[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Ferocitus]

Considering the debate about wide vs. tall and realism in the last few pages, who is going to win in real life? We don't really need any more population, be it wide or tall.
http://scientistswarning.forestry.o.../files/Warning_article_with_supp_11-13-17.pdf
(World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice)

Who cares what groups like "Boffins Without Imagination" believe?
Future tech!
With limited resources the island effect kicks in, people become smaller, and
they can eat vat-grown meat in factories run by cybernetic organisms designed
for the purpose.

 

[eso12por8]

i don't think it's a theme for the screenshots... at least I hope it's not, i onestly don't like the theme park as a wonder because it looks completely generic, yet the persian looking building would be the only wonder that doesn't look "fancy" if you know what i mean, it looks like a very generic building aswell, could be everything in the middle east or central asia

I personally believe the strange sea fortress is a Civ VI feitoria. Portugal likely.

 

[PhilBowles]

Life quality improved a lot, industrialization progressed a lot there. They didn't suffer from the Great Depression. Army professionalism went up (just in time). If the communists didn't took over the USSR, they wouldn't have been able to defend against Hitler, and now they were able to (including the purges). Russia must be thankful for their communist age, because it did set them on the world map, and they transitioned from a non-relevant power that was breaking up (like Ottoman Empire) intoo the second most powerful state that even achieved a lot (space age), and was arguably even more advanced than the USA on science.

These are very difficult assertions to support given the absence of an alternate history in which there was no Russian revolution, so it's not at all clear how much of this would have happened anyway. Russia was no feudal backwater before the revolution - it was at most a couple of decades behind Western Europe economically and less industrially, and while Alexander III and Nicholas II were socially regressive monarchs there's no telling whether their successors would have developed along the Western constitutional lines Alexander II had intended before his assassination. The country was already a major power - powerful enough to contest the remnants of the Ottoman Empire with Britain and France in an industrialised war (Russia lost, certainly, but it was against arguably the two most advanced militaries in the world), and powerful enough to be an early aggressor in WWI before the Prussians mounted an effective defence.

Communism was a big driver in Hitler's rise to power and in the overall instability of the Weimar Republic - had it not taken root in Russia and been seen as a threat as a result there may have been no Hitler and no WWII, let alone a need to defend against him. The lack of a need to prove ideological superiority would probably have slowed progress on the space race, but that would be true in America as well - and without the German rocketry advances of WWII to act as a foundation for both space programmes, it may never have happened at all.

It seems likely that if communism hadn't taken root in Russia, whatever that would mean for internal social progress it probably wouldn't have drastically affected Russia's development trajectory.

 

[Benzombie]

Dang...

 

[PhilBowles]

Possibly they should recognise in their marketing that the distinction they make between 'leaders' and 'civs' has the potential for confusion and so not double-count them? We had the same with the last two DLCs with all the speculation that 'three leaders' meant two civs and an alternate leader despite the obvious interpretation that it meant 'three civs'. Yes, in the Civilopedia and the intro screen leaders and civs are given their own specific entries and traits, so we should know that when Firaxis says 'eight civs with nine new leaders' they're including the leaders of those civs just as 'eight civs and eight unique units' refers to one unit per new civ, but no one pays much attention to that.

 

[Vahnstad]

These are very difficult assertions to support given the absence of an alternate history in which there was no Russian revolution, so it's not at all clear how much of this would have happened anyway. Russia was no feudal backwater before the revolution - it was at most a couple of decades behind Western Europe economically and less industrially, and while Alexander III and Nicholas II were socially regressive monarchs there's no telling whether their successors would have developed along the Western constitutional lines Alexander II had intended before his assassination. The country was already a major power - powerful enough to contest the remnants of the Ottoman Empire with Britain and France in an industrialised war (Russia lost, certainly, but it was against arguably the two most advanced militaries in the world), and powerful enough to be an early aggressor in WWI before the Prussians mounted an effective defence.

Communism was a big driver in Hitler's rise to power and in the overall instability of the Weimar Republic - had it not taken root in Russia and been seen as a threat as a result there may have been no Hitler and no WWII, let alone a need to defend against him. The lack of a need to prove ideological superiority would probably have slowed progress on the space race, but that would be true in America as well - and without the German rocketry advances of WWII to act as a foundation for both space programmes, it may never have happened at all.

It seems likely that if communism hadn't taken root in Russia, whatever that would mean for internal social progress it probably wouldn't have drastically affected Russia's development trajectory.

Europe did rapidly enact reforms after the establishment of a communist state in USSR, because they were afraid that the revolution would have spread.

The main driver in the Rise of Hitler is the economic depression and the Treaty of Versailles. Communism played a role, but i don't think it was a deciding factor, and I doubt the German Communist Party would be less popular without a USSR, let alone, that the political climate wouldn't have polarized without the USSR. Also who doesn't say that communism would have made it's breaktrough in another (maybe west-European) nation, especially if they didn't enact reforms quickly. It's possible the communist parties would have even more popular, because the economic depression would have happened anyway, and there would have been no precedent that could have been criticized (because now they all say, it has been done and it failed).

Those tsars were indeed socially regressive, and there is also no point in assuming that their successors would have done that. It was in fact already too late, since we know what happened in history. Russia would certainly not have advanced that much if it wasn't communist, since it would have been behind, and wouldn't have taken a leader's role. The space race would have been delayed or as you said not have been happened. Technologic progress in general would have been delayed. Social progress in western countries would have been delayed, and certainly if WW2 would not have happened, as you point out. The evolution of the world would have delayed by much, and there would be much less freedom in the western world, i believe.

The USSR changed the world, if you want to accept it or not (that's why i also argue for their inclusion at some point, as they were not that bad as pictured (certainly not) and as they were a major influential power throughout the last century, one of the two superpowers from WW2 to 1990, and there are a lot of civilizations that are in the game or assumed to be in the game who don't even come that close to what the USSR did. China is today also an authoritarian country, but means a lot to our world too, is influencing it, and is even the major power combatting climate change (taking stance) opposed to America who ignores the climate debate, at least on a federal level with the current cabinet.

The Russian Revolution is the best thing that ever happened in the 20th century imo.

(but okay, we go off-topic)

 

[HF22]

On Emperor+ - yes, it's challenge. Not best one, but still. Anyway, as I said, tweaking difficulty level has little to do with AI programming.

I agree difficulty level design is seperate to AI limitations. But that of course was my initial point - The problems come as much from design problems which expose AI limits, as much as they do from AI limits themselves.

The ineffectiveness of economic bonuses in creating combat difficulty in a 1upt environment is an example of this problem (sometimes they even make the game easier - AIs clear barbs better for you & have more stuff to steal).

 

[PhilBowles]

Europe did rapidly enact reforms after the establishment of a communist state in USSR, because they were afraid that the revolution would have spread. Also, if communism was created at that POV, it would certainly.

The main driver in the Rise of Hitler is the economic depression and the Treaty of Versailles. Communism played a role, but i don't think it was a deciding factor, and I doubt the German Communist Party would be less popular without a USSR, let alone, that the political climate wouldn't have polarized without the USSR.

Those tsars were indeed socially regressive, and there is also no point in assuming that their successors would have done that. It was in fact already too late, since we know what happened in history. Russia would certainly not have advanced that much if it wasn't communist, since it would have been behind, and wouldn't have taken a leader's role. The space race would have been delayed or as you said not have been happened. Technologic progress in general would have been delayed. Social progress in western countries would have been delayed, and certainly if WW2 would not have happened, as you point out. The evolution of the world would have delayed by much, and there would be much less freedom in the western world, i believe.

Yes, progress across the West as a whole as well as Russia would have stalled; my point is that in relative terms Russia would likely have kept pace, much as Saudi Arabia has kept pace with economic and industrial development alongside a model of government that was abandoned in most countries nearly three hundred years ago.

While we can posit that the tsars would have retained the same form of absolute monarchy that had (often violently) fallen out of fashion elsewhere in Europe, there were multiple attempts - both top-down and bottom-up - to change the system and Russia had faced multiple crises as a result of uprisings or populist movements over the preceding century. Sooner or later the tsars would have been forced to adapt or die. We know of tsars, the last of which was Alexander II, who aspired to become constitutional monarchs, so I'm not suggesting an implausible change that hadn't already been considered by Russian leadership.

As for Hitler, he came second in the election in 1933 and was installed as chancellor only as an emergency measure. It would have taken very little for this not to have happened - if communist sentiment were a little weaker the Weimar Republic may have been strong enough to resist him, or he might have lost a small but decisive portion of the vote, enough to make Hindenberg the clear winner. That might have halted his ascendance or at least delayed it until after the Spanish Civil War (which the communists might have won without German backing for the fascists, so re-igniting anti-communist fervor in neighbouring countries). If none of that had happened, at the very least Russia may not have been one of his targets as his conflict with Russia was both ideological and based on personal dislike of Stalin.

 

[Vahnstad]

Yes, progress across the West as a whole as well as Russia would have stalled; my point is that in relative terms Russia would likely have kept pace, much as Saudi Arabia has kept pace with economic and industrial development alongside a model of government that was abandoned in most countries nearly three hundred years ago.

While we can posit that the tsars would have retained the same form of absolute monarchy that had (often violently) fallen out of fashion elsewhere in Europe, there were multiple attempts - both top-down and bottom-up - to change the system and Russia had faced multiple crises as a result of uprisings or populist movements over the preceding century. Sooner or later the tsars would have been forced to adapt or die. We know of tsars, the last of which was Alexander II, who aspired to become constitutional monarchs, so I'm not suggesting an implausible change that hadn't already been considered by Russian leadership.

As for Hitler, he came second in the election in 1933 and was installed as chancellor only as an emergency measure. It would have taken very little for this not to have happened - if communist sentiment were a little weaker the Weimar Republic may have been strong enough to resist him, or he might have lost a small but decisive portion of the vote, enough to make Hindenberg the clear winner. That might have halted his ascendance or at least delayed it until after the Spanish Civil War (which the communists might have won without German backing for the fascists, so re-igniting anti-communist fervor in neighbouring countries). If none of that had happened, at the very least Russia may not have been one of his targets as his conflict with Russia was both ideological and based on personal dislike of Stalin.

Russia was humiliated in WW1 and the Russo-Japanese war, and the demographics actually say something different. I don't understand why anyone is so forgiving for the tsars and that we all have to believe that communism is the worst, because it was not as long Stalin wasn't in power.

The numbers disagree with you. They were even pioneers among certain laws like maternal leave, and abortion laws. Tsarist Russia was a country where famine & diseases struck frequently, where healthcare & social welfare was abominable, that was as critical and cruel as the Soviet Union during the Stalin age and where life quality in general was very low, extremely low. A country that had 25% literacy in 1917 did send the first human into an orbit around our planet. If you want to respect history, you can at least start with respect that part. The USSR wasn't perfect, but it had it's accomplishments, and it wasn't as bad as some like to picture it, especially when you know that something basic as healthcare for everyone is still a matter of debate in the USA in 2017, and that such a country is the first one to impose it's ideology on other nations. They should first focus on it's own citizens, like mr. Trump said. America first. Well, maybe you can start to take care of your people.

Spoiler :

Literacy

1917 - 25.2%

1926 - 51.0%

1939 - 89.7%

1950 - ~100%

Average years of education

1900 - 1.2 years

1910 - 1.3 years

1920 - 1.9 years

1930 - 2.5 years

1940 - 3.9 years

Life Expectancy

1896 - 32.3 years

1926 - 44.4 years

1958 - 68.6 years

And i'm going to stop with this discussion, you can always tag me (if that's possible) in a different topic in OT.

 

[Battlehelm043]

HEY HEY HEY!!! Did anyone notice the new unit hidden in the last screen cap with the new resource of gold or amber??? There is a predator drone in there just below the Quarry improvement in the distance!!!!! *3 of them are spread throughout that screenshot actually now that I look closer!*

 

[eso12por8]

I'm getting rather creeped out-slash-excited by the fact I think people are watching what I say. I told them I wanted a couple things & it appears to be working.
For a long time I have been wanting them to re-implement the colonial aspects of the game where cities can switch allegiance or revolt. I thought it wasn't very compelling to have cities in unrest by unleashing barbarians. They should defect as a territory.
Also requested a throwback to Civ II in designing your palace.
Also have been a fan of the post-game Civ IV national corporation concept. It appears with directed goals this could become a serious possibility.
In addition, I've asked for Portugal, the Crown of Aragon & Venice. Here it appears we may get all three & a new Native American tribe (I'm hoping Taíno).
At one point I also asked for Lydia but that'd be a bit of Mediterranean overkill on my part.

Here are some screenshots from the blog post on the official website:

What I gather from these images:
1. Mt. Roraima, Buddha at Kamakura, Archivo Nacional de las Índias
2. Santa Monica Pier, Washington Square, Statue of Liberty (Holy America, Batman!), Arches NP, some sort of military cargo, feitoria
3. Temple of Artemis, St. Basil's Cathedral, Amber resource, Bio-sustained living-space exploration district(?), that natural park with the red trees and rocks I know it I'm beating myself up about it.

From the Rise & Fall Teaser Image of Discus-Man:
Cappadocia has been mentioned & I also see .. Pinatubo?

What I'm seeing out of these in terms of the 9 Civs (keeping in mind they're stepping into uncharted territory a LOT this cycle):
1. Gran Colombia: Inca certainly plausible, though I'm sensing they're going to throw a curveball. Nothing has suggested Inca thusfar as well.
2. Crown of Aragon: Queen Isabela is a natural fit as she's appeared in the past & provides easy gender diversity, would provide the additional leader-not-new-civ-spot
3. Portugal: looking at that building I honestly see a feitoria.
4. Korea: Key moments have been sealed for me as confirmed.
5. Dutch appear to be confirmed so far as I can tell.
6. Venice: There's a moment in the film that reminds me so much of Enrico Dandolo. Venetian Arsenal already a wonder
--Wishlist mode--
7. ??? Canada is being floated around. I wouldn't mind this at all [part Canadian], considering Australia exists it seems right. The new wonder would be easily explained.
8. ??? Mongolia appears to be fresh as well, though I'm not sold yet.
9. ??? Songhai/Mali/Ghana would all make handsome additions [studied West African History in college as a minor]

 

[Vahnstad]

I would love Pamukkale as a Turkish wonder too, but Cappadocia seems like a good catch. I've mentioned Pinatubo before. Funny that you see it too, but it doesn't look exactly the same. If we will see Gran Colombia in the game, i think they will just name it Colombia with Simon Bolivar as leader. If your 9 civilizations are right, we would lack severely pre-Columbian civilizations in the game, but it seems like this is the way to go, and colonial nations are more likely to be in the game now. I wouldn't mind Colombia actually (but for a second or third expansion), as i'm a Latin-Americanophile (one of the reasons why i'm hoping for Inca's or Maya's, or in a future expansion Muisca, Cuba, Mexico, Taino), but Inca's and Maya's are the most important ones obviously.

 

[Guatenadian]

Santa Monica Pier, Washington Square

There is still some debate over these two. I personally don't believe them to be wonders but rather improvements, or Governor bonuses. But I would agree in saying that these are based on Santa Monica Pier and Washington Square.

 

[eso12por8]

I would love Pamukkale as a Turkish wonder too, but Cappadocia seems like a good catch. I've mentioned Pinatubo before. Funny that you see it too, but it doesn't look exactly the same. If we will see Gran Colombia in the game, i think they will just name it Colombia with Simon Bolivar as leader. If your 9 civilizations are right, we would lack severely pre-Columbian civilizations in the game, but it seems like this is the way to go, and colonial nations are more likely to be in the game now. I wouldn't mind Colombia actually (but for a second or third expansion), as i'm a Latin-Americanophile (one of the reasons why i'm hoping for Inca's or Maya's, or in a future expansion Muisca, Cuba, Mexico, Taino), but Inca's and Maya's are the most important ones obviously.

My deal with Cappadocia is if it is indeed true, an Anatolian civ may be one of the last three. We could easily put it in with the Hagia Sofia. Lydia would make me thrilled & it'd fit in with the Greek city-state ordeal they're enjoying. Queen Tamar from Georgia seems to also be favored from this forum & they appear to be aiming to please our fantasies.

Inca & Maya would provide a handsome DLC pack à la Khmer-Indonesia.

I really REALLY want the Conch Republic. Pirates would be so much fun. Pipe dreams lol

 

[eso12por8]

There is still some debate over these two. I personally don't believe them to be wonders but rather improvements, or Governor bonuses. But I would agree in saying that these are based on Santa Monica Pier and Washington Square.

This wouldn't surprise me, nor would I be upset about this at ALL. Especially if it adds unique wonders for each civ as a result, not just American content.
I'm also really pissed about the fact you conquer a city & the unique improvement disappears. Uhhh---- how would that happen historically?

 

[Vahnstad]

My deal with Cappadocia is if it is indeed true, an Anatolian civ may be one of the last three. We could easily put it in with the Hagia Sofia. Lydia would make me thrilled & it'd fit in with the Greek city-state ordeal they're enjoying. Queen Tamar from Georgia seems to also be favored from this forum & they appear to be aiming to please our fantasies.

Inca & Maya would provide a handsome DLC pack à la Khmer-Indonesia.

I really REALLY want the Conch Republic. Pirates would be so much fun. Pipe dreams lol

This could also mean that we won't see Byzantium or the Ottomans, but maybe the Hittites. It could be a compromise between a battle of a Otto / Byzantines and a Babylon / Carthage slot with a Cradle of Civilization civ centered in Anatolia, and also a return of a civ that didn't made it in Five, and if Kilwa is in the game, we won't need a maritime Anatolian civ (yet). And the game desperately needs more science civs, and Korea won't be enough.

The wiki says this

Göreme (pronounced [ˈɟøɾeme]; Ancient Greek: Κόραμα, Kòrama), located among the "fairy chimney" rock formations, is a town in Cappadocia, a historical region of Turkey. It is in the Nevşehir Province in Central Anatolia and has a population of around 2,000 people.[1]

Former names of the town have been Korama, Matiana, Maccan or Machan, and Avcilar.[2] When Göreme Valley nearby was designated an important tourist destination, a "center" for all tourism in Cappadocia, the name of the town was changed to Göreme for practical reasons.

The Göreme National Park (tr) (Göreme Tarihî Millî Parkı in Turkish) was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1985.[1]

The time that the Göreme was first settled is unclear, but it could date back as the Hittite era, between 1800 and 1200 B.C. The location was central between rivaling empires, such as the Greeks and Persians, leading the natives to tunnel into the rock to escape the political turmoil.

_____________________________

Cappadocia was known as Hatti in the late Bronze Age, and was the homeland of the Hittite power centred at Hattusa.

 

[PhilBowles]

Russia was humiliated in WW1 and the Russo-Japanese war, and the demographics actually say something different. I don't understand why anyone is so forgiving for the tsars and that we all have to believe that communism is the worst, because it was not as long Stalin wasn't in power.

A final comment here - it's not so much being "forgiving of the tsars" as seeing them from an outside perspective. I can't imagine Russian education has anything positive to say about them even in the post-Soviet era, and as that appears to be your background it's not surprising if your view on them isn't precisely impartial. I've visited the Winter Palace and came away with the impression that the only reason it survived the communist era was because it provides ready-made propaganda: "look how disgustingly opulent and decadent they were while the workers toiled away". Russia modernised under several of them, notably Peter, Catherine and Alexanders I and II - and while it also modernised under communism there's no particular reason to believe it wouldn't have under continued monarchy; even Nicholas II appears to have been guilty more of being passive and disinterested in modernising the government than instinctively autocratic.

It's not exactly the height of nuanced political commentary, but I always found it striking - coming as it did from an American writer immersed in the capitalist democracy chest-thumping mania of the Cold War - that one of the alien characters in Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series, in explaining the variety of human government systems on WWII Earth to his superior, notes that they all basically function more or less as well as one another.

 

[PhilBowles]

I would love Pamukkale as a Turkish wonder too, but Cappadocia seems like a good catch. I've mentioned Pinatubo before. Funny that you see it too, but it doesn't look exactly the same. If we will see Gran Colombia in the game, i think they will just name it Colombia with Simon Bolivar as leader. If your 9 civilizations are right, we would lack severely pre-Columbian civilizations in the game, but it seems like this is the way to go, and colonial nations are more likely to be in the game now. I wouldn't mind Colombia actually (but for a second or third expansion), as i'm a Latin-Americanophile (one of the reasons why i'm hoping for Inca's or Maya's, or in a future expansion Muisca, Cuba, Mexico, Taino), but Inca's and Maya's are the most important ones obviously.

Everyone seems to favour Inca as the most likely American insertion, but the Maya were longer-lasting and there's no representation for Central America (though I'll grant it's not a large area and on TSL maps will run into competition with the Aztecs). The most obvious Maya wonder is already in the game, so there's no real clue either way from what we've seen of the new wonders to date. If not for series tradition, I'd say Maya should always be the first indigenous American civ to be represented, ahead of the Aztecs who always get top billing.

 

[eso12por8]

This could also mean that we won't see Byzantium or the Ottomans, but maybe the Hittites. It could be a compromise between a battle of a Otto / Byzantines and a Babylon / Carthage slot with a Cradle of Civilization civ centered in Anatolia, and also a return of a civ that didn't made it in Five, and if Kilwa is in the game, we won't need a maritime Anatolian civ (yet). And the game desperately needs more science civs, and Korea won't be enough.

Cappadocia was known as Hatti in the late Bronze Age, and was the homeland of the Hittite power centred at Hattusa.

Key things to look out for:
Lydian Coin:

Check this out, Lydian Queen Omphale. Keep in mind, Troy was a part of Lydia. Smyrna, where my family is from, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphale

 

[Vahnstad]

Everyone seems to favour Inca as the most likely American insertion, but the Maya were longer-lasting and there's no representation for Central America (though I'll grant it's not a large area and on TSL maps will run into competition with the Aztecs). The most obvious Maya wonder is already in the game, so there's no real clue either way from what we've seen of the new wonders to date. If not for series tradition, I'd say Maya should always be the first indigenous American civ to be represented, ahead of the Aztecs who always get top billing.

Aztecs have more known leaders, and they actually take their spot right now, and I doubt that region will have another civ immediately. Inca's fit more geographically, and have also a certain niche (mountain civ) gameplay-wise, although the Maya's could fit very well in this expansion with Golden and Dark Ages, since their civilization was prone to it, as depicted in the well known Maya Calendar.

I don't agree with you, not going to elaborate on it, since i would have to use more politically tinted arguments, but for your information. I have no link to Russia. I'm born and being grown up in Belgium and I think our youth is being teached to be critical of the American system too.