[R&F] Rise and Fall Live Stream General Thread

[bbbt]

No, not at all. The agenda is merely reflecting the historical reality that Cleopatra had a famous relationship with Marc Anthony.

She did, but her relationship with Anthony (and Caesar before him) was a lot of political calculus to keep herself in power (as is sort of reflected in her primary agenda) more than just general 'she really liked men'. If they were going to do that it seems more appropriate for I dunno Henry VIII or Catherine the Great? I can't think of anyone in the game off hand, but leaders along those lines.

I remain thinking it's a stupid agenda game mechanic-wise, as it just more makes it seem 'the AI will like or hate you for random reasons'.

 

[UWHabs]

Yes, keep in mind that this bonus is the START, since in your right mind you'd avoid adjacencies with Districts, so imagine having an output of +4, and then placing a city with a PERFECT adjacency to a +10. As opposed to a civ who got a +3 adjacency, pushing it to +7.

Even in I think QUill's gameplay, Korea was making mad science in early game, and in the first livestream, Korea was making mad science, so it gave her a huge boost,

Honestly there's a number of civs who make ridicolous yields that I hope will be somewhat nerfed. namely Ziggurats, Kongo, Peter, and few others.

Ziggurats definitely. A riverside Zig gives +2 science and +1 culture right from the start, which is one of the most powerful early yields. It at least needs the "not next to another Ziggurat" flag like many of the other UI have, or they need to tone it down early. Maybe have it start as just +1 science (and +1 culture on a river), and only give the second science with some other condition (maybe only next to a city centre, or next to a campus, or with a later tech?)

But yeah, even getting a half price early campus that's always at least +3, even if it does take a hill, is just so strong that you can definitely shoot forward like crazy in science.

 

[agonistes]

Kilwa Kisiwani with quote. Bonus Quill18 in the bottom

That thing is so damn pretty I gotta build it, even if the bonuses suck. Hopefully a lake tile will do, so I can build it at St. Pete's.

 

[Thormodr]

Really enjoying Biffa's playthrough of Mongolia. He is super easy going and really easy on the ears. I'm happy that he got a preview copy of Rise and Fall.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

He infruiated me, easy guy, but "Oh, so we don't get the Wheat yet".

I can never understand what it is about let's play that frustrates me so much, even with Quill, I feel like I know SO MUCH more somehow about the game than the professionals by remembering the small things, and I wonder if it's because I don't "stream" it and if it makes a huge difference.

 

[Uberfrog]

I can never understand what it is about let's play that frustrates me so much, even with Quill, I feel like I know SO MUCH more somehow about the game than the professionals by remembering the small things, and I wonder if it's because I don't "stream" it and if it makes a huge difference.

You're a CivFanatic, they're a streamer. They don't play Civ specifically, so no wonder we know the game better than them . To be fair things like the difference between farming/harvesting wheat is an example of how Civ VI jargon isn't always clear, especially with the UI we've got.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I just saw Marbozir upload a new playthrough and noticed he went beyond turn 150.... ahem Marbozir.... be nice!

 

[Disgustipated]

And these streamers bounce between games, including civ 5 , and quill sometimes forgets civ 6 mechanics. Even myse!f, I was playing SMAC last week, then went back to civ 6 and kept wanting to move units with the number pad.

 

[KyivanRusCivPlease]

One of the imrovements I have noticed in R&F is the better visual distinction between coast and ocean tiles! I used to switch to the strategic mode to move units on sea because I much more clearly saw the unpassable deep water tiles then.

 

[Giskler]

I just saw Marbozir upload a new playthrough and noticed he went beyond turn 150.... ahem Marbozir.... be nice!

He did an industrial start so he started on turn 256.

 

[God of Kings]

And these streamers bounce between games, including civ 5 , and quill sometimes forgets civ 6 mechanics. Even myse!f, I was playing SMAC last week, then went back to civ 6 and kept wanting to move units with the number pad.

Even Quill18 plays Pokémon, which are primarily on handheld Nintendo platforms and puts them up on his channel.

 

[liv]

He did an industrial start so he started on turn 256.

but then he picked a slow speed like marathon (in his Mongol game) ... I was kind of disappointing by that as I wanted to see more. And yes I do like his videos (before someone jumps)

 

[Gutmensch]

I think someone said something about gay pitchforks. I guess it's time to get them out

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, from a "roleplaying" perspective, having flirty AI leaders could be really cool, but the fact that it's apparently only for opposite-sex leaders makes me kinda uncomfortable. There are some leaders in the game which we can assume have had at least sexual relationships with members of the same sex, if not romantic ones (Trajan, Alexander). Then there are other potential future leaders which we know or can be pretty sure were not straight (Frederick the Great, Hadrian). So should these still be "friendly" to members of the opposite sex? Would the devs disable this agenda for these characters, is that even possible?

You may be thinking: But why aren't you bothered about the other ahistorical agendas? Surely Cleopatra wasn't ever actually a Darwinist, and Tomyris never liked nuking people, right? Yes, but the difference to me is that these other agendas are all about political leanings or interests; facets of a personality that are very much shaped by ones environment. Cleopatra wasn't a Darwinist, but she could have ended up being one had she lived at a different time, under different circumstances. To put an agenda that implies sexual attraction in that same basket... feels wrong to me.

Aside from the ethical concerns, this agenda also isn't particularly interesting from a gameplay point of view. It's just a case of "if requirement x is met, they will like you", which doesn't really invite the player to engange with the agenda in any way, since you can't actually change your leaders gender or change others leaders minds like you can with other agendas. Though the gameplay issues are definitely less important to me than the other aspect I mentioned.

I don't think Firaxis is being purposely malicious in including this agenda in the game, they have after all made a great push with CIV6 to be more inclusive and offer a more diverse roster of civilizations, but I do think this might be a case of -and I hope I won't be called an evil SJW for this- heteronormativity.

 

[leandrombraz]

Just for curiosity, is it possible to send trade routes to free cities? Did anyone noticed if this is a thing?

 

[Turrdy]

I think someone said something about gay pitchforks. I guess it's time to get them out

at least the tooltip says "opposite sex" and not "opposite gender"... imagine the outburst then

on a more serious note: i think the agenda as is is fine. i mean it's okay to be friendly to members of the opposite sex, does not mean you're unfriendly to the other one(s). maybe change the name though (because of reasons mentioned by others)

 

[leandrombraz]

Idk if you guys already saw that but I just noticed that pressure from Citizens have a range (-20 to +20), so in a scenario where a city is getting pressure only from your citizens, doesn't matter if it's 20 our 30 citizens, the pressure will be 20. It also mean that another Civ would need at least 11 pressure to start making a dent on your pressure, your extra 10 pressure would soak up their pressure and only then your +20 would start to drop.

Edit: That show how important governors or any bonus that give loyalty are for pressure . More citizens than 20 protect your city from pressure but it doesn't increase your actual pressure, it won't make a city flip any faster or stop your loyalty from falling when it's already falling. A governor add +8 on top of your +20. Same for England's loyalty from harbor, it's +4 on top of your +20.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, from a "roleplaying" perspective, having flirty AI leaders could be really cool, but the fact that it's apparently only for opposite-sex leaders makes me kinda uncomfortable. There are some leaders in the game which we can assume have had at least sexual relationships with members of the same sex, if not romantic ones (Trajan, Alexander). Then there are other potential future leaders which we know or can be pretty sure were not straight (Frederick the Great, Hadrian). So should these still be "friendly" to members of the opposite sex? Would the devs disable this agenda for these characters, is that even possible?

I think that what you're suggesting would be ahistorical. While there are leaders on this list that had same-sex relationships, these were mostly not considered socially acceptable at the time and were almost always kept well behind closed doors, and they usually also had conventional heterosexual marriages (even if only for public cover). The notion that an ancient leader would make a homosexual advance towards another leader of the same sex in the course of diplomatic contact seems absurd.

Please leave your political agendas and modern revisionism out of my historical games.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think that what you're suggesting would be ahistorical. While there are leaders on this list that had same-sex relationships, these were mostly not considered socially acceptable at the time and were almost always kept well behind closed doors, and they usually also had conventional heterosexual marriages (even if only for public cover). The notion that an ancient leader would make a homosexual advance towards another leader of the same sex in the course of diplomatic contact seems absurd.

Of course then there are leaders like Gandhi who are supposed to be living a chaste life at the time that he is depicted. Good thing he is going to be Nuke Happy most of the time because I don't want to see a Flirtatious Gandhi.

 

[Gutmensch]

I think that what you're suggesting would be ahistorical. While there are leaders on this list that had same-sex relationships, these were mostly not considered socially acceptable at the time and were almost always kept well behind closed doors

They obviously weren't very good at keeping these things "behind closed doors", considering we know today that they had these kind of relationships. Also, I thought it was pretty common in ancient rome and greece, particularly for men, to have sexual relationships with other men and boys. Some would say it was even encouraged.

The notion that an ancient leader would make a homosexual advance towards another leader of the same sex in the course of diplomatic contact seems absurd.

That seems no more absurd to me than Gilgamesh talking to Ghandi, or Barbarossa and Saladin being best friends.

Please leave your political agendas and modern revisionism out of my historical games.

Civilization is not a historical game, it merely uses historical figures and puts them into a "what if"-scenario. And if you consider it a historical game, surely you must also recognize that homosexuality is part of that history. As for the "political agenda" part, it's quite sad to me that whenever someone speaks out for more representation, especially that of lgbt individuals, they are accused of pursuing some kind of nefarious agenda. As if being gay makes you automatically "political". You know, lgbt people didn't suddenly pop into existence a hundred years ago. They have always existed. There have always been people who were exclusively attracted to the same-sex, or the opposite sex, or both. Just because they didn't use the same words for it that we use today, or didn't think about these distinctions at all, doesn't mean they weren't there. Denying this reveals an agenda of its own; one that is concerned with keeping history "clean".

 

[King William I]

Of course then there are leaders like Gandhi who are supposed to be living a chaste life at the time that he is depicted. Good thing he is going to be Nuke Happy most of the time because I don't want to see a Flirtatious Gandhi.

You are aware that per his own words, he was having so much 'fun' with his wife that he didn't have time to teach her how to read