- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
They did manage to get Leonard Nimoy, which honestly still remains the best in the series.
Sid Meier's Civilization
- Thread starter MrWarioWare
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
OK so I tried Civ6 like people suggest and I think it's even worse then 5
All the AI does is spam cities, every single resource node the AI will plop down a city on. From crappy sheep to rocks to fish it's cities jammed packed together as far as the eye can see.
And since I almost always play Domination mode it makes the game very tedious to reduce and raze a city every 3 hexes. I'll say it again, the Devs really need to stop fucking around with all these new game modes and DLC and fix their fucking AI to make the game playable.
All the AI does is spam cities, every single resource node the AI will plop down a city on. From crappy sheep to rocks to fish it's cities jammed packed together as far as the eye can see.
And since I almost always play Domination mode it makes the game very tedious to reduce and raze a city every 3 hexes. I'll say it again, the Devs really need to stop fucking around with all these new game modes and DLC and fix their fucking AI to make the game playable.
TheDarknessGrows
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
Surely they will fix the AI for
I would have included expansions in my little joke comment, but that was too much work. And since Firaxis aren't going to bother, why should I?
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
My favourite civ game is Alpha Centauri without the expansion. In that game all the factions were end by assholes.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
Worst part is it's perfectly within Firaxis' power to. Modders have been able to make the Civ 4 and 5 AIs competitive and semi-reasonable.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
Ara launched yesterday and is currently sitting at 54% positive from 153 reviews on steam, being comparable to the very DoA Millennia on its launch day:
Most of the reviews, positive or negative, mention it is incredibly unstable and prone to bugging out/ctding. It additionally stealth-installs xboxlive on your computer for multiplayer (I'm grateful I decided to wait for some reviews) and the Anno-style production management is also under fire for being too much micro by some players. Overall I expect it will be abandoned before the New Year.
Most of the reviews, positive or negative, mention it is incredibly unstable and prone to bugging out/ctding. It additionally stealth-installs xboxlive on your computer for multiplayer (I'm grateful I decided to wait for some reviews) and the Anno-style production management is also under fire for being too much micro by some players. Overall I expect it will be abandoned before the New Year.
Smashed & Slamed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I decided to try it out since I don't trust steam reviews when they complain about stupid shit.
Now I only played for 100 turns so not enough to really judge it. But no crashes or errors so far, but I am a lucky man that played Cyberpunk on launch with no crashes.
The game does run like ass. It's always a feat when a turn based game lags, now my PC is not high end and the game isn't installed on an SSD. But there is a bit of lag while processing the next turn and a few seconds after next turn. Very annoying.
Visuals and audio are decent, good in some places the narrator at least didn't have too many retarded lines unlike Civ VI's "I like pigs"
Production line stuff is not micro intensive. It's more or less set it and forget it. The problem is that things take too many clicks for no good reason. To make cured meats you need a farm animal and a butchering building. You need to click to make the farm, then once the farm is done click on the production of animal and then click to build the butchering building and when that's done click on the cured meats and then you have to specify how many cured meats you want. No reason for that many clicks for a routine production chain.
AI didn't seem that retarded on first glance but I didn't even get to look at their cities yet. Combat I didn't even interact with so far.
I would say the game would be fine if it didn't run like dogshit and had some quality of life features.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
Some stuff I've noticed, just from looking through community posts:
- Influence looks like it will be EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN STELLARIS. Methods of increasing your Influence generation will be limited. Greece's perk is that it gets more Influence than anyone else in Antiquity. (Yes, Greece ceases to be a civilization after Antiquity. I'm sure this won't piss anyone off.)
- Tile Appeal and Amenities (from VI) appear to have been dumbed down slightly, reintegrated back into the Happiness system from IV and V, in that tiles can now yield Happiness.
- They're going to try to make Specialists relevant again in this game, after they were essentially irrelevant in VI. At the very least, Confucius (yes, they're adding another Gandhi) gives Science output to every Specialist.
- The guys making the game, after listing Shawnee (the blue one with the Roman-looking crest) among the Antiquity Civs, have partially realized their mistake and moved it up to be with the Exploration Civs. Native American politics are weird, goodness. At least when you upgrade from Maya to Shawnee, you won't be upgrading into a civilization that genocided the one who came before it.
- Shawnee is going to be a pre-order bonus that other players probably won't get for several months. The preorder bonus comes with Tecumseh. Presumably, you'll only be able to play the Shawnee as Tecumseh, or as Maya or whatnot. Just disregard that Shawnee should be a Modern Civ for a moment, seeing how it came about in the 1600's and fought with the American Government.
- You get two leaders for linking your dumb 2K account with your dumb game: Napoleon dressed in red, and Napoleon dressed in blue. France is going to be a Modern Civ, since the Normans are Exploration Civs. Oof.
- The Modern Indian Civ looks like it's going to be Mughals, and not India or Bharat. I... um... wow.
- According to the Wikia, the Spanish are only a Civilization in the Exploration Age, and cease to be a civilization in Modernity. Oof.
- There are, at the moment, seven Antiquity Civs in the game. This is probably one of the reasons why starting your game in Antiquity locks you into a teeny-tiny player count. It's almost certain that there will be more Exploration Civs than Antiquity Civs.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2023
Smashed & Slamed
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
So I have finished a game of Ara, I am in the process of another, had a couple of false starts(fuck doing tutorials nigga, a real thug just plays wrong) and now I will post what I think of it.
First and foremost. The game runs like ass. The turns don't take long to process. But as the game progresses you will do your turn, it will take 5 seconds for it to calculate but then you have to wait another 20 seconds for the game to let you play. The animations stutter, there is slow down and even desync when doing things. When loading a game near the end you will load the save in 10-20 seconds but have to wait another minute for the game to let you click the highlighted continue button. The game engine/logic isn't slow but the way they implemented animations and other stuff clearly is poorly done, laggy and memory leaking. The game doesn't run my hardware as hard as it lags there is ram, cpu and gpu cycles to spare the game is just poorly put together.
I have also ran into bugs. Most of them are stuff like overlaping sound raping my ears, things not rendering or rendering wrong. You know things that don't stop the game just take you out of it. But I did encounter a game breaking bug when an improvement and an upgrade to that improvement overlapped on the same tile and I couldn't delete either of them as they were still counted as being in the construction queue.
That's the unintended but current experience the actual gameplay I like but it lacks polish. So the idea is that you don't just collect your food, industry and money like a regular 4x. But instead you build up an industry and a consumer base for goods that in turn give you the 4x resources. I like that idea. I even like the core implementation of building resource extraction improvements and feeding them into factory improvements to make goods that you consume to make more goods, get an effect in a city, make units or upgrade the factories themselves.
The problem is there is no automation and no accounting for scale. I had 5 cities in my last game with each city having about 15 to 20 hexes which had as many as 5 factories each. When ever I build a new factory to match demand I would have to manually equip the goods to improve the factory, manually select what to make in that factory and manually select how to do it. And when ever I unlocked better tools or recipes I would have to click on each factory. I go from stone tools to metal tools. Now I open each factory and click on the stone tools and click again to equip the metal tools, for 20 factories. I also have nothing showing me what the factories use and do before clicking on them so I have to remember what I put in each factory.
There needs to be a menu where all the buildings are listed with all their recipes and all their improvements and you can edit from that menu what the buildings do. Also there should be an option to auto equip factories with the best tool available and they should remember the recipes.
There is a menu that lists your improvements but it only tells you what improvements you have and weather or not they are producing anything. That menu is shit.
Also some recipes are poorly balanced and implemented. Canned food is one of the few late game food amenities you can provide but you only get one building to make it in unless you conquer someone else with one.
The other parts of gameplay are all good in my opinion. I like different tiles having different numbers of structures they can hold on top of special resources and different yields, I also love only choosing one tile per city expansion and that expansion being tied to city growth. None of that culture bs from Civ V and VI and you can get tiles further out than normal and exploit them but at higher costs.
The army aspect is nice. Especially the reserve system where you can have an army at little to no upkeep until you choose to deploy it. No longer dependent on bonuses or money stockpiles like other games The units not being 1 UPT is good and also like the implementation of unit formations that give more power than 4 other units separated or have special bonuses. But I wish I could retreat units back into the reserves and upgrade units over time. There are elephant cavalry, ballistas and cannons for 3 separate eras and each time I had to disband my army with their XP to raise the better units.
The wonders having high costs and mediocre bonuses but great prestige bonuses is a good implementation. Same with great people being plentiful and offering small bonuses. Stops the wonder rushing dead in it's tracks.
Religion I sort of liked. The fact that religion is measure purely on size means that both people spreading religion or just growing a big nation get advantage but some of the bonuses are ridiculous. Like for example 15% extra health in the first act. The only other good that gives health only provides 10 and is expensive as hell to make in that era. Some tweaking of the bonuses would go a long way
Visuals are fine. The leaders despite being DEI choices at least don't look butffuck ugly. Most of the female leaders look cute enough and the male leaders don't look wrong. The tiles are a bit lower quality than they should be but miles better than Civ VI and the art work is decent. The sounds are inoffensive and the soundtrack is fine, I did like some of the pieces I was listening to but also found a couple grating.
The AI is sort of stupid. They build too many cities too close together and their rules for combat are fucky. But they at least don't build their cities wrong. Every city I took had improvements mostly in the right places and with all the upgrades they could get. Combat is where they fell short. I took on the most industrial civ in one of my playthroughs and won simply because they spammed swordsmen while I spammed elephants. The elephants had less combat power per unit than swordsmen but got massive bonuses against infantry and so I won. They had elephants and they could also make spearmen instead but the AI simply picked biggest number.
They do act rational in diplomacy. They don't say no to stuff they benefit from and some civs will backstab you. I played with a mixture of AI difficulties and even the first stage of cheating AI and still felt a bit too easy.
There is a thing I don't like. At least the implementation of. At each act(think era) the bottom civs get purged. The value of a civ is dictated by prestige. Things you build, research and do might have a prestige value. The wonders have a big prestige value and so do victories in war and winning wars. As a human player all you need to be at the top of the prestige scoreboard is to win a war, taking a few cities. It's both too easy and too cheap feeling. I wish I could turn it off and adjust parameters. The marked for death civs should not just die when a new act begins. When they die their stuff should go to the nearest or next weakest civ. It also culls too many civs. On a medium map it recommends 12 civs. It eliminated 3 per act. First act is antiquity, 2nd act is middle ages, 3rd is the Renaissance. You will be down to 3 civs before you even figure out gunpowder.
To conclude I like the game, mostly for what it's trying to be. It has 7/10 ideas that were implemented in a 5/10 way with a 3/10 launch. Right now I wouldn't pay more than 20 bucks for the game. If they fix the performance issue and add quality of life things I would maybe pay 30 bucks. If they also add some big changes to how the Act system works, add more civs and balance the game a bit better I could even see it being worth 35-40. If they don't fix it then I can't recommend it.
First and foremost. The game runs like ass. The turns don't take long to process. But as the game progresses you will do your turn, it will take 5 seconds for it to calculate but then you have to wait another 20 seconds for the game to let you play. The animations stutter, there is slow down and even desync when doing things. When loading a game near the end you will load the save in 10-20 seconds but have to wait another minute for the game to let you click the highlighted continue button. The game engine/logic isn't slow but the way they implemented animations and other stuff clearly is poorly done, laggy and memory leaking. The game doesn't run my hardware as hard as it lags there is ram, cpu and gpu cycles to spare the game is just poorly put together.
I have also ran into bugs. Most of them are stuff like overlaping sound raping my ears, things not rendering or rendering wrong. You know things that don't stop the game just take you out of it. But I did encounter a game breaking bug when an improvement and an upgrade to that improvement overlapped on the same tile and I couldn't delete either of them as they were still counted as being in the construction queue.
That's the unintended but current experience the actual gameplay I like but it lacks polish. So the idea is that you don't just collect your food, industry and money like a regular 4x. But instead you build up an industry and a consumer base for goods that in turn give you the 4x resources. I like that idea. I even like the core implementation of building resource extraction improvements and feeding them into factory improvements to make goods that you consume to make more goods, get an effect in a city, make units or upgrade the factories themselves.
The problem is there is no automation and no accounting for scale. I had 5 cities in my last game with each city having about 15 to 20 hexes which had as many as 5 factories each. When ever I build a new factory to match demand I would have to manually equip the goods to improve the factory, manually select what to make in that factory and manually select how to do it. And when ever I unlocked better tools or recipes I would have to click on each factory. I go from stone tools to metal tools. Now I open each factory and click on the stone tools and click again to equip the metal tools, for 20 factories. I also have nothing showing me what the factories use and do before clicking on them so I have to remember what I put in each factory.
There needs to be a menu where all the buildings are listed with all their recipes and all their improvements and you can edit from that menu what the buildings do. Also there should be an option to auto equip factories with the best tool available and they should remember the recipes.
There is a menu that lists your improvements but it only tells you what improvements you have and weather or not they are producing anything. That menu is shit.
Also some recipes are poorly balanced and implemented. Canned food is one of the few late game food amenities you can provide but you only get one building to make it in unless you conquer someone else with one.
The other parts of gameplay are all good in my opinion. I like different tiles having different numbers of structures they can hold on top of special resources and different yields, I also love only choosing one tile per city expansion and that expansion being tied to city growth. None of that culture bs from Civ V and VI and you can get tiles further out than normal and exploit them but at higher costs.
The army aspect is nice. Especially the reserve system where you can have an army at little to no upkeep until you choose to deploy it. No longer dependent on bonuses or money stockpiles like other games The units not being 1 UPT is good and also like the implementation of unit formations that give more power than 4 other units separated or have special bonuses. But I wish I could retreat units back into the reserves and upgrade units over time. There are elephant cavalry, ballistas and cannons for 3 separate eras and each time I had to disband my army with their XP to raise the better units.
The wonders having high costs and mediocre bonuses but great prestige bonuses is a good implementation. Same with great people being plentiful and offering small bonuses. Stops the wonder rushing dead in it's tracks.
Religion I sort of liked. The fact that religion is measure purely on size means that both people spreading religion or just growing a big nation get advantage but some of the bonuses are ridiculous. Like for example 15% extra health in the first act. The only other good that gives health only provides 10 and is expensive as hell to make in that era. Some tweaking of the bonuses would go a long way
Visuals are fine. The leaders despite being DEI choices at least don't look butffuck ugly. Most of the female leaders look cute enough and the male leaders don't look wrong. The tiles are a bit lower quality than they should be but miles better than Civ VI and the art work is decent. The sounds are inoffensive and the soundtrack is fine, I did like some of the pieces I was listening to but also found a couple grating.
The AI is sort of stupid. They build too many cities too close together and their rules for combat are fucky. But they at least don't build their cities wrong. Every city I took had improvements mostly in the right places and with all the upgrades they could get. Combat is where they fell short. I took on the most industrial civ in one of my playthroughs and won simply because they spammed swordsmen while I spammed elephants. The elephants had less combat power per unit than swordsmen but got massive bonuses against infantry and so I won. They had elephants and they could also make spearmen instead but the AI simply picked biggest number.
They do act rational in diplomacy. They don't say no to stuff they benefit from and some civs will backstab you. I played with a mixture of AI difficulties and even the first stage of cheating AI and still felt a bit too easy.
There is a thing I don't like. At least the implementation of. At each act(think era) the bottom civs get purged. The value of a civ is dictated by prestige. Things you build, research and do might have a prestige value. The wonders have a big prestige value and so do victories in war and winning wars. As a human player all you need to be at the top of the prestige scoreboard is to win a war, taking a few cities. It's both too easy and too cheap feeling. I wish I could turn it off and adjust parameters. The marked for death civs should not just die when a new act begins. When they die their stuff should go to the nearest or next weakest civ. It also culls too many civs. On a medium map it recommends 12 civs. It eliminated 3 per act. First act is antiquity, 2nd act is middle ages, 3rd is the Renaissance. You will be down to 3 civs before you even figure out gunpowder.
To conclude I like the game, mostly for what it's trying to be. It has 7/10 ideas that were implemented in a 5/10 way with a 3/10 launch. Right now I wouldn't pay more than 20 bucks for the game. If they fix the performance issue and add quality of life things I would maybe pay 30 bucks. If they also add some big changes to how the Act system works, add more civs and balance the game a bit better I could even see it being worth 35-40. If they don't fix it then I can't recommend it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
Oh, another dumb thing:
Why the FUCK do they call the Arabian civilization the Abbasids?!
Abbasid was the name of the DYNASTY! And there's not a SINGLE Abbasid in the list of Leaders you can play as!
They would legitimately be better off calling it "The Caliphate", or "Dar-al Islam", or even just "Arabia"!
It's only an Exploration Age Civ, too, so Muslim players will have to abandon their dreams of creating a global Caliphate if they don't win the game before the Modern Age.
Why the FUCK do they call the Arabian civilization the Abbasids?!
Abbasid was the name of the DYNASTY! And there's not a SINGLE Abbasid in the list of Leaders you can play as!
They would legitimately be better off calling it "The Caliphate", or "Dar-al Islam", or even just "Arabia"!
It's only an Exploration Age Civ, too, so Muslim players will have to abandon their dreams of creating a global Caliphate if they don't win the game before the Modern Age.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
Civ has always had inconsistent naming conventions, see Ottomans instead of Turks.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Decided to look at Ara's civs.
Abbasid
Argentina - Really? Eva Peron and not Juan, the actually successful one? Really? Why not have the interesting gimmick of husband-wife duos?
Assyria
Aztec - Who gives a shit about Itzcoatl? I get not wanting to do the obvious cliche thing with everyone, but people only care about Montezuma.
Australia - Fucking kill me. This has become such an annoying cliche. A "civ" that isn't even a great power today, whose culture can be easily described as a growth off of Britain.
Belgium - Genuinely based having a designated, academically-certified "bad guy" as a civ leader. Civs used to have that in these games, see Josef Stalin in the original Civ 1 (who frankly is the best candidate for Russia).
Byzantine - Don't know enough to bitch about her
Celts - Agree. It's her or Vercingetorix. Good choice.
Cherokee - Based as hell having Cherokees. Fucking retarded having Wilma Mankiller, a MODERN DAY CHEROKEE ACTIVIST. What the fuck? That's not just stupid, it's out-of-their-way-intentionally stupid. If they wanted to do that instead of using Oconostota, Dragging Canoe, John Ross or even a cultural symbol like Sequoyah, the obvious choice is Nunyehi/Nancy Ward, a GODDAMN CHEROKEE WARRIOR WOMAN WHO PARTICIPATED IN PEACE TREATIES. WTF.
China - Whatever, only Chinkery I like is the Century of Humiliation
Crow - Fake and gay civ
Egypt - More like Nefertitty
English - Yes, best possible choice
Ethiopia
France - I mean, it's retarded, but she IS a symbol of the French nation, so it's honestly not THAT retarded
Georgia - I guess
Germany - Hildegaard is retarded but they did include Otto, who IS the best candidate to represent Germany, so whatever
Ghana - It's Africa, who gives a fuck what the leader is
Greece - Retarded
Holy Roman Empire - Why does this exist as a civ separate from Germany?
Inca
India
Italy - Little odd. Feel like there's a ton of alternative candidates that are more iconic, like the Borgias and Garibaldi. (Mussolini would actually be a based "villain" and fascist stand-in like Stalin would for communism).
Japan
Korea
Kush
Mexico - BASED. Great choice.
Mongols
Palmyrene - Fake and gay civ
Persia
Poland - Not a huge fan of using scientists to represent civs, but I'm not totally against it.
Rome
Russia - Not my top choice, I prefer Peter or Stalin to represent Russia, or Ivan, but Catherine is legit
Songhai
Spain - Based. Flirting with Isabella used to make my peepee hard as a kid playing Age of Empires III.
Thailand
US - Really hard. Honestly, it's not fucking Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, so that's a plus. It's just that it's really hard to pick that one president that nails America. I guess some candidates are Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, either Roosevelt, Reagan. I actually really want Jackson now, never thought of it before but he's a huge personality, would fit great.
Venezuela
Zulu
In summary:
The women leaders aren't actually that bad. With important civs its like they knew it was annoying so they gave a male alternative. Most of the selections make sense. They, in keeping with tradition, dump women leaders on the African/Asian countries that nobody cares about.
However, WILMA MANKILLER IS A TERRIBLE CHOICE YOU HACKS KILL YOURSELVES
Okay, spergout over.
Abbasid
Argentina - Really? Eva Peron and not Juan, the actually successful one? Really? Why not have the interesting gimmick of husband-wife duos?
Assyria
Aztec - Who gives a shit about Itzcoatl? I get not wanting to do the obvious cliche thing with everyone, but people only care about Montezuma.
Australia - Fucking kill me. This has become such an annoying cliche. A "civ" that isn't even a great power today, whose culture can be easily described as a growth off of Britain.
Belgium - Genuinely based having a designated, academically-certified "bad guy" as a civ leader. Civs used to have that in these games, see Josef Stalin in the original Civ 1 (who frankly is the best candidate for Russia).
Byzantine - Don't know enough to bitch about her
Celts - Agree. It's her or Vercingetorix. Good choice.
Cherokee - Based as hell having Cherokees. Fucking retarded having Wilma Mankiller, a MODERN DAY CHEROKEE ACTIVIST. What the fuck? That's not just stupid, it's out-of-their-way-intentionally stupid. If they wanted to do that instead of using Oconostota, Dragging Canoe, John Ross or even a cultural symbol like Sequoyah, the obvious choice is Nunyehi/Nancy Ward, a GODDAMN CHEROKEE WARRIOR WOMAN WHO PARTICIPATED IN PEACE TREATIES. WTF.
China - Whatever, only Chinkery I like is the Century of Humiliation
Crow - Fake and gay civ
Egypt - More like Nefertitty
English - Yes, best possible choice
Ethiopia
France - I mean, it's retarded, but she IS a symbol of the French nation, so it's honestly not THAT retarded
Georgia - I guess
Germany - Hildegaard is retarded but they did include Otto, who IS the best candidate to represent Germany, so whatever
Ghana - It's Africa, who gives a fuck what the leader is
Greece - Retarded
Holy Roman Empire - Why does this exist as a civ separate from Germany?
Inca
India
Italy - Little odd. Feel like there's a ton of alternative candidates that are more iconic, like the Borgias and Garibaldi. (Mussolini would actually be a based "villain" and fascist stand-in like Stalin would for communism).
Japan
Korea
Kush
Mexico - BASED. Great choice.
Mongols
Palmyrene - Fake and gay civ
Persia
Poland - Not a huge fan of using scientists to represent civs, but I'm not totally against it.
Rome
Russia - Not my top choice, I prefer Peter or Stalin to represent Russia, or Ivan, but Catherine is legit
Songhai
Spain - Based. Flirting with Isabella used to make my peepee hard as a kid playing Age of Empires III.
Thailand
US - Really hard. Honestly, it's not fucking Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, so that's a plus. It's just that it's really hard to pick that one president that nails America. I guess some candidates are Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, either Roosevelt, Reagan. I actually really want Jackson now, never thought of it before but he's a huge personality, would fit great.
Venezuela
Zulu
In summary:
The women leaders aren't actually that bad. With important civs its like they knew it was annoying so they gave a male alternative. Most of the selections make sense. They, in keeping with tradition, dump women leaders on the African/Asian countries that nobody cares about.
However, WILMA MANKILLER IS A TERRIBLE CHOICE YOU HACKS KILL YOURSELVES
Okay, spergout over.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2024
Sulieman was many things but a footstool wasn't one of them.
Willie B. Hardigan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2022
It looks like I'm stuck playing modded Civ IV & V for the foreseeable future or until the fans fix up VII themselves which is unlikely given the state of modern-day game modding being a fraction of what it used to be in the past.
I can understand not wanting Lincoln to represent America because he's overdone at this point, but any 'American" who is sick of Teddy Roosevelt should have their citizenship revoked on the spot. Andrew Jackson is a good pick though since I don't think he's ever represented the United States in any strategy game. James K. Polk could also be a good choice for an expansionist and faith-based playstyle however that may be too much of a "who" for the average person.
You have to remember that 90% of the people who play these games don't care beyond a basic-bitch surface level about the actual history behind every civilization's leaders. They rely on the developers to tell them who is important.
I can understand not wanting Lincoln to represent America because he's overdone at this point, but any 'American" who is sick of Teddy Roosevelt should have their citizenship revoked on the spot. Andrew Jackson is a good pick though since I don't think he's ever represented the United States in any strategy game. James K. Polk could also be a good choice for an expansionist and faith-based playstyle however that may be too much of a "who" for the average person.
You have to remember that 90% of the people who play these games don't care beyond a basic-bitch surface level about the actual history behind every civilization's leaders. They rely on the developers to tell them who is important.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2023
Ah yes - the Vikings, the Celts, Native Americans...Holy Roman Empire (!).... I feel you.
Ottomans were probably in the same vein as the HRE example mentioned above: a way to nab some extra city and national representation through a supranational entity, despite Ottomans and HRE logically and primarily being an incarnation of Germany and Turkey.
Also looking at my other examples I just threw out, Celts are just as widespread divergent and nationally-conscious as Native Americans are, so it was more logical to have "Gaul", "Scotland", etc. as they did in games past III and thankfully they dropped "Native Americans" for the Amerindian nation of (X) release. Vikings would IMO work just fine as "Nordics/Scandinavians" because of how close in culture and relations the Nordic powers are up to some arguing all their languages are merely dialects and historic pan-Scandinavism.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
You all at least understand why I hate Wilma Mankiller as a civ leader so much, right?
Jackson is at least remembered as being incredibly nasty and violent. Rather like Roosevelt but grimmer.
Way I see it, in the Middle Ages Nordic civilization revolved around the west/Atlantic (Denmark and Norway). In the early modern it revolved around the Baltic (Sweden and Norway). Norway is just traded around between Denmark and Sweden.
For all practical purposes it's one civ.
He's just overdone.
That's exactly the problem. In a very narrowly focused game (like a lot of mods, Napoleonic Era for Age of Empires III had Jefferson for America as it fit the timeframe) it can work, but a Civ candidate needs to be a Big Personality. Nobody knows what Polk was like. i'm his number one advocate (I think there should be a Polk Monument in Washington DC) and I couldn't tell you what he was like.
Jackson is at least remembered as being incredibly nasty and violent. Rather like Roosevelt but grimmer.
There is no real need to have separate Nordic civs. Depending on era it can matter but it generally doesn't.
Way I see it, in the Middle Ages Nordic civilization revolved around the west/Atlantic (Denmark and Norway). In the early modern it revolved around the Baltic (Sweden and Norway). Norway is just traded around between Denmark and Sweden.
For all practical purposes it's one civ.
Last edited by a moderator: