I would have to guess that Peter playing catch-up means he can worry less about putting Campuses and Theatres in every city and use those extra tiles for working improvements instead (hello Serfdom!).
I wouldn't neglect both science and culture as Peter, if anything I think it will be safer to focus harder on culture and couple the Lavras with Theater districts for artist generation. Also, there are more techs than there are civics, the chances of other civs having techs you don't is higher than civics.
So not neglecting science completely, just prioritizing faith and culture, then catch up science mid game.
While the Cossack is boring and the Lavra is a poor choice thematically, I would be happy with both if Russia's two UAs were buffed thusly:
Mother Russia: extra tiles, extra tundra yields, plus enemy units from other civs or city-states take attrition in tundra and snow in your territory.
This would just add flavor.
Grand Embassy: as is, but add that for each Russian embassy, receive a 5% reduction for faith buying great people (maybe capped at 20 or 25 percent).
I dislike Grand Embassy because it loses all usefulness if you're ahead in tech and civics. This would give an active and always useful component, and would also tie in to the Lavra (as cruddy as it is). Lavra gives you faith, you use faith to purchase discounted great people and expand your borders.
Because while Peter was an anti-religious modernizer (hence science and culture from trade routes with the more advanced)
Russia itself was very religious.
Civs will have bonuses that don't represent the leader OR the biggest thing the civ was known for, but they have some connection to the civ...
Kurgans were burial grounds=faith
Scandanavia was important area of Christian conversion/reformation
Kongo had particularly important cultural artifacts
Russia itself is not, and has never been, more religious than say, Byzantium, India, or even medieval England/France/Germany.
Kurgans are burial grounds, yes. Many civilizations have burial grounds. Scythia was not known for its burial grounds as a sign of faith so much as it was known for having spectacular gold artifacts. So only the gold bonus on the Kurgan makes sense, and the selection of the Kurgan for Scythia makes little sense.
Scandinavia was an important area of Christian conversion? So were the Aztecs. And the Viking leader was a Christian, sure, but he speaks of Viking gods in his lines in the game, so it makes little sense that he gets a Christian stave church as a unique building. I think Scythia and Norway got faith buildings just to make sure they weren't one trick war ponies.
Kongo has particularly important cultural artifacts which did not generate food or production. And you didn't explain Afonso's lack of religious bonuses (except his apostle one), or Kongo's inability to get a religious victory.
The problem is that in Civ VI the Peter AI will be basically forced to focus to some extent on religion, since he gets bonuses and an entire unique building focused on faith.
So that will be ahistorical and stupid. (Though thankfully Peter in-game actually looks somewhat like the historical Peter, unlike Pericles/Trajan/Pedro).
Russia itself is not, and has never been, more religious than say, Byzantium, India, or even medieval England/France/Germany.
Kurgans are burial grounds, yes. Many civilizations have burial grounds. Scythia was not known for its burial grounds as a sign of faith so much as it was known for having spectacular gold artifacts. So only the gold bonus on the Kurgan makes sense, and the selection of the Kurgan for Scythia makes little sense.
Scandinavia was an important area of Christian conversion? So were the Aztecs. And the Viking leader was a Christian, sure, but he speaks of Viking gods in his lines in the game, so it makes little sense that he gets a Christian stave church as a unique building. I think Scythia and Norway got faith buildings just to make sure they weren't one trick war ponies.
Kongo has particularly important cultural artifacts which did not generate food or production. And you didn't explain Afonso's lack of religious bonuses (except his apostle one), or Kongo's inability to get a religious victory.
It's not about being more anything. Russia has its own religious traditions and Firaxis arbitrarily chose to use them as a basis for bonuses. Deal with it.
I am not sure, but the more I am thinking of it, the more I am inclined towards not liking the religion focus of Russia in the game due to the following reason. Granted, before the communist era (or, roughly, before the 20th century) Russia was a highly religious country, probably like many other nations. But it is her 20th century achievements which earned her a place in the starting roster of nations in Civ. I mean, imagine someone was bothered with creating a civ game in the 19th century, I doubt Russia would be among the first choice nations there. Probably, the chances would be somewhat close to those of Sweden or Austria. And so, it is because of her scientific and industrial achievements of the communist era (together with communism itself, of course, it is a pretty unique feature) we now hardly question Russia's place among the playable nations. In this regard, it would be only logical to give a national bonus (not the leader one) related to that era only, and not to something happening two centuries before.
In a way, it is somewhat similarly inconsistent as Germany's bonus in Civ V: ok, you can argue about germanic tribes etc, but it is not those tribes which have made a decisive contribution to Germany's important role throughout history.
Another viable way of thinking is that communism as an ideology is hardly distinguishable from a sophisticated religion, but this is certainly not the case in terms of the Civ game.
It's not about being more anything. Russia has its own religious traditions and Firaxis arbitrarily chose to use them as a basis for bonuses. Deal with it.
Ok, so let's give Kongo science bonuses, Egypt medieval wonder bonuses, and Korea food bonuses. The reason why civs have bonuses is so that they can match (to some degree) what they were known for. This is why Greece gets a culture bonus, Aztecs get a unit with the ability to capture workers, and so on.
"Deal with it" is not exactly a mature counter. If anything bad happened, and someone just said "deal with it" we would trivialize everything that could be improved, should be improved, and is being improved. In the world. Not just in Civ VI.
I don't think Russia is known for its religion. And I don't think Russia should have any faith bonuses of any kind. So take your own medicine and "deal with it."
I mean, imagine someone was bothered with creating a civ game in the 19th century, I doubt Russia would be among the first choice nations there. Probably, the chances would be somewhat close to those of Sweden or Austria. And so, it is because of her scientific and industrial achievements of the communist era (together with communism itself, of course, it is a pretty unique feature) we now hardly question Russia's place among the playable nations.
I'll say that the first look on Russia also seemed really uninspired to me, the synergy isn't very obvious, but I'm willing to do my first playthrough with them, I think focusing religion and culture will be very fun with them (and following unconventional research paths), and then playing catch up on science mid game.
Since it would appear that going wide is the motif of Civ VI I'm thinking I may actually start with Russia since it has amazing title growth potential.
Also, I think Firaxis is trying to troll us by kinda hiding the civilization's icon!
It's the same as Civ V's Russia, nothing special there.
As for the bonus, they're exactly the same as discussed previously. I have already expressed my opinion on them: I find Russia to be very weak. The only reasonable bonus is the UA, and the Cossack does look a bit better, but not by much. The UI is extremely disappointed and Peter's LUA is incredibly weak with the number we saw, almost the same as no bonus at all (+1 Science doesn't really offer me much beyond the ancient era).
Overall, a big disappointment.
Piddi again and again Okay he looks well as the other parts of the game
BUT
I don´t know what I should think about the LUA and Lavra. Did this have something to do with Russia - maybe a tiny bit not more. Trading and hermitage is a really questionable combination.
Is this Americas dream of Russia?
Furthermore Ivan the Terrible would be a better choice for the ruler of Russia this time in Civ6. IMO all actual leader of the Civs in Civ6 are so nice and civilized. When I take a look at the actual leaders I feel like in peacefully fairyland.
Where is Mao, where is Stalin, Napoleon, Ronald Reagan, where is Attila?
All this "perfect" leaders from Civ6 so far will meet together in round 1 at the round table and discuss how to build up a "perfect" sweet world in round 2. It seems to be that in civ 6 is no need of Riflemen, Stealth aircraft and atomic bombs - nice but for a Civ game
Russia in this way seems boring to me. But the graphic is very well!
Personally haven't read a post in this thread, but I think the LUA is a little underrated. You're almost always going to be behind in tech or culture to one of your allies, you just focus on whichever routes helps you catch up the most. By the time you are ahead or not getting much benefit from international trade routes, you send internal routes to help develop all that extra land you have. And save quite a bit on buying tiles, use that savings to get ahead early on great people points.
I think the unique district needs serious revision, and Peter's UA should take up some of the slack. Looking at the bonuses other leaders get Peter pales in comparison.
A much more reasonable bonus to me would be: upon placing a Lavra gain every adjacent tile. THAT would be worth having. If that's overpowered reduce the max number of tiles (e.g. up to 3 adjacent tiles).
That said, Russia having a religious district is absolutely bizarre to me. It means Russia will be one of the main civs spamming religious buildings simply because they have places to put them. Doesn't align at all with my view of what "Russia" is, now or historically. It is true that religion has existed there. But in a game where America doesn't even get Faith bonuses, I fail to see why Russia should. I really feel Russia's unique district should be, well... anything else.
Yeah, Montezuma's raids for slaves, Harald's plundering adventures, Trajan's expansion in old good roman tradition, Peter carving up place for his capital out of enemy's territory, Gilgamesh having fun with his friends in joint wars - all peace and love, i agree.
That said, Russia having a religious district is absolutely bizarre to me. It means Russia will be one of the main civs spamming religious buildings simply because they have places to put them. Doesn't align at all with my view of what "Russia" is, now or historically. It is true that religion has existed there. But in a game where America doesn't even get Faith bonuses, I fail to see why Russia should. I really feel Russia's unique district should be, well... anything else.
I have to say I don't find it that strange. If anyone is asked about an stereotypical "view" of Russia, I would bet one of the immediate things to come to mind are the "onion" roofs. And I may be wrong here, but I'm positive these kind of roofs are more due to ortodox church tan to commies... I see the misión of the Lavra in the game: get the right amount of "onion" roofs to any Russian city. (and besides being a quite funny tought, i'm positive to thing is partly reasonable).
Regarding the benefit Lavra provides regarding tiles, I'm more on a wait-and-see position. I tend to align with the commenters saying that, as the UA already provides you most of the second tile ring, Lavra bonus tiles will not be cheap ones, and it might be worthy (specially if there is some resource around in the third city ring).
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.
jk
Peter the great is looking might fine there, but I find the background a bit lacking...
Okay he looks well as the other parts of the game
but for a Civ game
