Unlabelled Civilization - My GF was delighted to settle here. She loves chocolate

12/29/2017 11:03:00 am
A+ A- Print Email

Civilization - My GF was delighted to settle here. She loves chocolate

My GF was delighted to settle here. She loves chocolate

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 08:35 AM PST

Things you want from older games

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 08:52 AM PST

I really wish they would bring back the ability to trade technologies (offered in Rev and IV) because it could either be used to make up for a lack in science when warmongering or to be an economic boon for science focused civs. Also, I liked trading maps (IV) because it gave a fun little incentive to explore with scouts or to help find new civs when you are landlocked or stuck without open borders. What do you all hope will be brought back?

submitted by /u/ElChupatigre
[link] [comments]

Disappointing discovery: harbours don't work as bridges

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 06:10 PM PST

I really hope they add a way to turn these pop ups off.

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 02:04 AM PST

Crackpot Theory - Civ Icons Hinting at Future Leaders

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 10:09 AM PST

So, I was wondering why India had the odd choice of a purple and turquoise lotus instead of the usual green and saffron chakra wheel. It's definitely a Mauryan-inspired icon, and in retrospect the change makes sense given Chandragupta's inclusion.

Which now begs the question: are there any other icons that have changed or seem inappropriate with respect to their civ's current leaders? If so, these might be hints at where the developers want to take leader DLC in the future. Note that this wouldn't necessarily reveal all future leaders, since many civs have just kept their old designs from prior installments, and synchronicity between an civ's icon and current leader doesn't preclude additional leaders who don't match the scheme (the hypothetical equivalent of releasing with Chandragupta and the purple/turquoise lotus first, and adding Ghandi in DLC).

So, attached are my best guesses at "anomalies," in rough order of how strong this (admittedly very limited and speculative) evidence is:

  • Germany - Frederick Barbarossa was Holy Roman Emperor, which for its entire duration had a very similar flag to the Russian Civ 5/6 icon. However, Germany retains its black and white cross icon from Civ 5, derived from the National German Confederation and German Empire flags, in use from 1867 to 1918. The color scheme and occasionally the cross were also used for the Kingdom of Prussia. I think this is very strong evidence that Otto Von Bismarck will return as a second German leader.

  • Arabia - the icon has changed from the green/green Muslim star-and-crescent in Civ 5 to a yellow/green crescent and palm tree. This may have been an intentional change to differentiate with a later Ottoman civ, but that's irrelevant here. The yellow comes primarily from the pure yellow flag of the Abayyid Caliphate, although "gold" is sometimes an accent color in Arabic flags. The green and the crescent are also very common in Islamic flags, and indeed both are present in the OIC flag and emblem. The palm tree, however, is taken from the Saudi Arabian emblem, created in 1926 for the unified Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd under Ibn Saud, which was later unified as Saudi Arabia. He later ruled as king of Saudi Arabia for another 20 years. Although I think Arabia is incredibly likely to receive an alternate leader and I think other caliphates deserve representation, signs point toward the unifier of modern Saudi Arabia being chosen.

  • Spain - The cross in Civ 5 was replaced with the bullhead in Civ 6. This is an odd decision, because Philip II's reign was in the late 16th century, while traditional spanish bullfighting didn't really start happening until the 18th century. And running of the bulls is an even more recent phenomenon of the 20th century. So why the bull? I think there is a slight chance this might be hinting at a later Spanish monarch like Ferdinand VI or Alfonso XIII.

  • China - The same green/white dragon icon was used in Civ 5, loosely derived from the dragon icon in Civ 4. It is based on the Qing flag, which was the last Chinese dynasty, quite literally on the opposite end of the timeline the Qin dynasty. This was semi-appropriate for Mao Zedong in Civ 4, and hardly relevant at all to Wu Zetian in Civ 5 or Qin Shi Huang in Civ 6. It is, however, extremely fitting for a civ led by the Empress Dowager Cixi. So her inclusion is a possibility.

  • America - I think we all expect an American alt at some point, so I'm going to try to throw together a quick argument here. In Civ 4, the symbol was a star and in Civ 5 it was a shield. The shield represents the American seal and is more commonly associated with the founding fathers, like Washington in Civ 5. The star is a more generalized symbol derived from the flag, and probably would have made a better symbol for all-around-cowboy Teddy Roosevelt. So the reinclusion of the shield makes me suspect we will get a founding father as a second leader. Most probably Washington, maybe Jefferson.

  • Japan - Everyone knows the Hojo clan's symbol was the triforce, and this likely wasn't used more for copyright reasons than planning an alternate leader. I guess the flower looks vaguely like the imperial seal, although it's more clearly derived from military flags in use since 1965. The same flower is used in gold on Prime Minister flags, so with a little imagination and amalgamation with the modern Japanese flag, this could be hinting at a modern Japanese Prime Minister. The only real choice imo is Ito Hirobumi. It could also be a vague reference to the Tokugawa shogunate, although I think this is less laden with symbolism.

  • Rome - so, Rome's icon hasn't changed. Which in itself isn't saying much, but in retrospect the Civ 5 Byzantine icon was a huge stretch away from their common iconography, largely I believe to differentiate from the Rome civ. However, the Byzantine Empire did outright appropriate most of the Roman designs in its earlier designs, the Tyrian purple, the two-headed eagle, even laurel branches. It would not be a stretch at all to include Justinian or Theodora as an alternative "Rome" leader if we're purely limiting argument to the icon.

  • Scythia - the Huns occupied part of Scythia at some point and were also a Kurgan culture. Hunnic art was very similar to Scythian art and, yes, that same deer shows up in Hunnic art. Scythia's color scheme is actually somewhat similar to the old Hun color scheme. I think there's an incredibly long shot that Attila will be an alternate Scythia leader, which I think would be a very responsible consolidation on the devs part. This would also explain why Tomyris is representing Scythia and not the Massagatae.

  • Aztec - the two-headed serpent has survived throughout Mexican history, and a snake even appears on the Mexican flag. There's maybe a long shot at a more modern Mexican leader (which would be really, really cool), but it's an even bigger stretch than Scythia, given that its not named after a region and the specifically ancient term "Aztec" was used instead of the more accurate, inclusive term "Mexica." Still, one can hope that a simple name change can be retconned in a leaders pack.

I am also operating with the presumption that many of these decisions were planned early enough in development that they intentionally included all of the planned "alternate leader" civs in the base game. This would ensure that all DLC leaders would be available to all players, regardless of whatever other DLC and expansions they have. So I'm not theorizing about DLC civs because, in addition to lacking strong alternate leader options, the logistics just don't favor that option. More likely, if future civs receive multiple leaders, it will be upon their release in the same DLC pack as a fresh gimmick/ Maybe to better represent collections of clans/city-states, like two different Polynesian or Celtic chieftans, or two Popes or Doges, or whatever.

Note, again, that this doesn't rule out other civs getting alternate leaders. We may still see a Tudor or a Romanov or a Bonaparte or a Pharaoh; there's just nothing being foreshadowed in the icons as far as I can tell.

Let me know what you think about this theory: comments, criticisms, etc. I'd like to think I'm onto something, but it's completely possible that I'm grasping at straws.

EDIT 1: Cleanup and Mexica afterthought.

EDIT 2: There seem to be some critics believing that the India icon change may have been arbitrary and in no way connected to Chandragupta. This isn't a compelling counterargument to my mind, since an Indian civ that was only intended to be represented by Gandhi had no reason to change and in fact is strongly motivated to continue using the saffron spinning wheel, both because of its almost inextricable relevance to modern Indian identity and the lack of other round and/or orange civ icons in the vanilla base. The switch to a lotus for a strictly Gandhi India would seem disingenuous as representing a state which later split off into Muslim and Buddhist states, and is much more suggestive of the earlier Hindu empires; indeed the switch to anything other than the wheel indicated there would probably be a non-Gandhi Indian leader. The lotus, while not necessarily pointing toward Chandragupta, loosely resembles a peacock in shape and color enough that I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Maurya specifically was planned as an Ancient India leader, although this is a separate presumption that is unnecessary to the primary argument of this thread.

FINAL EDIT: Looking at the list from a distance, I'm going to make one final, even more ambitious prediction. We know that France, England, Egypt, and Russia are all civs that are highly requested for additional leaders. We know that there are two Congo Republics, several major Brazilian native tribes, and a long line of Norwegian kings. And we know that Bablyon sprang forth from Sumer and fans want Hammurabi. And I'd be damned if Firaxis weren't using mocap to crank out these leaders. So I'm going to predict that, after planned DLC and expansions, that all 18 vanilla civs will have two leaders. And fans will rejoice.

submitted by /u/GinsbergsPhoenix
[link] [comments]

Expansion suggestion: maintain conquered uniques

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 02:04 PM PST

Since Firaxis seems to pay attention to this subreddit, I thought I'd give them my two cents for the upcoming Civ VI expansion. I'll list my suggested mechanics first for the impatient, and my general reasoning below.

  • Existing unique improvements, buildings, and districts are preserved when cities are conquered, including their bonus yields and other special functions.
  • Unique improvements can be removed with workers as usual. (Alternatively, by military engineers.)
  • Conquered unique buildings and districts can be converted to the basic or the conqueror's unique version with military engineers. (Alternatively, these could be re-built with city production.)
  • Conquered unique improvements and wonders can be plundered (removed) by archaeologists for artifacts (1 artifact per improvement, 3 per wonder).
  • If a civilization is entirely defeated after having produced its unique unit, the cities captured from it should still be able to produce its unique unit (unless or until obsolete).
  • If a civilization is entirely defeated after having built its unique improvement/building/district, a conquering civ that controls both the conquered civ's capital and a copy of the conquered civ's unique somewhere in its empire can produce its unique improvement/building/district anywhere in its empire.
  • Removing or producing conquered uniques has effects on Loyalty, both in one's home cities and in conquered cities.

The rationale is that this is how real-world conquest tends to work: monuments, advantageous infrastructure, and distinctive ways of life don't simply disappear all at once. Nor do conquering civilizations simply reproduce themselves in every new territory. The culture of a conquered territory typically becomes a unique amalgam of old and new. It takes a concerted effort on the part of a conqueror to wipe out local custom and heritage. It's often easier and more beneficial for conquerors to adopt and utilize those customs. Sometimes this includes adding specialized forces to their own armies or imitating its architecture, and sometimes this includes removing material culture for display back home. (This is why much of the Parthenon is in London and the Gates of Babylon are in Berlin.) Thus even conquerors are often changed by the conquered.

From a gameplay perspective, I think this would add additional strategy and flavor. You may have more or less reason to conquer a neighbor, depending on how useful their unique bonuses are to your own victory. You would have a choice of utilizing their uniques or not, which would have consequences for Loyalty. And every empire you build will be a little more unique, even when playing the same civilization. All of this seems to fit perfectly with the theme of the Rise and Fall of civilizations.

submitted by /u/BewareOfTrolleys
[link] [comments]

Why do people love World Congress in Civ 5?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 02:06 PM PST

So, to preface. I recently came back to civ 5 after having played civ 6 exclusively since release, and ended up finding a lot more issues/broken mechanics with 5 than I remembered there ever being. One of these in particular is the World Congress. I've seen it praised a lot, which I find pretty confusing given my current situation. Granted, the World Congress was pretty fair before they started allowing in city-states, but when they did, that's when shit hit the fan. Inca takes the leadership of the Congress from me with a whopping 7 votes for the civ with mine only having 3. They are much richer than me and on another continent, so they are able to buy out city states with contemptuous ease. My issue?

Great God-King of Egypt Ramesses II has a level of influence in the world that is not represented in the Congress. He has the greatest lead in science, the World's largest military, the greatest amount of production, the largest population, the most wonders, the world's dominant religion, etc.

Why is it that money talks in Civ 5 more than anything else? Surely a powerhouse like that would have far more say in a united meeting of nations than 1/3rd of Inca, who is by far uninteresting in the game world besides their ludicrous gold output. And I find it hard to believe that once city-states are allowed that the Congress values any other measure than the person who has the deepest pockets.

So my question. People tend to praise Civilization 5 for the diplomacy, especially in the late game. But it seems like it's just a war of whoever has the most gold. Certainly I could walk over and destroy the Inca if I really had a mind too, but why bother? Isn't the whole point of an entry into the modern age supposed to be a stowing away of constant war and the addition of more diplomacy? The addition of a World Congress to Civ 6 would certainly be lovely, but I'd really like to see milestones for achieving great things, IE, having the world's greatest population, being the most productive, producing the most gold, owning the most natural wonders, those sorts of things. Certainly city-state votes could stay, but I personally believe you could sort the issue of money turning city-states into forever-loyal allies by putting a cap on the amount of relations cash generates. Surely a City-State should become very friendly with them if you donate consistently, but to become a true ally you would have to show it through your deeds, no?

These are all just thoughts. What are your opinions on how a Civ 6 congress should work, and do you think I'm wrong when it comes to city-state relations in Civ 5?

TL;DR City-state bribes are the greatest way to get access to votes in the World Congress. Why do people talk of the World Congress so fondly when reminiscing about Civ 5? Why aren't there milestones that provide a vote for other achievements like greatest production? What kind of features would you change in Civ 5 or propose for Civ 6 to make a fulfilling World Congress feature?

submitted by /u/NukaColaBomb
[link] [comments]

Does anyone else think that the names and designs of the governors in R&F should be based on culture

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 04:04 PM PST

During the dev gameplay when they were introducing the governor feature I was a bit weirded out by the fact that the governors had names like "Viktor" and "Amani" when they were playing as Korea. Does anyone else think they should change it so that the governors have names based on the civ you're playing?

submitted by /u/justanotherbrainiac
[link] [comments]

CIV VI Rise and Fall pre order is 10% off on Newegg.

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 06:23 AM PST

Do the devs read feedback anywhere?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 01:15 PM PST

Do we know anywhere that the devs consistently read the feedback that is posted?

2k forums? Steam forums? Civfanatics? r/civ? Twitter?

Do they read the feedback in any of these places? All of them? Some of them, but not others? Some other place that is not listed?

I know there is a bug report thread here, but I am referring more to feedback and suggestions, not bugs.

submitted by /u/mrsaturn84
[link] [comments]

Buy CIV6 or wait for the GOTY?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 06:28 AM PST

Hey folks, a long time Civver here! I don't own the Civ6 yet but am kinda tempted to get it. As it has been before, the vanilla buyers have not been very well treated and we have had to buy all the expansion packs separately. Is Civ6 any different; should I wait for the whole GOTY-version with all the expansions included or is it possible to buy vanilla now and the whole expansion set later as one?

submitted by /u/77juice
[link] [comments]

Which game should I play?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 05:33 PM PST

So I'm sure this has been asked many times before but I've never played any of these games and I'm super excited to start. They're on sale on steam right now and I have a lot of steam cash to spend from Christmas so I figured now would be a good time to finally pick up civ.

My question is, which one should I play?

submitted by /u/skittlemypickles
[link] [comments]

What Civilization's Icon do you Absolutely hate?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 03:56 AM PST

I'm sure most of the comments will be on the bull for Spain from Civilization VI, and to be fair, that's quite understandable. Khmer is also pretty bad, and I generally think that civ 6 doesn't really have great icon art.

Back to Civ 5, I absolutely love playing as Carthage, but i hate the icon. I would've prefered the symbol of tanit, more historical and nicer in my opinion. 2 other icons i dislike are Persia and the Ottomans. The Ottomans because 3 crescents seem excessive, and Persia because the swords look terrible.

What icons do you guys hate or dislike? How would you improve on them?

submitted by /u/Annoyingpoisonuser
[link] [comments]

Begin Route (potential bug)

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 04:15 PM PST

Civ 6 On Sale Help

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 04:11 PM PST

Daily Dot has Civ 6 for 29.99, but 8 days ago, someone had a coupon code that took 40% off any purchases from daily dot. Anyone remember the code? People were saying they got it for $18. Thank you all for your assistance.

https://store.dailydot.com/sales/sid-meier-s-civilization-vi

submitted by /u/phlashko
[link] [comments]

Is there a Civ mobile game for Android?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 04:10 PM PST

Title says it all. I see some knock offs, but is there a real version ported to Android?

submitted by /u/xolotl92
[link] [comments]

Alternate Egyptian Leader Idea

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 07:43 AM PST

I'm aware that it is extremely unlikely to happen in the near future, but with the reveal of Chandragupta Maurya and how he turns the Varu into a force to be reckoned with, I feel Egypt could benefit with something similar for the Maryannu Chariot Archer, just because it is one of my favourite unique units . Considering that I have been reading The Story of Egypt by Joann Fletcher, I thought I would take a stab at suggesting an alternate leader. While I personally do not have a problem with Cleopatra leading Egypt, others do as she's a Ptolemy. Therefore, as an alternate I would suggest Narmer, the first pharaoh of Egypt, not only is their a nice cycle of having both the first and last pharaoh but he also unified Egypt, giving the reason for a domination focus. He also lived further apart from Cleopatra than the modern day. I feel this domination focus should take the form of a production bonus to military units of some description, perhaps the reverse of Australia where he gets a production boost after declaring a war This will create the ancient chariot civ, that some people want as well as providing a new way for Egypt to play.

submitted by /u/The-Prince616
[link] [comments]

I want to create another eternal war in Civ 6.

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 07:17 PM PST

A lot of us have heard the story before about the reddit user Lycerius that had a game of Civ 2 going for 10 years that went centuries into the future. There was only three civilizations left, the Celts, the Vikings, and America. The three of empires found themselves in an eternal stalemate, a struggle for power that never ended, hence the name the eternal one war.
People were fascinated by this post apocalyptic nuclear wasteland that had been created. It would be interesting to try and create something like this in Civ 6 and see how far I could take it. What settings should I use? What civilization? What map? Obviously I need to disable time victory. I'll make the only possible victory domination. Any thoughts?

submitted by /u/colincoin472
[link] [comments]

Civ 6 Opening strats?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 08:37 AM PST

Hey guys and dolls

Is there a general consensus as to what your opening builds should be. I havn't played since launch but a friend brought it so we will play together soon. In Civ V I almost always went Scout-Scout-Shrine and aim for 4 cities asap. But not sure what to do here.

submitted by /u/Tweed_Man
[link] [comments]

What's the best playthrough setup for a first timer?

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 06:18 PM PST

Civ 5 has always intrigued me, so I bought it and all the dlcs. What map type, size, victory type, civilization, and difficulty should I start on?

submitted by /u/DoYouEvenMaxRank
[link] [comments]

Civ 6 Battleship Ranged Attack Disabled

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 01:17 PM PST

Screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/DI0ppAD.jpg

I built a few battleships with the intention of destroying a rival civ's spaceport and/or wonders. However, after declaring war I'm not able to perform a ranged attack inland. Is this by design or am I missing something?

submitted by /u/biomassive
[link] [comments]

Starting placement algorithm needs work

Posted: 28 Dec 2017 01:05 PM PST

The current outcomes from the Starting Placements algorithm, on fresh maps, create a lot of fodder for criticism and nitpicking. I believe this algorithm badly needs another pass (or two).

Preface: I am playing current live version on Steam on Small map(6 Civs total) on Continents with all default settings. No settings have been altered using custom start options, or modded with any mods.

What I am finding happen most often, on a fresh map, is that a 'hub' is created, where many Civs are placed in close proximity, with few city-states. Away from the 'hub', there are large empty areas with tons of available land, and many city states. And one Civ, often the player themselves, can start in this area with a huge advantage.

What I believe ought to be happening, is that city states and Civilizations should be interspersed somewhat evenly. This way, city states can serve as a 'buffer', to prevent capitals from being too close to each other. And the city-states themselves provide a goal for Civs to compete over, either with envoys, or with conquering/liberating.

These 'hubs' create other problems. I have seen Civ's capitals be placed minimum distance (4 tiles) from each other at the very start. I have seen 3 to 4 capitals on a single screen, on a map for six players. I have also seen Civs start in simply pitiful locations around the 'hub', where their capital is directly adjacent to multiple Snow tiles.

I have started games directly in the middle of the 'hub' and had almost nowhere to expand, and no city-state neighbors. I have also started completely outside of the 'hub', generally on another continent, with limitless available lands to settle, and half a dozen city-states completely to myself, and felt like the game was spoon-feeding me an easy and trivial victory.

I completely understand the design of leaving some area of the map unspoiled and isolated, in order for this land to serve as a mid-to-late game goal for Civs to compete over. But the current start locations create for the player a 'feast or famine' scenario, where, regardless of where you are placed, the game doesn't feel legitimate. It feels like you're being placed in a situation (deep within the 'hub') that is insanely challenging relative to your difficulty level, or you're being placed in a situation (completely away from the 'hub', out in city-state heaven) that is far too easy. And it doesn't just affect the player - the AI Civs are often cheated out of having a reasonable chance to start strong, if they get a bad placement in the 'hub.' Which means that some AIs are irrelevant before you even get out of 4000 BC.

What is most bothersome to me, is that I feel that civ 6 had Starts in a great place, on the day that the game was shipped. But over time Starts have gotten completely fudged relative to launch day. What is also bothersome is that we're on the second patch version in a row where Starts are not in a good place, and the Starts algorithm seems to be wholly preventing the chance for good and interesting and balanced games of civ 6. But the game has gotten Starts right before, so it can get them right again with a few tweaks.

submitted by /u/mrsaturn84
[link] [comments]

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Games26 © 2015. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By Blogger
Powered by Blogger.