth have a much more narrow appeal than Civilization proper, despite sharing so many of the same mechanics.
Even with 4X games that I enjoy nearly as much as Civ, such as Age of Wonders 4, there's a very different feel to constructing some big beacon or whatnot as opposed to building the pyramids, or the Statue of Liberty.
An oil terminal near me was recently torn down. It's a place that really existed in the past. But it's inclusion in a game like Civilization would be less appropriate than somewhere like Atlantis or Camelot.
Renown matters.
Hard to get stats on this, but SMAC has iconic Wonder Secret Projects, both in terms of those psychedelic CGI videos, and in terms of gameplay impact (ahh, the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm, my darling).
I loved BE, and as much as it didn't really hit its stride amongst the wider playerbase, I don't think its Wonders were necessarily the issue.
I have trouble projecting myself with this civ.
I would tend to think that it is too late to make culture (or science) and food on improvements. And it does not seem particularly advantaged for any victory.
The main strategy would be to go shopping. Litterally
Select one neighbour, declare war and go pillage the nearest cities, engranging a hefty amount of culture and gold (to reimburse the lost troops). But don't take their cities.
Once you have taken all you can, make peace with them, and go look for the next prey (bonus point if you can manage conjoint war with a civ on the opposite side of the target).
The aim would be to be almost constantly at war with one civ only, and to keep pillaging to produce lots of culture (and hamper the neighbours). The aim is a culture victory, the extra culture being transformed into more artefacts.
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.
