[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[UWHabs]

Anywhere from morning to evening eastern US, although the last few were consistently around 1pm eastern US.

Of course, the base game launched at midnight, I think. I wonder if the expansion will follow a release schedule closer to the base game than they do for just general patches/DLC.

 

[WillowBrook]

Why did you asked that?

Attempting to figure out exactly how many days/hours until release...

 

[liv]

Or trying to figure out what time to take work off??

 

[Kimiimaro]

Or trying to figure out what time to take work off??

No, @WillowBrook is right

And I'm just 16, I go to school

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Corruption was in 1 and 2. In fact, it was a key reason to evolve governments. I looked for two screenshots below in which you can see the effect, making some of your trade yield unusable (black arrows). I recall seing also red shields for waste, but i couldn't find any in the screenshots (maybe this was only 3?)

Those screenshots give me warm fuzzies.

 

[Disgustipated]

Or trying to figure out what time to take work off??

Good idea, I hadn't thought of that. Though it's hard for me to take Thursdays off. I am taking that Monday off the day after the Superbowl.

 

[Ferocitus]

That's why Firaxis always makes the DLC OP. By making Korea, Poland, Brazil, Australia, etc over the top OP they gain exposure with the citizens of those countries while also appealing to the powergamers who live everywhere else. They also know most diehard fans are going to buy the DLC regardless of who's actually in it.

I haven't found them anything like OP on the maps I play (TSL Terra ludicrous
size at emperor level and marathon pace).
It amuses me that with every release of a new civ there are almost immediate
cries that they are OP. Each civ has weaknesses that can be exploited. It just
takes time to learn how.

 

[Kimiimaro]

That's why Firaxis always makes the DLC OP. By making Korea, Poland, Brazil, Australia, etc over the top OP they gain exposure with the citizens of those countries while also appealing to the powergamers who live everywhere else. They also know most diehard fans are going to buy the DLC regardless of who's actually in it.

Since when is Brazil over the top OP?

 

[IdiotStyle]

ah yes i recall when all inhabitants of macedonia were thrilled with the civ 6 dlc with over the top op alexander.


+I dont think poland is op,she's less op than scythia or sumer inmho.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

ah yes i recall when all inhabitants of macedonia were thrilled with the civ 6 dlc with over the top op alexander.


+I dont think poland is op,she's less op than scythia or sumer inmho.

Each civ is "OP" on paper, but when so much OP is stacked up against one another they balance each other out.

This been the case with most civ when the first look came out.

 

[God of Kings]

Each civ is "OP" on paper, but when so much OP is stacked up against one another they balance each other out.

This been the case with most civ when the first look came out.

The DLC civs are on average stronger than the vanilla ones.

 

[Guandao]

They should have announced this expansion next year, the week before February 8. Then drop all the First Look videos for the Civs in the same week.

That way, I wouldn't have to feel so hyped/anxious about what Civs are going to appear for around 10 weeks. Tuesday can't come long enough. I'm feeling the leader/Civ they reveal next week will not be on my wishlist. Either Canada, another post-colonial nation like Gran Colombia, or a Western European country like Belgium or Switzerland. I'm convinced this will be a Europe-heavy expansion. After creating DLCs for Nubia and SE Asia, Firaxis may think that's enough non-European representation.

Maybe the only non-European Civs will be Korea and Mongolia.

 

[Zaarin]

Are you really expecting to see Parthia or Iran in the game as separate civs? Sure, the portrayal of Persia has generally been consistent for the Achaemenid time period, but as you say in past Civ games England has been more-or-less true to England rather than Britain.

And as a matter of fact that is exactly what I said. No, I expect that post-Achaemenid Iran, for whatever reason, will never feature in game (though the Parthians would have made more sense than the Scythians).

My point is that people would probably not be bothered if Shapur or Yazdegerd was chosen as the Persian leader in a future incarnation, if Islam was the default AI-favoured religion, or if Hecatompylos or Nishapur were part of the Persian city list, because in-game Persia can legitimately represent any part of Iranian history. It represents the Achaemenid more thanks to popular recognition of this part of Persian history than a conscious effort to be self-consistent, I suspect: leaders like Darius and Cyrus are well-known where Parthian and Sassanian leaders aren't, and the Immortal is the first military unit people would think of in association with Persia.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one would be bothered if Persia favored Islam rather than Zoroastrianism...

It's how they see it now in retrospect because it suits a 'One China' narrative. It doesn't have much actual historicity.

Actually, it's how the Chinese have always seen it--the Chinese have never seen "Han" and "China" as synonymous; they always perceived the border people as "Chinese." And considering both the Mongolian Yuan and Manchu Qing assimilated to Han culture, it's hard to argue otherwise.

But if that's your criterion, why would you oppose Britain vs. England? The English at least don't typically view the British Empire as a different civilisation from preceding periods of English history. As I noted earlier contemporary Imperial writers broadly treated 'British' and 'English' as near-synonyms and it was accepted that British-descended colonials from Rudyard Kipling to George Orwell were of English rather than British nationality. Mainland European writers of the time - despite coming from states with long exposure to, and often politically distinct relations with, Scotland and Ireland - also appear to have made little distinction between the two.

Because England was a lot more interesting before the union of the two crowns? Yes, that's personal opinion, but it's nevertheless the opinion I hold. Honestly, England was a lot more interesting before William came along and Normanized the Isles, but I don't hold out much hope for ever seeing an Anglo-Saxon civ or leader.

 

[Ferocitus]

The DLC civs are on average stronger than the vanilla ones.

I'd believe that if they won some games occasionally, but they don't.
On the maps I play, Kongo and Aztecs are by far the toughest to beat. All others
(with Brazil a distant 3rd) have no hope.

 

[God of Kings]

@Zaarin

Don't forget that the name of the majority ethnic group in China is Han Chinese.

 

[God of Kings]

We now made 1000 posts!

 

[Kimiimaro]

We now made 1000 posts!

Yay!

B-but... dancing bananas are @CivLuvah's job

 

[Zaarin]

@Zaarin

Don't forget that the name of the majority ethnic group in China is Han Chinese.

True, but they're far from the only ethnic group in China; China has always been a multiethnic civilization.

 

[Guandao]

True, but they're far from the only ethnic group in China; China has always been a multiethnic civilization.

I think I have some non-Chinese ancestry. My DNA tests say I have a small amount of Southeast Asian ancestry (specifically Cambodian). The rest is either Northern Chinese or Southern Chinese.

 

[God of Kings]

I think I have some non-Chinese ancestry. My DNA tests say I have a small amount of Southeast Asian ancestry (specifically Cambodian). The rest is either Northern Chinese or Southern Chinese.

That makes you part-Khmer.