Permanently a City-State

[Guandao]

I would be upset if some of the city-states stay city-states for the entirety of Civ6's run. Especially Seoul, Amsterdam, Carthage, Lisbon, Stockholm, and Jakarta. Would love to see Hittites as a civ as well.

 

[SJSerio]

I would be upset if some of the city-states stay city-states for the entirety of Civ6's run. Especially Seoul, Amsterdam, Carthage, Lisbon, Stockholm, and Jakarta. Would love to see Hittites as a civ as well.

I agree... Unless they make it add stone suggested where the city-state just doesn't appear in the game if the civ is there.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Calouste]

The bonus are more unique this time, but far from personal to the city states. The only one that's personal is La Venta's colossal heads, the other ones can easily be renamed.

Jerusalem's is also personal to the city. It's the only city that is a holy city for three different religions, which is what their ability refers to.

 

[VermelhoRed]

I think Kandy, Zanzibar, Hattusa and Stockholm have very personal bonuses too. Seoul, Lisbon and Amsterdam are easily replaceable though. I can totally picture Babylon, Venice and Singapore taking their respective places.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Kandy, Zanzibar, Hattusa and Stockholm have very personal bonuses too. Seoul, Lisbon and Amsterdam are easily replaceable though. I can totally picture Babylon, Venice and Singapore taking their respective places.

Babylon as a city-state? How about Byblos instead...

 

[j51]

Babylon as a city-state? How about Byblos instead...

It works. If they add Assyria as a second Mesopotamian civ, then you'd cover all of the ancient Meso cities except Babylon.

 

[Absolution]

It works. If they add Assyria as a second Mesopotamian civ, then you'd cover all of the ancient Meso cities except Babylon.

No you don't.
Hurrians? Elamites? Akkad? Aramaeans?
All worthy of inclusion.

Adding Babylon as a city-state isn't different from Rome (not referring to papal states) or Delhi.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Babylon as a city-state? How about Byblos instead...

In my opinion, it's time to let the Babylon civ a rest. It was one of the worst designed civs in 5, and while its (neo) empire was hugely significant, there were others from that region and overall period who could take the spotlight in this generation. Babylon has been particularly weak regarding uniques, both in Civ 4 and 5, theirs were a "bowman" that replaces the archer and a stronger wall that doesn't even get an unique name. Talk about lack of personality! Meanwhile, it was perhaps even more significant as a banking city for most of the classical and early medieval era. It was even the capital of Persia for a while! I think I would prefer to have the Hitites, Assirians or Akkadians instead, this time. That's just me though.

Edit: They don't even need to be a scientific city-state, they could be merchantile or even religious (gnosticism). And we could have the Walls of Babylon / Gate of Ishtar as a wonder instead of a building. I think that would be a fair representation of Babylon while allowing other ancient middle-eastern civs to shine.

 

[Zaarin]

In my opinion, it's time to let the Babylon civ a rest. It was one of the worst designed civs in 5, and while its (neo) empire was hugely significant, there were others from that region and overall period who could take the spotlight in this generation. Babylon has been particularly weak regarding uniques, both in Civ 4 and 5, theirs were a "bowman" that replaces the archer and a stronger wall that doesn't even get an unique name. Talk about lack of personality! Meanwhile, it was perhaps even more significant as a banking city for most of the classical and early medieval era. It was even the capital of Persia for a while! I think I would prefer to have the Hitites, Assirians or Akkadians instead, this time. That's just me though.

Edit: They don't even need to be a scientific city-state, they could be merchantile or even religious (gnosticism). And we could have the Walls of Babylon / Gate of Ishtar as a wonder instead of a building. I think that would be a fair representation of Babylon while allowing other ancient middle-eastern civs to shine.

IMO, excluding Babylon you might as well leave out Rome or Egypt. Babylon was the power in the Near East for over a thousand years--Assyria was really just a variation of Babylon, and the Persians built onto what the Babylonians had already established. Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see more ancient Near Eastern civs like the Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians, and Elamites--and I'm ecstatic to see the Sumerians--but it would make no sense to not include Babylon. That the Civ4 civ was poorly designed is no justification; frankly, Civ5 Rome was the blandest civ in the game but I don't see anyone suggesting Rome be left out.

 

[j51]

No you don't.
Hurrians? Elamites? Akkad? Aramaeans?
All worthy of inclusion.

Adding Babylon as a city-state isn't different from Rome (not referring to papal states) or Delhi.

Yeah I forgot about those. Except for Elam. I wasn't counting Elam as a Mesopotamian civ. It's east of the rivers after all.

IMO, excluding Babylon you might as well leave out Rome or Egypt. Babylon was the power in the Near East for over a thousand years--Assyria was really just a variation of Babylon, and the Persians built onto what the Babylonians had already established. Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see more ancient Near Eastern civs like the Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians, and Elamites--and I'm ecstatic to see the Sumerians--but it would make no sense to not include Babylon. That the Civ4 civ was poorly designed is no justification; frankly, Civ5 Rome was the blandest civ in the game but I don't see anyone suggesting Rome be left out.

I think the best would be a single Akkadian civ that's done like they're doing Greece: Give it multiple leaders covering the different historical states within the wider Akkadian culture: Babylonia, Assyria, Akkad.

 

[Zaarin]

I think the best would be a single Akkadian civ that's done like they're doing Greece: Give it multiple leaders covering the different historical states within the wider Akkadian culture: Babylonia, Assyria, Akkad.

Despite my general dislike of blob civs, I'd be down for that--especially if it opened up slots for more unexpected Ancient Near Eastern civs like Elam or the Hurrians.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Back in CIV V, some vanilla city-states were able to become full fledged Civilizations (Seoul, Venice, and Edinburgh to name a few), but this time things are different. In Civ V, city-states were only describe by a personality (hostile, friendly, etc..), type, and resources. For the most part, the only thing that mattered was the type and their resources (which was not fixed). They could have left the name spot completely blank and it would have not mattered.

CIV VI is a little a different. Each city-state is unique. They still fall under certain categories like Cultural or Mercantile(Commercial) but they now have their own bonuses. For example, Lisbon is a commercial city-state whose trade routes cannot be pillaged and another commercial city-state Zanzibar gives you access to cloves and cinnamon. Each city-state also has their own symbol to represent them.

Now it begs the question! If city-states are so personalized, does that mean we will not see these city-states become Civs? IMO, I believe that the developers picked civilizations that were not planned for DLC. Its less work than coming up with new city-states with their own abilities but of course I could be totally wrong.

Thanks to another civfanatics post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567144) for listing all city-state information and more.

If Korea comes out as a DLC or in an expansion, there's no reason at all that, if Korea is NOT in a given game, Seoul the city-state CAN be in that game.

 

[MistyRonin]

I hope Sweden becomes a full fledged civ. I had many great games with it in Civ V.