I strongly disagree with this statement I think MOUNTAINS MOUNTAINS is the laziest way to design Incas (or any Andean civ). I mean sure, some alpine designs are well deserved due to the unique character of this region in that regard, but what about their political and social systems, their expansionism and administration, their religion etc, and most notably their very interesting economic system of "central planning" and relying on centralised redistribution instead of commerce?
I really think the game would gain and not lose from less cliche archetypes and leaders
Their path are whacky anyway, it was whacky since they said Egypt historical choice was into songhai
That's the issue with having "historical" path and limited civ amount
Definitely now in the camp that thinks having historical paths at all was a mistake. You need way more civs than is realistic for it to work smoothly and make everyone happy. To get the most out of this game, you've just got to go all in on switching imo.
Definitely now in the camp that thinks having historical paths at all was a mistake. You need way more civs than is realistic for it to work smoothly and make everyone happy. To get the most out of this game, you've just got to go all in on switching imo.
I mean, it's a useful thing for the AI to give them some paths, and also as a backup if a player fails to unlock any civ (by leader or otherwise). But, in general for the player, it is as useful as a hole into head, and shouldn't have been given that amount of attention - not by the devs and for sure not by the community. I can see how "free-to-choose" would have been unpopular with some people (see Egypt > Mongols polemics), but no one forces you to choose paths you don't believe in. Except if there is no path you believe in due to limited civ amounts, but the historical/regional paths aren't able to solve this dilemma. So, there doesn't seem to be any benefit for players, besides the possible backup. And if the devs would have called them backup paths or AI paths, their perceived importance wouldn't have been so overblown on the net.
Definitely now in the camp that thinks having historical paths at all was a mistake. You need way more civs than is realistic for it to work smoothly and make everyone happy. To get the most out of this game, you've just got to go all in on switching imo.
I think historical paths should be kept for AI to use as default.
For human players, I'd like to see either free choice, or unlock conditions for every exploration+ civ. Not being able to choose some civs at all doesn't seem to add choice.
I can see how "free-to-choose" would have been unpopular with some people (see Egypt > Mongols polemics), but no one forces you to choose paths you don't believe in.
Some people argue that then, they would always choose the "best" min-maxing choice (because that is how they are used to play, and for some it is very hard to play against their habits) even if it is one they cannot believe in, and that "choose the best" was pinned as the reason why Humankind failed.
Ed said in a Q&A (with boesthus I think) that the first iteration they tried was with free choice, but that was not that satisfying and after testing with some limitation it felt way better.
Some people argue that then, they would always choose the "best" min-maxing choice (because that is how they are used to play, and for some it is very hard to play against their habits) even if it is one they cannot believe in, and that "choose the best" was pinned as the reason why Humankind failed.
Ed said in a Q&A (with boesthus I think) that the first iteration they tried was with free choice, but that was not that satisfying and after testing with some limitation it felt way better.
Inca would be a prime candidate to have an unlock for them as "have X mountains in your territory". So if your ancient era start was nestled in a mountain valley, you could switch to a mountain-focused civ in the next era to really work them.
I don't know of right of wrong, but yes, I believe in testing too.
And from a game design book I once read, it is also all about what experience you want to deliver. What would be right for one experience could be wrong for another.
And somehow we can even see that here, as for the multiplayer experience it's all free choice.
I don't mind it being the default, but I would like an option, even if not at launch, to completely randomize them. Would even like an option where each civ, even the player's, get two random free unlocks instead of the default ones.
Some people argue that then, they would always choose the "best" min-maxing choice (because that is how they are used to play, and for some it is very hard to play against their habits) even if it is one they cannot believe in, and that "choose the best" was pinned as the reason why Humankind failed.
Ed said in a Q&A (with boesthus I think) that the first iteration they tried was with free choice, but that was not that satisfying and after testing with some limitation it felt way better.
It is at this section of the interview. Albeit my interpretation of it, is that the structure helped, on the player side, mostly to not have too much choice at once. Which would be if every game you can pick any civ from the next, but can still mean every civ has a gameplay unlock, as you would likely only unlock a few each playthrough. Heck, if some civs couldn't be unlocked at all if you weren't playing an specific leader or civ on previous age, then wouldn't make sense to show all 11 on the screen to pick exploration civ on the Antiquity stream. They being there implies they could all possibly been unlocked at a game.
It is at this section of the interview. Albeit my interpretation of it, is that the structure helped, on the player side, mostly to not have too much choice at once. Which would be if every game you can pick any civ from the next, but can still mean every civ has a gameplay unlock, as you would likely only unlock a few each playthrough. Heck, if some civs couldn't be unlocked at all if you weren't playing an specific leader or civ on previous age, then wouldn't make sense to show all 11 on the screen to pick exploration civ on the Antiquity stream. They being there implies they could all possibly been unlocked at a game.
It's not incompatible. We know there is Leader unlocks and Civ unlock, and I believe there is also a gameplay unlock for every Civ. It's still not "full free choice".
It's not incompatible. We know there is Leader unlocks and Civ unlock, and I believe there is also a gameplay unlock for every Civ. It's still not "full free choice".
I agree, but it seemed like, at least stealth understood your post as unlocks for everyone not being the case, but maybe it is just me who misunderstood his post.
I just wish every Civ had a "Horses" option. Something situational to how your previous era went. Did you focus on Culture, Economics or Science, Do you have cities on the coast, Rivers, Mountains. Do you have access to many luxuries.
That way I can synergize with how my game has gone so far, or stay thematic to civ or leader.
I agree, but it seemed like, at least stealth understood your post as unlocks for everyone not being the case, but maybe it is just me who misunderstood his post.
I just wish every Civ had a "Horses" option. Something situational to how your previous era went. Did you focus on Culture, Economics or Science, Do you have cities on the coast, Rivers, Mountains. Do you have access to many luxuries.
That way I can synergize with how my game has gone so far, or stay thematic to civ or leader.
They also mention the Normans having a gameplay unlock condition that isn't shown in the Antiquity stream, specifically in the context of the game reacting to the player's decisions. I'd be willing to bet on every civ getting one.
They also mention the Normans having a gameplay unlock condition that isn't shown in the Antiquity stream, specifically in the context of the game reacting to the player's decisions. I'd be willing to bet on every civ getting one.
All we know for sure about the unlocks is that they apply to human players.
I strongly suspect that the AI does not face unlocks. We know the AI has historical preferences, a sort of priority set for what civ to pick. But I doubt that set would have a great deal of depth to it, and having their priorities taken by other leaders would result in the AI leader picking at random from the rest of the available civs.
All we know for sure about the unlocks is that they apply to human players.
I strongly suspect that the AI does not face unlocks. We know the AI has historical preferences, a sort of priority set for what civ to pick. But I doubt that set would have a great deal of depth to it, and having their priorities taken by other leaders would result in the AI leader picking at random from the rest of the available civs.
I don't see why the AI wouldn't face unlocks.... if their civ/leader based unlocks are duplicates, they could either make a duplicate or choose from one of their gameplay unlocks.
The issue with them choosing a completely random civ is if they randomly select, say Inca without any mountains in/near their territory, that would be a big disadvantage. it would be far better for them to randomly select from their gameplay unlocks (or just do a duplicate of their preferred civ)
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.
I think MOUNTAINS MOUNTAINS is the laziest way to design Incas (or any Andean civ). I mean sure, some alpine designs are well deserved due to the unique character of this region in that regard, but what about their political and social systems, their expansionism and administration, their religion etc, and most notably their very interesting economic system of "central planning" and relying on centralised redistribution instead of commerce?
