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?
Not everything in the game is based on history. Natural wonders having magical effects isn't what I would call historical. This is a case of fun gameplay trumping actual historical accuracy. I'm not that excited about governors, but we'll see how they play out. I don't know all the details yet.
Honestly, I'm skeptical of this whole rise and fall mechanic. There is potential, but also great potential for being so weak to being irrelevant. Seems to me if you see a city with problems, you assign a governor and the problems go away. Other than a thing to manage, is there much gameplay here? We'll see.
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.
Exactly. The more civs, the more city-states, the more Natural Wonders, the less likely one game will be similar to the next. It increases replayability.
Yes, it does. I'm talking about you, Phillip.
That being said, Wilhelmina looks like she will be the most jolliest leader ever, and I don't know if I could get bored of that.
Yes, it does. I'm talking about you, Phillip.
That being said, Wilhelmina looks like she will be the most jolliest leader ever, and I don't know if I could get bored of that.
When I play, I don't want to get the feeling of "Him again?" or "Her again?"
Eventually, with more civs, you won't see that devout feisty churro-eating rapier-wielding grinning Spaniard as often (who is actually not feisty in real life).
Yes, it does. I'm talking about you, Phillip.
That being said, Wilhelmina looks like she will be the most jolliest leader ever, and I don't know if I could get bored of that.
When I play, I don't want to get the feeling of "Him again?" or "Her again?"
Eventually, with more civs, you won't see that devout feisty churro-eating rapier-wielding grinning Spaniard as often (who is actually not feisty in real life).
Now *that* looks much more Korean. Not that I minded the original look, but I have to agree with those who said it didn't seem very Korean. This new version is spot on.
Interesting, personally I entirely think of it in terms of "play as" instead of "play against". I.e. I want new distinct mechanics in the uniques to play with more so than more variety of opponents in my game. I guess the majority of AI civs end up seeming pretty samey to me anyways gameplay wise anyway.
i.e If I had to choose, I'd prefer they added 4 "Venices" (i.e. Civs that significantly change the gameplay when you play them) over 8 slightly different gameplay Civs. Granted the later is easier to balance.
Agreed. I'm not that interested in Georgia or Tamar. It went from error to in-joke to meme. I want to see it as a civ so that the journey can be completed.
Exactly. The more civs, the more city-states, the more Natural Wonders, the less likely one game will be similar to the next. It increases replayability.
The livestream will show city-states, which will help give us clues which ones don't become new civs and renamed city-states will give us clues for upcoming civs.
City-states are randomly generated, which means that it would be inevitable that we will know which became new civs or not.
The *number* of City States will stay the same. There will be at least two news City States, since Seoul and Amsterdam are no longer eligible.
Although, I would love to see a bit more variation among the City States (for ex: code a few to be minor empires, with two or three core cities to emulate Civs too difficult or insignificant to fully include: e.g.: Phoenicia (Tyre, Sidon, Byblos), Hittites (Hattusas, Ugarit), Harappans (Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro), Judeans (Jerusalem, Samarra, Ascalon), Swiss (Bern, Geneva, Zurich), Moche (Moche, Sipan), etc)
The *number* of City States will stay the same. There will be at least two news City States, since Seoul and Amsterdam are no longer eligible.
Although, I would love to see a bit more variation among the City States (for ex: code a few to be minor empires, with two or three core cities to emulate Civs too difficult or insignificant to fully include: e.g.: Phoenicia (Tyre, Sidon, Byblos), Hittites (Tarsus, Ugarit), Harappans (Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro), Judeans (Jerusalem, Samarra, Ascalon), Swiss (Bern, Geneva, Zurich), Moche (Moche, Sipan), etc)
The livestream will show city-states, which will help give us clues which ones don't become new civs and renamed city-states will give us clues for upcoming civs.
City-states are randomly generated, which means that it would be inevitable that we will know which became new civs or not.
One benefit of not having an increase in the quantity of city-states is that every new name we see is sure to be a replacement for an existing city-state. We know that we should be able to see at least one new Trade and one new Science city-state. If we see new ones of other types, it means one of those is going to become a civ. If we see more than one science or more than one trade, it indicates additional conversions.
I do wonder what percentage of players really like playing as their own country (and that being a motivator towards purchase) vs are mainly interested in the game mechanics and civs based on other factors (historical importance, interest, civ standards, etc.). I'm in the later category, but that's probably the case for a lot people on these boards. A significant amount of the broader gaming community is presumably in the former. I wonder if we will eventually have the top 20 of this list: https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-100-countries-by-game-revenues/ (though I think said list might be skewed by phone game revenues a decent bit)
It may be a factor in the more 'creative' leader choices as well - in that their hands are fairly tied about what countries are in (i.e. a lot slots are taken by market share requirements as well as standard and historical requirements) so they have to shake up the leaders to help keep the game feel fresh and pull in interest from that vector.
I agree with the sentiment that seeing new faces is refreshing. I also think they are several civs that must be in every civ game: US, China, Japan, England, France, Germany, Greece, Egypt, Rome, and Russia. I like to see the major influential empires from antiquity, the major players from the 7 years' war, WWI and WWII, the major imperialists, and nuclear powers.
I'm looking forward to Canada. I wonder if they'll get +1 food from tundra.
The *number* of City States will stay the same. There will be at least two news City States, since Seoul and Amsterdam are no longer eligible.
Although, I would love to see a bit more variation among the City States (for ex: code a few to be minor empires, with two or three core cities to emulate Civs too difficult or insignificant to fully include: e.g.: Phoenicia (Tyre, Sidon, Byblos), Hittites (Tarsus, Ugarit), Harappans (Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro), Judeans (Jerusalem, Samarra, Ascalon), Swiss (Bern, Geneva, Zurich), Moche (Moche, Sipan), etc)
I believe Tarsus is already a Persian city. And I hope that Phoenicia isn't too insignificant to create.
I would also like to see Ancient Israel but I doubt that will ever happen. I like more variety in city-states anyway and wouldn't like them to become minor empires, because that defeats the purpose of them being city-states, in my opinion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
