[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

Unless they will allow a player to built in on hills, then after completing the wonder it becomes an unpassable mountain that provides bonus to food and production.
I guess that's sort of how Petra works (which looks at once awesome and stupid IMO :p ), but the difference is that Machu Picchu is 8,000 ft in the air...I don't know. I don't see it working visually for Civ6, personally.
 
Because wonders are now built to take up an entire tile on the map, placing it on a mountain would be visually and technically difficult, IMO.

I just figured the wonder would require placement on a mountain tile and while being constructed/once completed would simply replace the mountain's model with a custom mountain/Machu Picchu model.
 
Unless they will allow a player to built in on hills, then after completing the wonder it becomes an unpassable mountain that provides bonus to food and production.

Converting it to unpassable terrain is unnecessary and highly exploitable thing here. It's often to see 1-tile hill passage in mountain line, so blocking it with wonder could be used to block (or even totally seal in some extreme cases) another civilization.
 
Converting it to unpassable terrain is unnecessary and highly exploitable thing here. It's often to see 1-tile hill passage in mountain line, so blocking it with wonder could be used to block (or even totally seal in some extreme cases) another civilization.
Of course, if you own the tile and don't have open borders, you've already done that. :p
 
I guess that's sort of how Petra works (which looks at once awesome and stupid IMO :p ), but the difference is that Machu Picchu is 8,000 ft in the air...I don't know. I don't see it working visually for Civ6, personally.

Potala Palace is at 12,000, I'd just assume they do the same 'hill next to mountain' placement. Though yes, Potala palace is more in a valley/town between mountains and Machu Picchu is pretty much just on a peak.
 
I guess that's sort of how Petra works (which looks at once awesome and stupid IMO :p ), but the difference is that Machu Picchu is 8,000 ft in the air...I don't know. I don't see it working visually for Civ6, personally.
I think Machu Picchu has some chance of getting in a couple of ways:
1. If that headband guy is an Inca, it could be visually represented as his palace. Probably unlikely for this expansion, but possibly later as well.
2. It becomes a wonder released in a DLC alongside Inca and Lake Titicaca.:please:
Requires it to be adjacent to a mountain and govt. plaza maybe? If Petra and Mont. St. Michel start out as big rocks, I don’t see a difference here.
3. A unique Govt. Plaza district. I think this might be the least likely, but still possible.
 
It wouldn't be the first Civ VI wonder where your trusty invisible builders conjure a mountain out of the ground before starting work... :P

Spoiler :
480

480

350px-Potala_Palace.png

480


They'd just do the same thing again for Machu Picchu. Although it would be nice to actually build it on a mountain.
 
Because wonders are now built to take up an entire tile on the map, placing it on a mountain would be visually and technically difficult, IMO.

I don't see why it would be technically difficult, it's just changing a tile and a mountain is just a tile. And it would make one of the most useless tiles in the game usable in some way.

I think all the mountain like wonders, should like Civ 5, actually require a mountain to be built, this like in 5, would severely hamper building of certain wonders, just as other wonders require desert or hills. It's effectively the same counter argument for this as well.. there's no particular reason why the Pyramids can't be built on grasslands. Especially since they were actually initally built on grasslands.. it only became desert afterwards.

On the subject of wonders.. you now get reimbursed for failing to build the wonder, anyone know the exact amount returned? 10% more.. less? Whilst I like getting some return on failed builds, it can be used to exploit the game, you build a wonder to 25% complete.. then start building another one, then when they get built by another civ you get your hammers back and can rush build something else.
 
I think all the mountain like wonders, should like Civ 5, actually require a mountain to be built, this like in 5, would severely hamper building of certain wonders, just as other wonders require desert or hills. It's effectively the same counter argument for this as well.. there's no particular reason why the Pyramids can't be built on grasslands. Especially since they were actually initally built on grasslands.. it only became desert afterwards.

I think the issue is actually the reverse. Mountains are pretty common in Civ VI, so it wouldn't be too difficult to find a city that could build Machu Picchu. Rather, a mountain is an explicitly useless tile, for which there's no drawback to using it up for a wonder. The reason wonders in Civ VI are placed directly on the map is to make them compete with districts and improvements in terms of placement. Do you build a wonder, or do you save that tile for something else? With a mountain, that question is already answered, since there's nothing else you could put there.
 
You have also to see if technically, in a IT point of view, it would not be too difficult to create a mountain world wonder in Civ VI (I remember than in Civ V, the polders were actually supposed to work like the ones in Civ V, or that cities or other things could be built on water, but the limitation of the engine forbade that).

But in a graphic point of view, it could be really easy. Just look how Machu Picchu is dealt in Civ V : a wonder put of the top of a mountain. Could be really easy.

After, Mountains are really, really useless in Civ VI. I don't know if it's really a will of the devs, but IMO, especially in the late eras, it could be used (tourism, representing the winter sports like ski or everything).
 
I think the issue is actually the reverse. Mountains are pretty common in Civ VI, so it wouldn't be too difficult to find a city that could build Machu Picchu. Rather, a mountain is an explicitly useless tile, for which there's no drawback to using it up for a wonder. The reason wonders in Civ VI are placed directly on the map is to make them compete with districts and improvements in terms of placement. Do you build a wonder, or do you save that tile for something else? With a mountain, that question is already answered, since there's nothing else you could put there.

That really isn't an issue in most cases. I often have 4-5 wonders in process of being built in 4-5 cities. Loosing 1 tile or even 5 to districts does not really impinge on the overall cities ability to grow or produce. The actual land it is on and near does, how you use that land etc.

Whilst I understand the claimed intention to force land to be an important factor.. you cannot farm or mine water.. but you can put certain wonders there, you cannot farm or mine snow or desert, but you can put districts and wonders there, some require it. There really is no feasible reason to not force specific wonders, esp those that actually got built on mountains.. to be placed on mountains.
 
Because it doesn't make sense thematically and it doesn't really serve a gameplay purpose to deny other Civs the ability to build districts on them, in my opinion.

What do you mean by not making any sense thematically? The gameplay purpose is to create a negative with floodplains, like the poor health in Civ IV.
 
Forgot to mention that, thank you.

Another option:

Pomare of Tahiti

Spoiler :
John_Webber's_oil_painting_of_Otoo,_1777.jpg

If Tahiti is in the game, I bet they get something related to reefs--an ability to build on them plus something else or just a reef bonus plus something else.
 
As a big fan of huge, loud orchestrated music, I must say... I just felt in love with the atomic version of Scotland the Brave. I'm just listening it repeatedly at work since an hour, and I won't stop soon I guess :crazyeye:
With the Brazilian and Australian atomic themes, I just find my third favourite music of the game. So powerful, the orchestration is a real délice.
Maybe, just for the music, Scotland will be my first civ to play :lol:
 
That really isn't an issue in most cases. I often have 4-5 wonders in process of being built in 4-5 cities. Loosing 1 tile or even 5 to districts does not really impinge on the overall cities ability to grow or produce. The actual land it is on and near does, how you use that land etc.

Whilst I understand the claimed intention to force land to be an important factor.. you cannot farm or mine water.. but you can put certain wonders there, you cannot farm or mine snow or desert, but you can put districts and wonders there, some require it. There really is no feasible reason to not force specific wonders, esp those that actually got built on mountains.. to be placed on mountains.

Oh I agree. The mountain wonders absolutely should go on mountains. I was just describing what I see as the logic behind it.
 
Back
Top Bottom