[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Guatenadian]

It's possible Samuel de Champlain is the leader, but would the English speaking Canadians like that?

As an English speaking Canadian living in Western Canada, I'd be more than happy with that. The French in Canada were well known for having better relationships with the Indigenous peoples which would work well with the new Alliance system. At the same time the French Canadians were responsible for the Voyageurs whom became legendary in Canada, and were key for the Fur Trade which was the key economic engine for colonial Canada and one of the main reasons Canada came to be. Plus a Canada led by Samuel de Champlain seems to be more begrudgingly accepted than simply another anglophone colony led by a 20th century Prime Minister. I'm sure some Canadians would be upset that Canada would be led by a French citizen and not a real Canadian, but Samuel de Champlain is widely seen as the "Father of New France" and Canada is the legacy of New France.

However, if there is Canada, I wonder what the Canadian theme could be.

Well we have more options than most people would think. If there's a focus on colonial French Canada then "M'en revenant de la jolie Rochelle" would be a good one.

 

[DWilson]

When people complained that the US is not yet worthy of inclusion, there was a nudging hesitance on my part to agree (despite being an American myself), albeit one ultimately overruled.

Canada, and to a lesser extent Brazil and Australia (who at least fill underrepresented lands), seem to take that too far. That said, I understand that they me be more relatable options for the average person.

 

[Leyrann]

I wouldn't like Canada, because they haven't really done anything on the worlds stage at all. All I can think of are liberating Europe in WWII, but they were not fully independent from GB back then (which means that it doesn't count) and producing Justin Bieber, which is straight up a reason against including Canada.

I mean, even Australia was at least fully independent already when they fought in WWII...

 

[Morningcalm]

I agree with those who think Canada is too young a nation and/or insignificant in world history to merit inclusion. I object to Australia's inclusion on the same grounds, but at least they represent an area (Oceania) without much representation in Civ. Canada, on the other hand, doesn't seem particularly important or unique to merit inclusion. If they are in this next expansion, I will whine about it. A lot. And mourn the loss of the more worthy indigenous civilizations that could have been included in its place.

 

[Prima Italia]

When people complained that the US is not yet worthy of inclusion, there was a nudging hesitance on my part to agree (despite being an American myself), albeit one ultimately overruled.

Canada, and to a lesser extent Brazil and Australia (who at least fill underrepresented lands), seem to take that too far. That said, I understand that they me be more relatable options for the average person.

America has been in every base Civilization game so there is a precedent for the America. The bugbear most people have with Brazil, Australia, Canada and to a lesser extent Poland is there is no precedent for them to appear this early since either they are new (Australia and Canada) or were introduced in the Brave New World expansion (Brazil and Poland) when Firaxis was scraping the barrel for civs. Other civs that have been pillars of the franchise have still not featured yet to make way for them and it is clear it is just a marketing decision to include these new civs.

 

[GoatsHeadSoup]

I think that a lot of people here are forgetting that Firaxis can put whatever civs they want into an expansion pack and people will still buy it. It doesn't matter how obscure or unpopular the civs are because the average consumer buys the expansion first and foremost for the gameplay changes and sees the additional civs that are included as icing on the cake. If Firaxis is smart than they would save the really big names (Mongols, Ottomans, Portugal) for the standalone dlcs, which probably need a big name to sell well. I mean, I hope that they don't do that, but I get the feeling that some marketing guy from 2K has already told them this.

 

[Guandao]

America has been in every base Civilization game so there is a precedent for the America. The bugbear most people have with Brazil, Australia, Canada and to a lesser extent Poland is there is no precedent for them to appear this early since either they are new (Australia and Canada) or were introduced in the Brave New World expansion (Brazil and Poland) when Firaxis was scraping the barrel for civs. Other civs that have been pillars of the franchise have still not featured yet to make way for them and it is clear it is just a marketing decision to include these new civs.

People have issue with Poland being in the game? It has a way longer history than the other three nations. Not saying that the Pre-Columbian history of Brazil, Australia, Canada wasn't history (mainly oral in nature instead of written), but those nations have been in existence in far shorter a time then Poland.

 

[Guatenadian]

I mean, even Australia was at least fully independent already when they fought in WWII...

Actually all the Dominions were independent(with the exception of Newfoundland, which would join Canada shortly after the war) by the time of WW2. The Commonwealth Dominions signed the Statute of Westminster which recognised the legislative independence of the Dominions in 1931. Even in 1926 with the Balfour Report which stated that Britain and its Dominions were constitutionally "equal in status". Canada itself was created in 1867 as a semi-independent realm of the British Empire. All the Dominions declared war on the Axis separately and independently of Britain.

 

[nzcamel]

When people complained that the US is not yet worthy of inclusion, there was a nudging hesitance on my part to agree (despite being an American myself), albeit one ultimately overruled.

Canada, and to a lesser extent Brazil and Australia (who at least fill underrepresented lands), seem to take that too far. That said, I understand that they me be more relatable options for the average person.

America has had too huge an impact on the world to not be included. Maybe if Civ wasn't a game where the later era's last much much longer, those who feel differently might have a point. But the speed of Civ is balanced around new major discoveries (the tech tree/s) and so America makes perfect sense.
And I've always been happy as a New Zealander that our former "colonial" nations were all represented by the States presence.

America has been in every base Civilization game so there is a precedent for the America. The bugbear most people have with Brazil, Australia, Canada and to a lesser extent Poland is there is no precedent for them to appear this early since either they are new (Australia and Canada) or were introduced in the Brave New World expansion (Brazil and Poland) when Firaxis was scraping the barrel for civs. Other civs that have been pillars of the franchise have still not featured yet to make way for them and it is clear it is just a marketing decision to include these new civs.

Yeah, can't agree with Poland being seen in this light.

 

[Guandao]

To change the topic from Canada, I wonder if I will always be getting my Civ into a dark age every other era.

Do I have to be the best in everything to get Golden Ages?

Also, how much of an impact will the reworked alliances have on the game?

And how will these emergencies play out? If I'm winning in domination, will the other Civs gang up on me and try to take back their lost territory?

I'm a little afraid that cities in my empire will suddenly leave due to lack of loyalty.

 

[CivLuvah]

I had a thought on what civ will be on the first First Look earlier while I was washing dishes.

Can anyone tell me who's hosting the Winter Olympics next year?

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

IMHO, we need another tundra/snow civ and would welcome Cananada. Also of note, I question the possible inclusion of a turtle resource yet we still are without the humble yet historically all-important potato. I have always found it odd, that given the importance of the resource mechanic, we have very very few of them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We're talking about screenshot content in the R&F screenshot discussion thread. However, we suspect this to be just different graphic style for monument around the world, and, according to the palace, this one should be Japan.

Edit: Okay, being ninja'd once, I get it, but twice? Come on

Confirmed to be Japan due to many number of ninjas.

I had a thought on what civ will be on the first First Look earlier while I was washing dishes.

Can anyone tell me who's hosting the Winter Olympics next year?

Korea!

 

[Cerilis]

IMHO, we need another tundra/snow civ and would welcome Cananada. Also of note, I question the possible inclusion of a turtle resource yet we still are without the humble yet historically all-important potato. I have always found it odd, that given the importance of the resource mechanic, we have very very few of them.

Probably because most of them ("agriculture food resources") are broadly in the area of bonus resources and thus represented by wheat and rice. ^^"

At one point you might have to ask yourself "what good does it bring to have over 9000 bonus resources?"
In the current system that is, I could imagine different kind of food bonus resources would give bonus to health if such a system was implemented.

 

[nzcamel]

Can anyone tell me who's hosting the Winter Olympics next year?

*Sigh* apparently that is a consideration these days

 

[CivLuvah]

*Sigh* apparently that is a consideration these days

Fortunately or unfortunately, whether or not you want the country in question to be featured in the game

 

[evanaurora]

People have issue with Poland being in the game? It has a way longer history than the other three nations. Not saying that the Pre-Columbian history of Brazil, Australia, Canada wasn't history (mainly oral in nature instead of written), but those nations have been in existence in far shorter a time then Poland.

I think my issue (can't speak to the discussion at large) with Poland was just that it, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't by any metric the civ that needed to be the FIRST DLC, especially when there were no Native American or Southeast Asian civs included in the base game. Certainly it merits inclusion more than Canada, say, but I don't see why it was given such priority... is there a vocal Polish civ fanbase?

Anyway, in general at this point all the Canada discussion feels like beating a dead horse-- pretty much every point to be made has been, and it's either in the game or it isn't.

To try and redirect discussion somewhat: I'm curious if people think an ancient/classical civ is likely to be included. On the one hand, we have quite a lot in the game already (Sumeria, Greece, Egypt, Nubia, Scythia, Macedon, Persia and Rome off the top of my head, not to mention China and India). On the other hand, that kind of civ is debatably what people think of when they discuss a "civilization," a lot of the time, and there are a lot of really interesting possibilities, both precedented in the franchise and no, that might work especially well with the new systems and bring variety.

 

[AvianBritish]

I thought you were joking when you said Korea (I thought it was Japan who were already in civ but that's 2020) and the funny thing is... the Rise & Fall expansion pack comes out the day before the start of the 2018 Korean Winter Olympics!

Either way, I wanted Korea to return, so this practically confirms their involvement. However I'm sure it's a coincidence and will be a boost to the marketing as I'm sure they were going to include Korea anyway.

 

[redfox85]

In terms of Canada.... has it been brought up that a Canadian (and a few years later Prime Minister) help set up the UN Emergency Force 1 to deal with the Suez Crisis and won a Nobel Peace prize for his effort? And with Civ introducing Emergencies, that would create an interesting tie in.

 

[Jaybe]

To change the topic from Canada, I wonder if I will always be getting my Civ into a dark age every other era.

Do I have to be the best in everything to get Golden Ages?

Also, how much of an impact will the reworked alliances have on the game?

And how will these emergencies play out? If I'm winning in domination, will the other Civs gang up on me and try to take back their lost territory?

I'm a little afraid that cities in my empire will suddenly leave due to lack of loyalty.

Learning the new mechanics of a new version of the game and how I can adapt to it are always one of my favorite aspects of the game.