[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Vahnstad]

It maybe went a bit too far. If they focus on the French colonial part, it could maybe be even fun. Sorry guys. And if they ever include Belgium, it may be anyone but Leopold II. I prefer Albert I. But i'm quite sure it won't happen, since a good leader choice would be very hard. There are also no females. I don't think we even had a female prime minister at some point. There are no famous queens. I don't know much historic Belgian prime ministers that played a large rol in our country (if they aren't even famous nationally, why should Firaxis pick them. There are some more famous prime ministers, but they're all alive or even still active in Europe (Guy Verhofstadt - who is also named in Panama Papers).

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_stay-behind_network#Gladio_actions_and_alleged_actions Belgian stay-behind network also make a lot of PM's controversial, since the Brabant Killers were probably members of the Belgian Gendarmerie, supported by the Belgian government and NATO, in order to shift our country politics or public opinion to the right (spreading fear through terror). The perpetrators are known, but they are not being prosecuted. There were also murders on famous communist politicians. Because of government corruption (and dissatisfaction), the terror attacks, riots and race violence, Flemish nationalism/separatism and the crime in the Brussels ghetto's (D.Trump called it a hellhole), the political climate is really polarizing, and many Belgians favor now the far-right or the far-left. I think my country is probably the country with one of the strongest far-left parties in the entire western world, and also the far-right does quite well, almost winning mayoral elections in Antwerp and becoming Flanders' largest party (but they can not govern, since other parties form a "coallition against the hate").

The terror attacks in Paris and Brussels could have been avoided, if Brussels was reformed and not such a mess (and some political parties ignored the problems so that they could win elections (it wasn't a big deal). They should have incorporated all municipilaties of Brussels into one supercity (since the districts/municipilaties don't have a united police force). Also, the parties don't want to help each other, since they're afraid of favouring the French-speaking or Dutch-speaking parties too much.

It's just really complicated, and to make a long story short: we don't have many good leaders, but if i had to choose one: Albert I

Leopold III was bad too, because he was a coward. He fled immediately when Hitler invaded our country, and surrendered to Hitler (trying to make a peace deal). He had to abdicate because for that in 1950, because Belgium was on the brink of a civil war. The communist leader (who was really popular back then) was also murdered, being killed by royalists. And Flanders / Wallonia was really divided back then. Albert I at the contrary, decided to fight back the Germans during WW1 when they invaded Belgium (or asked permission to enter our territory). Germany didn't expect this. And even France and the UK didn't expect this, but we never surrendered, never gave up (creating the famous front on the Yzer), buying time for the French (because Germany had a tough time invading us) creating the famous Battle of Passendaele and more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Royal_Question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Belgium

 

[agonistes]

Firaxis wasted a perfect opportunity to add the Enlightenment Era...

It sounds like they are. I mean, isn't that what the Enlightenment is? A golden age?

 

[cvb]

So GH was Great Hommage ? (to Rhye) And that list of features, what's left for me to mod !

Guess a 3rd leader for Greece isn't out of the question . Maybe GH stood for "Great Hellenics".

So in the end GH means just 'Golden H' = golden age ??

(Most important feature 'golden-dark-heroic ages', placeholder, internal nickname of the 1st expansion.)

 

[Vahnstad]

What I also admire about Albert I (sorry about making this a bit too long). I'm citing the wiki:

Spoiler :

Retiring and studious, Albert prepared himself strenuously for the task of kingship. In his youth, Albert was seriously concerned with the situation of the working classes in Belgium, and personally traveled around working class districts incognito, to observe the living conditions of the people.[1] Shortly before his accession to the throne in 1909, Albert undertook an extensive tour of the Belgian Congo, which had been annexed by Belgium in 1908 (after having been previously owned by King Leopold II of Belgium as his personal property), finding the country in poor condition. Upon his return to Belgium, he recommended reforms to protect the native population and to further technological progress in the colony.

Because he was in charge after Leopold II died.

At the start of World War I, Albert refused to comply with Germany's request for safe passage for its troops through Belgium in order to attack France, which the Germans alleged was about to advance into Belgium en route to attacking Germany in support of Russia. In fact, the French government had told its army commander not to go into Belgium before a German invasion.[10] The German invasion brought Britain into the war as one of the guarantors of Belgian neutrality under the Treaty of 1839. King Albert, as prescribed by the Belgian constitution, took personal command of the Belgian army, and held the Germans off long enough for Britain and Franceto prepare for the Battle of the Marne (6–9 September 1914). He led his army through the Siege of Antwerp and the Battle of the Yser, when the Belgian army was driven back to a last, tiny strip of Belgian territory near the North Sea. Here the Belgians, in collaboration with the armies of the Triple Entente, took up a war of position, in the trenches behind the River Yser, remaining there for the next four years. During this period, King Albert fought alongside his troops and shared their dangers, while his wife, Queen Elisabeth, worked as a nurse at the front. During his time on the front, rumors spread on both sides of the lines that the German soldiers never fired upon him out of respect for him being the highest ranked commander in harm's way, while others feared risking punishment by the Kaiser himself, who was his cousin. The king also allowed his 14-year-old son, Prince Leopold, to enlist in the Belgian army as a private and fight in the ranks.[2][7]

The war inflicted great suffering on Belgium, which was subjected to a harsh German occupation. The king, fearing the destructive results of the war for Belgium and Europe and appalled by the huge casualty rates, worked through secret diplomatic channels for a negotiated peace between Germany and the Entente based on the "no victors, no vanquished" concept. He considered that such a resolution to the conflict would best protect the interests of Belgium and the future peace and stability of Europe. Since, however, neither Germany nor the Entente were favorable to the idea, tending instead to seek total victory, Albert's attempts to further a negotiated peace were unsuccessful. At the end of the war, as commander of the Army Group Flanders, consisting of Belgian, British and French divisions, Albert led the final offensive of the war that liberated occupied Belgium. King Albert, Queen Elisabeth, and their children then re-entered Brussels to a hero's welcome.

____________________

The Belgian government sent the king to the Paris Peace Conference in April 1919, where he met with the leaders of France, Britain and the United States. He had four strategic goals:

1. to restore and expand the Belgian economy using cash reparations from Germany;
2. to assure Belgium's security by the creation of a new buffer state on the left bank of the Rhine;
3. to revise the obsolete treaty of 1839;
4. to promote a 'rapprochement' between Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.

He strongly advised against a harsh, restrictive treaty against Germany to prevent future German aggression.[17] He also considered that the dethronement of the princes of Central Europe and, in particular, the dissolution of the Habsburg Empire would constitute a serious menace to peace and stability on the continent.[8]The Allies considered Belgium to be the chief victim of the war, and it aroused enormous popular sympathy, but the king's advice played a small role in Paris.[18]

Albert spent much of the remainder of his reign assisting in the post-war reconstruction of Belgium.

Albert was a committed conservationist and in 1925, influenced by the ideas of Carl E. Akeley, he founded Africa's first national park, now known as Virunga National Park, in what is now Democratic Republic of Congo. During this period, he was also the first reigning European monarch to visit the United States.

 

[Jimdigriz]

Rise and Fall sounds great but..... where are the badly needed infantry units needed between Musketeer and Infantry? Just seems mad to me.

 

[Siptah]

Rise and Fall sounds great but..... where are the badly needed infantry units needed between Musketeer and Infantry? Just seems mad to me.

Well, we'll get 4 more units: late game upgrades for the Medic, the Scout and the Observation Balloon + the Pike & Shot between Pikeman and AT Crew. I'm not terribly into support units, although the Observation Balloon is worth having around.
I don't think more units is what is needed most tbh. In contrast to older civ games, you mainly build your army in antiquity and classical times and try to have the units for the whole game. More units would just mean spending a little gold every now and then to keep them up to date.

*​

I would prefer if fighting would change a bit and that the rock paper shotgun thingy leads to way more losses. There are bonuses for spearmen against horsemen, but I think it's not enough. What speaks against counter units often instantly killing the units they counter? If a heavy chariot would kill archers with one attack, archers rushes would be way more difficult to pull off. And if spearmen would kill heavy chariots in one or at least two attacks, it would lead to more diverse armies on the field and to more tactics. And this is, what I think, the reason for the gap in the unit progression - diverse armies and more tactics. If you only go for one unit type, it will always be outdated every other age, motivating you to invest in more unit types. But right now, the motivation is not big enough. More deaths on the battlefield would encourage more diverse armies and make the gaps more fun and interesting. I don't see a need for unit upgrades every age for every type, more units doesn't make it more interesting to play. It would also make some UUs less special that come in an age where other units of the same type are outdated, like the Garde Imperiale for example. I think this approach has a lot of potential that hasn't been fully exploited yet.

 

[Uberfrog]

It sounds like they are. I mean, isn't that what the Enlightenment is? A golden age?

I think @God of Kings is referring specifically to the Age of Enlightenment being incorporated in the game as a bridge between the Renaissance and the Industrial era. The period between the late 17th and early 19th centuries was pretty impactful in a lot of ways, and so it's odd it doesn't have a specific representation, instead being split between two in-game eras.

This is particularly relevant in Civ VI, which leaps from early 17th century musketeers to WW2 infantry, and late 15th century caravels to late 19th century ironclads, which really doesn't allow for fantasy Napoleonic era flintlock, bayonet and broadside battles at all .

Well, we'll get 4 more units: late game upgrades for the Medic, the Scout and the Observation Balloon + the Pike & Shot between Pikeman and AT Crew. I'm not terribly into support units, although the Observation Balloon is worth having around.
I don't think more units is what is needed most tbh. In contrast to older civ games, you mainly build your army in antiquity and classical times and try to have the units for the whole game. More units would just mean spending a little gold every now and then to keep them up to date.

It's more the inconsistency in pace that's the issue. They're adding a unit between Pikes and AT Crew (currently a three-era gap), but not between Knights and Tanks or Horsemen and Cavalry, which is the same length of gap. As discussed in other threads, I understand they are alternating which eras have which unit class as being dominant. It's also true that the current tech tree is too sparse to really accommodate a new unit every era. But having your Classical Horsemen lie around perilously vulnerable throughout the entire Medieval and Renaissance periods is a bit of a problem.

Another reason in favour of adding a new era is to give the mid-game combat units more breathing room... ​

 

[God of Kings]

I think @God of Kings is referring specifically to the Age of Enlightenment being incorporated in the game as a bridge between the Renaissance and the Industrial era. The period between the late 17th and early 19th centuries was pretty impactful in a lot of ways, and so it's odd it doesn't have a specific representation, instead being split between two in-game eras.

This is particularly relevant in Civ VI, which leaps from early 17th century musketeers to WW2 infantry, and late 15th century caravels to late 19th century ironclads, which really doesn't allow for fantasy Napoleonic era flintlock, bayonet and broadside battles at all .

It's more the inconsistency in pace that's the issue. They're adding a unit between Pikes and AT Crew (currently a three-era gap), but not between Knights and Tanks or Horsemen and Cavalry, which is the same length of gap. As discussed in other threads, I understand they are alternating which eras have which unit class as being dominant. It's also true that the current tech tree is too sparse to really accommodate a new unit every era. But having your Classical Horsemen lie around perilously vulnerable throughout the entire Medieval and Renaissance periods is a bit of a problem.

Another reason in favour of adding a new era is to give the mid-game combat units more breathing room... ​

Yes, I specifically meant the Enlightenment Age as to bridge the gap between the Renaissance and the Industrial Eras. As I said earlier, there have been numerous scientific and cultural breakthroughs during that era, hence the alternate names of Scientific Revolution and the Baroque Era. Not just that, but the American and the French Revolutions happened during that era as well. Benjamin Franklin was a child of the Enlightenment Era.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I dont see you as bashing Canada, and I do agree with a few of your points. Canada unfortunately doesn't have the rich history of Europe. My main point is that if the player does get to learn more about the past and history in general then that is an overall good. You said it yourself, more people are aware of present happenings in the world and learning about the history and the mere existence of past civilisations is why I love the Civilisation series. I also agree that I don't want every other civ to be a modern one, at most I'd want Canada and maybe Argentina to help fill in some gaps in South America. The gaming industry, like any other industry is based on profit and Canada is a market that hasn't really been tapped into yet.

I do have one question to ask though, if Canada or another colonial or modern nation is added and it ends up being popular and fun to play, would you at least consider playing it?

At the end of the day the most important thing, to me at least, is that the Civ is fun to play and you end up learning more about in the process

I initially was thrown off by the Australia announcement, not in a bad way though. I thought it was strange to add it so early and at all. Play wise it is one of the most fun ones to play as. I would rather settle on the coast with them (until Indonesia came along) or desert with them than any other. If Canada does come in it will be fine. I'm planning on buying the expansion no matter who comes in anyway. Who knows maybe Canada of Civ 6 could be like the Poland of Civ 5. I think it was even up for debate in Civ 5 as well as Australia but got beat by Brazil in the end for a Post-Colonial Nation.
I also like to think that late games are supposed to end up being based off of modern nation states that have survived the test of time. In that case Canada could very well deserve a spot.

 

[Cerilis]

Maybe they are keeping most gaps to fill with a whole new era in the second expansion.

 

[darkace77450]

Hopefully they use this opportunity to overhaul the Specialists system. As is, they're essentially useless. They need something to make them worthwhile.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

They sometimes choose leaders that wouldn't generate the most money.

I don't know if that is true. It is simply the notion that some civs are "just a cash grab" is silly. Because if more people would buy civ X over civ Y then that means more people WANT civ X then people want civ Y. Now everyone doesn't call every civ release a cash grab because it falls into some bucket they have in their mind of what are the "correct civs", but the only reason they release any civ is because they think it will sell well, i.e. wanted by their players (now the order may not be in the most popular to least due to other items, but the premise remains).

The fact of the matter is the only bad or wrong civ is one that is not fun to play.

 

[Gabriel Sergio]

Anyway, there are a thing that really bothers me now.
Why there isn't any Industrial infantry or riflemen

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Anyway, there are a thing that really bothers me now.
Why there isn't any Industrial infantry or riflemen

They staggered the upgrades on different unit classes so that some classes dominate some eras and not others. They want players to have more diverse armies instead of just being a carpet of one or two unit classes.

Basically, gameplay > reality strikes again.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

They staggered the upgrades on different unit classes so that some classes dominate some eras and not others. They want players to have more diverse armies instead of just being a carpet of one or two unit classes.

Basically, gameplay > reality strikes again.

I do hope they are able to find a way to slow down the eras a bit without extending the gameplay.

But the staggered units makes for a more enriched gameplay.

 

[Amrunril]

Hopefully they use this opportunity to overhaul the Specialists system. As is, they're essentially useless. They need something to make them worthwhile.

I'd definitely like to see specialist improvements, but I don't think the system actually needs a mechanical overhaul. Simply increasing the yields (including adding great person points) would be enough to make them an interesting strategic element.

 

[darkace77450]

I'd definitely like to see specialist improvements, but I don't think the system actually needs a mechanical overhaul. Simply increasing the yields (including adding great person points) would be enough to make them an interesting strategic element.

GPP was what I had in mind too. I'd actually run specialists if they did something other than +2 of x yield per building.

 

[Uberfrog]

I don’t know why they didn’t already include this, seeing as this is how it worked in both previous versions of the game. It just makes sense... you get Great Engineers by having lots of engineers...

 

[DJ_Tanner]

GPP was what I had in mind too. I'd actually run specialists if they did something other than +2 of x yield per building.

I would love it if specialists actually had like skills or effects, maybe even a large bonus that comes with a cost. But that seems like a significant system overhaul that I doubt we see.

 

[Zaarin]

First & foremost, Zaarin I must say I do appreciate you took so much time to respond to me and speak to a lot of points. It shows a lot of thought and insight & it's greatly appreciated. Thank you.

My pleasure: I always enjoy an intelligent discussion.

We can agree to disagree on this one. I do agree they were conquerors that couldn't quite keep it together and well known in their day. I don't believe the Hittites could effectively fit into this but I've been proven wrong before so I won't discount the Hittites. It's my understanding that the only reason the Hittites reached Egypt was right place at the right time, government collapses so they swoop in. I don't see their connection to the Temple of Artemis, or any great structure for that matter. That is a bit of a question of mine.

Oh, I agree. My knowledge of ancient Greek temples isn't superb (mostly because I can't say I find the Greek aesthetic pleasing), but as far as I know the Temple of Artemis was built by the Hellenes but at any rate was certainly much later than the Hittites. Still, the Hittites were more than just roving barbarians: their obsession with Hattic religion and rituals would certainly justify religious bonuses, and their letters to Egypt and Mitanni suggest that diplomatic abilities would not be inappropriate either.

Certainly, the Goths have made their mark, especially along the Spanish March & Germanic lands. I'll never dispute it. I used to be a HUGE proponent of the Visigoths because of my academic ties with Iberian linguistics & my infatuation with Barcelona. My problem is I don't understand how to shape this type of a civilization with the rest of the ones we already have given the UI.

Off the top of my head I have no UI to offer, but I still think the Goths would make a great inclusion, especially in Civ6 where they have some great "big personality" leaders in Theodoric and Alaric, among others.

Thank you for informing me about this. That's very cool & insightful. You got me reading about Italy now.. a RARE occurrence!

I concede that aside from the Etruscans there's not much to draw my interest to the Italian peninsula, either.

You missed my point on that one. I did mean the Roman province & not Gallia. I specifically didn't choose Gallia because it is my understanding Gallia was shaped more by the Visigoths than by the Romans.

The Visigoths really just passed through Gaul. They had some minor influence in the South, but the Visigothic kingdoms there were fleeting. The Gauls themselves had significant technological influence on France (and Rome), but linguistically and culturally they were Romanized quickly after the conquest. The Franks then invaded and did their best to imitate Rome--but the Romans found their efforts rather appalling, according to Gregory of Tours. At any rate, Medieval France was the result of a melding of Roman and Frankish culture, later overlaid with Celtic in the northwest (Brittany) and Norse in the northeast (Normandy). (But you're right, I did misread your post.)

Since Firaxis dropped the ball on writing actual Sumerian dialogue for Gilgamesh. I'm not so hopeful about them getting Hittite right. Which is a shame, because I would like to hear how Hittite might have sounded, being the earliest attested Indo-European language.

I hear you. But aside from Gilgamesh (which was plainly inexcusable--it shouldn't be any harder to find an expert on Sumerian than Akkadian, and in many cases they're probably going to be the same person), Civ6 has done much better on the linguistic front than Civ5, where Ramesses spoke Egyptian Arabic, Boudicca spoke Welsh, and Montezuma slipped into Spanish periodically.

You prefer him to be Assyrian? Btw there never has been any proof that this statue is depicting Gilgamesh or even is Gilgamesh.

I know. I was making a snarky jab at "Assyrian Herakles" Gilgamesh.

It sounds like they are. I mean, isn't that what the Enlightenment is? A golden age?

Depends on who you ask: the Iroquois League and the French nobility probably don't think so.