The expansion is so awesome! It will rival Civ IV: BtS!
Looks like my prediction that Civ VI will be the greatest Civ game after two expansions is going to be wrong; it will be the greatest Civ game after one expansion, if new major game-breaking bugs don't show up.
That also does mean that Colombia, Mexico and Argentina are probably not likely, and that the chances for a Native North-American civ or Maya's are decreasing, although i even have my doubts if Inca's will make it in. I actually had hoped Machu Pichu would be a wonder included in the game together with an Inca civ, and now that we already know all wonders except the muslim wonder (and even if it is a wonder?), it seems (a bit) less likely.
Too me, this feels honestly extremely disappointing, especially since we already have Australia in this game. This is just too early, especially since only eight civilizations are included in the game, and we lack a lot of civilizations, and the dark horse civ wouldn't be that interesting, and i'm going to hear even more complaint about EU-(colonial) overrepresentation.
I can also be wrong, and we can have a Canadian centered native American civ, but it seems unlikely, especially because of that Chateau. I know it doesn't have to be a prerequisite for civs to be included if national (and world) wonders from that civilization / region is included, but this strongly suggests that Canada will be featured in the expansion.
I just realised something. Remember when the board game came out and we had a discussion on the wonders that were included but were not actually in the game? Well the "Kremlin" and the Pentagon were both in the board game. Maybe the Pentagon could come in this expansion.
We also have Great Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe) Chitzen Itza (Maya) and Hagia Sophia (Ottomans) and we don't have those civs (and there are more), so it doesn't say directly "something", but that Chateau + natural wonder are actually "specific" wonders, while Petra, Hagia Sophia and Chichen Itza are "icon wonders", or wonders every respectable man should know. And we don't know if we will get more DLC's. If Inca's (and it's unique wonder) isn't going to be included, it would just be too much of a shame to wait that long, while Canada, Australia and Brazil would made it in the game before them and the Maya's.
I've also seen people begging for an extra American leader on youtube like Ronald Reagan, and i'm really like. Do you really want to screw up the game. We get one additional leader (and we even don't know if that will be a leader for an existing civ), and than they ask for Ronald Reagan or a new German leader (like Bismarck -> here also, but here they argue he would fit mainly for the new mechanics), but i've seen some suggest Konrad Adenauer or Willy Brandt and that really made me "pissed". I'm actually okay with Bismarck but if we only get one additional leader, i would be disappointed a lot if it would be Bismarck. The same for America. I'm fine with Washington, one of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln or even Eisenhower, but I don't think they will add much to the game, and if we get one additional leader for a civ, America should not be the one to get it, since there are literally 10 better alternatives right now.
I just realised something. Remember when the board game came out and we had a discussion on the wonders that were included but were not actually in the game? Well the "Kremlin" and the Pentagon were both in the board game. Maybe the Pentagon could come in this expansion.
Overall they pretty much just changed the name of railroads to modern roads. I don't mind seeing railroads returned one way or another; but we haven't lost what they represented out of the game.
if so, i implore all gamers and consumers to reach back in their memory and recall the DDE fiasco. Hype is FUN, but there's no need to shell out money now for it. Be hype, but wait to spend your money until you know exactly what you're getting!
Fiasco? They offered a good deal and due to some big currency fluctuations made it less so for certain regions, afterwords they quickly added far more than necessary to compensate. More to the point, from a feature standpoint they have clearly listed out what you are getting in the expansion, if you don't want to spend your money then don't. But I already bought as there is no (reasonable) news that would change my mind, so I am happy to support it. And I think I will be totally fine missing out on the potential to earn ~$0.06 in interest.
It also seems like this expansion has a huge emphasis on North America.
Three new wonders for America / Canada (one of them can count as a snow wonder however)
Also at least two national wonders for America / Canada / NA civ with the Yukon national Park and Delicate Arch (and we only know three national wonders).
There are hints Canada will be in the game
And we still don't know if the boardwalk / pier (American-styled) is actually an entertainment complex on water or a UI/UB/UD wonder or whatever. On reddit, they speculate that there is a second American leader in the game (although i can't believe that tbh).
Complexity doesn't mean richness to me. It's often quite the opposite. In previous Civ games expansions had troubles integrating well into the rest of the game, I'm worried this quick expansion with a lot of "features" will come the same way.
To me, something is interesting if it adds strategic decisions in the right place. I.e. current religious game in Civ5 is more about actively spreading the religion with units and less about passive spread. In Civ4 culture flip was generally something which just happens without active intervention with rare culture bombing. That's huge difference.
According to some of the articles, cities with low loyalty to their owners break-away and become free cities. They can't receive envoys or have suzerains like a city-state. They are influenced by the loyalty pressure of the civs around them, and will probably end up flipping to another civ after a while. They can be conquered militarily.
It's basically a two-step version of city-flipping.
The only thing that worries me a bit. Is if this new loyalty system will make playing Wide much harder or if it will make Civ 6 revert back to Civ 5 in that Tall almost always wins. I think they should be relatively equal in their abilities, you should be able to stand a chance playing tall or wide. But I think its much easier for tall to become overpowered when trying to establish this balance.
The main thing that worries me is the fact states may break off and declare independence regardless of other civs intervention or not. Which makes me think I may have no threats anywhere in the vicinity but may struggle to keep my empire together just doing natural growth over a wide amount of territory.
The only thing that worries me a bit. Is if this new loyalty system will make playing Wide much harder or if it will make Civ 6 revert back to Civ 5 in that Tall almost always wins. I think they should be relatively equal in their abilities, you should be able to stand a chance playing tall or wide. But I think its much easier for tall to become overpowered when trying to establish this balance.
I don't understand where the original idea of equal tall vs. wide came from. Ignoring 2 of 4X in "4x game" shouldn't be as beneficial as playing all 4.
The main thing that worries me is the fact states may break off and declare independence regardless of other civs intervention or not. Which makes me think I may have no threats anywhere in the vicinity but may struggle to keep my empire together just doing natural growth over a wide amount of territory.
I don't understand where the original idea of equal tall vs. wide came from. Ignoring 2 of 4X in "4x game" shouldn't be as beneficial as playing all 4.
V had such a start "wide vs tall" debate that we've since adopted that as essentially the big balancing mantra.
As it stands now, I think most people would say that civ is better for "wide" play right now, so it definitely does seem like the governor/loyalty system will shift to be easier to manage in tall play. However, the fact that there are apparently 7 different governors does at least mean we won't be "limited" to the 4 cities that was "optimal" in 5. But it will certainly be very interesting to see how they do balance things, how much better it would be to upgrade a governor vs to create a new one.
As well as other things, such as if you "use up" all your governors, and then go on a conquering spree, how easy it will be to keep all your captive cities. How much grace period will we get before a city secedes, and what the penalty really will be (ie. could you in theory revive a formerly dead civ if all their cities left you, or would you theoretically just have a large group of independent cities?) Part of me really hopes that if 2-3 cities nearby to each other all go independent that there's a mechanism in there for them to join together as a new nation (like in one of the old games where areas could spawn off as a full colony/vassal).
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.
