That's kind of my point. "You can stack other 'choose 1 out of x' bonuses on top" mechanics don't add much replay value unless the two bonuses you stack transform each other in interesting ways. That's why I don't expect civ combos to have such effect, either.
As I said, that was the case for me in Humankind though.
If it isn't a standard option, I'm sure there'll be a day one mod for this.
No, not at all monstrous. It's still a healthy number of civs and leaders! The disappointment mostly stems from spending too much time around here, it's hard not to get swept up in all the enthusiasm and wild predictions.
That's understandable.No, not at all monstrous. It's still a healthy number of civs and leaders! The disappointment mostly stems from spending too much time around here, it's hard not to get swept up in all the enthusiasm and wild predictions.
This is absolutely not true. A standard game used to be 8 civs, and the last two games launched with 18 civs. Thats 2.25 civs : slots in a standard game.
You mean 2K have stooped this low. It's like a lot of unpolar development decisions about D&D 5th Edition are not actually from Wizards of the Coast, but from Hasbro. The stuffed suits around the board tables looking at out-of-context marketing charts very often screw over the development teams, in these cases.
Functionally it makes no difference. Firaxis are a part of 2K, they've been heading in this direction for years and they are just as culpable. Disgusting consumer practices disguised as mechanics are a massive glaring red flag for me.
Probably Ming+Majahapit….or Ming+Hawaii
Well isn't that the idea of an historical path after all?
Historical path means to me, that I can anticipate how certain Civs develop going forward. If I want to play against America in the Modern Age, I'd like to know, what kind of Civs I have to select initially, to end up there (that's how I would like it to work at least).I agree 10 each age is the most likely, but I wonder about this regarding the whole 5/5/8 max amount of players for the switch. The 8 on modern wouldn't make sense as a performance thing as last era is likely the one that is more intensive as more cities and units are spread around the world. We suspected it was civs on the other side of the map that you only can meet later that made the difference, but then why modern and not exploration where we know a big part of the map become accessible? Maybe there is also another continent at Modern that opens up then (instead of something like the poles as some suspected), but maybe there is really something like new civs coming online at modern, made from settlements of independent people and/or a few settlements from each civ from previous age as some people suggested. I still don't see how a colony independence system could work well and be balanced well when it turns into modern age, but there may really be such a thing.
Makes sense, I understand.Well isn't that the idea of an historical path after all?
For me, the amount of the Civs is among the least of my concerns and I also sort of expected this. Solely because of the Agenda System (which is completly unnecessary in my opinion) which makes setting up a Civilization more complicated than in Civ 4 or Civ 5.
About replay value: I think the existence of traditions could help a lot since it's a way to carry over some abilities from the previous civilization to the next. For example greece->normans and rome->normans could feel pretty different since you have different traditions available.
