|
Byzantine posted:The Inca and Ethiopia, just offhand. Reminded by your name - Civ is also lacking the Eastern Roman Empire.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:are there really any big names we're missing that should've gotten in over canada? Well it depends on what you mean by big name. There are plenty of civs that haven't been chsoen, but they're nto household names due to not being white Examples: Africa: Ashanti Empire Ajuran Sultanate (or really any of the Somali Empires, since they did Ethiopia and they were contemporary and as powerful) Swahili Trading Empires (Though that's Zanzibar, which has appeared as a city state) And if you're gonna do civs like the Mapuche, who were never politically unified except as a resistance to colonialism, you could do some of the large ethnic groups like the Igbo or the Hausa, who have very distinct cultural touchstones to work with. Asia: Maybe a Turkic empire other than the Mongols? If you can have Scotalnad and England, why not the Mugals or the Seljuqs? Laos (Which historically had the greatest name as the Kingdom of a Million Elephants Under the White Parasol)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Has there been any discussion of a Civ6 SDK? I recall the Civ5 SDK being released after the third expansion, should we expect something similar or nah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Well it depends on what you mean by big name. There are plenty of civs that haven't been chsoen, but they're nto household names due to not being white I think you'd find it sort of hard to bring in an Igbo leader although you could probably use the Nri as a base and work off that really easily for Civ since it's pretty broad brush strokes. I was expecting the Khmer again, or even like...Brunei? Just something that's not another colonial civ that has loads of people with money buying the game. No Ethiopia is madness though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
This discussion made me try to remember what the civs were in the original Civilization, so I brought up it's Wikipedia article. Skimming through it, I found this discussion of the development of the original game, which caught my eye:quote:Computer Gaming World reported in 1994 that "Sid Meier has stated on numerous occasions that he emphasizes the 'fun parts' of a simulation and throws out the rest".[12] He eliminated the potential for any civilization to fall on its own, believing this would be punishing to the player.[11] Meier omitted multiplayer alliances because the computer used them too effectively, causing players to think that it was cheating. He said that by contrast, minefields and minesweepers caused the computer to do "stupid things ... If you've got a feature that makes the AI look stupid, take it out. It's more important not to have stupid AI than to have good AI". Meier also omitted jets and helicopters because he thought players would not find obtaining new technologies in the endgame useful, and online multiplayer support because of the small number of online players ("if you had friends, you wouldn't need to play computer games"); he also did not believe that online play worked well with turn-based play.[11] So maybe Sid Meier had some good ideas, his love for modern European nation-states as civs notwithstanding...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Khmer are in the game, though. They were the last of the pre-R&F DLC set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Khmer are in the game, though. They were the last of the pre-R&F DLC set. So they are, I forgot about the Indonesia/Khmer DLC. Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:So maybe Sid Meier had some good ideas, his love for modern European nation-states as civs notwithstanding... I don't think he's got anything to do with the development any longer honestly. It's interesting to see that Civ6 is being review bombed at the moment because they've put adverts for Civ6 into Civ5. That feels kind of desperate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
quote:I don't think he's got anything to do with the development any longer honestly. Clearly as the current developers took the above-bolded sentiment and twisted it to "The AI should play to lose, so who cares if it sucks at X". quote:It's interesting to see that Civ6 is being review bombed at the moment because they've put adverts for Civ6 into Civ5. Meh I hate when I notice old software has an update, I apply it, and then I get adverts for a new version/some other software made by that company for the rest of time. If you MUST do that, at least make a final, meaningful, update to the old software at the same time. Pakistani Brad Pitt fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:Clearly as the current developers took the above-bolded sentiment and twisted it to "The AI should play to lose, so who cares if it sucks at X". No I'm agreeing with the people bombing it, I'm calling Firaxis desperate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
quote:"if you had friends, you wouldn't need to play computer games" Title for this subforum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:Title for this subforum. Had the same thought when pasting that paragraph lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Taear posted:Not really, those civilizations could have "stood the test of time" in the way that other names have carried on for so long. Americans as cavemen seems weird, says local man who's apparently slept through the last two years
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
webmeister posted:Americans as cavemen seems weird, says local man who's apparently slept through the last two years Pretty harsh to assume cavemen are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Also they’re not cavemen. Civ V’s tech tree started with all civs having discovered Agriculture, which I thought was a nice touch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:Title for this subforum. Talk about an idea that stands the test of time!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:This discussion made me try to remember what the civs were in the original Civilization, so I brought up it's Wikipedia article. Skimming through it, I found this discussion of the development of the original game, which caught my eye: Easy to forget that Sid Meier knew exactly what he was doing and I find no lies detected in those quotes. Even the seemingly now-farfecthed idea of online play not being conducive to turn-based games still has a lot of merit, love it as I may. It's also distressing in how many ways Civ V and VI do the exact opposite of what Sid is saying here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
PhantomZero posted:Has there been any discussion of a Civ6 SDK? I recall the Civ5 SDK being released after the third expansion, should we expect something similar or nah? What 3rd expansion? Civ V only had two expansions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Taear posted:Not really, those civilizations could have "stood the test of time" in the way that other names have carried on for so long. And as weird as Aztec tanks, Celtic battleships, Babylonian riflemen, and Zulu jet fighters. English cavemen are weird, too, England as a concept didn't exist until long after that stage. Their names have carried on, but the civilizations themselves are dead and buried. Again, to me, if you're going to exclude nations like America for being 'too new' then you shouldn't include 19th or 20th century material at all. The United States did, after all, invent the atomic bomb, pioneered heavier than air flight, created the internet, and put a man on the moon. And it's done most of that in just one hundred years. If the US disappears tomorrow, its impact on history will never be forgotten. Hell, Germany as a country is younger than the United States. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Also they’re not cavemen. Civ V’s tech tree started with all civs having discovered Agriculture, which I thought was a nice touch. Neolithic is still part of the stone age, it's right there in the name 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:What 3rd expansion? Civ V only had two expansions. My mistake, I meant the 2nd expansion. The third "version" of Civ5 if you will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:This discussion made me try to remember what the civs were in the original Civilization, so I brought up it's Wikipedia article. Skimming through it, I found this discussion of the development of the original game, which caught my eye: I sometimes play CIV VI but mostly its civ1 and Civ 4 with Realism Invictus installed. Honestly that mod is the most mad thing. Just browsing its civpedia is a trip. So many leaders, civs and units. All as differentiated as a bowl of oatmeal but still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
Taear posted:I think you'd find it sort of hard to bring in an Igbo leader although you could probably use the Nri as a base and work off that really easily for Civ since it's pretty broad brush strokes. Given that they included Georgia, and the Netherlands, small kingdoms like Nri seem like they should be fine. And yeah, Ethiopia not being there is pretty bad, and I feel like they think Nubia covers it, but again, Scotland and England
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Taear posted:I'd be fine with like.... 500 years. I'm absolutely okay with native American nations and etc but having colonial nations as cavemen feels weird, that's all. I get that they include places because people from those places play the game and want to be included and I think it's fair. It may surprise you to learn that the Roman Empire didn't start out as cavemen either. Neither did France. Actually, almost none of the empires seen in the games did, if any at all. All civilizations are built on the ones that came before them, something that the Civilization games have always ignored from the very premise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Any factions other than the Caucasoids, Negroids, Capoids, Mongoloids, and Australoids are invalid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Any factions other than the Caucasoids, Negroids, Capoids, Mongoloids, and Poland are invalid
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:are there really any big names we're missing that should've gotten in over canada? Mayan and Ethiopian are the ones I'm mad about 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Given that Leaders and Civs are finally different things, I'm hoping the second VI xpac lets us play custom civs by mixing and matching. That would rule. It would also quell much of the roster debates, as you could just add civs/leaders/whatever à la carte. Oh hey, that would open up a lot of city states to make an easy jump to Civ. Just give them a new leader and assign them to a relevant Civ. Change the capitol to the City-State's name and blammo you have a 2 dollar DLC. I'll take my royalties whenever Sid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
According to leaks R&F will add Eleanor of Aquitaine, as a leader for England OR France. No indication they're thinking of making it a common mechanic, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Hell, Germany as a country is younger than the United States. Germany as a concept isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 09:51
|
|
|
what's your opinion on paradox games
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 10:13
|
|
|
Cuchulain posted:what's your opinion on paradox games That they belong in their own thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:That they belong in their own thread. His opinion as a concept doesn't  Seriously though. People get real weird about "acceptable" Civs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 11:06
|
|
|
I think Civ VI manages to be as inclusive as can be expected from a mediocre triple A game with a fanbase that is far more interested as conquering the world as their own country than historical accuracy and inclusion. VI does have some nice touches like getting rid of leaders like Stalin and Montezuma II and Australia having a bunch of Aboriginal names for their units and modern Aztec units getting Mexican names which I feel are underappreciated. Colonial civs all date back to the Renaissance era, which isn’t even the halfway point of the game timeline. Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 11:32
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I think Civ VI manages to be as inclusive as can be expected from a mediocre triple A game with a fanbase that is far more interested as conquering the world as their own country than historical accuracy and inclusion. VI does have some nice touches like getting rid of leaders like Stalin and Montezuma II and Australia having a bunch of Aboriginal names for their units and modern Aztec units getting Mexican names which I feel are underappreciated. I don't like the Aztec units getting Mexican names, because Aztec isn't Mexico. Mexico is what happened after they were all subsumed by a colonial power and it's strange to celebrate that fact. Just add Mexico! If you're doing Brazil and Canada and stuff there's really no reason not to. Cuchulain posted:what's your opinion on paradox games I preferred the narrative driven EU2 to the more random decision driven EU3. I'm a narrative player, I like being rewarded for doing sort of...historical stuff. Taking Vienna as the Ottomans and whatever. I played EU2 to play a historical simulation that allows me to change how things really went whereas EU3 was more JUST conquer Berlin and 3 other places to make Germany which isn't the same. That ties to how I play Civ really and why which civs are included matters more to me than others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
Taear posted:I don't like the Aztec units getting Mexican names, because Aztec isn't Mexico. Mexico is what happened after they were all subsumed by a colonial power and it's strange to celebrate that fact. China was subsumed by conquering powers like a billion times yet we still call them China. Should the civ be split into like a dozen different distinct dynasties?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Taear posted:I don't like the Aztec units getting Mexican names, because Aztec isn't Mexico. Mexico is what happened after they were all subsumed by a colonial power and it's strange to celebrate that fact. Respectfully, a game series where you can have the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Venetian Republic all on the map together as independent powers, while a Shoshone-Egyptian-Indonesian alliance join together under the banner of communism may not be for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Clarste posted:China was subsumed by conquering powers like a billion times yet we still call them China. Should the civ be split into like a dozen different distinct dynasties? Sure, sounds like a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Cuchulain posted:Given that Leaders and Civs are finally different things, I'm hoping the second VI xpac lets us play custom civs by mixing and matching. That would rule. But the current mix seems to be balanced so that you don't always have two really powerful abilities. For example I don't get much use out of Gilgamesh's leader ability, but his units are super powerful - switch the leader out for a useful one and you'll be even more powerful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind playing Barbarossa's Greece and just start the game with 4 government slots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Aight I'll be 100% honest here. I'm ULTRA happy that the Incas are finally IN baby (I'm Peruvian for those you don't know). And somehow ALL your incesant bitching about "waaaahh white history this" "waaaaah white history that" is draining the fun out of it. Like holy loving poo poo, do you guys spout this poo poo only to gain internet points or something? or are you somehow really on a crusade on the evils of white man in gaming. My god, enjoy stuff. You are all white to me and the more you bitch about white stuff you sound WAY more white to me. Like, I'm totally picturing Taear as the whitest guy there it is. I feel bad just typing this but holt poo poo the ammount of negativity in here takes its toll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 17:44
|
|
