[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Kimiimaro]

Seventy-one days now, guys

However, any big revelations? I don't really want to read over 200 posts.

 

[nzcamel]

Civ4 was alright. But it was often difficult to form large empires until later in the game. Alexander of Macedon would disagree.

Nah, you could do it mid game, but you had to manage your empire well, and not just build shell cities with nothing in them. And late game you could get cities up n running pretty quick.

You can also ignore the facts, and keep listening to your anti-communist / western propaganda, if you are that naive to believe we / they don't tell lies. The numbers are impressive, check the demographics / their achievements (in space, in education and social security) / their war efforts & tactics and they influenced our societies, since Europe rapidly reformed social institutions, because they were afraid of a communist take-over here too.

I'm not saying they didn't made their mistakes, or that Stalin wasn't a cruel man (because he was, but the Tsars were cruel men too), but you can ignore the accomplishments, especially of early USSR, and especially if you see how they evolved from mainly an agrarian (and poor) society into what is known as the USSR. That's no evolution. That's a never seen revolution until today (and a very good one). To me, there is no bad or good guy in the Cold War, like most in the western world state.

Yawn Vahnstad; we aren't going to re-litigate this here as it isn't the place; but (the actually relevant bit) if you think the USSR was a golden age compared to other parts of the world at the same time, you're seriously misinformed.

 

[Uberfrog]

Seventy days now, guys

However, any big revelations? I don't really want to read over 200 pages of content.

Nah, nothing new has been revealed since yesterday, this is just rampant discussion/speculation/blather. Better to keep an eye on the Features Thread - if anyone here spots something, I'm sure it'll quickly make its way over there.

 

[Siptah]

Nah, nothing new has been revealed since yesterday, this is just rampant discussion/speculation/blather. Better to keep an eye on the Features Thread - if anyone here spots something, I'm sure it'll quickly make its way over there.

Gaming magazines seem promising. I found lots of info that wasn‘t revealed by Firaxis in an announcement article of a German magazine yesterday. Maybe some others have additional info as well? How about the Czech ones @Kimiimaro?

 

[shaglio]

What the hell are you two on about??
I was talking about how CIV (i.e. Civ IV...i.e. Civ 4) had it right, not V.

(CIV = 4, CiV = 5)

This is precisely why I simply use the numbers (4, 5, 6, etc.) It's less confusing that way.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

This is precisely why I simply use the numbers (4, 5, 6, etc.) It's less confusing that way.

Yeah, I think people try to get too cute with the abbreviations.

Though for some reason I really like typing "Civvi" a lot, probably a lot more than is appropriate.

 

[Leyrann]

The problem is, you can't easily reward going tall without indirectly boosting going wide - the biggest reasons going wide is better than going tall are (a) population grows faster in smaller cities, and (b) larger cities have more production slots and tiles to work. Neither of these can really be adjusted without changing how cities work, and you can't change how cities work to favour tall (which means gaining advantages for individual cities) without rewarding the civ that has more cities ... which brings us back to favouring wide. We saw this in Civ V in the Tradition tree, which was meant to favour tall play but ended up being better than Liberty for all but the widest wide play as well. If you give an individual city the option to build something that gives it extra production slots or expands its workable city radius, for instance, you end up with the same problem.

A very good point, but I believe there are two good ways to deal with this problem.

Firstly, tall cities get bonuses that just don't get compensated for by more cities - for example, at size 20 a city gets +5 science, +5 production, +10 gold, etc or something like that (there's probably much more interesting bonuses possible). If you wish to focus on growing your cities, that will automatically mean you will not be able to focus as much on getting as many cities.

In itself, however, that's probably not yet enough, as each city depends on it's own food to grow, hence solution two: Internal trade routes get bigger yields than before, but now actually require the departing city to supply those yields. So you can get more production or food in a city to grow it further, but another city will have to pay for that. This will allow you to build a few megacities and a number of rural towns that mostly just function as food silos, meaning you get to access these powerful metropolis bonuses, but you will have to sacrifice other cities for that.

It's not a punishment, however, as you can choose, without in any way being forced, to go for either more cities or a few cities with rewards - you just can't access both at the same time except if you're truly doing exceptionally well (like the USA the last 50 years).

 

[BlackWizard]

Minor point, but IIRC, they never removed it entirely in Civ III. The only significant danger after the second expansion, however, was right after conquering a city when it was still in revolt. But putting enough units in the city center quelled the risk. There was even a utility someone created to tell you how many units you needed to eliminate the risk of flipping.

Well I remember in last patch of Civ 3 conquest that I had almost all my army healing in enemy city (200 or so troops) that it flipped to enemy in next or second next turn

 

[clapyourhands]

Now that the new features are clearer the inspiration from Rhye’s and Fall seems a bit clearer; other than the city flipping the era goals seem reminiscent of the UHV conditions, except each era instead of each game.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Gaming magazines seem promising. I found lots of info that wasn‘t revealed by Firaxis in an announcement article of a German magazine yesterday. Maybe some others have additional info as well? How about the Czech ones @Kimiimaro?

Actually, nothing new.

 

[nzcamel]

This is precisely why I simply use the numbers (4, 5, 6, etc.) It's less confusing that way.

I just love Roman numerals And they are in the official title...

 

[jbavon]

Besides the specific new civs/leaders, does anyone expect any more big revelations in the coming months?

Seems like they pretty much revealed everything on day one. And now we just have to wait for the release with a weekly civ reveal...

 

[Leyrann]

I just love Roman numerals And they are in the official title...

What about CIVilization, CiVilization and CiVIlization?

 

[Uberfrog]

Besides the specific new civs/leaders, does anyone expect any more big revelations in the coming months?

Seems like they pretty much revealed everything on day one. And now we just have to wait for the release with a weekly civ reveal...

I think they've covered all the major features. Now it's the civs, leaders, wonders, all the minor additions. And most interestingly, the details of how all this stuff will play out in reality, preferably with some livestreams.

 

[Siptah]

I think they've covered all the major features. Now it's the civs, leaders, wonders, all the minor additions. And most interestingly, the details of how all this stuff will play out in reality, preferably with some livestreams.

I suppose some YouTubers will get early access again after some few first looks. Maybe in time for the holidays?

 

[PhilBowles]

A very good point, but I believe there are two good ways to deal with this problem.

Firstly, tall cities get bonuses that just don't get compensated for by more cities - for example, at size 20 a city gets +5 science, +5 production, +10 gold, etc or something like that (there's probably much more interesting bonuses possible). If you wish to focus on growing your cities, that will automatically mean you will not be able to focus as much on getting as many cities.

Granted this is just an example, but it seems difficult to make that sort of thing work without some strange scaling. By the time even tall cities hit that point the game's advanced to a point where these are small potatoes bonuses of the sort you'd have long since made up just by going wide - whatever numbers you choose that's always going to be an issue unless the boosts kick in at small enough pop sizes that you're just going to benefit going wide anyway.

In itself, however, that's probably not yet enough, as each city depends on it's own food to grow, hence solution two: Internal trade routes get bigger yields than before, but now actually require the departing city to supply those yields. So you can get more production or food in a city to grow it further, but another city will have to pay for that. This will allow you to build a few megacities and a number of rural towns that mostly just function as food silos, meaning you get to access these powerful metropolis bonuses, but you will have to sacrifice other cities for that.

That's one I like and I was thinking of something more-or-less related: a migration mechanic. Have population transfer between cities organically, with smaller cities more likely to transfer pop to larger ones as rural residents head for the cities. To minimise population 'bleed', you therefore benefit from having cities of relatively even - and fairly large (perhaps migration is slower past pop 7 or 10 as these cities are large enough to be self-sustaining) size.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

What about CIVilization, CiVilization and CiVIlization?

Great, perfectly clear.

 

[JacquesBquick]

Great, perfectly clear.

Is that last one Civ 6 or Civ 7 though!? is that a lower case L or an uppercase i without cross hashes on the top and bottom? reality is breaking down before my eyes

 

[Yokel]

Each civ would probably have their own named governors.

For example, only China can have Zhang the Builder, while England can have Bob the Builder (by name only; it's just as an example). Japan can have Norichika the Diplomat, while Rome can have Marcus the Diplomat for another example.

I'm reminded of the Council of Advisors from old Civ games. They used to have avatars and personalities, rather than just a tiny, color-coded symbol in the production, tech, and culture trees. Is it possible they brought them back as governors?

 

[Siptah]

I'm reminded of the Council of Advisors from old Civ games. They used to have avatars and personalities, rather than just a tiny, color-coded symbol in the production, tech, and culture trees. Is it possible they brought them back as governors?

That would be oh so nice. But no Elvis please.