Update 1.2.3 is coming soon!

[moondog385]

While generally I agree with the above, I do think they should make an effort to fill geographical gaps for each era. I feel that’s mainly what people are referring to when they point to “complete India and China paths.”

So it would be nice to have Polynesian civs in Antiquity and Modern, Native American civs in Modern, West African civs in Antiquity and Modern, Central and Eastern Europe civs in Antiquity, etc etc. Right now, the game feels somewhat balanced in Antiquity and then goes full Euro-tilt in Modern.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They also said that they weren't planning to implement a "natural" path for every civilization, though, and that they explicitly rejected that idea because it would limit which civilizations they could include in the game. Instead, they expect us to play out an alternate history in which our empire changed somewhat like Britain did, with one culture coming along and building over what a previous one had built, then doing it again.

I definitely didn't expect a natural path for every civ in the base game, or even the first wave of DLCs. I do think it by the end of the game if there isn't a "natural" path for everything then I think that's a missed opportunity. Or as said above you can just call it a "geographical" path if you want to play all the way with different Polynesian civs. I see it as no different than the three different Indian civs we have right now.

 

[Lord Lakely]

While generally I agree with the above, I do think they should make an effort to fill geographical gaps for each era. I feel that’s mainly what people are referring to when they point to “complete India and China paths.”

So it would be nice to have Polynesian civs in Antiquity and Modern, Native American civs in Modern, West African civs in Antiquity and Modern, Central and Eastern Europe civs in Antiquity, etc etc. Right now, the game feels somewhat balanced in Antiquity and then goes full Euro-tilt in Modern.

I agree. The roster should be larger, and more Civs should be added, including Civs tied to already existing Civs from other Era's

Egypt should have Modern Egypt to transition into
Khmer as the starting point for SEA is good, but you should have one more option (like a Javanese or Burmese Civ)
Gaul should be added as an additional starting point for the Normans
Aztec should be added to bridge the gap between the Mayans and Mexico
Inca should be a middle stage between the Nazca/Caral Supe/Mapuche on one end, and Gran Colombia on the other.

Free-standing Civs like Nepal and Bulgaria are fine to add here and there, but absolutely need to solidify a lot of the straight lines, especially if you're adding leaders for those lines.

And the same principle is true for leaders: A few free agents like Rizal and Machiavelli are fine, but the majority of them needs to have a clear path across all three eras.

One of the ways you can sort of patch it up is by allowing leaders to pick duplicate Civs, which I *think* we're going to get really soon.

 

[moondog385]

I agree. The roster should be larger, and more Civs should be added, including Civs tied to already existing Civs from other Era's

Egypt should have Modern Egypt to transition into
Khmer as the starting point for SEA is good, but you should have one more option (like a Javanese or Burmese Civ)
Gaul should be added as an additional starting point for the Normans
Aztec should be added to bridge the gap between the Mayans and Mexico
Inca should be a middle stage between the Nazca/Caral Supe/Mapuche on one end, and Gran Colombia on the other.

Free-standing Civs like Nepal and Bulgaria are fine to add here and there, but absolutely need to solidify a lot of the straight lines, especially if you're adding leaders for those lines.

And the same principle is true for leaders: A few free agents like Rizal and Machiavelli are fine, but the majority of them needs to have a clear path across all three eras.

One of the ways you can sort of patch it up is by allowing leaders to pick duplicate Civs, which I *think* we're going to get really soon.

I think I would prefer Morocco for a Modern North African path and Mapuche probably works better for Exploration but I agree with you in principle.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Khmer as the starting point for SEA is good, but you should have one more option (like a Javanese or Burmese Civ)

Isn't the Majapahit considered a Javanese empire? Regardless Burma would work well, and even could be a bridge to Nepal.

Inca should be a middle stage between the Nazca/Caral Supe/Mapuche on one end, and Gran Colombia on the other.

Mapuche should probably be either Exploration or even Modern.

 

[Kwami]

One of the ways you can sort of patch it up is by allowing leaders to pick duplicate Civs, which I *think* we're going to get really soon.

Isn't this already possible in multiplayer games? I don't play multiplayer, but I think the developers said that they weren't going to force unique civs like Humankind does.

And I guess then it would be possible in single-player games, too, but we'd never know if the AI is programmed to always pick something unique.

 

[tedhebert]

Isn't this already possible in multiplayer games? I don't play multiplayer, but I think the developers said that they weren't going to force unique civs like Humankind does.

And I guess then it would be possible in single-player games, too, but we'd never know if the AI is programmed to always pick something unique.

It's already happening if you play huge map with 12 civs

 

[Porry]

The dual civilization option should be implemented in every game. I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, since the protagonist is the leader. It would be like having two internal factions within the same civilization. It would also solve the problem of multiple players competing for a given civilization.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Isn't the Majapahit considered a Javanese empire? Regardless Burma would work well, and even could be a bridge to Nepal.

Mapuche should probably be either Exploration or even Modern.

I mixed up my islands haha. I mean Sumatran (specifically Sri Vijaya) instead of Javanese. My bad.

The dual civilization option should be implemented in every game. I wouldn't see anything wrong with it, since the protagonist is the leader. It would be like having two internal factions within the same civilization. It would also solve the problem of multiple players competing for a given civilization.

Yeah, exactly? The Greeks led by Ava Lovelace value her culture and science, those led by Napoleon are ascetic warriors. Kinda how it was in real life.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Free-standing Civs like Nepal and Bulgaria are fine to add here and there, but absolutely need to solidify a lot of the straight lines, especially if you're adding leaders for those lines.

It's probably really pedantic of me to even bring this up because I do agree with the point about Nepal, but I'm not sure I'd call Bulgaria "freestanding." While it isn't as direct a link between Greece and Russia as Byzantium hypothetically would be, it's still an Orthodox, Eastern European civilization that was influenced by Greek culture and helped spread the Cyrillic alphabet. It's no Normans -> Britain, but I'd call it stronger than Chola -> Mughal.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's probably really pedantic of me to even bring this up because I do agree with the point about Nepal, but I'm not sure I'd call Bulgaria "freestanding." While it isn't as direct a link between Greece and Russia as Byzantium hypothetically would be, it's still an Orthodox, Eastern European civilization that was influenced by Greek culture and helped spread the Cyrillic alphabet. It's no Normans -> Britain, but I'd call it stronger than Chola -> Mughal.

Greece into Russia is not a true line. The Russians are decended of the Slavs and the old Norse. The Greeks haven't changed in millennia.

The Greek line goes via Byzantium into the present-day Hellenic Republic. The Russian one starts with the old Norse via the Kievan Rus into the Russian Empire.

Bulgaria itself also has a three act line, with Thrace and the third Bulgarian Emprie for Antiquity and Modern.

So no, technically these are three completely separate lines. The only thing that makes it acceptable is that all three are Eastern European, and even then, i doubt the Greeks want to be lumped in with the slavs.

Italy (and specifically Two Sicilies) makes more sense as an endpoint for Greece than Russia does.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Greece into Russia is not a true line. The Russians are decended of the Slavs and the old Norse. The Greeks haven't changed in millennia.

The Greek line goes via Byzantium into the present-day Hellenic Republic. The Russian one starts with the old Norse via the Kievan Rus into the Russian Empire.

Bulgaria itself also has a three act line, with Thrace and the third Bulgarian Emprie for Antiquity and Modern.

So no, technically these are three completely separate lines. The only thing that makes it acceptable is that all three are Eastern European, and even then, i doubt the Greeks want to be lumped in with the slavs.

Italy (and specifically Two Sicilies) makes more sense as an endpoint for Greece than Russia does.

I suppose it does make more sense to view transitions as being "fitting" if the successor makes sense from the perspective of the predecessor, rather than the other way around, as that's what makes gameplay transitions seem the most logical in actual... gameplay. However, with the lens of trying to fill out the roster with a limited rate of additions, I think if a Modern age Civilization has two Civilizations that make sense leading into it, "better" choices for those predecessors fall behind in priority. For instance, while Rome might want Byzantium, an Italian civ, or the HRE from its perspective, Spain nevertheless "likes" it quite a lot as a predecessor (it's arguably the best hypothetical one for it, period), and thus a path sort of already exists. It's a similar situation with Russia: while from the perspective of Antiquity Greece there's a different, more sensible path, it makes sense for Russia to come from a line of civilizations that serve as the source for several of its cultural tenets, like the Orthodox faith, the Cyrillic alphabet, and its (admittedly quite weak) self positioning as the successor to the Greco-Roman civilizations. It may not be a "true" path by your definition, but it holds stronger than almost every other path on the map, meaning that I'd say it's a relatively low-priority area for further detail, at least at the moment.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Well, yes, Bulgaria's historical unlocks as it stands, Greece and Persia are the correct unlocks in the current roster. The historically correct choices would be Thrace and the token Steppe Nomad civ (Huns, Scythia)

Greece into Italy is like... legit though. Naples, Syracuse, Crotone, Taranto, Lecce, Agrigento and a few others. All of these major Italian (Roman) cities started out as Greek Colonies.

That's the downside of the Greece/Rome conundrum. Their paths intersect. By a lot. Any path that is viable for Rome is automatically viable for Greece, and vice versa. Byzantium is but one example. France and Spain are the exact same. Ditto for Venice.

We urgently need one or two non-GrecoRoman Civs in Europe, so that we have a viable starter for Russia and Prussia, which we currently kind of don't have. (Norse and Goths will do fine, as will some variation of Celts)

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Please continue here. Thread locked.