[GS] Future Update?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do think it's about time to have navigable rivers in a Civ game. Maybe Civ7. But I would say only a specific class of ships should be allowed. Meaning a new class of ships that aren't melee or ranged. I certainly don't believe caravels or frigates belong on rivers. I'm not sure what you would call this class of ships. River patrol? Shallow draft boats? I'm not sure. You'd want at least a few for every other era similar to current ship classes.
Faster movement for land units, and better trade routes, and automatic connections to other cities on the same river. You could just replace the graphic. For these to work, they'd have to put the rivers back through the center of the tile the way it used to be.

If something does happen and they ever allow regular sea units into river squares, at the very least they need to get an extremely large combat penalty to any land or air unit they encounter. I imagine a large vessel in a river would basically be target practice.
 
Well, to be realistic, just don't allow liberation for a civ that was conquered after a couple of eras. That civ who lost its last city in the middle ages is probly assimilated by now.
Considering the Greeks had been conquered by multiple empires for hundreds of years and still retained their own identity and now have their own modern state, among other cultures and nationalities they're the best example, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Of course, Greek culture flourished under the Byzantines, but even four to five hundred years under Turkish domination they still retained a Greek and Orthodox identity.

This is probably why we honestly need an ethnicity mechanic like past civs had though rather than ambiguous "loyalty" mechanic.
 
Last edited:
Faster movement for land units, and better trade routes, and automatic connections to other cities on the same river. You could just replace the graphic. For these to work, they'd have to put the rivers back through the center of the tile the way it used to be.

If something does happen and they ever allow regular sea units into river squares, at the very least they need to get an extremely large combat penalty to any land or air unit they encounter. I imagine a large vessel in a river would basically be target practice.
I don't mind if they have tiles with rivers on the edges, but they should have a way to mix ones in the middle and on the edge. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

EDIT: also moderator if you could please combine this with my last so I'm not spamming messages in a row that would be great :)
 
I don't really care for navigable rivers. What I'd much rather would be bonuses if City X is connected to City Y via River, with perhaps connections by Railways also having a bonus later in the game.
 
So it falls in line with the rest of our "predictions" and "estimations" in this thread (mine included).
:thumbsup:

Honestly. How on earth are we in March, and still no news?

The whole "yep, something, but can't confirm, can't say what and can't say when!" is okay up to a point, but this has gone on too long and is getting quite annoying.
 
The art at this link was posted by a Firaxis concept artist 4 months ago on Artstation. Relevant to an expansion?
 
The art at this link was posted by a Firaxis concept artist 4 months ago on Artstation. Relevant to an expansion?
My first thought, based on the title "She's probably not a fan of Julius" was Boudica, but then I realized that Nero was ruling Rome around that time. And of course Julius hasn't led Rome since Civ IV.

My next thought was Theodora, because well we are expecting the Byzantine empire - but I don't have any better connection then that.

Anyone recognize that style of helmet?


...and of course not everything she posts is Civ related!
 
My first thought, based on the title "She's probably not a fan of Julius" was Boudica, but then I realized that Nero was ruling Rome around that time. And of course Julius hasn't led Rome since Civ IV.
My next thought was Theodora, because well we are expecting the Byzantine empire - but i don't have any better connection then that.

Anyone recognize that style of helmet?
The one single comment says she is probably the queen of the iceni tribe. :p

And the connection to Julius would probably just that it was him who conquered Britannia.

That aside, I don't think its relevant for the expansion. If it was for an expansion it would probably be under NDA and she wouldn't post it, and I'd think Celts are also a rather unlikely civ choice at this point.
 
I hope loyalty gets a rework in the next update. The AI still does not consider whether forward settling is a bad idea or not. This was especially evident when, just today as I was playing Japan, Russia settled a city 7 tiles away from my capital when his capital was 70 tiles away. These mechanics will not work when the AI is about as intelligent as a lobotomized guinea pig, but even that comparison seems a bit too forgiving. There is no point in buying an expansion in the first place when the opponent cannot grasp base game concepts. It should not take 7+ settlers and ridiculous science boosts to give players a slight challenge. I am surprised that the moderators haven’t blown a gasket yet over the lack of communication from Firaxis, but some are blessed with patience moreso than others :crazyeye:
 
My first thought, based on the title "She's probably not a fan of Julius" was Boudica, but then I realized that Nero was ruling Rome around that time. And of course Julius hasn't led Rome since Civ IV.

My next thought was Theodora, because well we are expecting the Byzantine empire - but I don't have any better connection then that.

Anyone recognize that style of helmet?


...and of course not everything she posts is Civ related!

The helmet is a Gaul style. The sword looks Scottish though.

But Kat isn't one to post something that breaks NDA.
 
If you slide to the left you get named characters from a novel named The Fifth Season, maybe she belongs with them.
If you slide to the right you get some more of those chars that I think belong together, but after that there is some official Civ 6 stuff and some DC and Marvel comics characters (Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel) and Mulan (?).
Also one that's more of a painting of a woman's face that made me think of Evita Perron. Further a malnourished or diseased face.
After that there are some interesting portraits of a Man and Woman in Renaissance dress and a clearly Celtic female face study for the face paint.
Still after that some mature body studies for how you hold weapons.
 
That banner is here since Gathering Storm.

Edit: on the other hand many believe there will be a third expansion since Gathering Storm.
 
At least some dlc with new civs, wonders

I would love a Rise and Fall kind of civ with a fully fleshed out mechanic. Definitely not just a bunch of never to be used late game buildings/districts.

with all these additional platforms the game has been introduced on, more content makes sense before moving on to VII
 
i think another civ that specialised on tundra/snow would be cool, like eskimo for example
 
I don't really care for navigable rivers. What I'd much rather would be bonuses if City X is connected to City Y via River, with perhaps connections by Railways also having a bonus later in the game.

I'd personally like City Trait system where the city has traits with bonuses based on location, which could tie with Tall style, where you should be more strategic about where you put city. This would also provide clarity to some already existing systems. Some examples: City connected to Capital via River/Road/Railroad/Sea (possible to combine through several cities), City on Hill, City on Flat Terrain, Acces to River (Fresh Water), Adjacent to Moutain, On Specific Terrain, Over Specific Feature, Contains Specific Resource.

I wouldn't want it to be excessively complex and unnecesarily hard to manage and remember, just more strategic about the specific plot where city is put rather than its surrounding.
 
I think that's what a lot of us want, including myself.

Although #1 on the list for me would be Babylon.
Oh I knew I was missing one! Babylon too!

I'd personally like City Trait system where the city has traits with bonuses based on location, which could tie with Tall style, where you should be more strategic about where you put city. This would also provide clarity to some already existing systems. Some examples: City connected to Capital via River/Road/Railroad/Sea (possible to combine through several cities), City on Hill, City on Flat Terrain, Acces to River (Fresh Water), Adjacent to Moutain, On Specific Terrain, Over Specific Feature, Contains Specific Resource.

I wouldn't want it to be excessively complex and unnecesarily hard to manage and remember, just more strategic about the specific plot where city is put rather than its surrounding.

I low key wish we got the Network system back, it feels weird that my entire civilization has access to a single resource available in the most remote place without an actual road to it. (or sea trade).

I also want to get Health system back, and give Bonus resources more of a reason to stay (as I seem to be noticing a lot of people clear it, I keep them, unless Inca for that sweet sweet Terrace Farms).

A re-do of the congress so it's more akin to Civ 5 would be nice, maybe even with a religious flavor for Apostolic Palace.

Aaand just a general re-design of the Trade, Espionage and Diplomacy system, as I think they are extremely lackluster. Diplomacy could use some new options and abilities like Vassalge.

I dunno... I feel like there's still room to improve and the game isn't just quite yet complete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom