[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

You know where the door is. I sense that we could be getting the best game in the entire franchise.

They've got 10 weeks to fix a ton of bugs AND introduce several new systems. As an ex-software engineer it's not looking likely to me...unless Firaxis have secretly developed fixes to the game all this while which they've chosen to not release :rolleyes:
 
I'm back home from my work, and now I've returned to see too many pages in this thread. I guess I have to post my thoughts first before I react to the other posts.
  • Golden and Dark Ages: Finally! I knew this feature was missing in Civ6, and I knew they had to add it some time or another. I like how they expand the mechanic, especially into the new Loyalty mechanic and vis-a-vis your neighbors. But even though the mechanic of a "game era" sounds reasonable and interesting, like little "Hall of Fame"s every time you finish an era, it does lend itself a bit of "story mode" feel into the game
  • Loyalty: I secretly want this mechanic to be added to Civ6 in the future, and I know some people in the forums like to have a mechanic, so I was pleased to hear it would be included into the expansion. I'd like to see how the loyalty mechanic works and how rebellious independent cities would work in-game. I hope they act like independent city-states, like how cities that were granted independence did in Civ4. Also culture flipping is back!
  • Governors: I presume that governors provide a city the ability to focus more on, say, production or culture as compared to a city without a governor, so this is a good addition, like a more "domestic" version of the envoy system
  • Alliances: Lasting, more focus alliances are right with me. So are coalitions. Here's hoping they'll reveal a World Congress in the expansion, but if they aren't going to please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Historic Moments: I like the idea of adding achievements to the game, like events in Civ4. However like the Great Ages, it gives a "story" feel to the game, which sort of puts me off a bit
  • New Civs and Leaders: I just want to clarify the statement "we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations". So does that mean we have nine leaders AND eight new civilizations? Or are the nine new leaders IN the eight new civilizations? Will this be another Nubia/Khmer/Indonesia debacle? Besides that point, time for the speculation to get rolling:banana:
Overall I'm liking the new expansion, although they seem to portray some of the mechanics as mechanics that help the player "make a story". Normally when I play Civ I would want to create my own stories without the game telling me to make one. Sort of defeats the open-ended nature of Civ. But regardless I wanna save up for this, and see how they work and if they work well.
 
Such a big xpac, so early, with this game's track record on bugs?

Even assuming a separate team has been working on this for some time, I predict this is not going to be a polished release. Bugs and even greater AI struggles with the increasing complexity will be the story I fear.

Though I do love the sound of the creative direction, which seems more immersive & less board gamey, I don't have the confidence in the execution to buy at or before release.
 
and Hagia Sophia (Ottomans)
*Cough* Byzantium *Cough*

The actual leap from horse mounted cavalry to tanks in real life was just as abrupt and painful, so there is that. :)

And was that horse mounted cavalry armed with melee weapons and protected with plate armour?
Ummmm - No.
 
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!
No. Because:
1. My family have already got so much enjoyment from Civ6 that paying 10 times
that amount would not matter one jot.
2. I want Firaxis to know well in advance that cash is pouring in so they can
continue with confidence.
3. I want to do my tiny part in nullifying any possible negative effects of your
suggestion.
 
although they seem to portray some of the mechanics as mechanics that help the player "make a story". Normally when I play Civ I would want to create my own stories without the game telling me to make one. Sort of defeats the open-ended nature of Civ.

I don't see it that way. These mechanics are not forcing the player into a story. The game is not saying the player has to do X or Y. Rather the historic moments are basically like in-game steam achievements to acknowledge what the player does. Plus, the historic moments grant era points towards a Golden Age to reward the player for doing cool stuff. And the timeline is just a cool visual to show the player what they have accomplished. So it is just a way to add immersion to what the player does. Basically, the player is still writing their own history but the game will now acknowledge it more.
 
The timeline moments seem like they'll be akin to "snapshot" moments from other games. Like:

3000 BC: The city of London was founded on the continent of Oceania.
750 AD: Protestantism became the official religion of England.
1000 AD: The English imperial army, led by *great general name*, captured the city of Aachen and defeated the nation of Germany.
1500 AD: The English scout *whatever you named your scout* became the first person to circumnavigate the globe.
1600 AD: French forces laid siege to London, but were unsuccessful in taking the city.
1700 AD: The city of Trier successfully rebelled and seceded from England.
1800 AD: England became the wealthiest nation per capita in the world.
1900 AD: The first nuclear weapon was developed in Manchester.

So not forcing a story, just recording it as it goes.
 
*Cough* Byzantium *Cough*



And was that horse mounted cavalry armed with melee weapons and protected with plate armour?
Ummmm - No.

Oops, didn't know that. I must say that I actually don't know that much about Byzantine and Ottoman history, and since I knew it was a mosque at present day, i assumed it was builded by the Ottomans, but okay, that made it even more impressive (and fortunately, like some other contemporary muslim empires would do), it wasn't destroyed when it was conquered.

The timeline moments seem like they'll be akin to "snapshot" moments from other games. Like:

3000 BC: The city of London was founded on the continent of Oceania.
750 AD: Protestantism became the official religion of England.
1000 AD: The English imperial army, led by *great general name*, captured the city of Aachen and defeated the nation of Germany.
1500 AD: The English scout *whatever you named your scout* became the first person to circumnavigate the globe.
1600 AD: French forces laid siege to London, but were unsuccessful in taking the city.
1700 AD: The city of Trier successfully rebelled and seceded from England.
1800 AD: England became the wealthiest nation per capita in the world.
1900 AD: The first nuclear weapon was developed in Manchester.

So not forcing a story, just recording it as it goes.

The problem is that this feature shouldn't be a feature at all. It's flavor.
 
Nice to see that they're making alliances much more meaningful-though no mention of multilateral Defence Treaties (Warsaw Pact & NATO), with the possible exception of Emergencies.
It would also be nice if they added extra abilities to gaining Civics. For example, once you've researched Early Empire, you should gain the ability to ask your neighbours not to settle too close......even if they haven't forward settled you yet (i.e. pre-emptive Diplomatic Discussions). Gaining Theology would give you the ability to declare a State Religion, as well as giving you the diplomatic options to ask a Civ to convert to your (State) religion, & to ask a Civ not to convert your cities (again, proactively). Other Civics could open up other Diplomatic Options-like asking a Civ to end a war with a 3rd Party, or asking them to Denounce a 3rd Party, agree to a war in X turns (a la Civ5), or signing a Pact of Secrecy (against a 3rd Party Civ......basically agreeing to help undermine them as secretly as possible (piracy & spies primarily)). Well, just a thought.
 
Oops, didn't know that. I must say that I actually don't know that much about Byzantine and Ottoman history, and since I knew it was a mosque at present day, i assumed it was builded by the Ottomans, but okay, that made it even more impressive (and fortunately, like some other contemporary muslim empires would do), it wasn't destroyed when it was conquered.



The problem is that this feature shouldn't be a feature at all. It's flavor.

One can hope that they could also provide some in-game benefit, however small.
 
The problem is that this feature shouldn't be a feature at all. It's flavor.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Aspects that solely provide flavor are still features, aren't they? Things like animated leaders, unit naming, and the day/night shift don't affect the game, but I still consider them "features" that the developers would probably want to market as positive additions.
 
Oops, didn't know that. I must say that I actually don't know that much about Byzantine and Ottoman history, and since I knew it was a mosque at present day, i assumed it was builded by the Ottomans, but okay, that made it even more impressive (and fortunately, like some other contemporary muslim empires would do), it wasn't destroyed when it was conquered.
Actually, it's a secular museum at present, if I'm not mistaken. It was built as a cathedral; then the minarets were added, the frescoes were plastered over (which makes me shudder), and it was converted into a mosque after the Ottomans invaded; I believe it was after the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of WW1 that Hagia Sophia was converted into a museum and the frescoes were uncovered, since Christians and Muslims weren't likely to share the building (though formally I believe that's the case with the Mezquite in Cordoba [which would make a fantastic Civ wonder]--informally I understand it's mostly a cathedral).
 
Actually, it's a secular museum at present, if I'm not mistaken. It was built as a cathedral; then the minarets were added, the frescoes were plastered over (which makes me shudder), and it was converted into a mosque after the Ottomans invaded; I believe it was after the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of WW1 that Hagia Sophia was converted into a museum and the frescoes were uncovered, since Christians and Muslims weren't likely to share the building (though formally I believe that's the case with the Mezquite in Cordoba [which would make a fantastic Civ wonder]--informally I understand it's mostly a cathedral).
During the conversion process from cathedral to mosque, Ottoman renovators covered up the frescoes rather than removed them, because Jesus is the second-most important prophet in Islam and thus desecrating images of Jesus is blasphemous in Islam as well.
 
Gaining Theology would give you the ability to declare a State Religion...
And we should be able to make up a complete loony one, like Scientology, with a
"Great Writer", like L. Ron Hubbard.
 
Back
Top Bottom