The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XLII

[Gori the Grey]

Civ VI has added content called "Leader Pass." What does "Pass" mean in this context?

 

[Synobun]

Civ VI has added content called "Leader Pass." What does "Pass" mean in this context?

You get new leaders when they release.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thank you for answering, but I don't get what that means. Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse. The civs that were in the game, now have a different leader available, with different UAs or whatever. But why call that a "pass"? Why not call it "New Leader Options" or "Alternative Leaders"? Does your civ, at some historical marker, "pass" over from a starting leader to a second leader? Just don't get the word "pass" in this context.

 

[Takhisis]

I think it means that you have to pay for any new leaders that are released.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Arrrgggghhhhh. I don't understand "pass" in that context, Tak. You pay for all new content, and (to my knowledge) it's never been called "pass" before.

This. Word. Makes. No. Sense. To. Me!

 

[Takhisis]

It's like those game-pass or battle-pass things that you get (depending on the marketing scheme).

It's like when you get a ‘tournament pass’ in some games, where you cannot enter a tournament without it. This is the same, designed to exact the last drop of money from you like an overwrung orange.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thank you. That at least makes it make a little sense. It's a known term in game merchandising, then. The designer can give you a "pass" to certain content. Then my only reaction is that it's kind of a roundabout way of conveying your meaning. Instead of saying, "I paid 5 bucks and now I have Lincoln as one of the leaders I can play in Civ VI," you say, "I paid 5 bucks and Firaxis gave me a pass to Lincoln." I think some (or maybe all) of these were free to people who'd purchased earlier portions of the game. So then it's a "free pass" to the Lincoln material. And that makes a tad more sense as a way to label it. Don't know. Still seems like an odd way to label your new content. But if it's a term that everybody (but me) knows, then I guess more power to them. Anyway, thanks for sticking with me.

 

[Synobun]

It's become a popular term in recent years as a means of monetizing drip content. You pay a price now and gain access to content at different intervals later. Like how you can buy a week's pass for a theme park and you can visit any day that week. Or how a pass card grants you access to locations you ordinarily wouldn't.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not going to like it (I suspect most people don't). Already with Civ V, I was happy to buy the game and the expansions, but when they would release just one or two new civs, I didn't think it was worth bothering. Eventually, they tended to roll those into either the expansions or into packages with which I would bother, so at some point I did end up getting all the content. I suppose this will be the same. If you wait long enough, you can get all these little add-ons as "The Ultimate Civ."

 

[Synobun]

I'm not going to like it (I suspect most people don't). Already with Civ V, I was happy to buy the game and the expansions, but when they would release just one or two new civs, I didn't think it was worth bothering. Eventually, they tended to roll those into either the expansions or into packages with which I would bother, so at some point I did end up getting all the content. I suppose this will be the same. If you wait long enough, you can get all these little add-ons as "The Ultimate Civ."

Yes. If you're patient, you can get all the content for much less. I got everything Civ 6 related before the recent leader pass for something like $14 from a Humble Bundle.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's a Steam sale going on now, like 90% off (75% off for Civ IV).

 

[Birdjaguar]

There's a Steam sale going on now, like 90% off (75% off for Civ IV).

Because Civ 7 was announced today.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Because Civ 7 was announced today.

So I noticed. Whatever the reason, I might try Civ IV. Maybe. Civ VII is out of my league.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Civ 4 is a great game!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Civ 4 is a great game!

I'm sure it is. It's just that I never really made it past Civ II: ToT. I tried III, but have never managed to finish any games.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It is far more complex than 3, so coming from 2 you will find the learning curve steep.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So while I'm on this learning curve from III on, it's obvious that I'm nowhere ready for VII.

I still talk Civ II: ToT strategy sometimes, and it never ceases to baffle how many people don't use Dwarfs to terraform the sea beds. They may not have been intended to go there, but there's nothing stopping them once you have the right tech or the right units to transport them. Ditto using birds and dragons - there are ways to get units around those 4 maps that you'd ordinarily think can't happen just because the Civilopedia says so. Boats in the sky, Dwarfs under the sea... totally doable.

 

[Synobun]

So while I'm on this learning curve from III on, it's obvious that I'm nowhere ready for VII.

I still talk Civ II: ToT strategy sometimes, and it never ceases to baffle how many people don't use Dwarfs to terraform the sea beds. They may not have been intended to go there, but there's nothing stopping them once you have the right tech or the right units to transport them. Ditto using birds and dragons - there are ways to get units around those 4 maps that you'd ordinarily think can't happen just because the Civilopedia says so. Boats in the sky, Dwarfs under the sea... totally doable.

The game meta changes rather significantly between iterations, and I personally think this is why lots of people stay with "their" Civ. They expect cumulative changes to the same foundation, but that isn't really how it works. Familiarity with 3 offers little familiarity with 4, which offers little familiar with 5, which offers little familiarity with 6.

Civs 3 and 4 may be square tiles with city spam and stacks of death, but the underlying mechanics are very different, and someone expecting "Civ 3 but different/better" will be disappointed.

Civs 5 and 6 may have hex tiles with one unit per tile and an emphasis on city specialization, but the underlying mechanics are very different, and someone expecting "Civ 5 but different/better" will be disappointed.

Civ, IMO, is not a series that needs to be tried chronologically.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And I don't even understand what "city spam" or "stacks of death" mean.

 

[r16]

stacks of Doom ... add 100 units of offence and protect them with a few really good defensive units . Your invading army is undefeatable . In Civ I and ı think in II , your 100 units would die at once if your top defender lost . City spam means you should have lots and lots of cities to have those 100s of units and science and happiness at the same time .