Nubia First Look

MIS said:
I agree Nubia is OP (see Post#3 of this thread). But:

a) I don't think they are making much - I think most people who would buy a DLC bought the deluxe
b) I mean this with love - I don't think the Firaxis employees are good enough at Civ to calculate what is OP/ what isn't.
c) It might depend on what level you play. I play Deity, where taking well developed AI cities is often more efficient than creating your own. If they balance around Prince/King, maybe other bonuses are stronger?
c) It might depend what map you play. If the production bonus is only for Land, Ranged, maybe they are balancing around continents? It wouldn't be great for Islands. I play one land mass, typically, so again they are OP for me.

I used the phrase OP in post#3. I don't use it likely - I think you can only have one OP civ per victory condition. I previously thought Persia was OP for domination, I now think it will be Nubia.
Click to expand...
You don't think the people who design civilizations are good enough at playing Civ to be able to determine what's OP?

I don't know what metric you use to determine that, but suffice to say they wouldn't be good designers if they designed civ's with an assumption of all players using one set of optimized, scripted, rinse-n'-repeat behavior that tend to be the case at the highest difficulty levels. They are correct to design for playstyles that attempt different tactics. It doesn't *necessarily* indicate ignorance.

I would say the focus shouldn't be on the design being OP, but rather that it feels fairly uninspired. It's good that there's another civ that can build on desert tiles. but on the whole it just lacks personality. But having not played it, I'll have to reserve a certain amount of judgment.

If a civ is OP, I just figure that will make it a stronger AI opponent. And I'm good with that, at least.
 
Moderator Action: Reminder - this thread is about Nubia as a dlc. Let us not get into a discussion about the competency of developers. That is not part of this thread's topic.
 
Eagle Pursuit said:
I think DLC06 might be the last one in the pre-expansion cycle.

I think there will be a winter patch, but without a DLC, and then they will be focused on an expansion to come out in the late spring.
Click to expand...

If I were Firaxis, I would release a good 4 DLCs with patches after DLC 6. The reason being that I suppose that no matter what people say about this DLC way of managing things, they will mostly buy it and this way Firaxis could make extra money on people that bought the Deluxe Edition for instance.

Additionally, I don´t see an expansion coming prior to summer 2018, I think you agree with that assumption from what I´ve seen you post. Therefore, it would keep us waiting without complaining about the wait, keep Civ VI fresh in everybody´s mind, and allow Firaxis to slowly fine tune its game prior to releasing the big expansion pack.

Do you think that what I´m saying makes some sense or none at all?

Personnally, I really like the addition of Nubia, and I wouldn´t mind a few more like that prior to getting the expansion, especially given the fact that it would open the door for more alternative leaders to be designed thanks to the more complete roster it would provide Civ VI prior to the expansion being released, instead having to include full civs. A 9 civs - 6 alternative leader expansion sounds great to me, which I think the release of DLCs makes more likely to happen.

It maight sound like wishful thinking but as I would manage it that way if I were in charge from a business standpoint, I´d like to have people´s opinion on it
 
Last edited:
I remember this time last summer when they were releasing the 1-2 First Look videos a week. People were complaining after each one that the most recently announced civ was more OP than the previous ones. Now it's happening again with each DLC. If every civ is overpowered, than no civ is overpowered - they're all just equally powered.
 
The 'merit' comments are kind of funny. This is a video game, not an international ranking of civilizations set in stone. A civilization or leader has plenty 'merit' if they have historical significance as well as appeal from a gameplay perspective, and Nubia certainly fits that bill. Far more than some regurgitation of Ramesses II or something (though I'm sure the old mummy is just heartbroken he got left out). Civ VI has been more adventurous with their leaders and civilizations, and the game is far better off for it. Both critically and economically, regurgitating all the same leaders and civilizations over and over again just doesn't hold. I'm not sure I would have even bought VI by now if they hadn't switched things up.

Wish I could watch the livestream!

steveg700 said:
I would say the focus shouldn't be on the design being OP, but rather that it feels fairly uninspired. It's good that there's another civ that can build on desert tiles. but on the whole it just lacks personality. But having not played it, I'll have to reserve a certain amount of judgment.
Click to expand...
The strategic use of desert tiles seems fairly nuanced. Outside of deserts, Nubia's only benefits come in the form of production bonuses, which even in deserts exclude wonders, buildings (?) and most units. It certainly makes Nubia's homeland and early expansion decisions more strategically important.

My only issue so far is that the early rush is already too easy (and boring imo) of a strategy. Though the rival civ is pretty likely not to be on desert tiles, so there's that.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
I still feel that any more alt leaders will be saved for expansions. I could be wrong, of course, but it's just a gut feeling I have.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's an alt leader - I don't know that there was ever strong evidence there would be. The other two leaders are likely two separate civs, which seems more probable now that we know the Africa civ is the one-leader pack simply for scenario reasons. There are no SE Asian civs in the base game, so no one for (if Eagle Pursuit's correct) Indonesia to interact with in a scenario (not that it's clear who they would interact with as a second SE Asian civ - they had few if any links with civs like the Khmer).
 
I don't see why it's such a big deal that the civilization is OP in one aspect of the game. It's only at the beginning of the game and Archers have terrible defenses so I think they would be easier to defend against than war carts. How is this different than Synthia and having a good horseman strategy? I know most of us crap out a bunch of archers in the first 20 turns and so now it will be easier to go out and kill your neighbor than it was with other civilizations but I never saw it as particularly hard. Archers are also slow, so unless you are on a tight map, you aren't going to get very far before crossbowman and knights enter the equation. The district benefit is only on desert tiles, but plenty of civs have great district bonuses anyway. If you know how to play with any civs advantages, it can be quite overpowered for a particular victory type. Even with France if I set it up correctly I can get a quick cultural victory by getting ahead in science and production than wonder hoarding in the mid-game and building out theater squares and most people agree they suck overall. It does seem they are making the DLC civs powerful which makes things more interesting, but I see the business side of them not wanting the new civ to blend into the pack. They eventually nerfed Australia a little bit, but all civs provide a different challenge. Some just have more obvious paths to being overpowered. This one is funny because it shows how much everyone relies on an early Archer rush against the AI, so now you don't have to stress as much about getting a few early cities and can defend against those barb horseman a little better. I don't think it makes them any more overpowered than Germany when you look at the whole game. Great stuff in the beginning but if you played a human, you'd be a pain in the ass with your initial archer rush, but I will figure out how to defend you and then run away in the mid game with another civs abilities.
 
I don't think Nubia is overpowered, although it seems to be one of the more powerful civilizations. In general, I agree that the DLC civilizations seem to be very strong. But at least with Nubia, there is not a single advantage which seems extreme on its own, it is just that all their advantages are good, and will be relevant pretty much regardless of your situation or desired victory type. This is something which separates them from many of the original civs, which had advantages that seemed more situational.

I also remember when we were getting First Looks of the original civs, and many of them looked overpowered, but turned out not to be. I actually like the idea of making every civ "overpowered". Giving them all powerful abilities could make for a more interesting game, with greater variety.
 
The archers aren't OP. The 40% is pretty darn good. But its only for districts, not buildings. And you need desert, which is punitive towards larger cities.

The devestating quality of the archers is their speed.

Great initial surge - hard to lose as Nubia to an early dow or barb invasion, can roll some civs early on, then your uu gets outdated and you rely on the 40% to keep ahead in buckets.

Stronger on smaller and faster maps.

But not more OP than other top tier civs.
 
BTSeven7 said:
Archers are also slow, so unless you are on a tight map, you aren't going to get very far before crossbowman and knights enter the equation.
Click to expand...
Well, remember that the Nubian archer replacement has three movement points, and their ability to get around before they are outdated also depends on game speed. I always play on epic speed for this very reason. I really dislike the ratio of unit movement versus tech development on normal speed. It just seems silly that units should go obsolete in the time it takes to move them to a neighboring country.

But as stated previously, I don't think they are overpowered in any case. They are certainly good, they are universally useful, and they give an advantage early on, which is always preferable in my view. But they have a period of time in which they are relevant, and then they are not anymore, same as any other unique unit.
 
agonistes said:
The archers aren't OP. The 40% is pretty darn good. But its only for districts, not buildings. And you need desert, which is punitive towards larger cities.
Click to expand...
20/40% bonus on districts is, as you say, pretty darn good. But you know what makes it more than "pretty darn good"? Whole 20/40% boost on Spaceport district that is built for ages. It makes makes Nubia automatically one of the best civs for the SV.
 
shaglio said:
I remember this time last summer when they were releasing the 1-2 First Look videos a week. People were complaining after each one that the most recently announced civ was more OP than the previous ones. Now it's happening again with each DLC. If every civ is overpowered, than no civ is overpowered - they're all just equally powered.
Click to expand...
That was also before we had a chance to play the game so any speculation was reallyyyyy speculative.

With the DLCs we have experience with the game and how its systems work so we can more accurately gauge how powerful a Civ will be. Pretty much every DLC Civ released so far would be in the top tier or two if one was to make a tier list
 
shaglio said:
I remember this time last summer when they were releasing the 1-2 First Look videos a week. People were complaining after each one that the most recently announced civ was more OP than the previous ones. Now it's happening again with each DLC. If every civ is overpowered, than no civ is overpowered - they're all just equally powered.
Click to expand...

The best was when they released Peter's towards the end (it might even have been the last one before Gorgo? Can't remember) and everyone decided he was going to be really weak :lol:
 
Katakanja said:
The best was when they released Peter's towards the end (it might even have been the last one before Gorgo? Can't remember) and everyone decided he was going to be really weak :lol:
Click to expand...
Which was not true because some people weren't just too smart to realize that it had the Shoshone bonus, which alone makes Russia great.
 
Moderator Action: Note to thread: I've deleted about two full pages of off-topic spam posts, mostly dealing with whether and to what extent LGBT leaders have been or should be included in a Civ game, including a disappointing number of posts that were trolling (or close to it). Rather than dish out multiple infractions, I've just deleted the posts and am asking everyone to please comply with the mod text that has appeared several times in the thread -- discuss Nubia, its leader, their respective abilities and attributes, and associated game play implications. it is also OK to speculate about other potential African civs that may be added to complement Nubia and Kongo, but please try not to wander farther afield -- there are other threads dealing with general speculation and hopes for future civs (some in this forum and others in the Ideas & Suggestions forum). Many thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

evonannoredars
Teotihuacan - Antiquity Era Civ Concept
Replies
19
Views
1K
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
A
Philippines - Modern
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Archanist
A
U
Romanian civilization path ideas (Civ VII)
Replies
1
Views
615
ibnu
I
I
Indonesian Civilization : Aceh Sultanate - Modern Age Civilization Concept
Replies
3
Views
884
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
I
(Civ Concept) Indonesian Empire in Antiquity Age and Modern Age Civilization
Replies
0
Views
537
ibnu
I
Back
Top Bottom