I also take it with another grain of salt. Anton says, "I feel good about the trajectory, and where the AI is right now, especially with the new systems...". For me, cautiously, the trajectory seems to be good. Mac user here, so no actual experience with the latest patch, but from what I have heard and read, things seem a bit better. But that doesn't necessarily make me feel good where the AI is now. Big difference. Hopefully, the trajectory will mean that come February 8 for you Windows people and six months later for us Mac people (let it not be so ), the AI has indeed mastered all systems, new and old. Who knows, some people might complain that it is too hard then.
Loyalty is tied into other systems like Amenities, but it’s also influenced by geographic location. When I played Civilization VI, I would often forward settle other players, but now that’s going to be a tougher choice. I can block their progress, but settling a city that close to another empire, and far from my own, is going to prove a Loyalty issue. Governors play an active role in increasing Loyalty, though, as you can establish them in cities to increase the Loyalty of that particular city, or create an area of effect in certain cases.
I'm not very excited by the sound of this. I like to play Island Plates or Fractal and the likes and the one major factor for it is that these maps give you the chance to settle colonies away from your capital. This part of the interview sounds to me like settling colonies might become stupid if they're going to get flipped through insufficient loyalty. Solution? Just more conquering of my neighbours? Ugh.
Loyalty is tied into other systems like Amenities, but it’s also influenced by geographic location. When I played Civilization VI, I would often forward settle other players, but now that’s going to be a tougher choice. I can block their progress, but settling a city that close to another empire, and far from my own, is going to prove a Loyalty issue. Governors play an active role in increasing Loyalty, though, as you can establish them in cities to increase the Loyalty of that particular city, or create an area of effect in certain cases.
I'm not very excited by the sound of this. I like to play Island Plates or Fractal and the likes and the one major factor for it is that these maps give you the chance to settle colonies away from your capital. This part of the interview sounds to me like settling colonies might become stupid if they're going to get flipped through insufficient loyalty. Solution? Just more conquering of my neighbours? Ugh.
Well, you can still put governors in the cities. With 7 governors available, you can still potentially settle 7 different island masses and put a governor on each. If you keep your amenities up, that should help too, as well as presumably not having another civ's influence on your cities pulling them away. Hopefully there would be some policy cards that would help sprawling empires too.
Well, you can still put governors in the cities. With 7 governors available, you can still potentially settle 7 different island masses and put a governor on each. If you keep your amenities up, that should help too, as well as presumably not having another civ's influence on your cities pulling them away. Hopefully there would be some policy cards that would help sprawling empires too.
I guess you're right, but for me it's up there with the answer "just use trade routes and chopping to get your cities going". It will be a boost, but it still feels like a punishment for taking a certain strategy. What makes it worse is that currently there are good lands to settle in many parts of the map late into the game. If that suddenly becomes punishable it's just going to feel stupid to me. "Oh, look at all that free land that I can't settle because my cities will abandon me."
I guess you're right, but for me it's up there with the answer "just use trade routes and chopping to get your cities going". It will be a boost, but it still feels like a punishment for taking a certain strategy. What makes it worse is that currently there are good lands to settle in many parts of the map late into the game. If that suddenly becomes punishable it's just going to feel stupid to me. "Oh, look at all that free land that I can't settle because my cities will abandon me."
Well, you can still put governors in the cities. With 7 governors available, you can still potentially settle 7 different island masses and put a governor on each. If you keep your amenities up, that should help too, as well as presumably not having another civ's influence on your cities pulling them away. Hopefully there would be some policy cards that would help sprawling empires too.
I'm amused by the idea that there is loyalty pressure. If some of your more distant cities seem to be inclined to join another civ, get jealous. Burn that other civ to the ground so that your cities don't develop any disloyalty.
"Sire, one of your cities has broken away. Rumor has it, they intend to join the English!"
"Very well. I will lead my army to retake those ungrateful slobs, and raze any nearby English. They won't be so keen to leave if the alternative is a pile of soot and broken stone."
I don't quite like the idea of having such clearly defined Governors characters. Liang the Surveyor? Is each civilization potentially going to have the same Liang then? Or are you recruiting them from a shared pool? I don't know that I want to have yet another thing between Wonders, Great People, City-States, and Beliefs that you have to snatch up from rivals. Seems like having a name randomly assigned from a civ-specific bank to a generic Governor of a particular type would be a better option.
I don't quite like the idea of having such clearly defined Governors characters. Liang the Surveyor? Is each civilization potentially going to have the same Liang then? Or are you recruiting them from a shared pool? I don't know that I want to have yet another thing between Wonders, Great People, City-States, and Beliefs that you have to snatch up from rivals. Seems like having a name randomly assigned from a civ-specific bank to a generic Governor of a particular type would be a better option.
I too would prefer governors to draw a name out of a culture-specific hat, but from everything I've read you will not compete with other civs for your 7 governors. They're recruited from your own personal roster and you can move through them as fast as you'd like (permitted you have enough Governor's Titles).
On the topic of names, I'm hoping you can at least rename them like you can with a city.
I don't quite like the idea of having such clearly defined Governors characters. Liang the Surveyor? Is each civilization potentially going to have the same Liang then? Or are you recruiting them from a shared pool? I don't know that I want to have yet another thing between Wonders, Great People, City-States, and Beliefs that you have to snatch up from rivals. Seems like having a name randomly assigned from a civ-specific bank to a generic Governor of a particular type would be a better option.
I'm not very excited by the sound of this. I like to play Island Plates or Fractal and the likes and the one major factor for it is that these maps give you the chance to settle colonies away from your capital. This part of the interview sounds to me like settling colonies might become stupid if they're going to get flipped through insufficient loyalty. Solution? Just more conquering of my neighbours? Ugh.
I too am nervous about the references in this and other articles to distance from your capital (I assume to the government district). It gives me flashbacks to maintenance cost in Civ4. And maintenance cost wasn't fun. I don't mind a limit on wide empires to make tall empires more appealing. And part of the fun of building wide should be feeling that you've overcome a challenge. But we really don't know yet how Loyalty is going to be implemented. They're saying the right things, but a lot of the details aren't quite clear and I don't know whether it'll actually be fun in practice. So I'm reserving judgement.
One article did say that Victoria was going to be updated so that she wouldn't be harmed even though she wants to build on every continent. That suggests that geographic distance is important but not an overwhelming factor.
I don't quite like the idea of having such clearly defined Governors characters. Liang the Surveyor? Is each civilization potentially going to have the same Liang then? Or are you recruiting them from a shared pool? I don't know that I want to have yet another thing between Wonders, Great People, City-States, and Beliefs that you have to snatch up from rivals. Seems like having a name randomly assigned from a civ-specific bank to a generic Governor of a particular type would be a better option.
At this point it's pretty clear that Governors are national (rather than pooled) and that you earn them (like envoys) by researching civics. There'll probably be leadership abilities and bonuses from city states, wonders, golden ages, emergencies, leaders, etc. etc. to give you more Governor's Titles.
I like the idea of far flung outposts being more shaky.
Historically, for example, some conquistadors in S-America started soloing and rebelling against the Crown, and all sorts of rebellions have been faced by empires.
And that's how the Governors became to exist, governing distant places. Also as governor-generals.
Ottomans had the bey-system of rulers in their colonies and Persia had satraps. I think every empire had them.
Lol, oh they will. And sensible people will say something like "drop down a difficulty level then"...but apparently that will not be the answer they are after
I guess it's a pride thing...
I'm pretty sure they said elsewhere that the era score has two different thresholds - if you are above the higher one when the game era changes, you get a golden age; if you're below the lower one, you get a dark age. Presumably if you're in between, your next age is simply normal.
I think it has to be independent of your tech/civic era so that it avoids being too punishing/gamey. If you beeline a tech you'd fly through an era and be pretty much guaranteed a Dark Age, which is either a punishment (which they're supposed to be) or a delayed boost (if you're planning to trigger a Dark Age to enter a Heroic Age later). Since tech beelining is inevitable with the system in the game, it would not feel good to punish players for doing it; and if Dark Ages aren't punishing because they can be stepping stones for Heroic Ages, then the fact that they'd complement the already-viable tech beelining would make it even gamier than some feel it will be; tech-beeline to Dark Age to Heroic Age seems like it would be dominant since tech-beelining is already an almost necessary thing to do, and if you're going to end up in a Dark Age because of it you might as well get a Heroic one after it.
Tying it to an era system largely outside of your control makes the age triggers more responsive than initiated; you play to the speed they progress instead of having to slow your own tech/civic progression in order to avoid a Dark Age.
Hope they really ramp up punishing mechanics this time around. The only punishing element in this game right now is the AI, which is ironically too weak to be able to punish the player. Game developers today Are too afraid of upsetting the players in my opinion. Punishment and uphill struggle with problems to overcome is what makes a good strategy game in my opinion. This game is lacking that as of now. I'm hoping the New mechanics will help to amend this!
Perhaps a new government... "Empire" That gives points/benefits to acquire governors. Places as diverse a Rome, Byzantium, Macedon, Persia. This differs from a monarchy where power over territory devolved to semi-independent nobles (dukes, earls, jarls) rather than to provinces governed directly from the central power via givernors.
I like the idea of far flung outposts being more shaky.
Historically, for example, some conquistadors in S-America started soloing and rebelling against the Crown, and all sorts of rebellions have been faced by empires.
And that's how the Governors became to exist, governing distant places. Also as governor-generals.
Ottomans had the bey-system of rulers in their colonies and Persia had satraps. I think every empire had them.
I agree with the point you are making. Every empire had some sort of governor. Though some can be implemented in a unique way into the game. I expect the developers will certainly make use of the governor system for a unique element of a civilization (from the xpack).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
), the AI has indeed mastered all systems, new and old. Who knows, some people might complain that it is too hard then.
