Next Civ game most likely will be a fantasy game

[SandFli]

Yes. Why confine each God to one Civ? Why limit characters to religious pantheons only? A sky God of thunder is a concept beyond one culture, as is the impact of their Leader Ability.
A fantasy would be a good excuse to play with mixing Leaders and Civs.

 

[trythis]

Has anyone thought that maybe NFP is the so called CIV spin off? Reasons I think this is possible:
1. Ed Beach not on the NFP team, has been surprisingly quiet and maybe assembled a small team starting the CIV 7 process while we are all over the NFP rollout over the past year.
2. Normally there is only 2 EP in the CIV series.
3. One of the biggest complaints I read about Beyond Earth was lack of leaders identity. That is not a problem with CIV.
4. Established fanbase and game. You were able to keep the hardcore CIV fans by adding a few game modes and updates for the base game. Also able to add other fantasy modes to appease those looking for that also.

 

[fy00sh]

Cu Chulainn leading Ireland... Yeah, I got nothing else 'cause I'm brainfarting.

Kupe leading the Māori... oh wait
But also if we're allowing people who were real (or at least potentially real) but who have since been made into mythological figures, then we could also get Guan Yu for China and Gilgamesh for Sumeria... oh wait
And for all three of those, they could be played up in a much less historical and much more mythological, fantastical way. Guan Yu not as the General but rather as the Saint of War (now I think of it, maybe a dual leader with Confucius as the Saint of Culture), Gilgamesh not so much as the King but moreso as the God, Kupe not just as the discoverer of Aotearoa but also as the slayer of Te Wheke-a-Muturangi, and the one who left various marks on the land when he visited, etc.

Wondering what other mythological/mythologized figures could be chosen for each civ. Maybe Paul Bunyan for America/Canada?

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Wondering what other mythological/mythologized figures could be chosen for each civ.

Just off of the top of my head, Hellen (the legendary founding father of all the Greek tribes and where Greece gets the name "Hellas" from) could work for Greece. You might not have much to work off of personality wise, but it would make sense if we were to stick to founding myths, like Gilgamesh and Kupe.

But if we wanted a more exciting choice, the rest of Greek mythology is a whole other can of worms that has infinite potential for leaders. Hercules, Theseus, Achilles, or Odysseus leaders, anyone?

 

[Abaxial]

To see how the fantasy lore can be managed without having the rights to Tolkien or comparable, see Master of Magic or Fallen Enchantress (I notice that MoM is now available on Steam), both good games. Eras would not make sense, but I don't think they are essential - they were never integral to Civ. Research would be concentrated on finding more powerful spells rather than new weaponry.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I am one of those Muh Historical Realisms guys and honestly as far as Civ6 goes I have no right to be, as this game comitts so many crimes against history it’s not even funny, even in the most basic core mechanics

Take trade for example. Historically it was ALL water transport based basically till railroads, which is why major cities were almost always either coastal or river based, and why controlling the mouth of a river was a huge deal.

Even the Romans, justifiably famous for the extent and quality of their road networks, did all of their bulk transport over water. Which is why Africa and Egypt were Rome’s breadbasket and not the Po valley.

Meanwhile Civ6 had this completely backwards where inland cities and inland trade routes are not only possible but are vastly superior

This is just as it not more fantastical than having zombies and Sinbad in the game

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am one of those Muh Historical Realisms guys and honestly as far as Civ6 goes I have no right to be, as this game comitts so many crimes against history it’s not even funny, even in the most basic core mechanics

Take trade for example. Historically it was ALL water transport based basically till railroads, which is why major cities were almost always either coastal or river based, and why controlling the mouth of a river was a huge deal.

Even the Romans, justifiably famous for the extent and quality of their road networks, did all of their bulk transport over water. Which is why Africa and Egypt were Rome’s breadbasket and not the Po valley.

Meanwhile Civ6 had this completely backwards where inland cities and inland trade routes are not only possible but are vastly superior

This is just as it not more fantastical than having zombies and Sinbad in the game

So the Silk Road/Central Asian trading empires didn't exist, no to mention the trans Saharan trading empires like Ghana and Mali?

 

[GenyaArikado]

I am one of those Muh Historical Realisms guys and honestly as far as Civ6 goes I have no right to be, as this game comitts so many crimes against history it’s not even funny, even in the most basic core mechanics

Take trade for example. Historically it was ALL water transport based basically till railroads, which is why major cities were almost always either coastal or river based, and why controlling the mouth of a river was a huge deal.

Even the Romans, justifiably famous for the extent and quality of their road networks, did all of their bulk transport over water. Which is why Africa and Egypt were Rome’s breadbasket and not the Po valley.

Meanwhile Civ6 had this completely backwards where inland cities and inland trade routes are not only possible but are vastly superior

This is just as it not more fantastical than having zombies and Sinbad in the game

In a game with Roosevelt leading América since the stone age, that's the ahistorical thing that #triggers you?

 

[Abaxial]

You could equally ask how a little neolithic settlement calls itself "The United States of America". They are not exactly a federation. It's interesting to compare the approach in Humankind, where you only have era-appropriate cultures. It avoids this problem, but although I'm sure it can lead to some interesting gameplay, I find the idea of the Olmecs suddenly turning into the Huns to be too disconcerting to be comfortable with. The obvious solution from a Civ point of view would be (as has been said many a time and oft) to ditch all civ names that did not exist in 2000 BC and not use any colonial states. That would require rethinking leaders altogether and making them all anonymous, which might upset people who demand to have Queen Victoria in the game, but would certainly avoid ahistorical problems. But I don't see any difficulty in folding leader abilities into cultural characteristics - it's not as if leaders actually were units on the map.

 

[Linklite]

You could equally ask how a little neolithic settlement calls itself "The United States of America". They are not exactly a federation. It's interesting to compare the approach in Humankind, where you only have era-appropriate cultures. It avoids this problem, but although I'm sure it can lead to some interesting gameplay, I find the idea of the Olmecs suddenly turning into the Huns to be too disconcerting to be comfortable with. The obvious solution from a Civ point of view would be (as has been said many a time and oft) to ditch all civ names that did not exist in 2000 BC and not use any colonial states. That would require rethinking leaders altogether and making them all anonymous, which might upset people who demand to have Queen Victoria in the game, but would certainly avoid ahistorical problems. But I don't see any difficulty in folding leader abilities into cultural characteristics - it's not as if leaders actually were units on the map.

That would also make choices a lot more restricted and I don't think people would enjoy it as much when a lot of the civs that they have some identification with are no longer present. I mean, even Rome would be unplayable. The thing is, it's a game. It's inherently ahistorical. I don't think it makes sense to sacrifice what makes a game fun on the altar of accuracy. Don’t get me wrong, I still want it fairly accurate, I don't want Roman legionnaires fighting with laser swords, but at the same time, a lot ofthe charm of Civ is being able to play as the Romans or the English or the Khmer, despite their lack of historical interaction.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That would also make choices a lot more restricted and I don't think people would enjoy it as much when a lot of the civs that they have some identification with are no longer present. I mean, even Rome would be unplayable. The thing is, it's a game. It's inherently ahistorical. I don't think it makes sense to sacrifice what makes a game fun on the altar of accuracy. Don’t get me wrong, I still want it fairly accurate, I don't want Roman legionnaires fighting with laser swords, but at the same time, a lot ofthe charm of Civ is being able to play as the Romans or the English or the Khmer, despite their lack of historical interaction.

Not to mention even the First Babylonian Empire under Hammurabi didn't even exist until after 2000 B.C.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Things like the leader and civ names are basically fheee as abstractions of a civs traits and this is a minor flavor thing

Rivers NOT functioning as the main arteries of trade and movement is a huge ahistorical thing

Equating the two is ridiculous

 

[Abaxial]

Not to mention even the First Babylonian Empire under Hammurabi didn't even exist until after 2000 B.C.

Or some other date. I'm not supporting such a move, just suggesting it really as an alternative to Humankind's approach.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Things like the leader and civ names are basically fheee as abstractions of a civs traits and this is a minor flavor thing

Rivers NOT functioning as the main arteries of trade and movement is a huge ahistorical thing

Equating the two is ridiculous

Resources such as wheat and horses (used for their mobility) are on fixed spots on the map
It takes a warrior guy hundreds of years to walk the same distance it might take "only" a few years later in the game
Districts hundreds of miles from the city center?
etc.

Of course I'd like reworked trade routes but I think you're exaggerating a bit

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or some other date. I'm not supporting such a move, just suggesting it really as an alternative to Humankind's approach.

I have no problem with the way that they implement any civ with a fixed leader in the game starting at 4000 B.C.

I think if they try to deviate away from that then to me it won't feel like a proper Civ game any more. Besides they've always called it America in the game, never the United States of America, considering there is no reference to founding separate states, just cities.

 

[Sherlock]

Still waiting for 'Ancient Civilizations'.

 

[Linklite]

I have no problem with the way that they implement any civ with a fixed leader in the game starting at 4000 B.C.

I think if they try to deviate away from that then to me it won't feel like a proper Civ game any more. Besides they've always called it America in the game, never the United States of America, considering there is no reference to founding separate states, just cities.

Yeah, thar was more my point, I just picked on 2000BC because that was mentioned. There's no magic dare that would ever work. You have have Romans, and I think it would be suicide to not have the English (or rather, British), and never were they contemporaneous. You could maybe do geographical areas and have them evolve, so have Brythons->Celts->Roman Britain->Anglo-Saxons->Normans->English->British, but that forces a rethink on central concepts of the game.

I'm up for rivers being a boost to trade. Maybe coastal areas, so long as they don't become unbalanced and the only choices.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm up for rivers being a boost to trade. Maybe coastal areas, so long as they don't become unbalanced and the only choices.

In civ 6 terms, connection by rivers=connection by RR for trade route money purposes. I'd like the increased unit movement back too.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The other way to look at civs is instead of “this is civ is a maritime civ and has maritime bonuses and focus and thus is boned by an inland spawn” is “you spawned near the coast and worked coastal tiles and built boats, so you get maritime buffs”

 

[Abaxial]

Besides they've always called it America in the game, never the United States of America

I think Teddy might disagree.