ephemeralfire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 2
I have a lot of thoughts after watching the first gameplay streaming on the antiquity age.
First, some miscellaneous things: I really liked the scout. I think it’s way more useful than the civ 6 scout. It’s functions of search and watchtower are amazing. And the way the rough terrain doesn’t end turn for scouts (which is the case for other units) make them more useful. The landscape is beautiful, more alive, more varied. I really liked that. And now there are navigable rives, which I’m sure everyone is very excited and ready for some Viking-style pillaging. On the flip side, I wish that normal rivers didn’t disappear when a city or town is built upon them. And I’m excited too about the early urbanization one sees with the differentiation between urban and rural districts and the early specialist. The workers/builders will be missed, but I think the new system is more immediate. The difference between cities and towns is interesting, and make more easy to specialize the terrain and grow bigger cities.
On the other hand, the explanations done by the historian illustrate the spirit behind the game. That history is built on layers, that history is not lineal toward progress, that early on states and nations and institutions (such as religions) didn’t exist as today. That made me understand why “religion” don’t exist in the antiquity era, although I’d really like more religion development on the antiquity age, maybe special units or bonuses, even goals. Maybe the next ages one could fund several religions, or appropriate one foreign religion and appropriate (maybe the way Protestantism came from Catholicism).
That made sense to the controversial civ changing, above all because one does not change to one totally new and different civ, one carries on with legacies and traditions. And one must “unlock” the civs. There isn’t a “pure” civ. And into the next age, you built upon the districts you already had. I understand that this is cumulative. Cleverly, this helps to have a fully developed city that doesn’t run out of space. There is more variability to play around and get to enjoy the game.
I’m looking forward to knowing more about great people. I really like to make my libraries and museums full of great works, and I understand that that will change on civ vii.
I’m also curious about the final winning conditions. In civ vi, domination and science are pretty straightforward, but culture is more complicated, although funny. I hope the game will keep those more concrete winning conditions, rather than some general points system.
First, some miscellaneous things: I really liked the scout. I think it’s way more useful than the civ 6 scout. It’s functions of search and watchtower are amazing. And the way the rough terrain doesn’t end turn for scouts (which is the case for other units) make them more useful. The landscape is beautiful, more alive, more varied. I really liked that. And now there are navigable rives, which I’m sure everyone is very excited and ready for some Viking-style pillaging. On the flip side, I wish that normal rivers didn’t disappear when a city or town is built upon them. And I’m excited too about the early urbanization one sees with the differentiation between urban and rural districts and the early specialist. The workers/builders will be missed, but I think the new system is more immediate. The difference between cities and towns is interesting, and make more easy to specialize the terrain and grow bigger cities.
On the other hand, the explanations done by the historian illustrate the spirit behind the game. That history is built on layers, that history is not lineal toward progress, that early on states and nations and institutions (such as religions) didn’t exist as today. That made me understand why “religion” don’t exist in the antiquity era, although I’d really like more religion development on the antiquity age, maybe special units or bonuses, even goals. Maybe the next ages one could fund several religions, or appropriate one foreign religion and appropriate (maybe the way Protestantism came from Catholicism).
That made sense to the controversial civ changing, above all because one does not change to one totally new and different civ, one carries on with legacies and traditions. And one must “unlock” the civs. There isn’t a “pure” civ. And into the next age, you built upon the districts you already had. I understand that this is cumulative. Cleverly, this helps to have a fully developed city that doesn’t run out of space. There is more variability to play around and get to enjoy the game.
I’m looking forward to knowing more about great people. I really like to make my libraries and museums full of great works, and I understand that that will change on civ vii.
I’m also curious about the final winning conditions. In civ vi, domination and science are pretty straightforward, but culture is more complicated, although funny. I hope the game will keep those more concrete winning conditions, rather than some general points system.
