If I understand it correctly, you target another civ's treasure resource, and that settlement (belonging to the other civ) immediately produces its next Treasure Convoy, which you control instead of that civ. But you can't do it to that settlement again until after the turn that settlement would have produced a Treasure Convoy for its owner.
That makes sense. If your interpretation is correct, that’s a very fun ability. I guess it also implies that the rightful owner is robbed of a convoy, so you can slow down other players, although I’m not sure how meaningful that will be in single-player games.
That makes sense. If your interpretation is correct, that’s a very fun ability. I guess it also implies that the rightful owner is robbed of a convoy, so you can slow down other players, although I’m not sure how meaningful that will be in single-player games.
I think that if it went ahead and produced another treasure convoy for the other civ, your units are likely still around and can grab that one as well. So preventing the next convoy from spawning actually slows you down as well.
Those excerpts are historical info and often include groups of people who aren't in the game, at least yet.
For example, I think Silla referenced Goryeo.
I get the idea behind it. I just continue to find the sequencing with regards to Europe a bit baffling. The exploration era is themed heavily around the colonial powers; two of the legacy paths require overseas colonies by default, the major players get mentions in the tooltips - but, aside from Spain, we don't get to play them. The other two european options are both pre-exploration in terms of theming and units (Normans and Bulgaria), and now they're joined by a country of about a thousand. Pirates before England is a bit like getting Confederacy before America, and European links overall are a bit like having no Ming, so the only Chinese route through the game is Han - Mongolia - Qing.
I get the idea behind it. I just continue to find the sequencing with regards to Europe a bit baffling. The exploration era is themed heavily around the colonial powers; two of the legacy paths require overseas colonies by default, the major players get mentions in the tooltips - but, aside from Spain, we don't get to play them. The other two european options are both pre-exploration in terms of theming and units (Normans and Bulgaria), and now they're joined by a country of about a thousand. Pirates before England is a bit like getting Confederacy before America, or like having no Ming, so the only chinese route through the game is Han - Mongolia - Qing.
Between the Normans in the base game, and now the Pirate Republic, I'm fairly convinced now the game is not going to get a proper Exploration Age England, though to me that would have been preferable to me over these two initially. The Dutch are likely to appear and usually saved for the first expansion.
It seems like they just wanted to focus on the Modern Age for Great Britain.
Between the Normans in the base game, and now the Pirate Republic, I'm fairly convinced now the game is not going to get a proper Exploration Age England,
Oh I think it will. But it will happen at some point when no one will incredulously ask "Do we *really* need a third Exploration English civ when there's only one (insert indigenous people group here) civ?"
I think that if it went ahead and produced another treasure convoy for the other civ, your units are likely still around and can grab that one as well. So preventing the next convoy from spawning actually slows you down as well.
Conversely, doesn’t this mean you don’t even need units to steal convoys? You just have one Buccaneer raid one settlement, head over to one nearby raid that one as well, so on, and then come back to the first one when the cooldown is over and raid that one again?
Oh I think it will. But it will happen at some point when no one will incredulously ask "Do we *really* need a third Exploration English civ when there's only one (insert indigenous people group here) civ?"
Oh I think it will. But it will happen at some point when no one will incredulously ask "Do we *really* need a third Exploration English civ when there's only one (insert indigenous people group here) civ?"
I think we'll have Scotland instead as exploration civ if we ever come that hard-packed.
The problem here is that if we consider coverage per age, it's not that wide, 25-30 civs maximum by the end of the game lifecycle. So, with Normans, Spain, Bulgaria, Iceland, potential Dutch, Portugal and, probably, Poland or Czech, there will be not many slots remaining for Europe.
Why is Havana Harbour the associated wonder for the Pirate Republic? It makes absolutely zero sense. Wasn't the Pirate Republic predominantly located in the Bahamas? Wouldn't a Pirate associated building/infrastructure there make more sense?
Even if the "Pirate Republic" civilization is meant to represent the "Pirates of the Caribbean" in general, there were a lot more famous places associated to Caribbean piracy than Havana, such as Port Royal in Jamaica, Tortuga or Old Providence and San Andrés islands, were pirates did really rule and had more permanent control over.
The Havana Harbour was never built by pirates nor was it specifically associated to them aside from being attacked by them a couple of times. If anything, its a piece of infrastructure that has more to do with Spain per se (the traditional enemy of Caribbean Pirates) than to the pirates themselves.
Most Spanish-speaking peoples in the Caribbean actually see colonial-era pirates as bad people and associate them to attempts at destroying their cities. A few years back, present-day king Charles III visited Cartagena, in the Colombian Caribbean, and many people rejected the visit recalling the past history of English pirates and their attacks to the city. Choosing a building in a Spanish-speaking Caribbean city such as Havana to represent a "civilization" of mostly English pirates makes no sense. It's like choosing an Irish monastery as the wonder for a "Viking" civilization.
On the other hand, English-speaking countries and territories do celebrate and see colonial pirate history as part of their own history, so it would have made much more sense for the associated wonder for Pirates to be from somewhere in Jamaica, the Bahamas, Old Providence, etc.
I'm sure the Harbour of Port Royal would have been much more appropriate as an associated wonder for the pirates than Havana Harbour. This just shows, again, that history has been relegated more than what was usual and acceptable in this particular entry of the Civilization series.
At least I hope that the "Pirate city list" includes places with an actual historical link to Caribbean piracy and not just a bunch of Spanish-colonial cities attacked and very briefly held by pirates, such as Havana.
Why is Havana Harbour the associated wonder for the Pirate Republic? It makes absolutely zero sense. Wasn't the Pirate Republic predominantly located in the Bahamas? Wouldn't a Pirate associated building/infrastructure there make more sense?
Even if the "Pirate Republic" civilization is meant to represent the "Pirates of the Caribbean" in general, there were a lot more famous places associated to Caribbean piracy than Havana, such as Port Royal in Jamaica, Tortuga or Old Providence and San Andrés islands, were pirates did really rule and had more permanent control over.
The Havana Harbour was never built by pirates nor was it specifically associated to them aside from being attacked by them a couple of times. If anything, its a piece of infrastructure that has more to do with Spain per se (the traditional enemy of Caribbean Pirates) than to the pirates themselves.
Most Spanish-speaking peoples in the Caribbean actually see colonial-era pirates as bad people and associate them to attempts at destroying their cities. A few years back, present-day king Charles III visited Cartagena, in the Colombian Caribbean, and many people rejected the visit recalling the past history of English pirates and their attacks to the city. Choosing a building in a Spanish-speaking Caribbean city such as Havana to represent a "civilization" of mostly English pirates makes no sense. It's like choosing an Irish monastery as the wonder for a "Viking" civilization.
On the other hand, English-speaking countries and territories do celebrate and see colonial pirate history as part of their own history, so it would have made much more for the associated wonder for Pirates to be from somewhere in Jamaica, the Bahamas, Old Providence, etc.
I'm sure the Harbour of Port Royal would have been much more appropriate as an associated wonder for the pirates than Havana Harbour. This just shows, again, that history has been relegated more than what was usual and acceptable in this particular entry of the Civilization series.
At least I hope that the "Pirate city list" includes places with an actual historical link to Caribbean piracy and not just a bunch of Spanish-colonial cities attacked and very briefly held by pirates, such as Havana.
It is kind of an odd choice, particularly with regards to English pirates. Havana was captured and looted by French pirate de Sores, who then burned it down. This attack prompted Spain to fortify Havana. De Sores didn't find any of the purported treasure he was looking for and only received a small ransom for the population of townsfolk that he took hostage. But what the wonder does mechanically is similar to what de Sores thought would happen when he attacked it.
With free DLC packs now, I expect 2 more paid packs with 4 civs each before first expansion, that's 17 per age. One of the expansions will probably be focused on 4th age, but the other will likely bring 4-5 more civs per age, that's 21 as minimum estimation and with additional DLCs between and after expansions 25 is realistic estimation. 30 is somewhere around absolute maximum.
Looks like it could be a lot of fun. You won't settle cities like other civs but instead will go around raiding and pillaging to get gold. I imagine you can also capture other cities in order to grow your settlement count. It seems like there are a lot of ways to get gold which makes sense thematically but I hope it is balanced so you don't get too much gold.
I think we'll have Scotland instead as exploration civ if we ever come that hard-packed.
The problem here is that if we consider coverage per age, it's not that wide, 25-30 civs maximum by the end of the game lifecycle. So, with Normans, Spain, Bulgaria, Iceland, potential Dutch, Portugal and, probably, Poland or Czech, there will be not many slots remaining for Europe.
The weird shifty timeline they’ve created by putting these Caribbean pirates in exploration instead of modern really calls now for being able to play civs in more than one age: Britain, France, the Mughals and the Ottomans not being able to interact with Spain and the Pirates is sad.
The weird shifty timeline they’ve created by putting these Caribbean pirates in exploration instead of modern really calls now for being able to play civs in more than one age: Britain, France, the Mughals and the Ottomans not being able to interact with Spain and the Pirates is sad.
Columbus sails to the Caribbean and find Blackbeard instead of Taino, what a timeline indeed.
I keep hoping they are focusing so much on fixing exploration naval gameplay (and probably later modern and win conditions) because those are already in the game, but that they are already working on medieval.
edit: I mean we can see the timeline mess exploration is, they must know as well right?
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.
