[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Eagle Pursuit]

Very well... So, I guess that will be tuesday, right?

I hope so, but failing that, Thursday.

 

[nzcamel]

I just had a thought. Say you conquered and eliminated an entire Civ. If your loyalty gets too low and cities start breaking off, maybe the Civ you eliminated would get revived instead of it becoming a free city.

That would be a great mechanic. I do believe that's how the system worked prior. It'd be interesting if that civ has different rulers, whether or not the ruler changes (looking at Greece)

Civ 4 (IV!) had something like that where once a Civ was eliminated a new one could pop up; and if any Civ granted its overseas territories independence, they'd become a new Civ. Brilliantly immersive

Here's the thing. I never learned about Nubia, or the Majapahit, or the Khmer. It just not something that was taught. Neither did these Civilisations have the same mainstream attention as Egypt, Rome or America in the media. I don't remember ever seeing a cartoon show on Kongolese characters. If Canada or any other Civ for that matter gets in and the average player gets to learn about its history and culture than that's best for everyone. While the Hittites were a great civilisation, I'm sure that if you ask the average person on the street they'll know more about Canada than the Hittites.

And we could say that about every country/area of the world. But Civ can only include so many. Canada's impact on the world has not been that significant to include them in that limited list (just like Brazil and Australia ). That isn't a bad thing of course in the real world. But in a game where many of us are inspired by seeing a clash of the titans... Canada doesn't tick that box at all.

They helped defeat the Nazis.

Along with every other man and his dog

I'm sure if you ask the average person on the street, they know more about celebrities' personal lives than any significant figure in history, but that doesn't mean I want Kim Kardashian leading America.

That's ridicilous and you know it. The average person on the street probably know more about Donald J. Trump than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. The average person on the street probably know more about Canada too than the Incans... , but the Incans at least have considerably more history than Canada. It's just not so well known, and it's because we live in this time. This game isn't called Modern Civilizations.

I agree with these sentiments big time. I don't mind any modern country being in the game that really justifies it...but imho, there is only one. And they kinda represent all the other younger former colony nations.

So by only caring about money I take it you believe that releasing Canada would only be done because it would sell more than some other civ. But isn't that the whole point anyways? I mean beyond the fact that as a company Firaxis would like to make money, if releasing a Canadian civ would spur more people to BUY it that means more people WANT it. Which is the whole point of making a game, I mean its entertainment so if it happens to be a civ that is going to make the most money its probably the best civ to add as that is what the community most desires.

That could be counter productive in the long run, even if in the short run it makes them a lot of money in Canada. There are a lot of us who have chosen Civ steadfastly over many other games for a very long time, due to our quirky ideas on what we find entertaining. As I've said in multiple other posts; the clash of the titans people want to see in their "what if" sports games is a good parallel for what they want to see in Civ. If they loose too many of the big contenders on the historical stage to Nations who didn't have the same impact, it'll be like having a Madden game with the Canadian and German American-Football teams over the American American-Football teams And call me crazy...but that isn't going to appeal to many fans.

 

[eso12por8]

Is there already a discussion group for this info bomb?

https://civilization.com/news/entries/announcing-civilization-vi-rise-and-fall

 

[nzcamel]

Victoria's a pretty recognisable personality, and she was a figurehead largely by her own - albeit reluctant - choice, as she (via Albert) ushered in the era of constitutional monarchy.

She was far from the first British constitutional monarch. But most of us know her far better than the earlier ones for a number of reasons.

As for the civ name, that's been fixed since 1991 and won't be changed now especially with the now-default inclusion of the hideous fantasy amalgamation of Scotland, Wales and Ireland Civ calls "The Celts" at some point in the game's life cycle. As important as England as an independent territory has been in various periods of European history, there's no real arguing that the country owes its place among the default starting civs in every Civ game to date in large part to the British Empire.

I wouldn't mind at all if the Civ were Great Britain rather than England. England was reasonably impressive pre-GB with things like their long bowmen, common law, and Shakespeare making their mark on the world....but I don't think there's any doubt that it is their golden age of G.B./U.K. that has them cemented as a Civ in every release.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Is there already a discussion group for this info bomb?

https://civilization.com/news/entries/announcing-civilization-vi-rise-and-fall

That would be this thread, some 40 pages ago.

 

[Siptah]

Is there already a discussion group for this info bomb?

https://civilization.com/news/entries/announcing-civilization-vi-rise-and-fall

here? It's not news, I think it came shortly after the announcement

 

[eso12por8]

here? It's not news, I think it came shortly after the announcement

That would be this thread, some 40 pages ago.

Okay cool. I was hoping I could talk about it in here lol I just saw it & can contribute way more now that I’m caught up lol

 

[WillowBrook]

Civ 4 (IV!) had something like that where once a Civ was eliminated a new one could pop up; and if any Civ granted its overseas territories independence, they'd become a new Civ. Brilliantly immersive

If fact, I'm pretty sure civ I and II had new civs appearing after others were conquered, too. And since conquest wins in those early versions meant conquering every city, it sometimes meant having take your army halfway around the world when you thought you were only a few close cities away from winning.

I think it would be great if the "free city" concept could lead to resurrected or even new civs entering the game, but only if several close free cities existed together at the same time. I suspect it won't be in this expansion, but maybe someone will mod it, if possible.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

That could be counter productive in the long run, even if in the short run it makes them a lot of money in Canada. There are a lot of us who have chosen Civ steadfastly over many other games for a very long time, due to our quirky ideas on what we find entertaining. As I've said in multiple other posts; the clash of the titans people want to see in their "what if" sports games is a good parallel for what they want to see in Civ. If they loose too many of the big contenders on the historical stage to Nations who didn't have the same impact, it'll be like having a Madden game with the Canadian and German American-Football teams over the American American-Football teams And call me crazy...but that isn't going to appeal to many fans.

I'll call you crazy . But I think you are missing the point, for a civ DLC to sell better than another must mean its more desired than the others, as a civ DLC is wholly unnecessary to the functionality of the game. Therefore, by definition, a better selling civ is the one that appeals to more fans. And a lot of people miss this when complaining about the likes of Australia and Canada these are two of the most subscribed mods from civ V which means the fans WANT them. Beyond that its that exact same reasoning that we saw the SEA DLC. The fans wanted more diverse civs and better setting for things like TSL those civs were not (necessarily) cared about at all by the devs. More or less, I am trying to state that the "cash grab" argument is just bad in general. More buying (overall, not just in market X, which is what this is, if only Aus bought that pack they would have not created it, but those individuals wanted it PLUS much of the rest of the playerbase did as well).

 

[nzcamel]

I'll call you crazy . But I think you are missing the point, for a civ DLC to sell better than another must mean its more desired than the others, as a civ DLC is wholly unnecessary to the functionality of the game. Therefore, by definition, a better selling civ is the one that appeals to more fans. And a lot of people miss this when complaining about the likes of Australia and Canada these are two of the most subscribed mods from civ V which means the fans WANT them.

Sure then - Brazil, Canada, and Australia should all be DLC only. And any extras that come with that DLC (Nat wonders/world wonders/city states) should be available -at a price- to people who want them without the non-Civ they're attached to.

Beyond that its that exact same reasoning that we saw the SEA DLC. The fans wanted more diverse civs and better setting for things like TSL those civs were not (necessarily) cared about at all by the devs. More or less, I am trying to state that the "cash grab" argument is just bad in general. More buying (overall, not just in market X, which is what this is, if only Aus bought that pack they would have not created it, but those individuals wanted it PLUS much of the rest of the playerbase did as well).

Some fans want these things. I suspect they're the squeaky wheel, so they got the oil. I'm not denying that another African and a SEA Civ were due; but games checking boxes for diversity has killed a couple of late, and will kill more to come; if it is done at the exclusion of overriding themes. Civ needs to retain epicness as a part of its overriding theme. If too many "secondary" Civs are included at the expense of the titans of history, Civ will eventually lose its luster.

 

[Disgustipated]

As for Canada I think I mentioned before their value for TSL maps. But other than that, there is no reason for Canada to be in this game. They were a dominion of another empire for far too long. It just hasn't been independent long enough. Even Brazil has been around longer. I know Australia hasn't been independent for much longer, but at least they fill out an important part of the map. Not to mention Canada didn't have that big an impact.

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)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I actually find the heavyweights like Rome, Greece, etc. a bit boring. I prefer the more unusual civs and leaders I haven't necessarily heard of so for me it definitely isn't about a clash of the historic titans. I just want to build my own civilization in a world populated by other civilizations.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Some fans want these things. I suspect they're the squeaky wheel, so they got the oil. I'm not denying that another African and a SEA Civ were due; but games checking boxes for diversity has killed a couple of late, and will kill more to come; if it is done at the exclusion of overriding themes. Civ needs to retain epicness as a part of its overriding theme. If too many "secondary" Civs are included at the expense of the titans of history, Civ will eventually lose its luster.

If they were just a squeaky wheel (which implies they are loud but not large) then Friaxis would have dropped it after the first one. These "diversity" civs are the ones that are wanted by the fans and that's just the facts of the matter. Be it because they want a more diverse cultural background in the same or they simply want a better TSL game, doesn't matter, the fans are buying it, and that would be above other projected civs. If these were simply a passion project, as Ed mentioned he is a big fan of the Age of Sail so it could have been that was all we saw if it simply the ones he wanted to put in (probably how Poland got in actually, I doubt the markets in anyway suggested Poland, but Firaxis has a few Polish devs so that was likely much more a passion project civ). However, that would have not sold as well (i.e. not what the fans would have wanted) so instead we have a much more diverse cast of civs. I just don't know why people try to divorce the idea of selling well and being popular with the base, as those two go hand in hand.

 

[clapyourhands]

(probably how Poland got in actually, I doubt the markets in anyway suggested Poland, but Firaxis has a few Polish devs so that was likely much more a passion project civ). However, that would have not sold as well (i.e. not what the fans would have wanted) so instead we have a much more diverse cast of civs. I just don't know why people try to divorce the idea of selling well and being popular with the base, as those two go hand in hand.

Take it with a grain of salt since it's not a firsthand source, but a TV Tropes entry said that Firaxis said in addition to having Polish developers, the team took note of a large fan petition (7000+ signatures) to include Poland in Civ V.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm just not sure how many people buy a specific DLC because of what Civ is in it. I think most people either get the DLC or they don't.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I'm just not sure how many people buy a specific DLC because of what Civ is in it. I think most people either get the DLC or they don't.

There is definitely a portion that behaves that way, but if that were the case for everyone then it just simply wouldn't matter at all who shows up in the DLC, which also removes the "cash grab" argument.

 

[PhilBowles]

She was far from the first British constitutional monarch. But most of us know her far better than the earlier ones for a number of reasons.

"ushering in the era of constitutional monarchy" might be overstating it given that formal constitutional monarchy began with Queen Anne, but every monarch prior to Victoria - and Victoria herself in the early part of her reign - had some form of meaningful personal political authority. Constitutional monarchy in the modern sense of an essentially purely ceremonial head of state began with Victoria.

With the name you end up with an issue either way: call it Britain and future incarnations led by Elizabeth or Henry VIII, or with longbowmen UUs, seem anachronistic. Conversely, at least in modern usage England technically doesn't encompass the British Empire.

It's been England in the game since 1991 and this is the better-known name in the US, while in the Imperial period itself the terms "British" and "English" were used largely interchangeably both by subject nations and in colonial-era British literature itself. People like Kipling identified as English rather than British despite being natives of colonial territories within the British Empire rather than any part of Great Britain the island.

To this day foreign language names for the country as a whole in post-colonial and nearby states are variants of the word "England", and English speakers in these countries are more likely to recognise that name than Britain as a response to inevitable "where do you come from?" questions.

 

[clapyourhands]

I'm just not sure how many people buy a specific DLC because of what Civ is in it. I think most people either get the DLC or they don't.

If the DLC is specifically for one civ, and you don't want to play as or against that civ, wouldn't buying it just be a waste of money since it's going to be disabled anyways?

 

[darkace77450]

I'm just not sure how many people buy a specific DLC because of what Civ is in it. I think most people either get the DLC or they don't.

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.

 

[PhilBowles]

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.

In which of its two Civ incarnations has Brazil been over the top?