|
Roland Jones posted:Amaterasu, yes. I think Scheherazade led something too. Not a real person. I seem to recall one Sassanid king essentially having his mother reign in his name for most of his life, I think. Though it may have been the Great Seljuks, though they could also conceivably do as Persia. It's kind of a shame that they've never done any Islamic Persian leaders. You could just as well go with any of them, since you already have Catherine de Medici. Saladin should have been a leader for Egypt, not Arabia (Arabia really is the civilization where they often get the dumbest with the leaders). Though Civ Egypt is always ancient Egypt exclusively. Doesn't really matter anyway. Game's pretty crap. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Sep 6, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:Not a real person. No poo poo, genius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Ah, pretty sure I failed to catch that it referred Scheherazade as leading something in Civ2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Ok then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Charlemagne with U-Boats is a funny mental image 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
The alternate leaders from 2, for those who care, based on whether the default was male or female. Lots of mythical figures, but some figures who ended up becoming familiar. America: Eleanor Roosevelt Aztecs: Nazca Babylon: Ishtar Carthage: Hannibal Celts: Cunobeline China: Wu Zetian Egypt: Cleopatra England: Henry VIII France: Joan of Arc Germany: Maria Theresa Greece: Hippolyta India: Indira Gandhi Japan: Amaterasu Mongolia: Borte Persia: Scheherazade Rome: Livia Russia: Vladimir Lenin Sioux: Sacagawea Spain: Philip II Vikings: Gunnhild Zulus: Shakala
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:The point is that the Roman empire was a vast territory that encompassed thousands of miles and millions of people and whose center of power only remained in Rome for a short period compared to the vast length of time it existed. Every game with Rome has the civ representing the classical empire of Augustus and Trajan. Saying it's a representative of a separate polity that existed a thousand years later after Mass migrations and annexations on the peninsula is ridiculous. It's like saying the US shouldn't be in since there's already Cherokee in the game. The civs generally represent cultural centers through time and are named for when they were most influential/unified/notable whatever. Rome/Italy works exactly the same as Aztec/Mexico, Classical Greece/Greece, Persia/Iran or 5000 years of dynamic Chinese or Indian history etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The alternate leaders from 2, for those who care, based on whether the default was male or female. Lots of mythical figures, but some figures who ended up becoming familiar. they should negotiate a cross-promotion leader dlc thing with koei and capcom so we can have amaterasu in an okami headdress, and zhuge liang from dynasty warriors
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Not to disparage Eleanor Roosevelt in any way, but if you want a female leader for America, you should go with Edith Wilson. "One Republican senator labeled her "the Presidentress who had fulfilled the dream of the suffragettes by changing her title from First Lady to Acting First Man.""
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The alternate leaders from 2, for those who care, based on whether the default was male or female. Lots of mythical figures, but some figures who ended up becoming familiar. It's a shame that something as simple as running out of plates with her name on them kept her from appearing in subsequent Civs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
I mean Eleanor Roosevelt is a pretty obvious choice really. Also I thought Hannibal was the default Carthage leader in Civ 2 and Dido the alternate, but if you tell me it's the other way round I believe you. Haven't actually played that game in 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Also I thought Hannibal was the default Carthage leader in Civ 2 and Dido the alternate, but if you tell me it's the other way round I believe you. Haven't actually played that game in 15 years. Dunno. Been a long time since I played it, too. Looked up the leaders from a wiki.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Aloha-Lee, Aloha-Lee Until the south rises again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:The civs generally represent cultural centers through time and are named for when they were most influential/unified/notable whatever. Rome/Italy works exactly the same as Aztec/Mexico, Classical Greece/Greece, Persia/Iran or 5000 years of dynamic Chinese or Indian history etc. Having Rome be representative of Italy just feels wrong to me. Rome is most of Europe, it's not just Italy. Even if that's where it started! Does England represent Canada? It's strange that they have Gorgo in Greece when no other civ has more than one leader though. I did assume DLC would take advantage of it but they've really not bothered. I wonder why they did it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Taear posted:Does England represent Canada? Canada is in one of the upcoming DLC packs, bundled with one of the North American tribes. Or maybe not, quote me if I end up being right  Taear posted:It's strange that they have Gorgo in Greece when no other civ has more than one leader though. I did assume DLC would take advantage of it but they've really not bothered. I wonder why they did it? It doesn't really matter if Firaxis isn't taking advantage of it, the real benefit is the system is there for modders to use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Taear posted:Having Rome be representative of Italy just feels wrong to me. Rome is most of Europe, it's not just Italy. Even if that's where it started! Does England represent Canada? I don't see how associating Rome with Italy is weird at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Taear posted:Having Rome be representative of Italy just feels wrong to me. Rome is most of Europe, it's not just Italy. Even if that's where it started! Does England represent Canada? Where is Rome located? Where were most of their early holdings? Why does it matter that the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans, too? They got their own civ, dood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I don't see how associating Rome with Italy is weird at all. Because there's basically zero connective tissue between the two civilizations? The Roman empire wasn't an Italian empire for more than a century and had multiple emperor's who were born outside the pennisula and multiple capitals and center of power outside it. Like there are dozens of civs I'd see in before Italy but saying they're represented by Rome is just wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I don't see how associating Rome with Italy is weird at all. Because at least to me if Byzantium is distinct enough from Rome to get its own Civ then so is Italy. Like Gaius Marius says there's a thousand years of movement in between Italy and the Roman Empire. Do the Avars represent Hungary? Although I'd gladly take Hungary as a civ over Italy. Have they ever been in it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
Austria was in, which is kinda like having Hungary in there. Anyway to me I feel like Civ implicitly assumes Italy is the spiritual successor to Rome. Same deal with the HRE and Germany, Persia and Iran, etc. I think it's silly to have Byzantium be a separate civ rather than an alternate leader for Rome but the civ series has never been quite internally consistent. Denmark in civ v also had Norwegian cities (and even a Norwegian ski infantry unit!) and Sweden had Finnish cities in its list. All this means is that the civ developers thought that "Danish Empire" or "Swedish Empire" implied holding these territories, and thought having a combined city list would represent that. For what it's worth I personally believe colonies should not be considered separate civs in their own right, but that would mean shipping civ without America and that'd never happen. It does mean we're probably going to get the entire commonwealth as separate civs so we can claim we represented the entire world but also we populated it with white people everywhere. North American Natives DLC: buy this now for Eskimos, Canada and Quebec!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Austria was in, which is kinda like having Hungary in there. Man I hope you're deliberately saying that as a joke! Austria-Hungary was a really different polity to most of the unified empires you have represented in the game. And is sort of like England representing Ireland. I also feel like civ assumes Italy is the successor to Rome but it'd be nice to see Garibaldi as a leader one day. At least with Sweden/Finland and Denmark/Norway they were unified countries for a long long time. America is definitely the civ that throws all the "rules" in the woodchipper, at least in the earlier games. Now we've got Brazil and stuff so it doesn't matter as much. Having Australia in there doesn't help them against accusations of "You only want white people civs" though. Taear fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Sep 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Wouldn't Charlemagne be more appropriate under the French, or "Franks" if you want to get super accurate? He would. Just wondering how much the Civ devs would conflate the HRE under him and the HRE under Babarossa. The distinction's pretty obvious but you never know. Deltasquid posted:For what it's worth I personally believe colonies should not be considered separate civs in their own right, but that would mean shipping civ without America and that'd never happen. That'd exclude Australia too, and I want them in so the grog tears keep flowing. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Taear posted:Man I hope you're deliberately saying that as a joke! I kinda was! Although I think the England civ under Victoria implies it also owns Scotland? Kinda? Maybe? Sorta? I think we need to just accept that civ is fundamentally a board game that masquerades as a simulation game, and any civilizations that are added are selected on criteria no more stringent than "Hey wouldn't it be cool if we did X?" I'm salty about Macedon being separate from Greece, about Alexander leading this new civ despite civ vi expressly showing it can and will give civs multiple leaders, about Brazil and Australia making the cut before Persia, about the lack of indigenous civs. I know I'm petty like that but some sort of internal consistency would go a long way for me. Venice isn't a god damned "great civilization". It was a regional power at best. It's nowhere near the leagues of China and Rome!! The Deleter posted:That'd exclude Australia too, and I want them in so the grog tears keep flowing. I don't even consider myself a grog and this gets me salty as hell.  EDIT: I eagerly await the Indigenous peoples DLC which will add South Africa, Canada, Quebec, Rhodesia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Portugal, Macau, the Netherlands and Belgium (lead by Leopold II, naturally.) EDIT2: actually I think the thing that makes me salty as hell about civ vi is how the artistic direction of the game seems to be some nihilistic contempt for anything trying to be serious or idealistic. The tech quotes are basically all some variation of "lol this thing you invented sucks", usually by an American comedian nobody outside the anglosphere heard of, the wonder quote about the Ruhr area is literally about how much it sucked living there after world war 2, the civopedia is filled with snarky and "witty" one-liners... This, combined with the colonial civs taking up a more prominent spot (and thus shattering what little internal consistency the series had) means that it feels like some sort of Hollywood knock-off of history written through the lens of a YA author writing in a sassy teen voice. All of these things combined make me feel like civ vi's feel is entirely off. Kind of like "this is what America thinks of you" rather than "this was a cool and interesting civilization that shaped the world as we know it in its own right". It's why Japan is samurai and nintendo factories. It's why Germany is about U-boats and bullying city-states. It's why Kongo actively wishes you to spread your religion to them, as they are utterly incapable of founding their own. It's why China can burn through workers to build their great wall. I know civilization was always some cartoony version of history but at least you'd learn cool new things. I don't feel like civ vi has that same desire any more. Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Sep 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:All of these things combined make me feel like civ vi's feel is entirely off. Kind of like "this is what America thinks of you" rather than "this was a cool and interesting civilization that shaped the world as we know it in its own right". It's why Japan is samurai and nintendo factories. It's why Germany is about U-boats and bullying city-states. It's why Kongo actively wishes you to spread your religion to them, as they are utterly incapable of founding their own. It's why China can burn through workers to build their great wall. I know civilization was always some cartoony version of history but at least you'd learn cool new things. I don't feel like civ vi has that same desire any more. That's actually been mentioned quite a lot, especially when the game was new. It does feel like a more "who gives a poo poo, it's just numbers" civ where the stereotypes of civilizations are what they've used to create them. It is nice to make the civs more differentiated but I definitely feel like a few abilities are more of a joke than anything else. Also, Venice is definitely a great civlization. No they're not Rome or China but they were a world power in their time and things they did changed the course of history in huge ways. (Fourth crusade anyone?) That's why I've never REALLY minded the US being a civ, at least you can argue that it's done enormous things even if an American Spearman feels dumb. Oh and England doesn't have Edinburgh or Dublin as part of their city names so I don't think it's intended or realised by the developers that hey, England and the UK are different things. For me at least what makes 4x games fun is the story you've got in your head at the end of a game. That's why I can stick with Stellaris even before the most recent expansions and why I played Civ5 loads. Civ6 doesn't do that for me, I feel like it's all the same and I'm not excited to try out new civilizations because of the "feel" of the game. Taear fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Sep 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
If I had to design a 4x game to compete with civ, that's one of the things I would look into. Civ is all about going up, up, up. There's no real way for people to catch up, and a significant setback means you're usually better off restarting the game than trying to claw your way up. This fundamentally means that losing territory is immensely unfun, which in turn means you can't have dynamic rising and falling of civilizations and colonies breaking off and what have you. If there were some mid-game impetus where civs are encouraged to settle on new continents, and then when reaching a specific culture level the colonies break off, that'd leave room for letting America exist in a way that isn't wonky as hell with Washington DC in 4000 BC. I know mods have tried this but it fundamentally changes the way civ v and civ vi are played (and to some extent civ 4 though it seems ryse and fall or whatever it was called pulled it off) and it doesn't work with the competitive mentality of the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:I think we need to just accept that civ is fundamentally a board game that masquerades as a simulation game, and any civilizations that are added are selected on criteria no more stringent than "Hey wouldn't it be cool if we did X?" I am talking about a pretty ridiculous level of granularity though...probably too much to actually make a successful game. For example I'd have a separate English civ led by Alfred who was a more isolationist power focusing on more cultured pursuits and a UK civ led by Victoria that's full on golden age naval expansion, trade, and colony focused. I'd also have separate Mameluke and Egypt cultures and put separate leaders to represent both Hellenistic Egypt and bronze age Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
Taear posted:even if an American Spearman feels dumb im the helicopter gunship with *haka war dance
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
While I like Civ VI a lot more than some people here, I do agree that the tone and "feel" are somewhat off. The quotes are awful usually and seem to mostly have been picked by Googling the subject of said quotes, and each leader's personality and the opening narration about them is almost entirely derived from their agenda and maybe some civs about their civ abilities, which is unfortunate, particularly in the case of the latter as, while it's minor, the writing is really bad. At least some leaders still have cool moments and lines when the writers didn't try to tie everything about them back to their agenda; Amanitore and Cyrus are pretty cool when they aren't reminding you how much they love cities and backstabbing people, respectively. Like, gameplay-wise I think this Civ is still my favorite, as things like the split tech trees, unstacked cities, and so on are all really good and fun and make it a lot more interesting for me, and I don't mind the art direction either really, but hoo boy, they need to put someone else in charge of the writing next time. Maybe try to be less Euro/America-centric and such too, as unlikely as that is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:im the helicopter gunship with *haka war dance At least I can pretend it represents something. I can't do that as well with non-native american America. And talking of America - Theodore Roosevelt hated being called Teddy apparently. Why not spend a bit of time looking that up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:While I like Civ VI a lot more than some people here, I do agree that the tone and "feel" are somewhat off. The quotes are awful usually and seem to mostly have been picked by Googling the subject of said quotes, and each leader's personality and the opening narration about them is almost entirely derived from their agenda and maybe some civs about their civ abilities, which is unfortunate, particularly in the case of the latter as, while it's minor, the writing is really bad. At least some leaders still have cool moments and lines when the writers didn't try to tie everything about them back to their agenda; Amanitore and Cyrus are pretty cool when they aren't reminding you how much they love cities and backstabbing people, respectively. Exactly how I feel. I think unstacked cities look and feel great, I think the government system is cool, I like the separate tech trees. Now if only they turned it into a coherent whole with competent AI, at least then I could appreciate it as an endearing board game. Now it feels outright hostile to me and to human civilization as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Exactly how I feel. I think unstacked cities look and feel great, I think the government system is cool, I like the separate tech trees. Now if only they turned it into a coherent whole with competent AI, at least then I could appreciate it as an endearing board game. Now it feels outright hostile to me and to human civilization as a whole. The UI really is absolutely poo poo. I can't believe there's still no way to queue building for example. But I dislike the unstacked cities. I don't feel like there's an actual choice of what to build, instead it feels like a gateway to getting all my cities up to snuff. Now I have to spend 20 turns or whatever building an industrial district before I can build a workshop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Civilisation has never depicted any culture with much in the way of nuance. It's treated them with respect, sure, but in service of making a game that's accessible, it has to compress thousands of years of culture and art and people into a bunch of numbers. In the real world, Japan is a complex society with a long and rich history. In Civ 5, Japan is samurai and fishing. In Civ 6 it's samurai and overcrowding and Nintendo. There's also the thing where these civs are snapshots of these people at a particular time - Germany is partly the Holy Roman Empire under Barbarossa and also U-boats for some reason, England is Colonial/Industrial Britain, etc. The fact that Civ avoids making them stereotypes and also includes cool ladies like Jadwiga and Aminatore is pretty impressive. The colonial civs are in because they have a continents mechanic and made civs that exploit it. I wouldn't read anything else into that. I agree some of the tech quotes are dumb, but Civ 4 has Leonard Nimoy say "Beep beep beep" so lovely jokes are a proud Civ tradition imo. I've never got a sense of Civ 6 being hostile about humanity, and whilst it could definitely turn down the attempts to be witty it's made me look up these cool civs I didn't know about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:
I actually have no idea what point you're trying to make here is. Admittedly, NZ did have an indigenous cameo with Maori warriors in Civ5's Polynesia, which imo is perfectly fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Serephina posted:I actually have no idea what point you're trying to make here is. Admittedly, NZ did have an indigenous cameo with Maori warriors in Civ5's Polynesia, which imo is perfectly fair. He's saying countries can only get in if they're majority white or were colonized by European powers. Referencing the inclusion of Australia nd Canada before say Korea or Incan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
I too am offended that Firaxis chose to roll out civs that customers are more likely to buy instead of being Culturally Sensitive, and furthermore
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Who the gently caress is lining up to play as Canada
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
I really liked the civs that had the really unique stuff. Such as Venice can't build settlers, Polynesia can immediately navigate oceans. The Polynesia AI sometimes ruled the world on an Earth map without New World civs because of it. I miss declaring holy crusades like in Civ 4. Although that would be problematic with 1UPT, just imagine every country in Europe sending armies to the Middle East with one unit per tile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
I've never gotten the arguments that America doesn't fit in a game like Civilization. It's a young nation to be sure, but for a game that stretches into the 20th century it's difficult to not include the USA. Hard to argue that America hasn't been one of the most influential civilizations in the world for its particular moment in history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
You guys know you can rename the civs however you want right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Turn 50 and the Reformation has already taken place.  Gaius Marius posted:Who the gently caress is lining up to play as Canada Who the gently caress wanted Brazil or Australia. Might as well make a Florida civ, same level of civilization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:10
|
|