Tune in November 7 for an Exploration Age livestream!

[Gedemon]

I don't think it's intentional asymmetrical. This might be the reason multiplayer is listed as being limited to 5 players. Everyone must start on the same homeland to make treasure resources work.

yes, it's what I said for humans player, and why I think it's "technical".

maybe a late development decision.

They've said twice that they wanted to change that (looking for more players in MP in an interview, looking to allow symmetrical treasure resources in this stream)

That means late or post release coding, I hope they'll take the time to do it properly, in previous versions late development addition were sometime hardcoded (ie not directly moddable)

it's also in relation to modding that I wonder what is requiring a loading screen between ages

 

[HanNorwood]

After watching the stream, I’m really liking the UI. I think moving away from the business of VI’s interface is a good call. This one really highlights the map.

That being said, I wouldn’t mind if there was a little more to the city banners.

 

[Evolena]

No yellow text on white background please, that's an impossible contract!
Also the colors of Isabella and Confucius are too similar. And I've found the color of Hatshepsut's units (bright red) too different from her banner?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

And Ming Empire emblem is a Phoenix.

^ Exactly the same posture as an emblem of Ministry of Finance of Thailand.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Also the first quote by a Thai academic. Spoken by Dr. Thongchai Winichakun (I'm not sure if he's Thammasart Lecturer now. but he's ardent supporter of Orange Movement here. something I was once a proponent of (As an anathema to Far Right Dictatorship). Now with that Ultra Royalist movement diminished, and the return of Thaksin Shinawatra. (with his daughter is firmly his successor) I went against Orange Movements (this due to their political blunders from time to time. especially their failure in a post-election race to form a govenrment and almost permitted Prawit Wongsuwan an office of Prime Ministry.

^ Few More gameplay revealed.
1. Manual unit upgrades. You still needs to pay some gold to upgrade a unit whenever an enabling tech (or civic) is researched. same as before.
2. Default Age 2 basic Tier 1 Infantry is now swordsman (at least an emblem suggested. and Mongolian teaser shows that.)

 

[anemo]

As I understand it, we now have 2 kinds of civ opponents. The civs of your homeland, who compete with you for the win and the civs in distant lands, who are there as a stronger.IP, but can't compete with you for the win. Did I misunderstood something?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

More..

^ Guildhall.. What's the importants in real life beyond that this place is an office to any guild exists.

^ Fleet Commander. I don't understand why this unit is enabled at Age II. graphic representation is either carrack or galleon. And this fleet consisted of three carracks / naus if you will.

^ Spanish fleet. Packed. with icon of carrack. (so Civ6 'Caravel' is actually 'Carrack')

^ Unit portrait upclose. One tercio (Musketeer is the unit's portrait) and two heavy archers.

^ Mercantilism Quote.

^ Fleet Commander Upgrades.

^ Treasure Ship.

^ Naval battle scene with carracks. done with bows or crossbows, anything before guns came to be.

 

[Civinator]

Greece switching to Spain.

 

[Siptah]

Some observations that I haven't read (enough of) yet:
- great works and great work slots (aside from the palace) are age-specific. In the stream, Ed had some codices in antiquity, but none of them (nor the slots from the library) made it into the exploration age. With religion being a focus of the 2nd age only, it seems likely that the same happens with relics and temple slots.

- we've been told that trade works differently in each age. We haven't seen any trade in the stream, right? I also didn't catch any merchant unit in the production overviews, but I also haven't looked specifically for them.

- the fact that leader and civ traits give you a respective attribute point per age, and the bonuses down the tree seem quite strong, means some synergies might arise simply from having a good trait fit between your leader and all your civs.

- the meta-progress per leader exists as a gameplay feature that results in at least one unique legacy per age. Isabella's exploration legacy didn't seem like a no-brainer OP choice. I really like that: not just cosmetics, but also not something that you absolutely need to have to stay competitive. Curious how hard they are to unlock. Finish all trees with the leader?

- I wonder how many "your legacy goal works different" civs à la Mongols we'll see in the base game and early expansions. This has huge potential for different play styles.

- I hope that FXS manages to find 2-3 legacy goals per age per type to have some more variety at some point (maybe as focus of the first major expansion). It would be "fun" to not know what's waiting for you in the next age in a way.

- events that don't trigger just because the conditions are fulfilled is a godsend.

 

[Disgustipated]

After a re-watch, just noticed at 1:02:29 on the youtube stream the espionage part of the diplomacy window. Have we seen this before in the antiquity stream?

It has Steal technology at 100% success rate which seems quite high, but 50% discovery chance. Steal government secrets whatever that is, maybe civics? And military infiltration which I'm guessing reveals the location of all military units.

 

[MasterPaw]

View attachment 708807
^ Fleet Commander. I don't understand why this unit is enabled at Age II. graphic representation is either carrack or galleon. And this fleet consisted of three carracks / naus if you will.

Naval gameplay seem limited in age 1

I wonder if we will see some interior seas to have age 1 naval battles

I hope it doesn't mean early civs will never have focus on naval

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Historically there were great naval battles in Age 1. from Nile to Actium.

 

[UWHabs]

As I understand it, we now have 2 kinds of civ opponents. The civs of your homeland, who compete with you for the win and the civs in distant lands, who are there as a stronger.IP, but can't compete with you for the win. Did I misunderstood something?

My take on their reaction there is that the new world civs essentially don't play the same game, they're more or less locked out of the policies. I wonder if they could add a mechanism where their goals essentially are the reverse of the old world civs - ie. they can "capture" treasure fleets, and when they bring them back to their lands, they get points for "defending their resources". I don't think it makes sense to have them try to go the opposite way with treasure fleets.
You need to come up with some alt version for their military path. Maybe you give civs over there a default ability like Mongolia where it's simply about conquering stuff. Even if they're not playing with the same victory conditions, it would be nice if they could be a foil with an adversarial feel.

Some observations that I haven't read (enough of) yet:
- great works and great work slots (aside from the palace) are age-specific. In the stream, Ed had some codices in antiquity, but none of them (nor the slots from the library) made it into the exploration age. With religion being a focus of the 2nd age only, it seems likely that the same happens with relics and temple slots.

- we've been told that trade works differently in each age. We haven't seen any trade in the stream, right? I also didn't catch any merchant unit in the production overviews, but I also haven't looked specifically for them.

- the fact that leader and civ traits give you a respective attribute point per age, and the bonuses down the tree seem quite strong, means some synergies might arise simply from having a good trait fit between your leader and all your civs.

- the meta-progress per leader exists as a gameplay feature that results in at least one unique legacy per age. Isabella's exploration legacy didn't seem like a no-brainer OP choice. I really like that: not just cosmetics, but also not something that you absolutely need to have to stay competitive. Curious how hard they are to unlock. Finish all trees with the leader?

- I wonder how many "your legacy goal works different" civs à la Mongols we'll see in the base game and early expansions. This has huge potential for different play styles.

- I hope that FXS manages to find 2-3 legacy goals per age per type to have some more variety at some point (maybe as focus of the first major expansion). It would be "fun" to not know what's waiting for you in the next age in a way.

- events that don't trigger just because the conditions are fulfilled is a godsend.

Yeah, I don't recall seeing anything different with trade. I do think the whole treasure fleet thing is probably what they were referring to mostly when they talked about "trade" being different in the different ages. Maybe there's other pieces, but IMO given that's tied to resources, that's probably what they meant most. Whether the old trade system is still in place in that era or not, I don't know.


Overall, it looked interesting, although obviously it's so heavily geared towards a race for the new world, my problem is that if you don't have a naval base setup, you're pretty much going to be completely locked out of the era if you don't take a Mongolia-like civ. I mean, I guess you could ignore those trees and really focus on the other trees, but I can definitely foresee a number of games where you essentially are stuck in an inland sea or in impassable ice/tundra, and you're just not going to be able to do any of the new world stuff.

 

[Siptah]

My take on their reaction there is that the new world civs essentially don't play the same game, they're more or less locked out of the policies. I wonder if they could add a mechanism where their goals essentially are the reverse of the old world civs - ie. they can "capture" treasure fleets, and when they bring them back to their lands, they get points for "defending their resources". I don't think it makes sense to have them try to go the opposite way with treasure fleets.
You need to come up with some alt version for their military path. Maybe you give civs over there a default ability like Mongolia where it's simply about conquering stuff. Even if they're not playing with the same victory conditions, it would be nice if they could be a foil with an adversarial feel.

I think the DL civs play a different game in the first two ages, but can compete for the actual victory at the end of the game.

Yeah, I don't recall seeing anything different with trade. I do think the whole treasure fleet thing is probably what they were referring to mostly when they talked about "trade" being different in the different ages. Maybe there's other pieces, but IMO given that's tied to resources, that's probably what they meant most. Whether the old trade system is still in place in that era or not, I don't know.

I had this thought as well. But it would be really strange if there is no option to trade resources and build roads anymore at all. Maybe there's a different kind of trade with DL civs?

Overall, it looked interesting, although obviously it's so heavily geared towards a race for the new world, my problem is that if you don't have a naval base setup, you're pretty much going to be completely locked out of the era if you don't take a Mongolia-like civ. I mean, I guess you could ignore those trees and really focus on the other trees, but I can definitely foresee a number of games where you essentially are stuck in an inland sea or in impassable ice/tundra, and you're just not going to be able to do any of the new world stuff.

You can still go for two paths (culture and science), but I think you'd be waging a big war at some point to a) capture some treasure fleets for at least a bit of legacy points b) capture some cities in the HL (to get coastal access or even one or two DL settlements directly).

Another consequence of this railroading is that coastal towns are more likely to become cities, as you can't buy naval units in towns, right?
By the way, did they have a chance to decide which city becomes the capital of the new age? Or is this a random assignment?

 

[stealth_nsk]

As I understand it, we now have 2 kinds of civ opponents. The civs of your homeland, who compete with you for the win and the civs in distant lands, who are there as a stronger.IP, but can't compete with you for the win. Did I misunderstood something?

As I understand, all civs are equal and all civs could win. Civs on the distant lands treat their lands as homeland and your homeland as distant lands, that's it.

The only difference is what some map types are asymmetrical and, for example, distant lands could be islands while player's homeland is a continent.

My take on their reaction there is that the new world civs essentially don't play the same game, they're more or less locked out of the policies. I wonder if they could add a mechanism where their goals essentially are the reverse of the old world civs - ie. they can "capture" treasure fleets, and when they bring them back to their lands, they get points for "defending their resources". I don't think it makes sense to have them try to go the opposite way with treasure fleets.
You need to come up with some alt version for their military path. Maybe you give civs over there a default ability like Mongolia where it's simply about conquering stuff. Even if they're not playing with the same victory conditions, it would be nice if they could be a foil with an adversarial feel.

They do play the same game and they could beat you with wonders even in antiquity, as was mentioned before.

 

[Evolena]

As I understand, all civs are equal and all civs could win. Civs on the distant lands treat their lands as homeland and your homeland as distant lands, that's it.

The only difference is what some map types are asymmetrical and, for example, distant lands could be islands while player's homeland is a continent.


They do play the same game and they could beat you with wonders even in antiquity, as was mentioned before.

But Ed stated that resources in our Homeland are not Treasure Resources from Distant Land for them... so that is asymmetrical.

 

[Siptah]

I feel just switching HL and DL for DL civs also isn‘t an elegant solution. Treasure fleets going the wrong way, and thus you need to patrol both coasts to capture them as a non-colonizer, for example. And settling/conquering the filled and strong player‘s HL as DL civ is a completely different task from settling/conquering the half-empty player‘s DL. DL is AI only, even in MP, so maybe a solution for DL civ legacy paths is really low in the priority list?

Also, if DL/HL would be a dynamic system, they would have just said that when asked about it.

I‘m also not convinced that DL civs building wonders in antiquity equals them getting legacy and age progress for it.

One thing I wondered when HL/DL was announced was if civs that are exterminated in HL (in antiquity or maybe even exploration) get a free founder in DL instead. But with yesterday‘s stream, chances for this seem getting even smaller than they ever were.

 

[Krikkit1]

I feel just switching HL and DL for DL civs also isn‘t an elegant solution. Treasure fleets going the wrong way, and thus you need to patrol both coasts to capture them as a non-colonizer, for example. And settling/conquering the filled and strong player‘s HL as DL civ is a completely different task from settling/conquering the half-empty player‘s DL. DL is AI only, even in MP, so maybe a solution for DL civ legacy paths is really low in the priority list?

Also, if DL/HL would be a dynamic system, they would have just said that when asked about it.

I‘m also not convinced that DL civs building wonders in antiquity equals them getting legacy and age progress for it.

One thing I wondered when HL/DL was announced was if civs that are exterminated in HL (in antiquity or maybe even exploration) get a free founder in DL instead. But with yesterday‘s stream, chances for this seem getting even smaller than they ever were.

Treasure Fleets is simple enough…the treasure fleet is marked with which “lands” goods it is carrying.

It should be
Different Treasure Resources are on both Lands, but you can only make/cash in Treasure Fleets from resources that are distant to you. ie Sugar is on your homelands, Spice is on your Distant Lands, so you can’t build or cash Sugar Fleets. (you may not even be able to steal them)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

- I hope that FXS manages to find 2-3 legacy goals per age per type to have some more variety at some point (maybe as focus of the first major expansion). It would be "fun" to not know what's waiting for you in the next age in a way.

I'm still trying to get my head around everything we saw but I think this is my main takeaway. Like, I don't mind this idea of DL and treasure fleets but I think there should be at least one interesting HL alternative so that not all cis following an economic path are forced to go overseas and get treasure.

I think my overriding feeling is that the game has tremendous potential but I'm a bit unsure about some of the implementation.

All the pieces are there to make something phenomenal: I think the Age structure is great, I like the idea of having distinct gameplay elements in each Age, I like the idea of legacy paths, and points to spend in the next Age based on your performance, I like civ switching because imo it fits well within this framework.

But religion looks weak. Hard to get excited about what they've done there. And whilst DL is a cool idea, it seems to dominate Exploration a little too much, basically forcing everyone to engage in treasure fleets. And I don't know how I feel about having Civs in the game that can't win.

Ultimately, I have more questions than answers after the stream. If anything, it has made me more keen than ever to get stuck in and start exploring the game myself, but I can't pretend that I liked everything I saw.

 

[Olleus]

I feel just switching HL and DL for DL civs also isn‘t an elegant solution.

How is symmetry not elegant?

It's not true to RL history to have treasure fleets and colonisation happening the other way, but that's because in RL the technology gap between Eurasia and the Americas in ~1500 was astronomical. But there's no reason why that would be the case in a game of Civ. Depending on how many civs got killed off, how much they expanded, or how they handled the crisis; it's even possibly for there to be more available land on the HL than the DL. Imposing a directionality on which way treasure fleets go, and designating the HL landmass as the one "true" H, even for civs that didn't start there, strikes me as an unnecessarily ugly break of symmetry. And the symmetry that all civs (minor IPs aside) play by the same rules is a foundational one to the series.