[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Guatenadian]

While I'm very curious on what Civ will be revealed first(my bet, like many others is the Mongols or Korea) my main focus is going to be with whats in the background. We may get confirmation that the Chateau Frontenac is going to be in the game, since there is still a bit of debate there. Im always also curious about more miscellaneous detailes that they add. I know not everyone is appreciative of the "fluff" but Ive always enjoyed the smaller details.

Oddly enough I had a dream about the Chateau Frontenac being in Civ6 just last night.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd like to see scientific Korean Empire (Sejong the Great or Seondeok of Silla, with Seondeok being more likely), warmongering Mongolia (Genghis Khan or Ögedei Khan) or the Dutch Empire focused on trade (Willem van Oranje).

And, well, the Kingdom of Bohemia, but something tells me that I'll have to wait for another expansion at least.

Korea has always been pegged as a science civ (not unfairly), but I'd really like to see Seondeok (as a leader) focus more on Korea's cultural achievements.

I said in another thread that the way Civ VI handled Greece would be perfect for the "blob" civs like the Celts; if they want to keep a recognizable name, they could do two leaders, say one for the Iceni and one for the Gauls, without calling them that; kind of like how Greece is pretty much Athens and Sparta in all but name. At least that way the individual Celtic groups are represented more accurately even if they're going to be called "the Celts".

I agree in principle, but in practice I don't feel an overwhelming need for multiple Celtic rulers, especially since I want Boudicca kept as far away from it as possible.

Elizabeth has been used in that form before (albeit poorly-represented in Civ V, complete with that atrocious accent). I like the coherence of the Imperial-era civ this time around and Victoria is the most obvious leader for that period.

This is precisely why I want Elizabeth back: her Civ5 portrayal was so awful.

True, Civ IV did a somewhat better job but not as much so as you suggest. 'Gauls + Celtiberians' are roughly as anachronistic as 'Irish + Scottish', both had a leader that didn't really reflect the city choices or uniques, and although duns were found on the mainland the name is Scottish - given more recent Civ games' tendency to use regional names for uniques, it would probably be "dunon" for a mainland-based civ.

I didn't say it was good, I said it was better. Also, a first century British queen ruling over Hiberno-Cymro-Scotland is considerably more anachronistic than a first century British queen ruling over Gaul, Britannia, and Celtiberia. And no, a continental dun would be an oppidum.

Not just modern names - they include Norman English (Edinburgh, Cardiff) and Norse (Dublin) settlements that never had anything to do with 'the Celts'.

A) I meant that those are the modern names of the cities, not the first century AD names (for those that even existed at the time). B) Dublin was settled long before the Norse invaded Ireland, as evidenced by its purely Gaelic name (dubh linn, "dark pool").

We have unified India, Persia, China and others, a classical Hellenic civ using the anachronistic name "Greece", and past civs like Ethiopia that represent multiple historical incarnations of the same core territory. England's not obviously deserving of different treatment.

India: Does anyone like how Civ treats India?
Persia: I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Civ's Persia has always been Achaemenid Persia, which was a unified and powerful empire. At no time has any later incarnation of Persia--Sassanid, Parthian, Islamic--been incorporated into the civ.
China: One can make a case for different dynasties representing different civs, but since this isn't how the Chinese view their own history I don't see the need to press the idea.
Greece: A unified Greece politically is an anachronism, but the Hellenes certainly viewed themselves as belonging to a distinctive civilization. Once again, I'll assert that civilization does not equal polity.
Ethiopia: Aside from the stele from Aksum, Civ5's Ethiopia was pretty Selassie-thematic. (Quite aside from the fact that I don't want Selassie back, I really hope Civ6's Ethiopia capitalizes on the fact that Ethiopia is an ancient nation and pays less attention to its modern history.)

Prior versions of England have been much more English; it's Civ6 that doubled down on Great Britain in all but name.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I didn't say it was good, I said it was better. Also, a first century British queen ruling over Hiberno-Cymro-Scotland is considerably more anachronistic than a first century British queen ruling over Gaul, Britannia, and Celtiberia.

Is anachronism a scale? I've always thought that something is either anachronistic or not. Besides, the Civ franchise is absolutely built on anachronism, hardly worth worrying about.

 

[Siptah]

While I'm very curious on what Civ will be revealed first(my bet, like many others is the Mongols or Korea) my main focus is going to be with whats in the background. We may get confirmation that the Chateau Frontenac is going to be in the game, since there is still a bit of debate there. Im always also curious about more miscellaneous detailes that they add. I know not everyone is appreciative of the "fluff" but Ive always enjoyed the smaller details.

Oddly enough I had a dream about the Chateau Frontenac being in Civ6 just last night.

If I were Firaxis, I would show the blue domed mystery building all the time built by different civs in different location, on the coast, not on the coast, with roads beneath, without roads etc.

 

[Zaarin]

Is anachronism a scale? I've always thought that something is either anachronistic or not. Besides, the Civ franchise is absolutely built on anachronism, hardly worth worrying about.

Yes, anachronism is a scale; some things stand out as more anachronistic either because they're prominent (a tobacco pipe before the 1530s, for example) or because they're further out of their proper time (say, a piano in ancient Rome). Also, if historical details don't matter, why not just have America led by Uncle Sam, or include fictional civilizations like Atlantis or the Sidhe? The Civ franchise isn't built on anachronism (though it's lack of attention to detail can be infuriating); it's a strategy game built on historical flavor--which flies out the window when the "historical details" don't make sense.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Dropped what after what first one? I'm not seeing much in the way of facts here lol

I've bought every DLC that has come out so far. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer to have seen the Mongols, Ottomans, Dutch, the Incans, and a few others take precedence over the ones that have been released. We all have different reasons for buying it. If those big ticket Civs never get included in VI though it will sour the experience for me, and many others.

The culturaly diverse civs the "box checkers" or how ever you want to phrase it. If those civs were hurting the sales or not selling as well as others they would not continue to make them.

And that is fine if you buy them all, but if the "buy them all no matter what" crowd was the only audience then it would not matter what civ came out since they are going to sell the exact same either way. The point still remains that the "cash grab" argument is meaningless. If a civ is going to sell more the only way it does so is if more people want it.

 

[CivLuvah]

https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/936661381234827264

I think this means we get a First Look next week.

I guess I have to bring out the dancing bananas once it comes out. Although it might be delayed because I haz work.

 

[God of Kings]

What would be their UU? Canadian comedians? That's been their biggest impact to my country. Many funny folks come from up there. Must be the cold weather. Rest in Peace Phil Hartman (I know he mostly grew up here)

It would be interesting if Canada's specialty were the increased generation of Great Entertainers. There's plenty of Canadian comedians, as well as other Canadian entertainers. There's also no shortage of famous Canadian athletes. Terry Fox would be a Great Entertainer who increases the loyalty of distant cities connected to the capital by road, as well as increasing science output.

 

[nzcamel]

The culturaly diverse civs the "box checkers" or how ever you want to phrase it. If those civs were hurting the sales or not selling as well as others they would not continue to make them.

And that is fine if you buy them all, but if the "buy them all no matter what" crowd was the only audience then it would not matter what civ came out since they are going to sell the exact same either way. The point still remains that the "cash grab" argument is meaningless. If a civ is going to sell more the only way it does so is if more people want it.

I'm talking long term. Civ 6 isn't a game full of box checkers, so I'm not sure why you tie it's success to them.

 

[bite]

So what First Look do you suppose we will see next week. They usually like to save surprises for last. So what will it be? The alt leader for an existing civ? A long-awaited returning favorite? Yet another European?

It think they will go with their big draw card, so my money is on the Mongols

 

[Zaarin]

It think they will go with their big draw card, so my money is on the Mongols

A good point, but they've been making a big deal of female leaders; I think they'll start with a civ with a female leader. So I'm still betting on Korea.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So what First Look do you suppose we will see next week. They usually like to save surprises for last. So what will it be? The alt leader for an existing civ? A long-awaited returning favorite? Yet another European?

Mali, so it can be officially confirmed!

 

[Guatenadian]

Korea or the Mongols are the most likely to be the subject of a First Look, they were the ones that were most referenced in the trailer.

 

[Tirius]

I have a little bit of hope for the Netherlands - aside from the previously mentioned flag, a map of Amsterdam also appeared in the trailer.

 

[Vahnstad]

A good point, but they've been making a big deal of female leaders; I think they'll start with a civ with a female leader. So I'm still betting on Korea.

I think Wilhelmina as the Dutch leader.

Both a big card, and a female leader, and they are pretty much revealed too (because of that map)

 

[Gabriel Sergio]

By the way can anyone explain about the Netherlands flag

 

[AvianBritish]

By the way can anyone explain about the Netherlands flag

I don't recall a Netherlands flag, unless they are confusing the French flag as a sideways Dutch flag that falls from the face of the Statue of Liberty.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yes, anachronism is a scale; some things stand out as more anachronistic either because they're prominent (a tobacco pipe before the 1530s, for example) or because they're further out of their proper time (say, a piano in ancient Rome). Also, if historical details don't matter, why not just have America led by Uncle Sam, or include fictional civilizations like Atlantis or the Sidhe? The Civ franchise isn't built on anachronism (though it's lack of attention to detail can be infuriating); it's a strategy game built on historical flavor--which flies out the window when the "historical details" don't make sense.

Some things may stand out as more obviously anachronistic, that's still not a scale.

Barely any of the civilizations in the game existed in 4000BC. When London, Rome, Rio, Aachen, etc., are founded on turn 1, they are all anachronisms. Victoria is wearing a rather fancy frock for the period too.

Having recognisable historical figures included is fun but worrying too hard about the historical accuracy of their portrayal seems daft to me, given the above. It's a game that bears very little relation to real history.

All in my opinion of course, I just find it fascinating that anyone would care.

 

[Lanzelot]

Civ1 to Civ3 all had corruption, & yes it was a horrible mechanic.

Wasn't it Civ3 that first introduced corruption? I've played Civ1 extensively back in 92, and I'm pretty sure, it did not have corruption. Expansion was indeed a "real" exponential curve here. Not sure about Civ2, but I think it did not change the fundamental mechanisms compared to Civ1. I still remember that the "adjustment" when moving from Civ1 to Civ2 was not that difficult, but when I moved from Civ2 to Civ3, I basically had to "relearn" the game. So I would think, that even Civ2 did not have corruption.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Civ 1 definitely had corruption, it increased the further a city was from the palace I think.