New Civ Game Guide: Inca

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, but this depends on the map type, map size, and the number of the players in the game as distant lands will have civilizations on them already.

Further, with the settlement cap, which seemingly encourages players to play tall, placing core settlements in the home lands will most likely be more important than ever. I also don't see anything in the Inca civ guide that increases the settlement cap and am struggling to see them as an expansionist civ generally.

Virtually every 'exploration' in history was only exploring something that was new to the explorers - in every case, the locals already knew all about it.

As long as the Distant Lands are new to me it does not matter how many other in-game entities are there, the opportunities for Exploration are also there.

I'm skeptical that there's going to be New Distant Lands to explore at the beginning of the Modern Age. Ed had noted in the recent livestream that his rival Ashoka had reached the Distant Lands by going the Wrong Way around the map cylinder, so circumnavigation is absolutely possible in the Exploration Age.

But I do expect a fresh set of Discoverables to be laid out for players to find. And there will apparently be new Independent Powers that will need to be fostered into City-state-hood. So, I expect there will still be reasons to keep poking around.

Note that none of the IRL examples I gave required new continents, oceans, or circumnavigation: the 19th - 20th century 'explorations' were all filling in odd corners of the map which, as stated above, were almost all already known to 'native' people living there or near there.

I had forgotten about the general feature Discoverables, and you may be right: that system could be used to offer all the late-game (Modern Age) Exploration opportunities mentioned: a High Mountain to send a Scout over, the 'source of the Nile' however that is measured/indicated to be 'found'.

We still know so very, very little about the Modern Age, except that they repeat that it will be 'different' in some ways from the other two Ages. Too much room for Speculation . . .

 

[queenpea]

Virtually every 'exploration' in history was only exploring something that was new to the explorers - in every case, the locals already knew all about it.

As long as the Distant Lands are new to me it does not matter how many other in-game entities are there, the opportunities for Exploration are also there.

If you are exploring for exploration’s sake then go off! Do your thing!

It’s just a little harder to explore when you find densely inhabited continents and you don’t have open borders with your new neighbors/rivals.

And if there’s no room to settle, or the options make for poor city locations, then this is not optimal in my opinion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm skeptical that there's going to be New Distant Lands to explore at the beginning of the Modern Age. Ed had noted in the recent livestream that his rival Ashoka had reached the Distant Lands by going the Wrong Way around the map cylinder, so circumnavigation is absolutely possible in the Exploration Age.

But I do expect a fresh set of Discoverables to be laid out for players to find. And there will apparently be new Independent Powers that will need to be fostered into City-state-hood. So, I expect there will still be reasons to keep poking around.

I'm pretty sure we've seen a unit that looks similar to the Ranger unit from Civ 6 ion the gameplay reveal trailer. Assuming that this is a Modern Age equivalent of a scout they do have to serve some sort of purpose

 

[queenpea]

I'm pretty sure we've seen a unit that looks similar to the Ranger unit from Civ 6 ion the gameplay reveal trailer. Assuming that this is a Modern Age equivalent of a scout they do have to serve some sort of purpose

We had late game scouts in VI, but the presence of a unit doesn’t guarantee its usefulness.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Or it's not on that part of the UI.

I find this likely considering the unlock condition for Norman covered by [HIDDEN] was preceded by "play as." If that's the unlock condition, what would the sentence be? "Play as a Civilization that has three Iron resources?" That certainly wouldn't fit under the [HIDDEN] box.

 

[B0RDERL1NE]

Further, with the settlement cap, which seemingly encourages players to play tall, placing core settlements in the home lands will most likely be more important than ever. I also don't see anything in the Inca civ guide that increases the settlement cap and am struggling to see them as an expansionist civ gegenerally.

The Expansionist Attribute is about tall play just as much as wide. Food and Specialists!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The Expansionist Attribute is about tall play just as much as wide. Food and Specialists!

I don't think we have seen the Diplomatic Attribute Tree yet. I'm very curious about it, considering the Militaristic Tree has so many Independent Powers-related bonuses in it.

 

[HanNorwood]

with no way to guarantee their preferred terrain besides playing pachacuti, and then being so terrain reliant, the design doesn’t make sense in the era of civ switching

I feel almost the exact opposite about terrain reliance—civ switching allows you to ensure that you are getting a ton of a benefit from terrain.

 

[Seek]

It seems that Inca are the only Civ that can currently extend their borders through a mountain chain to claim land on the other side because borders only expand via growth events now. This might have some interesting implications with barracks placement and unit spawning…

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I also don't see anything in the Inca civ guide that increases the settlement cap and am struggling to see them as an expansionist civ generally.

The attributes for Civs definitely seem to be suggestions more than anything. Ming is Scientific and Economic, but the design feels more like SCIENTIFIC and economic.

(I am aware that Firaxis is using the “Expansionist” attribute to denote Civs who are good at growing their empire’s population, “expanding upward” so to speak, but I think this is bending the common meaning of the word slightly out of shape.)

 

[B0RDERL1NE]

The listed Attributes for each civ and leader are the type of points you should expect to be awarded while playing them. Not that they are exclusive, but the listed two will be the most common.

 

[Fummy]

The listed Attributes for each civ and leader are the type of points you should expect to be awarded while playing them. Not that they are exclusive, but the listed two will be the most common.

I'm a bit disappointed that they are just guides and dont have any direct bonus. I thought maybe you would get a free attribute point in say economic and military if you pick a certain civ. How else would you get attributes in the antiquity age otherwise?

 

[Atlas627]

I'm a bit disappointed that they are just guides and dont have any direct bonus. I thought maybe you would get a free attribute point in say economic and military if you pick a certain civ. How else would you get attributes in the antiquity age otherwise?

The narrative events will give you different rewards. Some of the narrative events are due to the Civ you are playing, others due to the Leader, and some due to the circumstances in-game. The attributes tell you which rewards will show up more often from that source.

 

[B0RDERL1NE]

The narrative events will give you different rewards. Some of the narrative events are due to the Civ you are playing, others due to the Leader, and some due to the circumstances in-game. The attributes tell you which rewards will show up more often from that source.

Exactly this. You are guaranteed to be granted some of those points in each Age, don't worry!

 

[queenpea]

The attributes for Civs definitely seem to be suggestions more than anything. Ming is Scientific and Economic, but the design feels more like SCIENTIFIC and economic.

(I am aware that Firaxis is using the “Expansionist” attribute to denote Civs who are good at growing their empire’s population, “expanding upward” so to speak, but I think this is bending the common meaning of the word slightly out of shape.)

Expansion in 4X games has never meant upwards, it’s always meant outwards.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

(I am aware that Firaxis is using the “Expansionist” attribute to denote Civs who are good at growing their empire’s population, “expanding upward” so to speak, but I think this is bending the common meaning of the word slightly out of shape.)

I'm trying to come up with a word that could encompass that and it's hard to find one that fits perfectly. "Agrarian" could work as that relates to food, but that also denotes a more rural setting, and not the general population of cities.
I thought of "Fertile" too, but I'm not sure about putting in the game.

 

[queenpea]

I'm trying to come up with a word that could encompass that and it's hard to find one that fits perfectly. "Agrarian" could work as that relates to food, but that also denotes a more rural setting, and not the general population of cities.
I thought of "Fertile" too, but I'm not sure about putting in the game.

Yeah, definitely needs to be workshopped. “Expansionist” certainly isn’t the word if we are describing a civilization that grows its cities and population quickly by building infrastructure and other city improvements, etc.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's quite hard to find another word that covers both expansionist in the traditional sense and population growth. Prosperous, growth-oriented (yuck), developmental, progressive, fertile. None of them really work!

 

[uppi]

Populous covers both IMO.

I think the issue is that there shouldn't be bonuses that help both increase a civilization's population density and the territory covered by that civilization. The two should be somehow opposed, being simultaneously good at both cuts away a lot of the game's dilemmas. It would make more sense, IMO, to have one adjective that applies to civs that are mostly cities with lots of specialists, and another to civs that are mostly towns and/or rural districts. But having civs that are just "good at population" feels too broad, because pop is the most fundamental and powerful resource in any Civ game.

Both are about peaceful, internally-fueled growth. The opposites would militaristic or diplomatic growth, i.e. you annex external growth. Also keep in mind that border expansion is connected to population growth as well. So you would want to pick it, if you have a lot of open space to settle with expansive settlements. If you are boxed in, you probably would not want to be expansionist.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Populous covers both IMO.

That's the word I was trying to think of. My mind kept going to "Populist" but obviously that wasn't right.

It would make more sense, IMO, to have one adjective that applies to civs that are mostly cities with lots of specialists, and another to civs that are mostly towns and/or rural districts.

The terms "Industrial" and "Agrarian" would work.