Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Why you don't want the Maori to be added? Do you prefer a different Polynesian people? Or are you against any Polynesian people becoming a Civ?
[GS] New units in Gathering Storm
- Thread starter Haig
- Start date
- Status
Why you don't want the Maori to be added? Do you prefer a different Polynesian people? Or are you against any Polynesian people becoming a Civ?
kryat
King
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
- Messages
- 921
Medics, supply convoys, and drones are underrated. But I would like to see them cheaper, even if there was a limit on number you could build.
I’d also like to see other crazy uniques. Not just supports, but GP, traders, spies, etc.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I have a traditional view of what makes a Civilization; and anyone who didn't make it out of (Civ VI) Chiefdom doesn't qualify. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented in other games...but not this one. Especially ahead of Civs that did progress throughout time. But meh - I'll live.
Last edited:
I agree with you, and it bothers me a lot that those semi-naked dancer guys with obsidian blades? Could defeat the best classical era unit in history, with chain or plate armor, strong shields and most import IRON SWORDS. I know it is just a game but it does't feel right at least for me.
Does it feel worse than when Monty beats you to the Apadana? Or Sumeria converting your capital to Hinduism? Really, you need to let history and realism go to enjoy civ the most.
Of course civ 6 is not a simulator of history, I think we all get that, but I don't think your examples are at the same level than the point we are discussing here. I wouldn't have any problem if they were a warrior replacement, which is the place where they belong: a tribal type unit that does not make use of metals, neither for their armor or weapons.
It is not that it isn't historical, it just doesn't make any sense that in an hypothetical encounter between a toa warrior and a legionary, the toa, from a tactical and technical perspective, would have any chance to win, even with all that the chanting, and all the dancing and all those tattoos. The legionary is simple an era ahead in terms of tactical skills and equipment.
It also doesn't make sense that a Knight destroys city walls, a Crossbow sinks a ship, an Archer shoots over the english channel (but Horse Archers can't for some reason), an Eagle Warriors runs around in 4000BC and beats all other units, Swords are always better than Spears/Pikes in melee combat, Legions do not even need iron (I'm very glad at least this will change). It also doesn't make sense that mountains are absolutely impassable, planes are unable to land on plains or grassland without airstrips and that ships cannot interact with rivers, but your land units can.
As I said you need to let history and realism go. Real world logic has no application in civ, it has it's own logic (that is subject to change from time to time), which is sometimes very similar to real world logic, and sometimes not at all. Would I prefer more real world logic? Yes, in most parts of the game. Would I prefer the Italian grammar to be used when forming the plural of Italian words in other languages? Absolutely.
Ethiopian tribesmen defeated a column of Italian tankettes, they turned them upside down and lit on fire, and when crew tried to get out speared them.
If the Maori uu bothers you, you can think that the unit represents a larger group of warriors than an armoured swordsmen.
If the Maori uu bothers you, you can think that the unit represents a larger group of warriors than an armoured swordsmen.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
My father served next to the Ethiopian Battalion in Korea, in which there were a number of men wearing a little blue and silver badge with the representation of a spear on it: meaning they had defended their country armed only with a spear: this was, in game terms, the Atomic Era!
And the Zulu Impis destroyed a British force of riflemen at Isandhlwana in 1879, but the next year at Ulundi Kraaal were massacred in their turn by British using the same kind of rifles but better tactics.
And when you say 'Roman Legion' you really should follow it with Which One? because the Legion at various times was armed with spears, long swords, short swords, body armor, no body armor, heavy javelins, and in virtually all cases was accompanied by up to its number or more of auxiliaries that could be anything from horse archers to mounted armored lancers to slingers, bowmen, light spearmen, light swordsmen, or javelin-throwing skirmishers.
ALL units in Civ are always Approximations, sometimes pretty close, sometimes wildy off compared to the historical antecedent. This approximation gets even worse once you get into the Modern Era and later: at Civ scale, any Modern Infantry unit also includes Mortars. Machine-guns, light Antitank Guns or Antitank Rocket Launchers, at the very least. IF (as it really should) the Civ Unit represents an Infantry Division, then it also includes antiaircraft guns, artillery, and probably tanks or self-propelled antitank/artillery pieces.
Which means that a large number of the late game units, like Machine-guns and Antitank Crews, are totally artificial as separate units - along with the Musketman, that hoary old Civ Staple.
So, us Historical types just have to Grit our teeth and keep playing...
Objecting to the plausibility of a glorified Warrior being more powerful than the strongest Swordsman variant in the game is an issue of believability and internal logic, not of anti-historicity.
Also, saying "there are other things that don't make sense either" is not an argument that things shouldn't make sense. Gameplay is important, but mechanisms should try to resemble the real-world things they're try to model as closely as is reasonable. There are abstractions inherent to games, but some of the items you mention (like knights vs walls) can and should be fixed. If you just "let realism go" then we're not playing Civilization anymore... we'd be playing a game of Bleefhoppers and QUADONGS??! Snzark!
Last edited:
We might just disagree here. I indeed need to let realism go to enjoy civ, and it doesn't mean I'm playing Bleefhoppers. I'm playing fantasy Cree in a fantasy world, that is modeled similarly to world history. Similarly to how discworld is modeled after the real world as well, but employs different physics for some things. Thus I don't think real world logic needs to apply in all instances, just as Italian grammar (which has it's own logic) has no place in the English language. Different world, different logic.
I find it really hard to believe that Tao being better than Legion is really more off putting than invincible leaders, the tech tree, and the many, many abstractions when it comes to the map. That's why I brought up these points above. It's puzzling to me why certain elements are seen as not immersive or illogical, and others aren't. If, in a world where you can shoot over the english channel with a bow, which is quite obviously a fantasy world where real world logic doesn't apply, the Tao wins against the Legion, this is perfectly ok - as long as it makes sense for the gameplay. And really, how is building Legions without iron and Knights without horses more believable? And people didn't complain about that very much.
Depends what they want to show. If they want to show railroads, they'll probably have a medieval save and play 30 turns...
Even fantasy worlds need to have internal logic that is self-consistent. In the Civilization fantasy world, swordsmen are an upgrade over warriors.
Seems like you're trying to deflect valid criticism by trying to change the subject. B being bad is not a valid argument for why A should be bad too.
You're also comparing apples and oranges. Scale abstractions like archer range are necessary to make the game play better -- 1UPT would suck if ranged units can't fire over melee units. I am against resourceless unique units, but understand that they were added so Roman players don't have to ragequit 100 turns into each game when there's no Iron; I can't think of a better solution. Gameplay sometimes must trump realism. But pumping up Toa to be stronger than Legions is not an abstraction or a gameplay improvement; it's an arbitrary decision. If Maori needs a buff, there are dozens of ways to do it that don't break the internal logic of the game world (at least, to the degree of giving warriors strength 45).
They said they were still balancing, and hopefully they will tone the Toa down a little (I could handle them having normal Swordsman strength of 35).
I think it is misplaced as a later swordsman replacement. But as a warrior replacement, it would be even more displaced. It's later in tech than the Legion, which according to civ logic should be well enough a reason to make it stronger. Does it help that I think that the Toa should be a Renaissance unit and rather on par with the Musketmen?
Seems that you don't get my point and I don't get yours
Last edited:
This is a problem that crops up when you try to include cultures that didn't advance much past neolithic technology in the same era that others had reached industrial technology into a game that is about advancing through the ages. Just because European troops fought native troops in the Industrial age doesn't mean that the native troops should be an Industrial era technology (especially when at times they didn't have Classical technologies like iron working). So trying to model real-world conflicts between Industrial and Ancient cultures in a progression-dependent game like this is always going to be problematic, and it exposes some of the less realistic abstractions in the game. The solution is either to keep all units from these civilizations to the Ancient era (as they do with Sumeria), or to just omit them from the game altogether... but that ship has sailed.
For example, it doesn't really bother me that they have the Zulu impi as a Pikeman rather than a Spearman... but that's really because there is very little real-world difference between pikemen and spearmen in the first place (certainly not a 40% strength difference). But if they had given the impi a higher combat strength than even the Pikeman, I think that would have been going too far. That's where I think we currently are with the Toa. I can deal with it being essentially a Swordsman replacement, but the effective +10 strength is just a bridge too far for me.
If you disagree that's fine, but I don't find the "it's just a game, so nothing matters" argument compelling. If nothing matters, why are we even talking about the game in the first place?
Sostratus
Deity
The Toa thing is a problem of visuals being incongruous with game play. Since at least civ4, lightly clothed dudes with clubs = warrior. Warrior is a weak melee unit. Swords beat warriors. Toa look exactly like warriors except with green clubs.
Remember what the art lead said in the maori stream: "Show, don't tell."
It's the same reason we expect the varu, which is a Toa that can't build forts, to be strong: it's a big elephant, and elephants are powerful. More powerful than horses! It would really weird if varu were weaker than horsemen, though. Look how big they are!
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I think it is misplaced as a later swordsman replacement. But as a warrior replacement, it would be even more displaced. It's later in tech than the Legion, which according to civ logic should be well enough a reason to make it stronger. Does it help that I think that the Toa should be a Renaissance unit and rather on par with the Musketmen?
Seems that you don't get my point and I don't get yours
Had they been included in Civ IV, the Maori UU would have been a warrior replacement which would have been as accurate time wise as the Incan's & Aztecs etc; and not jarring to any of us from the POV that we accept in Civilization that all Civs in the game start out in 40,000 BC or whatever. I never paid much attention to V to know; but in VI UU's are all over the show. The Impi shouldn't be this amazing unit in the late game - the reason the British struggled with them was lack of numbers, not any real martial prowess at all.
The Maori shouldn't be a replacement for the musket man (they didn't get many guns till the 19th century) and the reason the NZ colonials struggled with the Maori had far more to do with (like in SA) a lack of trained British troops most of the time. Like I've suggested re if the Maori could've fought the Romans (with traditional weapons), their strengths lie in the areas of gorilla warfare not in a head to head confrontation with a disciplined army. And that was true in NZ where they could melt away into the forest and bush reappearing infuriatingly wherever they pleased.
Maori did adopt really well to modern warfare wherever they were given the chance and as I have noted performed really well in both world wars. Much of the NZ army today is Maori, all the way up to special forces which suits them down to a t.
And as we've seen in the livestream, the Maori player does have Warrior units, and they use more or less the same models as the Toa. So you'll have two nearly identical looking units, except one is more than twice as strong as the other.
Those green clubs must be frickin' magical.
- Status
Similar threads
