On the money. I’d be really happy if that’s how this expansion fills out. That also leaves celts, carthage, byzantines, austria, incans or mayans, and potentially ethiopia and another NA civ as a decent base for the third expansion.
[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
On the money. I’d be really happy if that’s how this expansion fills out. That also leaves celts, carthage, byzantines, austria, incans or mayans, and potentially ethiopia and another NA civ as a decent base for the third expansion.
Vahnstad
Emperor
The only thing that actually worries me that if the second expansion includes again 8 civs and one leader, that many mainstays actually aren't going to return, like what about the Celts, Babylon, Byzantium, Inca/Maya, Ethiopia/Zulu/Mali and Carthage?
DeepKing
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2017
- Messages
- 216
Lol I'd be so upset if those didn't return. I'm not sure how they're going to finesse the Celts at this point, since there's been a good amount of anger about their last depiction.
I've actually been a little worried about this ever since it was implied that the Second Leader feature was intended to spur on modded leaders to already present civilizations. I'm all about the modding community, but I'm worried we won't see some much wanted Civs and Leaders because of it.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I don't understand the desire to have as many civs as possible in the game.
Yes, gameplay diversity is fun, but in Civ6 each civ has 4 uniques (with leader) and having too many of them would mean more repeating and less uniqueness. How many land grab and adjacency bonus abilities we have already?
And yes, a lot of civs and leaders are very interesting historically, but Civilization is not a game there those history things could be actually shown. So, if not a big deal if some less popular civs are missed or stay in city-state form.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
Based on the timing, Civ VI may even have a third expansion or expansion-exclusive DLCs.
By the way, there's 57 days minus eight hours to go (Baltimore time).
By the way, there's 57 days minus eight hours to go (Baltimore time).
Vahnstad
Emperor
Well, then maybe they shouldn't have add meaningless civs like Australia or i assume Canada in the first place.
Vahnstad
Emperor
Well maybe you're fine with it, but i'm not fine with it. And again, are you still fine about not seeing civs like Babylon, Celts and Carthage in favor of Australia and Canada. I'm not.
Well, i sincerely hope so. Civ 6 craves for a third expansion, because i would like to see new civs like Hungary and Mughals too.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
The Civs that don't make it to R&F might end up being used for another expansion pack or expansion-exclusive DLCs if these civs are used at all.
Vahnstad
Emperor
I would like Vietnam (Trung Sisters would be amazing) too, but we need those civs i've mentioned too.
And i actually hope Sumer is the replacement of Assyria.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I don't have a problem with modern nations being civs in the game but I would like to see more older civs in the game as well. Rise & Fall will add 8 new civs and we've only seen 2 so far. So there is still a chance we will see older civs like Babylon, Carthage and the Celts in R&F. I'm hoping. And if they don't make it in R&F then hopefully, they will be added later.
Sumer is "Epic of Gilgamesh Civ" to me
I'd like to get Assyria back. They are are interesting Civ, and their army was also very interesting. They could build an army that could have up to 100 000 men, and they were the first civilization to use the psychological warfare. Also, they probably invented swords. And we could get the warmongering librarian Ashurbanipal back with them
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
Good thing that there aren't much overlap between Sumerian and Assyrian cities, despite being in the same general area.Sumer is "Epic of Gilgamesh Civ" to me
I'd like to get Assyria back. They are are interesting Civ, and their army was also very interesting. They could build an army that could have up to 100 000 men, and they were the first civilization to use the psychological warfare. Also, they probably invented swords. And we could get the warmongering librarian Ashurbanipal back with them
KyivanRusCivPlease
Prince
I like all the new things announced for Rise & Fall but I am cautious about Governors in that they are not real historic personalities.
Here's the extract from an interview with Anton Strenger on www.pcgamesn.com:
"Are any Governors inspired by historical figures, as with Great People?
Anton Strenger: They’re inspired by historical archetypes more than specific people. Throughout history, there have been leaders that had different focuses or strategies to achieving their goals, and that was what inspired their playstyles and personalities."
Does it bother you a bit too?
Here's the extract from an interview with Anton Strenger on www.pcgamesn.com:
"Are any Governors inspired by historical figures, as with Great People?
Anton Strenger: They’re inspired by historical archetypes more than specific people. Throughout history, there have been leaders that had different focuses or strategies to achieving their goals, and that was what inspired their playstyles and personalities."
Does it bother you a bit too?
No, why would it?
DeepKing
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2017
- Messages
- 216
I don't understand why you wouldn't. Its not as if anyones going to play with all the civ listed in one play though. Especially with this cycle which includes Australia and possibly Canada, I'm all for more civs.
From what I've seen, each Civ is unique in it's own little way, either it being minor or major. Even with Greece your playstyle, or the AI, can be different depending on Pericles or Gorgo. They also easily differentiated Macedon from Greece. That being said I wouldn't be surprised if we got close to 50 Civs this game with either more DLC or possible third expansion. In the end, this game has to end up with more Civs than Civ 5.
If they expand the more distinct mechanics different Civs can use, absolutely.
Adding too many Civs that just rely on permutations of the same uniques with different modifiers (this civ gets science bonuses to trade routes, adjacency bonuses to marsh, and planting a commercial district gives a culture bomb! Etc.) ends up as a case of diminishing returns, at least in how 5 and 6 have strived to make the Civs feel more unique in gameplay. In something like 4 - where the leader bonuses were literally just different combinations of the different modifiers - the more the merrier.
To add: there's definitely a number of unique possibilities they haven't touched yet, so it's more a case of design/development/balance resourcing be there.
I am of those who think that the more civs the better. I like every game I see different opponents, avoiding that almost always the same civs. In Civ5, I used many mods that included more civilizations.
I honestly hope we get 3 expansions, with some DLCs between them.
I honestly hope we get 3 expansions, with some DLCs between them.
Similar threads
