New Civ Game Guide: Republic of Pirates (Tides of Power)

[Evolena]

This Settlement instantly spawns a Treasure Convoy under your control equal to the number of Treasure Resources; this does not reset until another Treasure Convoy is available.

I think it's just a cooldown effect on the button so you can't "raid" every turn?

Hitting an action button which generates treasure which didn't exist previously is a very vague, opaque, and frankly boring way to steal treasure as opposed to the version which already exists in the game which is actually stealing a treasure fleet. I hold my position that it would have been a much more interesting mechanic for pirates to be unable to produce treasure fleets but exceptionally good at stealing treasure fleets.

But you would be completely screwed until an opponent started to do so.

 

[Krikkit1]

This Settlement instantly spawns a Treasure Convoy under your control equal to the number of Treasure Resources; this does not reset until another Treasure Convoy is available.

I think it's just a cooldown effect on the button so you can't "raid" every turn?

Hitting an action button which generates treasure which didn't exist previously is a very vague, opaque, and frankly boring way to steal treasure as opposed to the version which already exists in the game which is actually stealing a treasure fleet. I hold my position that it would have been a much more interesting mechanic for pirates to be unable to produce treasure fleets but exceptionally good at stealing treasure fleets.

They are unable to produce them because they can’t colonize treasure spots in the DL. They either capture the settlement (which any civ can do) or Raid it (which they alone can do).

Depending on how the Raid Works, they might be able to do it without leaving their Homelands.

 

[queenpea]

But you would be completely screwed until an opponent started to do so.

Yeah I get it. I guess that's why they didn't go this way.

They are unable to produce them because they can’t colonize treasure spots in the DL. They either capture the settlement (which any civ can do) or Raid it (which they alone can do).

Depending on how the Raid Works, they might be able to do it without leaving their Homelands.

In my opinion, this isn't exciting game play or a satisfying way to "play pirate."

And yes, the buccaneer can create towns. And their associated wonder also creates treasure fleets.

 

[Kwami]

They are unable to produce them because they can’t colonize treasure spots in the DL. They either capture the settlement (which any civ can do) or Raid it (which they alone can do).

Depending on how the Raid Works, they might be able to do it without leaving their Homelands.

They can also capture settlers and get new cities in distant lands that way.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

In my opinion, this isn't exciting game play or a satisfying way to "play pirate."

On a theming level, you find a wealthy port city, send over your pirate fleet, and force them to hand over their riches. On a gameplay level, you pick a settlement that produces treasure fleets, move your units to it, and get a treasure fleet out of the ordeal. To me, that doesn't seem very far removed from the universal gameplay of intercepting treasure fleets (which, as has been noted, they also get bonuses for), and it sounds rather piratesque either way. Sure, you can also decide not to engage with that system and get some settlements under your own control in spite of the penalty, but Mongolia is the same way, no?

 

[stealth_nsk]

This Settlement instantly spawns a Treasure Convoy under your control equal to the number of Treasure Resources; this does not reset until another Treasure Convoy is available.

I think it's just a cooldown effect on the button so you can't "raid" every turn?

Hitting an action button which generates treasure which didn't exist previously is a very vague, opaque, and frankly boring way to steal treasure as opposed to the version which already exists in the game which is actually stealing a treasure fleet. I hold my position that it would have been a much more interesting mechanic for pirates to be unable to produce treasure fleets but exceptionally good at stealing treasure fleets.

From historical point of view it makes sense, there are a lot of privateers of different nationalities, but firepower required to steal gold from a port town is something only powerful pirates organizations could achieve.

Regarding the mechanics itself - there's vague mention that treasure fleet mechanics itself changes with this patch. So, I can't say exactly how it will work, but I'm pretty sure this action will really hurt treasure fleet production for owner of the settlement and not just produce a fleet out of thin air. It wouldn't have much sense otherwise.

 

[MutilationWave]

Standard speed, standard length is how I play. Immortal, since that gives the most enjoyable antiquity era. I found I was snowballing much harder at the start of exploration with the setting on - boats on the correct coastal tiles turn 1, settlers at the ready, merchants parked at the target cities - which accelerated all of my progress in exploration, and as a result, I was able to carry over enough gold to buy several explorers on turn one of modern if that's what I wanted, or otherwise keep it to outright fund a few rail stations and factories. That's all intentional. Carrying over units like settlers is by design, and Mongolia and Pirates are able to utilise settlers.

Sounds like you should move up to Deity if you're busting Immortal like that.

I enjoy continuity and standard age length. Prepping much for the next age is often out of reach on Deity.

 

[pjotroos]

Sounds like you should move up to Deity if you're busting Immortal like that.

I do not enjoy antiquity nor combat on Deity, though. It doesn't challenge you in a fun way, and you still get to completely walk modern if you survive that far. It ruins the best of the three ages and does nothing to fix the weakest one.

This is the biggest failure of Civ 7, for me - that the hard era resets gave Firaxis a chance to fine-tune AI bonuses in each era separately, to ensure a more consistent difficulty curve, and they just didn't. I will sometimes struggle to get more than a couple wonders built in antiquity. I cannot guarantee any of the legacy paths. Not long ago, I had a game where I completed none. And even then, about 15 turns into exploration I could feel yourself pull ahead enough that none of my goals were at risk. Continuity made that slingshot far more pronounced, so I opted out from the setting.

 

[Krikkit1]

I do not enjoy antiquity nor combat on Deity, though. It doesn't challenge you in a fun way, and you still get to completely walk modern if you survive that far. It ruins the best of the three ages and does nothing to fix the weakest one.

This is the biggest failure of Civ 7, for me - that the hard era resets gave Firaxis a chance to fine-tune AI bonuses in each era separately, to ensure a more consistent difficulty curve, and they just didn't. I will sometimes struggle to get more than a couple wonders built in antiquity. I cannot guarantee any of the legacy paths. Not long ago, I had a game where I completed none. And even then, about 15 turns into exploration I could feel yourself pull ahead enough that none of my goals were at risk. Continuity made that slingshot far more pronounced, so I opted out from the setting.

I think the fact that it does give them the chance for fine tuning is good.

Hopefully they will soon have a “Dynamic Difficulty” option where the AI increases it’s bonuses each Age (ais that fail to get Legacies get bigger increases in bonuses)

 

[Josephias]

I guess you could always found a religion and name it "Pirates Life" and try to spread that to other civs.

As someone who grew in computers with Monkey Island, Pirate's religion has always been Voodoo... now there's also that Pastafarism cult, but it is not the true religion

 

[Kwami]

As someone who grew in computers with Monkey Island, Pirate's religion has always been Voodoo... now there's also that Pastafarism cult, but it is not the true religion

Hey, good point! Firaxis needs to add the FSM as a religious icon!

 

[tman2000]

And it shares timeframe with Normans. no... unless there's another Age for England. and this England is clearly 'Between Norman Rules and British Empire).
The reasons why there should be another age before Exploration. and Normans fit well here.

I'd say the Normans end with Henry V who switched to speaking English instead of French in court and then the imminent loss of England's continental territories. This leads into an age of uncertainty that culminates with Henry VII's administrative reforms and the subsequent revolutions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth.

Protestant England lasts I'd say until 1812, with Britain's final acceptance of American independence and Napoleon's failure inaugurate the imperial period which lasts until 1947.

I agree there should be another age, but Normans, Protestant England, British Empire is a pretty solid division.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'd say the Normans end with Henry V who switched to speaking English instead of French in court and then the imminent loss of England's continental territories. This leads into an age of uncertainty that culminates with Henry VII's administrative reforms and the subsequent revolutions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth.

That's a good view. So, if we take it as a base, Henry V died in XV century, Henry VIII in XVI. That means Normans take a solid bite of exploration age.

 

[queenpea]

On a theming level, you find a wealthy port city, send over your pirate fleet, and force them to hand over their riches. On a gameplay level, you pick a settlement that produces treasure fleets, move your units to it, and get a treasure fleet out of the ordeal. To me, that doesn't seem very far removed from the universal gameplay of intercepting treasure fleets (which, as has been noted, they also get bonuses for), and it sounds rather piratesque either way. Sure, you can also decide not to engage with that system and get some settlements under your own control in spite of the penalty, but Mongolia is the same way, no?

Agree to disagree on what counts as satisfying pirate gameplay (especially as none of us have played them and there is some confusion about their abilities).

I probably won’t be engaging with them, but I think broadly that their kit — and most civilizations in VII suffer from feeling too same-y. And I blame the legacy paths for that mostly because your actions in each age are really focused on a set of preordained goals.

But I’m curious what you mean by penalty?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

But I’m curious what you mean by penalty?

I was referring to the fact that they can't settle cities on their own until tier II of their second unique civic. Can't say for certain how impactful it is yet, but it is a penalty.

 

[queenpea]

I was referring to the fact that they can't settle cities on their own until tier II of their second unique civic. Can't say for certain how impactful it is yet, but it is a penalty.

Ah ok, I don't use the term penalty in this context to describe this specific malus, but I get your meaning.

 

[tman2000]

I'm sorry if this is being discussed I haven't completely read all the comments. Help me understand this civ and especially paired with Blackbeard.

1. No settlers, but gold boosts for treasured settlements. Also, treasure plundering ability. This implies you'll want to capture precious colonial settlers going out using pirate abilities, and found at least one really solid DL settlement, maybe two.
2. You'll want to build out your Navy. You can use home continent settlements to do this as well, and the unique buildings help with this.
3. Generally ruin everyone's time: plunder, defeat their support units, steal treasure resources to keep up in the economic legacy path.
4. After developing Ports of Call tier 2, you can use all your Buccaneers to expand in the New World and benefit from that treasure resource bonus the haven has.
5. You have to be very strategic about whose day you ruin because eventually everyone will hate you. However, the Haven will be a lynchpin in keeping your fleet healed and should support a stronger ability to defend. This implies an offensive plundering phase, then an expansion and defensive phase.
6. Teach's first ability seems to be redundant for Pirate Republic??? Which just means I suppose that Teach lets other civs dabble in piracy. His second ability really enhances Pirates though by converting naval victories into an expanded fleet, but at increase support costs for naval units to moderate. Hmm, I wonder if this will make Teach sort of annoying to use in this context. At least, we can see that Pirate Republic's gold advantage supports this. This is consistent with the strategy to get Ports of Call tier 2, then expand treasured colonies with havens and build a massive defensive fleet that you can just barely afford and dominate the naval game.
7. Naval dominance clearly supports a victory in the treasure fleet path, but you also have plundering abilities that can take out missionaries and limit the culture victory. Distant lands concept remains in a state of needing improvement, but a homelands-centric point of view means that homelands colonizers can be sunk and prevented from using colonies to win a military victory.
8. From a colonization centric game condition (full homelands, empty distant lands), Pirates/Teach can completely dominate the seas and use naval power to completely nerf 3 victory paths, while dominating the economic path with some advantages in the military path. The cultural path is also supported in that the distant lands can be screened from other missionaries making it easy to convert it.

This is all very interesting, but as is typical with Civ 7 I'm always at a loss to see a civ's abilities fully harmonize. I suppose there's a version of the Pirates where I don't fully build out a gold base to support a navy capable of true colonial dominance, but where selective use of plundering against weaker foes, playing nice with big boys, would be a useful strategy. Maybe that's the path and you always wait to see if the "shoot the moon" path fully opens.

Of course, if it doesn't, then you would not fully research the unique civ tree, a trade-off decision that never fully feels vitally meaningful.

If you are already strong before Exploration, then a lot of these strategic considerations are moot. And if you dominate Exploration, Modern is trivialized. An ongoing design concern with the age structure (where civs are calibrated for each age alone - a situation only ameliorated by the more aggressive hard reset each age, which players tend to hate).

The Pirates work better if Distant Lands are better calibrated to be usually mostly empty, something some mods accomplish, something long discussed on oft preferred, but something contrary to other intentions of the game and general political correctness (not even politics, but just rendering non-European civs less relevant which design wise just isn't preferred).

With empty distant lands, Pirates are set to be able to not only dominate the economic victory, but specifically suppress 3 victory paths for other civilizations. This leans into a premise for the victory paths where you not only want to win them to gain bonuses associated with them, but strategies where you limit the points accumulated by everyone else.

While I see the marketing need for a classic mode going forward, I know devs have talked about an even more brutal crisis system to be experimented with. If there was some way to do victory path points a little more cleverly that might make it work. I know the goal is simplicity, but Vital Lacerda style victory point accumulation methods might be the key. Sort of like how great people worked in Civ 6 where there's a set of victory points to claim via a variety of means and you kind of have to reference the menu and pursue them as you go. The devs said they're going to experiment with different victory paths and I think a "hard age mode" with brutal resets and varieties of way to gain victory points and block others from getting them would add texture to the game.

EDIT: I also want to add that comments to the effect of the Pirates Republic not being a reals civ I don't think hold up in context. First, the archetype of the Pirate was created by British civilization to define itself through its opposite. The existence of one upholds the existence of the other. The Pirate archetype was invoked by Britain to rationalize the conquest of India. This is less understood as colonialism matured, but initially the impetus for conquest was that the Indians were discursively treated as "Pirate-like" with specific invocations in British media of the Buccaneers to qualify the "evil" of the subcontinent, where the historical moral imperative for British civilization to prevail against piracy was invoked directly to explain the need to subdue the Hindu "Thug".

This is historically profound. For instance, Islamic civilization emerged from theological controversies within Roman Christianity whereby Chalcedonian theology was developed to qualify oriental and Arab Christians as "other" to Roman civilization, consequently, Arab Jewish Christianity developed reactionarily into Islam to qualify Rome, the Zoroastrians and the Jews as "other".

If you watch the show Black Sails, the final seasons portray an aspirational Pirates' empire where liberated slaves and the working poor combine forces to overthrow the imperialistic, exploitative, morally authoritarian British Empire and establish a confederacy of free ports that provide mutual defense.

The potential at least sociological (if not in actual pragmatic reality) for the Pirates' Republic of Nassau to have become an anti-European, anti-White Supremacy, anti-Christian regional power was definitely there.

The Buccaneer power Ports of Call II with the settlement ability completely supports the transition from a nascent micro-nation to a developing civilization. While this is ahistorical, it's a sophisticated application of historical theory and consistent with how many civilizations came into being. The Abbasids, for example, being mature desert pirates merged with Persian civilization.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I'd say the Normans end with Henry V who switched to speaking English instead of French in court and then the imminent loss of England's continental territories. This leads into an age of uncertainty that culminates with Henry VII's administrative reforms and the subsequent revolutions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth.

Protestant England lasts I'd say until 1812, with Britain's final acceptance of American independence and Napoleon's failure inaugurate the imperial period which lasts until 1947.

I agree there should be another age, but Normans, Protestant England, British Empire is a pretty solid division.

this means there should be Middle Ages between Antiquity and Exploration.
With this there should also be Khmer being Age II, coexisting with Majpahit and Chola.
And Age II China should be Tang or Song. (UI still Great Wall, UU could be a kind of cavalry. or Dagger Axe Infantry). Mongol also coexisted here in this Age.

 

[tman2000]

this means there should be Middle Ages between Antiquity and Exploration.
With this there should also be Khmer being Age II, coexisting with Majpahit and Chola.
And Age II China should be Tang or Song. (UI still Great Wall, UU could be a kind of cavalry. or Dagger Axe Infantry). Mongol also coexisted here in this Age.

Yes I've argued again and again that a Medieval Age is essential for so many reasons. Even more than an Atomic age.

I agree with Khmer and Tang vigorously.

In the spirit of the Pirates' Republic - where the loose-ish temporal and conceptual boundaries of these Ages establishing a degree of speculation - a true Medieval Age (against Antiquity and Exploration) would also have room for a true "Western Roman Empire" as if it had survived Odoacer AND a Holy Roman Empire AND a Justinian Eastern Rome. Meanwhile Exploration could present a "what if" Byzantine power.

 

[Evie]

Ages are gameplay things, not historicity thing. You add them becsause you have a gameplay concept that you want to add to the game that cannot be otherwise developed.

Far better to have some civs in the "wrong" era than to have eras that are forced into the game without any gameplay concept to build around.