Super Colonialist Legacies 64: The Speculation Thread

[Neirai]

Hey, all. As we ramp up towards Civ 6, I'd like to spend some time tossing around ideas and hearing all of your thoughts. I'll likely pepper this thread with polls, so that we can democratically make decisions, which I will ignore and do my own thing (because I'm Canadian.)

There's a lot of questions about leaders, agendas, and design philosophy that I'm mulling over.

As the weeks go on I'll post more questions and info.

Why is this a speculation thread? Because CL is always disorganized, and we also don't know what is and isn't possible in Civ 6.

 

[Neirai]

Question 1: Should CL continue to focus on new Civilizations, or should we try to branch out into adding government types, social policies, civics?

 

[ldvhl]

Why not both?

 

[Groucho Marx]

Why not both?

Both would happen to be a very time consuming activity.

 

[Neirai]

Yeah, I forgot to mention: we have a limited amount of time. Any things we add to our plate will remove other things from our plate.

 

[Neirai]

So one thing to mention is that in Civ 6, Civs are designed in the following way:

A UA and 2x Uniques based on the Civilization.
A Leader Unique and a leader Agenda.

This means that we will have to either 1) ignore the Firaxis precedent (we've done that before) or 2) redesign a few civs, such as the Anishinaabe, that are very leader-focused.

What do y'all think? Do you see other civs that are highly leader-focused?
What ideas do you have for CL civ LUs?

 

[Mobfire]

Many smaller civs, like Canadian first nations and Australian Aboriginals, kind of have to be focused on a particular leader and general time period. For most of them I don't imagine alternate leaders ever being implemented, so I don't think it matters much if you simply fill all slots according to the central theme or idea behind the civ. From my experience making designs for these types of civs, it can be hard enough to get ideas for 2 uniques, much less 3 + an agenda + a UA + a Leader Bonus. It's probably best if you don't put any extra restrictions or burdens on yourselves.

When it comes to more significant civs, particularly colonies like Vietnam, Canada, etc., I think abiding to the Firaxis formula would be more important since there is much more potential for creating alternate leaders and components.

 

[Firebug]

leader uniques seem to have a great variety, and come with more then one thing.
For instance, China's leader unique is +1 Builder charge and rushing ancient/classical wonders.
America's leader unique is a bonus to combat on their home continent AND the Rough Rider unit.

 

[DarthStarkiller]

Isn't wonder rushing Qin's Unique and the extra charge China's UA?

 

[Firebug]

just an extra charge seems too weak. I was led to believe it was both Qin's unique.

 

[TranquilSilence]

In the event that Leugi doesn't port any of his mods into Civ VI for whatever reason, would CL consider picking up a Haiti Civ for the new game? Toussaint would be an awesome personality to utilise with the new agenda system.

I think it'd be awesome in general if we got to see him again, regardless of who was making the Haiti civ

In regards to leader uniques, Australia should be pretty easy to sort - replacing the Prime Minister with a UB of some kind, and moving some of the Prime Minister's flavour to Parkes' LU. I could see the Digger and some kind of Tourism ability sticking as general Australian things however.

 

[JFD]

In the event that Leugi doesn't port any of his mods into Civ VI for whatever reason, would CL consider picking up a Haiti Civ for the new game? Toussaint would be an awesome personality to utilise with the new agenda system.

I think it'd be awesome in general if we got to see him again, regardless of who was making the Haiti civ.

I'd be up for re-creating Toussaint Haiti was the civ I worked on most for Leugi.

 

[Neirai]

In the event that Leugi doesn't port any of his mods into Civ VI for whatever reason, would CL consider picking up a Haiti Civ for the new game? Toussaint would be an awesome personality to utilise with the new agenda system.

I think it'd be awesome in general if we got to see him again, regardless of who was making the Haiti civ.

Leugi has told me he plans to come back for Civ VI or even before that.
I've made the occaisonal rumblings in his direction of trying to merge some CL and Patria Grande stuff. No news on that.

If Leugi was not coming back, I would be somewhat interested in updating some of his SA mods, since they were the inspiration for pretty much all my mods. But I'd bow to JFD's superior skill/speed.

 

[albie_123]

... should we try to branch out into adding government types, social policies, civics?

My only worry here is overlap with other mods.

As long as there's some coordination between the 'clique' (and I know you guys are good at that), there's no problem. It would be incredible for us to have compatibility between mods right out of the gate.

 

[Victor_T]

Question 1: Should CL continue to focus on new Civilizations, or should we try to branch out into adding government types, social policies, civics?

I'd say both. But I think they should focus on adding new government types, etc. Just to make it more interesting. After all it's about how the civilizations develop, so such things should definitely be there.


Victor

 

[TranquilSilence]

I think it'd certainly be interesting to see a greater variety of government types and such, as I presume the base game will be primarily eurocentric in that area.

Provided that there are available tools, CL could potentially release a couple of colonial-focussed Wonders, which would also be nice to see. Though, as said, this largely depends upon what tools modders are provided with.

 

[Neirai]

I presume the base game will be primarily eurocentric in that area.

...Ed Beech said the game would have much better world coverage. But from what I can tell, it doesn't seem like that's so true.

 

[ldvhl]

...Ed Beech said the game would have much better world coverage. But from what I can tell, it doesn't seem like that's so true.

I think he meant "better" from the perspective of the folks at Firaxis, not what we would consider "better".

 

[JFD]

I think it'd certainly be interesting to see a greater variety of government types and such, as I presume the base game will be primarily eurocentric in that area.

...Ed Beech said the game would have much better world coverage. But from what I can tell, it doesn't seem like that's so true.

On Civs. Ed Beach never spoke about a less eurocentric approach to Govts. (nor really about how Govts. were selected at all), which is what TranquilSilence is refering to. Although I'd wager it's going to be more america-centric/21st century-centric than eurocentric, otherwise there'd be a tonne of monarchy options and democracy won't end up being the 'go-to' govt.

 

[Neirai]

On Civs. Ed Beach never spoke about a less eurocentric approach to Govts. (nor really about how Govts. were selected at all), which is what TranquilSilence is refering to. Although I'd wager it's going to be more america-centric/21st century-centric than eurocentric, otherwise there'd be a tonne of monarchy options and democracy won't end up being the 'go-to' govt.

Yeah, I imagine that the governments will be totally euro/muricentric and I'll make a huge mod adding aboriginal/SA government types.