Sid Meier's Civilization

[Foxxo]

View attachment 6923296
>Already advertising the content they cut to sell as dlc
>First british leader is Ada Lovelace

She's not completely insignificant, but she's a mathematician. There's literally thousands of more appropriate and famous brits to go in the game. I really dont get this obsession with going for left field picks
Fuck, if they wanted a scientist as a leader, you have Newton or even Lovelace's colleague Babbage

Oh my god, I didn't even notice that Great Britain wasn't in the game at launch.
And why the fuck is Bulgaria the third DLC Civ they're adding in this game? Because it trolled the Byzantines for 160 years or so?

Is Hannibal already in the game? If not, then why are they adding Carthage?

 

[Fig Kommandant]

Is Hannibal already in the game? If not, then why are they adding Carthage?

They had Dido in Civ5, in keeping with their gender mandate, they're unlikely to add Hannibal.

I didn't even notice that Great Britain wasn't in the game at launch.

At this point, I consider it a dead franchise, taken over by politically-correct retards.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

One thing I like about Civ 1 and 2 is that without "ages" or special abilities, it's more flexible. And one get to modern tech early.

 

[Computer God Autism]

And why the fuck is Bulgaria the third DLC Civ they're adding in this game?

Honestly Bulgaria is arguable the best pick for a Balkan civ that isn't Greece, the priority is the issue.

 

[Foxxo]

The hilarity of the Abbasids' (the Islamic Caliphate's) position in the Ages system is too much to bear.

Camels
Why the fuck are Camels a resource in this game? Are they going to make terrain extra relevant in combat? Is this Imperator: Rome?

Ibn Battuta
Ibn Battuta was never a ruler. He wasn't even born in the Abbasid Caliphate; rather, he was born in Tangier, in one of the various breakaway sultanates in present-day Morocco. By the time he was born, the Mongols had already destroyed the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Mamluks (slaves) of Egypt had made its dynasty their family of religious leaders. Ibn Battuta travelled almost five times more than Marco Polo, if his self-published exploits are true. The historicity (evidence) of his work is a bit scant, however; for example, evidence that he really did travel to Syria wasn't discovered until 2010.

Ibn Battuta has an "Endeavor" in Civ 7 that lets him steal the Maps of other factions over time, gradually undoing the Fog of War in their lands. I don't know what to make of this. His units have +1 to their vision range.

Predecessors
Persia being a predecessor for the Abbasids is hilarious. The first Muslims destroyed Persia. Before learning the entire roster, I hoped that we wouldn't have any Civs who genocided their prior-Age versions; clearly I was short-sighted in this reading. One could point out that the Abbasids started in Persia when they were building up their power base to eventually replace the previous Caliphate (the Umayyads); sure, but the Abbasids and their supporters weren't Persians. They considered themselves Arabs.

Egypt being the other predecessor for the Abbasids is similarly hilarious, but a bit more excusable. This is because the Abbasids in Civ 7 appear to be based on the Mamluk (battle-slave) Sultanate of Egypt, for reasons I detailed above. At the time of the Mongols, Egypt was the strongest Islamic power that the surviving Abbasid nobles were accepted in, so they essentially became the country's dynasty of high priests. Imagine the Pope, but with no authority outside of a single nation. That was the Abbasids after the Mongols. Before this sorry arrangement for the "Caliphate" at this point, the Abbasid power base was Iraq.

Successors
Buganda was never, ever an Abbasid dominion. It's also Catholic right now, but that's neither here nor there. It was essentially irrelevant until the 1860's (for the Arabs) and the 1870's (for the British and French).

The Mughals being Abbasid successors is an amusing notion. I mean sure, both were Islamic. The Mughals come more from THE MONGOLS, however; after the Timurids' LARP as a Horde was petering out, some went east into India and some stayed as the new Persia. They really should have just had Persia again; but oh well, I guess they can't have "bad" states in this game.

 

[Fig Kommandant]

lets him steal the Maps of other factions over time, gradually undoing the Fog of War in their lands. I don't know what to make of this.

Ibn Battuta was a cartographer, I can chalk it up to them trying to translate history to video game logic, but the rest of what you said is on point. In trying to make Civs "inherit" each other, Firaxis has made the worse of Civ or EU4. Civ has no proper concept of culture groups like EU4 does. Also they have so few civs (both on launch and with the roadmap) that they really can't afford to make one unlock each other. If they really wanted to go that route, they could have gone for alt-history, like the USA unlocking the CSA, or the UK/France unlocking the Angevin Empire.

 

[TerminalTryHard]

Why the fuck are Camels a resource in this game? Are they going to make terrain extra relevant in combat? Is this Imperator: Rome?

I'm guessing purely for these civ successors. So horses would get you one civ and Camels another.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Civ 1 and 2

Speaking of Civ 2, only 2 has had a map editor in all the versions of Civ I've played.

(I have played 1 to 3, Revolution, some of 4 and 5, and 6. Still think 2 is the best.)

 

[The Pierrot]

Before learning the entire roster, I hoped that we wouldn't have any Civs who genocided their prior-Age versions

Not quite a genocide, but I recently learned something as well regarding the Asia-Pacific side of the design choices:

Playing as Hawaii in the Exploration Age is one of the ways to unlock Meiji Japan as a choice in the Modern Age. Meiji Japan includes the Zero as a unique unit, the same one used in the Pearl Harbor attacks.

Not only that, but Jose Rizal is recommended to play as Hawaii and unconditionally has it available as a choice in the Exploration Age, so he would always have the option of playing as the specific version of the nation that occupied his during WW2 if you do so.

 

[thejackal2]

I will wait until release but it appears that they have ruined this franchise. I can't even imagine why they are thinking with the eras.

 

[UtadaWasabi2]

Why is this shit so expensive man..

 

[Fig Kommandant]

Why is this shit is so expensive man..

More than that, why is it at that price with those graphics and so few mechanics. I can understand Paradox wanting to jew EU4 DLC, but no one asked to be able to see Ghandi's pores or the sun's reflection in Cleopatra's eyes. This type of game should not require hardware beyond 6th gen gaming consoles.

 

[TheMonkeyMan]

I got Civ VI recently when it was on sale for less than $20 and I am having a lot of fun with it. If I ever get VII it will most assuredly be after all the DLC is out and it's on sale.

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

I watched a few of the review videos that dropped yesterday with presumably the embargo lifted

- hot seat multiplayer isn't in the base game, getting patched in with an upcoming DLC
- most of the content creators hate the bland gray UI
- Potato McWhiskey complained that the various districts aren't color-coordinated anymore (ie. Blue=Science, Yellow=Commerce, etc). That all the buildings and districts look bland and indistinguishable
- no World Congress
- no option to Liberate cities upon capture
- troops get teleported home during era changes, some troops just get vaporized with era changes altogether
- wars immediately end upon era switching
- no countdown warning to Era switching, immediately occurs once a civ meets 100% progress on the meter
- no hotkeys
- no minimap
- no World Builder
- no TSL starts
- no Pangaea map option
- no Barbarians
- apparently lots of performance issues due to animations of skirmishes continuing throughout the turn during the midgame even on highend PCs, possibly due to Denuvo
- no quick movement or quick resolve battle animations
- no maps above Standard size
- max 8 player slots including AI
- no renaming cities
- no unit promotions or upgrading units, all progress is now slotted on to Commanders who carry over (but can also be killed)
- no Builders

 

[Computer God Autism]

More than that, why is it at that price with those graphics and so few mechanics. I can understand Paradox wanting to jew EU4 DLC, but no one asked to be able to see Ghandi's pores or the sun's reflection in Cleopatra's eyes. This type of game should not require hardware beyond 6th gen gaming consoles.

When strategy companies start caring about graphical fidelity in their games it's over.

Call of Duty and its consequences have been a disaster for gaming.

 

[Hweeks]

I watched a few of the review videos that dropped yesterday with presumably the embargo lifted

- hot seat multiplayer isn't in the base game, getting patched in with an upcoming DLC
- most of the content creators hate the bland gray UI
- Potato McWhiskey complained that the various districts aren't color-coordinated anymore (ie. Blue=Science, Yellow=Commerce, etc). That all the buildings and districts look bland and indistinguishable
- no World Congress
- no option to Liberate cities upon capture
- troops get teleported home during era changes, some troops just get vaporized with era changes altogether
- wars immediately end upon era switching
- no countdown warning to Era switching, immediately occurs once a civ meets 100% progress on the meter
- no hotkeys
- no minimap
- no World Builder
- no TSL starts
- no Pangaea map option
- no Barbarians
- apparently lots of performance issues due to animations of skirmishes continuing throughout the turn during the midgame even on highend PCs, possibly due to Denuvo
- no quick movement or quick resolve battle animations
- no maps above Standard size
- max 8 player slots including AI
- no renaming cities
- no unit promotions or upgrading units, all progress is now slotted on to Commanders who carry over (but can also be killed)
- no Builders

Every time a new Civ comes out they remove more and more stuff. Pathetic, don't waste your money on this trash. Old World is a much better 4x game.

 

[Fig Kommandant]

I watched a few of the review videos that dropped yesterday with presumably the embargo lifted

With that huge list, what have they actually been working on in the last few years? Reminds me of forums posts from Johan (Paradox) where he mentioned the current studio has fewer programmers than before and more content designers than programmers. And also for designing, they used to get wasted at the pub and whatever ideas they remembered the next morning were probably the best ones they pitched around.

Spoiler: Forum posts

When strategy companies start caring about graphical fidelity in their games it's over.

Aurora 4X and Dwarf Fortress are good proof of that. Not that strategy games should be Excel sheets and CLI UI, but I really do think the pursuit of graphics after 6th or 7th gen came to the detriment of game design, even 5th gen graphics are more than enough for plenty of game styles.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Every time a new Civ comes out they remove more and more stuff. Pathetic, don't waste your money on this trash. Old World is a much better 4x game.

Speaking of, obligatory shilling of their upcoming DLC:

Glad to see they're still putting out large updates for it nearly three years after launch.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Aurora 4X and Dwarf Fortress are good proof of that. Not that strategy games should be Excel sheets and CLI UI, but I really do think the pursuit of graphics after 6th or 7th gen came to the detriment of game design, even 5th gen graphics are more than enough for plenty of game styles.

The only times where I think a push for graphics would be really understandable would be in an RTS (such as the recent Sins of a Solar Empire II which does look gorgeous, discounting the ai icons) and even then style matters more. I think probably my biggest pet peeve of the recent obsession the main strategy studios have had with upgrading their graphics is that none of it is original and the results are a homogenized morass. Civ IV's leaderheads and Civ V's leader scenes are polar opposites but both are instantly recognizable and ooze personality. Meanwhile the only difference between Civ 6's leader scenes, Humankind's, CK3's models and what we've seen of Civ VII is the degree to which they're cartoony.

Same with the UI; there's been this obsession with minimizing the amount of clicking and windows that people have to navigate through (because normies actually care about this), but rather than coming up with ways to better allow the player to tailor which types of information they want to have on hand (EU4 did a great job of this by letting you customize the mapmodes) the solution has just been to turn all UIs into something that increasingly resembles a mobile game.

 

[Boss Hawg]

I guess its 6 more years of Civ V...