I guess that's sort of how Petra works (which looks at once awesome and stupid IMO
), 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.
[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
), 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.
ferretbacon
Obsessor
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.
stealth_nsk
Deity
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.
I guess that's sort of how Petra works (which looks at once awesome and stupid IMO
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.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Of course, if you own the tile and don't have open borders, you've already done that.
This could be solved by a simple old-fashioned war.
I think Machu Picchu has some chance of getting in a couple of ways:I guess that's sort of how Petra works (which looks at once awesome and stupid IMO
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.
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.
stealth_nsk
Deity
It becomes a wonder released in a DLC alongside Inca and Lake Titicaca.
Requires it to be adjacent to a mountain and govt. plaza maybe?
I think that would solve it. If the wonder needs to be built on hills near mountain, with visually citadel standing on the mountain and terraces flowing down to those hills.
It wouldn't be the first Civ VI wonder where your trusty invisible builders conjure a mountain out of the ground before starting work...
They'd just do the same thing again for Machu Picchu. Although it would be nice to actually build it on a mountain.
Spoiler :
They'd just do the same thing again for Machu Picchu. Although it would be nice to actually build it on a mountain.
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 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.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 914
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).
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).
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.
pgm123
Emperor
- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,168
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.
pgm123
Emperor
- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,168
Forgot to mention that, thank you.
Another option:
Pomare of Tahiti
Spoiler :
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.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 914
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 
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
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
Oh I agree. The mountain wonders absolutely should go on mountains. I was just describing what I see as the logic behind it.
Ondolindë
Emperor
The Amundsen-Scott Research Station vid on Twitter: grants bonus Science and Production in all cities, extra yields from Snow Hill tiles in that city, and extra Great Scientist points per turn!
Edit: all cities!
Edit: all cities!
IdiotStyle
Prince
Penguin spotted!
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,752
Super good and neat "finisher" wonder, might not get built very often though.
