pre-release info New First Look: Tecumseh

pre-release info
Tecumseh's Ability and Agenda makes reference to both "city-states" and "independents." I'd be curious to know what the difference between them is
I think one evolves into the other if you don't disperse them
 
Tecumseh's Ability and Agenda makes reference to both "city-states" and "independents." I'd be curious to know what the difference between them is
It seems like there is a status difference between the barbarian-esque Independent People camps and the city-states they can become.

In some of the early videos, it said that players can use Influence to help Independent People to achieve city-state status, ally with them (and pick the suze bonus), and even annex city-states
 
Tecumseh's Ability and Agenda makes reference to both "city-states" and "independents." I'd be curious to know what the difference between them is
I think an Independent power can have Zero, One or more City States

So early on the Independent powers would only be Villages/Camps... later on they would settle cities, and one Independent power could have multiple City States (not sure if you could be a Suzerain of one of the Independent powers City States and not another...or if you are the Suzerein of the whole Independent power and all of its city-states)
 
Appreciate the sleuths far more perceptive than I who noticed that Mississippian symbol. How exciting! America already seems it’ll be more filled out with indigenous civs than VI was.
 
Appreciate the sleuths far more perceptive than I who noticed that Mississippian symbol. How exciting! America already seems it’ll be more filled out with indigenous civs than VI was.
Interestingly, America had no indigenous representation in Civ6, aside from the city-state of Cahokia. Cree were predominantly Canadian. :rolleyes:
 
Interestingly, America had no indigenous representation in Civ6, aside from the city-state of Cahokia. Cree were predominantly Canadian. :rolleyes:

America is a continent. The Cree are American indigenous representation.
 
Shawnee's river bonus/malus make more sense if you have a precursor which cares about it. I could see some new players getting caught out otherwise. I'm assuming Mississippians would have some river association... Though that's based on precisely 0 knowledge.
 
America is a continent. The Cree are American indigenous representation.
They mean the United States of America.
We over here usually never refer to "America" as a continent, as far as I'm aware. There is North America and then there is South America which are both part of the "Americas." Though I have learned through this forum that Europeans are taught different and all of America is seen as one continent.
 
Is that malus correct? That seems a bit harsh if you are playing this leader with other civilizations that may not be near navigable rivers. And how many rivers will actually be navigable? while I like these rivers, they are limiting in some way since you can't actually settle on top of them or put districts on them.
 
I'm loving this Shawnee theme! I know some people don't like Native American chanting, but I do!
 
This appears to be the Mawaskawe Skote:

1728065429377.png
1728065439546.png


One of the problems with having what's essentially a neolithic culture in the Exploration Age is that if you start with a city-building culture like the Maya and transition to Shawnee, it's going to feel like you're going backwards technologically instead of progressing. And then building Renaissance structures with this aesthetic is going look like you're the Horde in Warcraft.
 
Shawnee's river bonus/malus make more sense if you have a precursor which cares about it. I could see some new players getting caught out otherwise. I'm assuming Mississippians would have some river association... Though that's based on precisely 0 knowledge.
You definitely want to choose the Shawnee with care, or else just leave your non-river settlements as Towns.
 
One of the problems with having what's essentially a neolithic culture in the Exploration Age is that if you start with a city-building culture like the Maya and transition to Shawnee, it's going to feel like you're going backwards technologically instead of progressing. And then building Renaissance structures with this aesthetic is going look like you're the Horde in Warcraft.
Pairing Civ switching with building aesthetic changes can often lead to this issue. The same can be seen in Humankind, transitioning from Mayans-Aztecs to Haudenosaunee (Iroquois/Five Nations) means all the stone buildings in your cities now automatically "upgrading" into wooden shacks.
 
Is that malus correct? That seems a bit harsh if you are playing this leader with other civilizations that may not be near navigable rivers. And how many rivers will actually be navigable? while I like these rivers, they are limiting in some way since you can't actually settle on top of them or put districts on them.
I think it's an almost pointless malus considering the fact they're an Exploration Civ. If you would be hurt more than helped by becoming the Shawnee... just don't pick them. You have the advantage of basing your next Civ choice based on your current land. It's not like you're gambling with how your spawn will turn out.

It will be interesting to see how they design these later-Age Civs and how they interact with these circumstances.
 
Notice the colour on these Norman shields:

1728066749387.png



Dark blue + Yellow = Napoleon?
 
Back
Top Bottom