pre-release info New civ guide: America

pre-release info
I have no complaints with this system but I just want to be able to play who I want to play rather be locked in to something which I thought was the point of all this.
Same. I don't care about Paths and leader connections, at all. I just want to be able to pick a leader and then play around with all the different civ combinations. I'm ok with gameplay unlocks, provided every civ has one, otherwise it will feel far more restrictive than it should have done, imo.

On the other hand, it's a free for all in multiplayer, where I will be spending a lot of my time.
 
Manifest destiny was the name of America's UA in 5. Maybe they just didn't want to repeat.

Tho robber barons is a dark age policy card in 6...
 
Manifest destiny was the name of America's UA in 5. Maybe they just didn't want to repeat.
the term 'Manifest Destiny' is a term several Americans feel uncomfortable by. I think that's the reason.

Like I said, the design and naming conventions (except Robber Barons for some reason?) are playing it as safe as possible, and focus on an aspect of America that the Americans want to associate themselves with, but aren't associated with by people outside of America.
 
The Civic and Tradition name choices make me cringe though. The fine American Tradition of Robber Barons. Ah yes.
I dunno, corporate plundering seems as American as apple pie to me.
 
No. The Shawnee and Majapahit also didn't build theirs.
Though the Shawnee wonder was probably built by the Shawnee's ancestors, the Fort Ancient culture.
 
1734541171617.png

America's Background Art
 
1734541923687.png


COLONIAL AMERICA, eh?
 
View attachment 712641
America's Background Art
I'll admit that this art isn't my favorite. Maybe with a militaristic focus it would make sense, but with Economic-Expansionist Attributes and the war bonuses being decidedly later, with a tier II UU and Wartime Manufacturing a later civic, I would have preferred something more industrial. Folks on their break in one of the "Industrial Parks," a train being assembled, something like that. If they did want a war scene, it would make to reference a later time period like the war abilities do, assembling a battleship or something. Ok, maybe I just like the idea of people assembling something...
 
I think people read too much into labels that some intern put on a YouTube soundtrack video.
No one at CivFanatics has ever overanalyzed anything. :mischief: Still, I do think it's noteworthy that we have explicitly Colonial America...when we don't have, say, Achaemenid Persia.:coffee:
 
No one at CivFanatics has ever overanalyzed anything. :mischief: Still, I do think it's noteworthy that we have explicitly Colonial America...when we don't have, say, Achaemenid Persia.:coffee:
On the other hand, we've had Achaemenid Persian Leaders and Unique Unit for how many Civs now? So many that people here have been complaining about the lack of representation of Sassanid, Parthian, Safavid or any other Persian Civ.

Whereas, I don't believe that except for G. Washington as a Leader, we've ever had specific Colonial America in Civ.

That doesn't mean that I think the game needed Colonial America, but it does provide a case for including it at least once. And possibly, also a case for moving to another version of Persia. but that remains very much to be seen.
 
On the other hand, we've had Achaemenid Persian Leaders and Unique Unit for how many Civs now? So many that people here have been complaining about the lack of representation of Sassanid, Parthian, Safavid or any other Persian Civ.
Nader Shah in Civ6 gave me some hope Firaxis was aware there was more to Persian history than the Achaemenids. :(
 
Nader Shah in Civ6 gave me some hope Firaxis was aware there was more to Persian history than the Achaemenids. :(
And then, come Civ 7:
  • Puts Achaemenid Persia into the game, edging out potential newcomer Sassanids in the Antiquity era
"Okay but at least we could get some Exploration Sassanids or maybe some modern Safavids or Ashfar-"
  • Puts Xerxes in the game as an associated leader for Achaemenid Persia, ensuring that we won't see an Exploration or Modern Persian leader or civ until presumably one year of DLC away
:(

I'll even take Alexander as an associated Persian leader instead of an Achaemenid leader and an Achaemenid Civ.

And then we get two American leaders, maybe a fourth age with another America civ, and two Muslim Civs that narrowly avoid being actually Iranian (Abbasids and Mughals)*.

It just hurts to see one of my pet interests snubbed this directly. As a CivFanatic, I have no choice but to take this personally.

*I am aware that the Iranians had a massive influence on the Islamic empires and dynasties that followed them, but Iran is such a perfect fit for the 3-age format that it huuuurts to see it not capitalized on sooner.
 
Nader Shah in Civ6 gave me some hope Firaxis was aware there was more to Persian history than the Achaemenids. :(
Persia had three large empires in the Antiquity age and was conquered in the second and third age. The Age system was always going to shaft them, and out of the three Persia's the Achaemenids were the most notable.

I do hope we get a Sassanian and a Safavid leader later down the line for some variation. All three gunpowder empires deserve their spot in the sunlight, so hopefully the Safavids are added around the same time the Ottomans are.
 
Persia had three large empires in the Antiquity age and was conquered in the second and third age.
Sassanids straddle the line but are a good fit for Exploration Age IMO, and the gunpowder empire Safavids are a prime candidate for Third Age Iran IMO. If anything, I feel like later incarnations of Persia have been hobbled by Antiquity Persia being a pure combat civ, which is strange enough for the Achaemenids and clearly more tailored for their current segue into Mongols.
 
Back
Top Bottom