Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Krajzen, Feb 24, 2019.
I feel a strong tendency to read this in Kermit's voice in my head.
That's too good!
This thread is utterly fascinating, in the best way.
I think it must be very hard to create a Civ game because it seems like everyone has a different “thing” they want it to be, and usually things I hadn’t even considered, I love it!
Hmmm to contribute to an unpopular opinion... I guess... I would say that I think a lot of people lack imagination when it comes to Civs. Particularly when the Civ doesn’t have overt bonuses to a specific win condition. I think they all can do well, and my admiration for someone who takes a less played Civ, learns more about it and plays optimally is tenfold that of someone who takes the FotM Civ and follows a guide
I don't think Civ is too Eurocentric thematically/historically/culturally/whatever, but I do think it's too Eurocentric in the regard that when you play a true-start-location map or YNAEMP the distribution of land is extremely uneven.
We've have had Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao. These are some of the worst of the worst.
Hitler was a Nazi. Nazism is a subset of Fascism, it is not Fascism wholly. While Fascism is tied to Ethno-nationalist policies, you can have one around a civic nationalist substrata instead.
Fascism is simply the counter to Communism and Capitalism where it is the state, often militant and competing with other states, is the end goal. All internal conflict is to be stamped out, the state needs all to work for it. The Capitalist individuality and pursuit of personal profit and gathering of resources is swept away for the state. The Communist Prole is put back in line to work for the state and not his or her class. The State is what matters as the State is the epitome of Human organization, efficiency, and division. Or so they vouch, at least.
The Fascism we saw, in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Austria, etal often had a Ethno-nationalist and conservative viewpoint, but there's nothing barring Leftist Fascism from emerging outright, and many Leftists turned to it - Socialist Mussolini, German Beefsteaks, etal. I would bet that a new form of Fascism will arise later on in our civilization, especially if the state is estronger than any other polity around in the midst of whatever myriad crises we can imagine. Fascism can be led by women, or blacks, or whatever, it can be Civic, it can be a system that, in a pinch, can lift a nation out of the rut. It can return.
As a person with French Canadian heritage, I must object to this statement. Prior to the mid 20th century, the largest demographic in Canada, was the French demographic. Going back to the early 1800's, even ex patriot Americans were more numerous than British Canadians. It would make no logical sense, for the largest ethnic group in Canada, to adopt the language of a group that is significantly smaller. Lower fertility rates and open borders policies are slowly changing the situation, but French culture is still a major part of what makes Canada the country it is.
Additionally, the Treaty of Paris guaranteed basic language, religious and other legal rights to the French.
On the other hand, some of my German ancestors came from Hannover, Prussia (Pomerania, Silesia) and Hesse, areas that were allied with the British, so I can say that I had ancestors on both sides of the England vs France rivalry.
Belgium would make an excellent Civ with the current game mechanics.
Also, Georgia isn't at all bad and are more fun to play than most Civs. :teehee:
There needs to be more native North American leaders. One? Seriously?
Almost contributes to the myth that North America was not “civilized” before European contact.
Bring Back Leaders like Stalin, Chuchill, Roosevelt, Washington, De Gaulle, Napoleon, Louis XIV.
Israel is a must. King David and or Solomon would be nice.
I know Hitler will never make it in the base game but it wouldn't offend me.
No offense to women but currently it seems even Civ VI is on the PC bandwagon with all the female leaders.
I miss slavery as a mechanic as well.
I've lost track of how much of this thread is serious commentary and how much is looking at the popularly expressed opinions and being contrary for the sake of it, but how are these self-consistent? Israel is a 20th Century state of no significance to Western history despite its outsize role in latter 20th Century politics between major Cold War and post-Cold War powers. Tibet has a better claim on historical significance in the abstract, but it's not of much importance to Western history specifically.
Even if you define Israel more broadly to incorporate historic Judea, that's an area of little intrinsic importance - it's little more than the geographical backdrop to what amounts to a Roman religion. "Christianity wouldn't have existed if these weren't the specific people being persecuted by the Romans" doesn't seem a significant claim to fame.
Well whatever Civ was lead by King David, Solomon or even Saul should be in the game.
If we have Babylon, Cyrus, Egypt and others in that time period why can't we have someone represent the Jewish Culture?
Israel wasn't a nation before the 20th Century?
No significance? Try to break into Hollywood or buy some gold in NYC without influence from Jewish Heritage.
I am not very educated but I am pretty sure Israel has had significant influence on the Western World.
Bagels and Corned Beef Sandwiches are two of my favorite influences.
Brisket and Pastrami are pretty good too and might as well have a Blintz.
Who doesn't love Cheesecake in the Western World?
Although some argue that it originated from Greece.
Not to get political but one could say Israel has had major influence on America for over 50 years.
It's a coding problem. Dynamically changing the cost of something once it's in the queue is a much different proposition than say, changing the production modifier towards it dynamically. It's not a common enough exploit like production overflow
Between FfH, Gods of Old, Final Frontier (basically proto stellaris a decade early) and NextWar... holy cow did they ever have some good scenarios in that game. Civ5 really dropped the ball by not making a "Smoky Skies Redux" for BNW...
I really appreacite what they did with unit classes, but I think unit gaps was done for the wrong reasons. I wish we could have units that change class as they upgrade so that we could fix several major problems but that would break the design.
My unpopular opinions:
I really dislike the Mapuche. I think the whole civ was a mistake. There's a reason doing most American native civs is really hard, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that these groups are relatively obscure and it's hard to communicate the background story of an almost unknown civ through the loading screen. They could have picked the maya and made life easy for themselves.
I felt civ5 had too much classical focus in its civ picks. Civ6 is a little too heavy on medieval focus. There's plenty of other eras to work with for most of the civs chosen. I think the Africa scenario of civ5 showed that even the industrial era can work for thematic purposes. Example: England is now much more of an industrial era civ. But, the sea dog is a hot mess. What about the HMS dreadnought? Who wouldn't want an armor plated beast sitting between frigates and battleships?
The ironclad is the most hideous unit I have ever seen. The art from civ5 was way better. That thing was a wrought iron rapture. The civil war design is repugnant and I avoid making ironclads specifically so i don't have to see them.
#1 opinion, and I will die on this hill: Sean bean's narration isn't too bad, but the quotes themselves are a raging dumpster fire. I HATE how half of them are bad jokes and most of them are sarcastic. I miss the old quotes from 4 & 5. I feel like those just reached out and grabbed me by the humanity.
I'll die on the same hill defending some of the quotes. Some of my favorite ones are the ones you probably hate. I love hearing the Monty Python quote, or some of the funnier lighthearted ones, but I fully understand how someone who doesn't know the context or doesn't want a little humor might hate them.
As for my hill... I think the AI is fine and the fact that some people still judge an expansion/patch/game based on almost just that is getting old. It was really rough around the edges at some point, but I think it's in a good enough place that the discussion should shift to something else.
Judea. It's not related to modern Israel except in the broad geographical location. It's of cultural relevance to the Jews, but they represent a comparatively small demographic and a comparatively small religion. Even in the time, as far as I can tell Judea was not a particularly substantial power.
I'm not saying we necessarily shouldn't, but the first criterion was for civilisations important to Western civilisation. That includes Babylon (legal codes, foundations of mathematics, 24 hour days and 7 day weeks as particularly notable contributions), Persia (principally via interactions with the Greeks, but while Iran may not have had a substantial direct influence on later Western development it was a relatively prominent part of European societies' world) and Egypt (numerous, from ancient times - in which, among other things, it was notionally the source of some extremely significant events in the Jewish religion - to prompting the development of archaeology in the 19th Century). Judea was none of those - it was the setting for stories in the Old Testament and the hub of a religion that existed because of Roman actions and was spread primarily by the Romans.
It was founded in 1948, as the product of a Jewish uprising against British rule in Palestine that the revolutionaries considered favoured the Arabs.
Is buying gold in New York of major significance to the history of Western civilisation?
Corned beef sandwiches? The sandwich is an English development (named for the Earl of Sandwich). Corned beef likely has ancient origins according to Wikipedia, but one of the major historical hubs was Ireland (not notable for its significant Jewish population).
Just from the name I was fairly sure pastrami had no Jewish (let alone Israeli) origins. Apparently it's Romanian. Not sure food is a good reason to put a civ in the game anyway - Italy isn't in yet, and a lot of people are fond of Swiss rolls and toblerone. Switzerland can even claim the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross and the YMCA. I still wouldn't say it has merit as a significant player in the history of Western civilisation.
As a geopolitical pawn and a way to play to voters - the territory itself is of little direct importance to the US. Afghanistan doesn't really qualify as significant because it had a significant role in 19th Century geopolitics between Britain and Russia (and much more recently assorted other powers) - it's something bigger powers competed with each other over, just as Israel was for most of the last 50 years. Which in Civ terms makes Jerusalem's representation as a city state ideal.
The problem with the humorous quotes is that Sean Bean is terrible at comic delivery, and it only makes it worse that many of these are well-known quotes from such things as Monty Python and Terry Pratchett that really don't work with Sean Bean. Also the Garrison Keller one is just abysmal.
There are a few that I like a lot - Recorded History's Napoleon quote, the quotes from EO Wilson and Wallace. Even the Brian May one. But most are bad to terrible and above all - given that this is a game about recognisable features of history - are far too frequently obscure and/or from obscure disposable pop culture characters. Who on Earth is the character who came up with the diabolical "laser believer" quote? Civ VI is far worse than both IV and V on the quote front.
Ruhr Valley has one of the worst quote choices (and I'm not mentioning Mt. Kilimanjaro lacking Wi-Fi or the Roman Empire collapsing due to air conditioning yet).
You're going to have to suspend disbelief to some extent if you want a city flipping mechanic at all. On very rare occasions cities have seceded without military intervention in real history, but they've become something akin to city states in the process - they don't petition to join neighbouring nations.
I really liked the design of most of the Civ V scenarios - but they spanned such a wide period and the game went through so many major changes (especially the HP system) that by the end I wish they'd redone all of the scenarios with BNW rules.
They felt a need for a South American civ to compete with Brazil and (when they were introduced) the Inca. The Mapuche weren't well-realised but I can see the logic for the inclusion of a Chilean civ.
I'd have pegged Civ VI as too heavy on its modern focus. I think a classical focus works well for a game like Civ given that it starts early, and many civs from that period are widely-recognised names. On balance, now we've seen what Civ VI looks like in approximately its final form, I'd say V had the best civ selection in the series.
- Rise and Fall was a lackluster expansion, and introduced more problems than it solved.
- All post-colonial civs should be taken out and re-imagined with some new system that revolves around them being former colonies that gained independence.
- Having Alexander lead his own civ was an overkill.
- If your choice of civ/leader design causes mixed feelings among the very people that the civ/leader was supposed to represent, then you should probably look into that and take note (excluding cases of obvious propaganda and revisionism).
- Civ 6 lost a lot of gravitas in comparison with Civ 5, and it's not only because of the art style.
- Religious/cultural Russia makes enough sense for it to exist in the game. Science-hammers-communism is a boring cliche that ignores the remaining ~1200 years of Russia's cultural heritage.
- We are slowly approaching feature overload, where too much stuff is there for you to track and micro-manage, yet none of them truly matter.
-Most civs follow good themes historically, but Japan could have an alternate, modern leader with high culture instead of samurai-focused. I know it's one of the historically longest running civs....let's see it focus on more.
-Bought time America got tourism bonuses (compared to pre-VI)
-It's about V, but, I feel England is one of the strongest V civs, if not THE strongest
-Making a thread about it didn't help....I still don't like any civ in VI, and that's the reason I like V more. Though I've mostly been on vacation since then and looking forward to playing Russia and Arabia more when I get back.
-Disasters are pointless. They don't make things harder, just annoy you....mostly with popups telling you about them
Magnus chop exploits were lame as Hell and I'm glad they are gone.
For game purposes it works fine. Cavalry has served so many purposes over history and in warfare that putting it into one class would be hilarious. In modern times we have this image of cavalry being the mounted knights charging down infantry, but that just isn't accurate. The distinctions between roles in cavalry were just as significant as between varying types of infantry.
Why is western history so much more important than anywhere else? The game is about what could have happened if different civilizations were in different situations. Yes, the European nations dominated much of the globe historically because their situation allowed it to happen. A combination of location, terrain, politics and blind luck (and much more) resulted in Europe moving to a far more militaristic bent than the rest of the world. The idea that we can take anything we want and it is our right to do so.
But there were flourishing peoples all across the globe who, for the same multitude of reasons, went in a different way. Their focus was less warlike and expansionist, and more focused on cultural achievement, or religion, or internal growth. That doesn't make them less deserving, and if placed in different situations they would have evolved differently.
It's fun to be able to play a people that were vastly different from the European empires we are so familiar with.
Stalin, Hitler etc do not need to be included in the game. These are people who achieved very little in the long run. Yes they were "successful" or influential in their time, but how far has that extended? Hitler's Third Reich lasted not even a decade? Despite the internet's determination to say it was an efficient machine, any kind of tertiary study will show you how horribly inefficient it was internally. And that most of the achievements it is lauded (eg the Autobahn) for were actually works of someone else (in the Autobahn's case it was the German Government's project that Hitler just finished off).
Stalin would have a bigger call given the power that the USSR held for a considerable time, but the crimes of a still relatively modern day figure will always weight more heavily than those of old.
A better idea is to have a scenario with modern leaders, or even just WW2 leaders.
As to equality in representation, don't forget that many of the iconic names we known now are known because of the bias of sources. Most sources of the time were written by rich men who hated the poor, hated women and hate foreigners. So many leaders who deserve to be iconic were lambasted for centuries because of a bias against them at the time (and often continued as later historians had the same bias, so continued to make it worse). There have been a number of female leaders in various Empires who deserve far more recognition and should be genuinely iconic, but who were hated upon by their contemporaries for not having a penis.
But it works both ways. There are major flaws with capitalism and democracy (and I am absolutely not saying we should get rid of either). Every type of government has big flaws, but we have to overlook that for gameplay. So they go with the "ideal" version of each, assuming that they are working as intended in an ideal world.
Historically many issues of the various governmental forms would have also been different if the situation had been different. EG many of the failed socialist states could have been successful in the right circumstances or at a different time. When you have a dominant world power undermining you because they don't like your form of Government then of course it will fail.
Think of it this way. Napoleon was a revolutionary leader of a democratic France and is one of the most influential individuals in history thanks to his work of updating laws, military, government etc. That democracy failed largely thanks to the monarchies freaking out and fighting war after war with him, simply because they couldn't allow a democratic government to exist. So at that time in history democracy would have been labelled a failure that couldn't succeed. But it wasn't democracy that was failing, it was the circumstances it existed in. So it's much better to just simplify it down to what a form of government hopes to achieve under ideal circumstances.
Separate names with a comma.