Any new thoughts now on when it drops to us?
Mapuche are far from the weakest civ.
More historical moments is definitely needed. The dark age mechanic was very poorly designed and is a massive detriment to enjoying long games on high difficulty (i.e. Deity for me). You can be doing awesome for the first 2/3 of a game, knocking out opponents, leading in science and culture, on a path toward victory, and then due to some kind of dumb luck you can't do enough additional things to get era points and you go into a dark age that causes several cities to start revolting all at once. Totally ruins a game.
. (Even Scotland can play desert maps providing there is some green somewhere for golf courses).
IMO their UI would've been better if it could be built in woods (and jungle). IRL they're much smaller than say golf courses or sphinxes.
Of the R&F batch, Mongolia and Scotland are my top 2 fav. civs. They're powerful and have a very distinct play-style. Both play well on a variety of maps. (Even Scotland can play desert maps providing there is some green somewhere for golf courses).
But the Mapuche ideally play only on predominantly arboreal maps. IMO they're the weakest of the R&F bunch.
A general observation: most civs in Civ 5 [vanilla] are the ones that've greatly improved in Civ VI: Rome, China, India, Mongolia, The Aztec, Norway (Vikings), Egypt, Greece, Persia, Russia and even England (@Victoria care to comment?).
The exceptions are the ones which were perhaps a little unbalanced or OP: Spain, Germany, America, France & Arabia.
Of the entire batch of civs in Civ VI I rank The Mapuche at the very low end. Even France (now) is better IMO.
More historical moments is definitely needed. The dark age mechanic was very poorly designed and is a massive detriment to enjoying long games on high difficulty (i.e. Deity for me). You can be doing awesome for the first 2/3 of a game, knocking out opponents, leading in science and culture, on a path toward victory, and then due to some kind of dumb luck you can't do enough additional things to get era points and you go into a dark age that causes several cities to start revolting all at once. Totally ruins a game.
But the Mapuche ideally play only on predominantly arboreal maps. IMO they're the weakest of the R&F bunch.
What?? The Mapuche aren't weak - they are average at worst and MUCH better than Georgia who has a garbage UU and no useful abilities at all except for the envoys which is still only mediocre because you still have to first establish a majority religion and then spread it to each CS. Georgia is the worst civ in the game by a wide margin IMO. I'd rank Mapuche ahead of the Dutch and Scotland. Mapuche are at least interesting and fun to play. Georgia would be much better if they got faith from building walls instead of that protectorate war nonsense.
Of the R&F batch, Mongolia and Scotland are my top 2 fav. civs. They're powerful and have a very distinct play-style. Both play well on a variety of maps. (Even Scotland can play desert maps providing there is some green somewher
A general observation: most civs in Civ 5 [vanilla] are the ones that've greatly improved in Civ VI: .... and even England (@Victoria care to comment?
Well at least they are well suited to a victory condition. The British museum is rubbish in comparison. The Mustang is quite the opposite of useless it is far more OP than a redcoat just comes way too late in the game but at least is the right side of the tech tree, the redcoat is not. You have to play them to get these subtleties but they are everywhere, everything ius just wrong to make them a civ that works well now. I agree rough riders have it rough like sea dogs and is it not weird to have your cavalry good on hills?Is England really worse than America though? Granted, I haven't played post rnf, but that wild card slot would most often be used for diplomatic policies regardless. Their uu is useless in sp. They are well suited for cultural victory, that's about it.
As far as I know :
In ancient and classic times, England was not known as a naval super power. It was invaded and colonized by Rome, later came Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Christians (Rome), Danes and Norwegians (Wikings), finally the Norman Conquest (1066). In medieval times it was ruled by leaders (like Lionheart) being both engaged in England as in France (100 years war). After the french kicked the english leaders out of France, England had the free capacity to concentrate on naval strength rather than strength in land units. -> 16th century Elizabeth I. and victory over Spanish Armada was the advent of British Seapower.
-> So RNDY starting advent of Englands naval power seems not wrong.
Just for clarity, it was Njord who beat the Spanish Armada and if you say it was then that England became gods of the sea you may anger the odd dutch person. England only really came to power with the battles of Nile and Trafalgar although of course the whole sea dogs strategy did help. England really became a sea power through the money to keep investing through their land exploits and politics, not the damn sea. They became the default kings because not many people had enough ships left and England could outproduce them. Who do you think built those Brazilian Battleships in this game?16th century Elizabeth I. and victory over Spanish Armada was the advent of British Seapower.