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
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.
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.
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.
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
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…
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
(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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
To clarify, I did not intend to imply that the Expansionist Attribute is only about population growth. It has 2 diverging trees, one for tall growth and one for wide.
That’s interesting; I think it will take some getting used to. I’ve never stared at the map, pondered expanding my empire, and then building a granary or a tile improvement to do so.
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.