|
I like to use Arioch's Well Of Souls for collections of known info and speculation about civ releases. So far we such exciting tidbits as "there are swordsmen and warriors in the game" or "Egypt is a playable civ" but they've got a pretty good eye for details that are sure to be revealed soon.
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Yes, but without those people there'd be no balance. E: More genuinely, my problem is more with people jumping to conclusions about the gameplay based on the art style in three screenshots. Especially since the art isn't even that much simpler really, it's just got a different style. Jump King fucked around with this message at 02:53 on May 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Barnaby Barnacle posted:Already there is a thread on CivFanatics asking "Is Civilization forever dead?" Yep. E: looked it up and that person actually didn't even seem to care about the graphics and was more concerned with it being similar to Civ V
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
I mean in a game like civ there's a very subjective line in what's removing tedium and what's simplifying too much.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Doomstacks are strictly worse in every aspect but the AIs ability to understand them IMO. Of course, since the singleplayer experience is so important to civ games that's a pretty massive exception. I can't fault them too hard for trying though. If the AI was better at handling it, things like carpets wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the tactical element of unit deployment is something that the AI is always going to struggle to understand, because the stuff is complicated and requires a certain amount of intuition.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
I'm so far gone I'm probably going to get whatever DLC is available anyway. Bonus civs? Sign me up.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
I was a big proponent of putting Canada in when I was 14. Now I think mods can mostly take care of it. It is workable though. The classic choices of leader are Trudeau or Pearson, but I kind of like the idea of Canada's 22 year Prime Minister King, or going the originalist route with MacDonald. Uniques would probably be something to do with railroads and some great war military or possibly the Avro Arrow depending on how masturbatory you wanted to be.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
I think it's a bit lame when the leader wasn't that great in real life (looking at you Portugal!) Some of the leaders get old but some of them are classics I couldn't go without. Genghis Khan and Montezuma are the two that spring to mind as irreplaceable. It'd be nice to switch Gandhi though, India has a really rich history and every game they represent it with a dude who didn't even govern the country. I'd even go a step beyond and replace India with like 2-3 of the historical empires that operated there, but I know that's unlikely. Finally, I hope we don't have any weird "Polynesia" bullshit in the game.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Oh I know. I know. 
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Civ V pulled a pretty good one, making it seem like they weren't going to put Shaka in at first.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Have the Swiss been a civ? They should be. And Australia. Just have wireframe meshes to denote the absence of internationally-renown leadership. Lots of good unit types and building perks to make out of those two. IMO we don't need more European civs, Australia would be cool though
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:With all these little pet civs people are suggesting, they're basically asking for Europa Universalis with a timeline extension mod. They're not going to add all these obscure states that only history nerds know about. Civ is very much pop history. It can be hard to compete with the heavy hitting pop history civs like The Songhai and The Shosone but I think adding a bit of variety would still be appreciated
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Wasn't the original plan to use another, more popular native American civilization, but they couldn't get permission from the tribe to to use a native speaker for the voiceover, so the went for a B option? I recall reading something like that. You're correct in that they originally went for The Pueblo, but I wouldn't describe them as well known. At least not compared to classics like The Sioux Jump King fucked around with this message at 19:03 on May 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Poil posted:I've always thought the Apache and Comanche were among the most well known because they were frequent in Lucky Luke if my memory is correct. Apache, Comanche, Sioux, Navajo, Cherokee, Iroquois and the Cree are probably the most well known tribes or confederacies in North America. I'm probably forgetting some. Either way, The Shoshone and The Pueblo are both somewhat outside picks.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Clarste posted:The article mentions that they were going out of their way to pick a civ that couldn't be associated with warfare, since they didn't want to have another "savage native" civ like the Zulu. Also they wanted something from the Western United States. Yeah I know why they picked it, my point originally was that the Civilizations represented don't all have to be well known pop history empires. I think a number of fans like the Shoshone, and probably because they're a different and unusual civ.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
I'm really taken aback by the high demand for a Canada Civ.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
I mean, it isn't. In the game city states are really more of an analogue to Canada and Australia.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
I mean really, the entire premise and playstyle of the game isn't really historical so trying to make those types of comparisons is ill fated.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Yeah truth be told I could get over it if they replaced every leader.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Mounties would be the worst way to include a Canadian civ. Probably best to just not give them a unique military unit, since that would encourage military play. I've seen people come up with examples of a Peacekeeper unit which, while a little masturbatory, would at least enable a unique type of late game play style.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:I'm sure they're out there in a mod somewhere, but melee units that are clearly overpowered but can't take cities (or maybe even attack units) would be really interesting. I believe there is a Vietnam mod that has exactly that in the way of the Viet Cong, Proposition Joe posted:Canada and Australia got a bunch of city states over other more historical possibilities. City states are also the best way to represent cultures and nations that can't make it into the main game as a full playable "civilization" and hopefully they add some more features for them, like maybe giving militaristic city states their own unique units or certain city states their own unique wonders. I think City States were originally referred to as Minor Civs, and I think it'd be cool if they could have more than one city, but weren't as serious of contenders as the rest of the civs. It'd also be interesting if your cities could rebel and become city states or something, should you mismanage them enough. Of course, I'm no game designer, and these probably aren't actually good choices, but since this is the opinion zone, there's nothing stopping me from spewing opinions. VVV Agreed for the most part. I'd rather have a variety of cultures and everything, but I'm not opposed to sneaking one of those in there, so long as there's an interesting gameplay element to their inclusion. Those are all good choices though, I really like the pre-columbian new world civs in these games. Jump King fucked around with this message at 02:46 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:If Firaxis has to make a choice of including either Sumeria (inventors of writing, literal first civilization) or Canada (large) then I hope they go with Sumeria. Well yeah, should they get into that very silly hypothetical situation where they're forced to choose between those two, that's a good pick. Additionally if they're forced to choose between Rome (longest lasting empire and founder of western civilization) or Atlantis (fictional) I hope they go with Rome.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
They could throw a bone to Jandamarra.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:That's not a silly hypothetical situation, in order to decide what civilizations are in the game then Firaxis needs to compare the historical importance and geographic representation of all the potential civilizations. If the match-up is silly then I guess Canada will never be in the game! It's just silly to frame it as some kind of head to head tournament. I do agree that Canada isn't that important or likely to be in the game, but I think that a better method of comparison would be to look at all the civs they have in the game. Like, maybe Sweden, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, England, Germany, Austria, Poland, Russia and Hungary are all individually more important than Canada, but at a certain I'd rather a mix up for variety. Obviously Canada is a modern western country and not as much of a mix up as The Kongo or The Khmer, but it'd have it's place if they brought a unique playstyle.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
I don't think anybody's actually played a mobile civ esque game, because they don't actually look like that in game.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I'd like the Minoans as an alternative to Greece for a change too, and Sumeria under Puabi rather than Gilgamesh, who might not even have been a real dude. If being real is a requirement to be a civ leader, there'sa few people who'll be disqualified. Phobophilia posted:"1 unit per tile makes everything more tactical! im too incompetent to handle more than 4 cities, i should be able to complete with anyone who expands beyond that!" I'll admit this is me. (1UPT is great with people though) Jump King fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Getting AI to do a Good Job at civ would be very very difficult. Couldn't hurt to try though.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
It's settled, Kim Campbell for Canada's leader. E:F,B EE: Hatsheput was in Civ IV so that's very possible VVVVVV Jump King fucked around with this message at 17:52 on May 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I think 1UPT in Civ V was a flawed implementation of a superior system. Which makes sense, since it's the first game in the series with that system. Point being, I'd rather see them try to improve their new mechanics rather than just drop anything that didn't work perfectly.shadow puppet of a posted:gently caress, someone please send the message to make it all instrumental tracks this time. I know every single intonation from the vocals that one Arabic language song in Civ5, its annoying to hear it for hours at a time. On the other hand, this is my favourite ingame track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO5SpavZxeM
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I'm glad that all the people who really love Civ IV still get to play Civ IV. I guess it would be nice of them to release a remastered version some day.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Rexides posted:I would like to see some kind of "colony" mechanic that can act as a city in terms of border growth and resource acquisition, but doesn't contribute to the main pressure levers (military production, science, culture) the way a normal city can. Then maybe that can force players to actively expand and compete for land, and make turtling in strategies not as good, while not requiring too much cognitive power from those of us who want to build singular super cities. I remember that Civ III had a similar mechanic, but it was there merely to grab some distant resource that no one else had settled. Yeah that'd be good. If they really wanted to stick the "Tall vs. Wide" gameplay they could maybe have two types of settlement even? Like a City and a Town, where it wouldn't really be optimal to have more than 5 cities but you could comfortably shove out 15 towns or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:loving hexes? Again??? When are we going to get beloved triangles
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
I think the larger ring of tiles isn't really connected to the number of city thing you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Didn't BE have a similar system?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
I seriously can't even tell which posts about Canada are real anymore.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Starting the game in industrial era is sort of the only way for power blocs to really form.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
One time I sent some workers to cut down the marshes between me and an enemy I wanted to invade so I could shoot through the area easier. That's about the closest to this stuff civ has ever got for me.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
I think Cleopatra is a bit of a downgrade on Hatsheput but I think them trying to mix up the leaders is encouraging. I like stealth Taft as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
I actually really like the map style fog of war.Jastiger posted:Yeah i just saw the photo of Teddy, got drat that is Taft lol. Basically? Cleopatra lived closer to the time of the moon landing than the building of the pyramids, for perspective. I think the leaders are a really superficial part of the civs anyway though and I'd take variety over having the same leaders again and again. Also, considering some of the civ v leaders might not have even existed, I don't think it's a ridiculous downgrade or anything. E: I legitimately think they're going for all new leaders this time, which is awesome. EE: also the new culture system sounds cool, overall very excited. Jump King fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
berryjon posted:Sorry, but Cleo was in Civ 3. Religious/Industrious. All new from civ iv and v 
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 17:25
|
|