Most Civ fans create their preferred list of which Civ are included based of the the Civ's nation or location. This created the Eurocentrism argument seen elsewhere. I on the other hand had a preference which prioritized mechanic and gameplay. I did have a preference of location but having a good mix of playstyles was important.
Now as the vanilla instalment of the game, I expected there to be more "vanilla" civs in the game than any other type. Crazy out there civs would be a bit rare at first but by churned out heavily in DLC and expansion. It's best to get a lot of civs that prefer playing the normal way than have all crazy civs. But you get a few crazy civs for spice.
In fantasy or scifi strategy games, you typically start of with a few vanilla factions: the knightly human faction, the wizard human faction, the elves/pointyears, or various beast people. Then you get a very factions with heavy tweaks like an aquatic race or cyborgs. Then finally you get a few crazy ones like demons, undead, insects, or robots who play completely unlike the the others, often with mechanics added or removed.
How would I categorize the civs?
Vanilla civs are civilization who have mechanics that do not encourage any major change of where you build cities, how you build units and infrastructure, and how you conduct diplomacy. Vanilla civs have bonuses to things you would do anyway.
From there you break off to the civs that are mostly vanilla but have a twist. The Inbetweens.
Regional civs are vanilla civs but they have huge bonuses to terrain aspects which change where their early cities are and affect the tone of their game. These civs would found cities in places others won't dream to do so as early in the game. Think vanilla with fruits or nuts in it.
Then you have Focused civs. These civs have one or two uniques that too good to not exploit but don't not require too much of a change in the overall strategy. These civ tend to be based on timing a unique to have it not be wasted. An strong early UU encourages early war over simple settler expansion. Free buildings encourages wide play. Wonder bonuses make you want to stop at certain points for a wonder.
Then you have the Crazy civs. Civs with the hard push to strategies others cannot attempt. Or even more crazy, civ locked out of strategies or mechanics all together for huge bonuses elsewhere. These are often the hardmode civs. The civs the AI is bad at hence the basic strategy of the game doesn't work well with them. Or worse, the AI is guaranteed to fail and you expect them to be gone by Modern era because you can't play them normally.
Now with the civs announced, we can guess on how each civs work.
So which civs are the vanilla civs? Which ones are the crazy ones? And which ones are inbetween?
Do you think the proportion of vanilla, crazy, and inbetween civ is good in Civ VI? Which types should be included in the first run of DLC?
Now as the vanilla instalment of the game, I expected there to be more "vanilla" civs in the game than any other type. Crazy out there civs would be a bit rare at first but by churned out heavily in DLC and expansion. It's best to get a lot of civs that prefer playing the normal way than have all crazy civs. But you get a few crazy civs for spice.
In fantasy or scifi strategy games, you typically start of with a few vanilla factions: the knightly human faction, the wizard human faction, the elves/pointyears, or various beast people. Then you get a very factions with heavy tweaks like an aquatic race or cyborgs. Then finally you get a few crazy ones like demons, undead, insects, or robots who play completely unlike the the others, often with mechanics added or removed.
How would I categorize the civs?
Vanilla civs are civilization who have mechanics that do not encourage any major change of where you build cities, how you build units and infrastructure, and how you conduct diplomacy. Vanilla civs have bonuses to things you would do anyway.
From there you break off to the civs that are mostly vanilla but have a twist. The Inbetweens.
Regional civs are vanilla civs but they have huge bonuses to terrain aspects which change where their early cities are and affect the tone of their game. These civs would found cities in places others won't dream to do so as early in the game. Think vanilla with fruits or nuts in it.
Then you have Focused civs. These civs have one or two uniques that too good to not exploit but don't not require too much of a change in the overall strategy. These civ tend to be based on timing a unique to have it not be wasted. An strong early UU encourages early war over simple settler expansion. Free buildings encourages wide play. Wonder bonuses make you want to stop at certain points for a wonder.
Then you have the Crazy civs. Civs with the hard push to strategies others cannot attempt. Or even more crazy, civ locked out of strategies or mechanics all together for huge bonuses elsewhere. These are often the hardmode civs. The civs the AI is bad at hence the basic strategy of the game doesn't work well with them. Or worse, the AI is guaranteed to fail and you expect them to be gone by Modern era because you can't play them normally.
Now with the civs announced, we can guess on how each civs work.
So which civs are the vanilla civs? Which ones are the crazy ones? And which ones are inbetween?
Do you think the proportion of vanilla, crazy, and inbetween civ is good in Civ VI? Which types should be included in the first run of DLC?
