KaptainK714
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 218
is there a way to verify? ive never seen this before
by definition deserts are mostly flat
Which is ironic given that the real-life builders of Stonehenge didn't have adjacent stone (depending on how large you consider the tiles to be; they certainly wouldn't have considered it adjacent). Kind of like how Petra has to be built on flat land despite its core concept being the fact that it was built into the cliffs; in Civ VI, those hills were man-made!
In what sense? The Megalith Builders had bronze, "cities" (by Bronze Age standards), ceremonial burial, pottery, archery, agriculture...They didn't have writing, but neither does your civ at the start of the game...a culture that wasn't civilised in the literal sense
Archaeology can actually tell us a fair amount about the Megalith Builders, and we can (cautiously) learn more from Irish folklore. Not enough to build a civ out of, mind you, but I wouldn't call it "almost nothing."of which we know almost nothing
"Natural wonder" is surely the wrong term for a decidedly unnatural monument; however I'd love to see prehistoric/protohistoric structures like henges, dolmen, kurgans, talaiots, mound burials, and so forth added to the game in some fashion. Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples created some impressive structures that were often treated as significant by later peoples (see Stonehenge for a prime example). They could yield culture, faith, and (after Flight) tourism.it might even work better as a natural wonder with a greatly reduced effect.
..."Natural wonder" is surely the wrong term for a decidedly unnatural monument; however I'd love to see prehistoric/protohistoric structures like henges, dolmen, kurgans, talaiots, mound burials, and so forth added to the game in some fashion. Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples created some impressive structures that were often treated as significant by later peoples (see Stonehenge for a prime example). They could yield culture, faith, and (after Flight) tourism.
Which is ironic given that the real-life builders of Stonehenge didn't have adjacent stone (depending on how large you consider the tiles to be; they certainly wouldn't have considered it adjacent). Kind of like how Petra has to be built on flat land despite its core concept being the fact that it was built into the cliffs; in Civ VI, those hills were man-made!
Also ironic that you need stone for this wonder but not for the pyramids.
That's a really good idea. A lot of people are rightly very interested in mound cultures and the like, and this would be a great way to give them a sort of representation without having to invent significant parts to make them a civ. It could also make archaeology, which I like as a concept, a lot more interesting."Natural wonder" is surely the wrong term for a decidedly unnatural monument; however I'd love to see prehistoric/protohistoric structures like henges, dolmen, kurgans, talaiots, mound burials, and so forth added to the game in some fashion. Neolithic and Bronze Age peoples created some impressive structures that were often treated as significant by later peoples (see Stonehenge for a prime example). They could yield culture, faith, and (after Flight) tourism.
That's a really good idea. A lot of people are rightly very interested in mound cultures and the like, and this would be a great way to give them a sort of representation without having to invent significant parts to make them a civ. It could also make archaeology, which I like as a concept, a lot more interesting.
Archaeology in general could be expanded into a more broad feature that could really benefit the late game. Ruins of destroyed cities could have graphics that represent the civs rather than all white classical ruins. Battle sites could have their own graphics, and then add in these megaliths and tombs. Odd corners of the world could have 'lost civilizations'. There are a lot of possibilities that I think would be quite fun in the game.
That's a really good idea. A lot of people are rightly very interested in mound cultures and the like, and this would be a great way to give them a sort of representation without having to invent significant parts to make them a civ. It could also make archaeology, which I like as a concept, a lot more interesting.
Archaeology in general could be expanded into a more broad feature that could really benefit the late game. Ruins of destroyed cities could have graphics that represent the civs rather than all white classical ruins. Battle sites could have their own graphics, and then add in these megaliths and tombs. Odd corners of the world could have 'lost civilizations'. There are a lot of possibilities that I think would be quite fun in the game.
Archaeology can actually tell us a fair amount about the Megalith Builders, and we can (cautiously) learn more from Irish folklore. Not enough to build a civ out of, mind you, but I wouldn't call it "almost nothing."
Moreover, there's some abstraction here. We can't assume that deposits of stone, copper, iron, coal, or what have you represent the sum total amount of these, otherwise civilizations without access to these would not be able to accomplish many things taken for granted in the game. Instead, I think we have to assume that the resources represent mother loads.I think in Civ VI they ran themselves into a bit of a corner on requiring certain Resources to build Wonders. Having already put terrain and sometimes adjacency requirements for many of them, adding a requirement for Marble, Gypsum, Stone, etc. would have made many of them virtually unbuildable in many games.
Specifically in the case of the Pyramids, how often do you find Stone on desert tiles? Also, there's the historical argument (which applies to Stonehenge as well) that much of the stone for the Pyramids was quarried somewhere else and hauled (usually floated on riverboats) to the site. And the earliest 'Pyramids' were actually made largely of mud brick, which is as close to a 'universal resource' as you can find.