So we got the probably final roster for Civ 7. What are you takes on this.
>>1896206>What are you takes on this.Upgrading between different civilizations with random leaders is the stupidest shit I can think of and I will not play this game.
>>1896206Here, I removed all the non-civilizations and non-leaders. There's still time to fix it firaxis!(they will not)
>>1896206Dead on arrival.
>>1896206why are chuddies so mad about benjamin?
>>1896259Because the US is flush with good leaders who haven't been used and instead we get a womanizer who was more at home in France.
>>1896220What's wrong with Maurya? They were a pretty big deal.
>>1896288They lasted less than 200 years and just ate some other smaller states who already existed. Absolute nothingburger.
>>1896293Smelliest poos burn brightest. I don't get the issue.
>>1896306They already get 3 civs, they get 10% of all civs in the fucking game.
>>1896206>can't keep playing as Rome or ancient/exploration civs in the modern era>only three eras, so we stay as the Mughals or Qing until the endThis isn't looking good
>>1896260>a womanizer who was more at home in Francedamn, based
what's this guys problem ?
>>1896338I really don't understand how they missed one of the key draws of Civ being that you get to take your civ into eras it never existed in. Although it seems to be worse than that, in interviews they seem to be aware of that but thought that letting you keep your leader was good enough. That just makes it even worse.
>>1896350Yeah, and the leaders are kinda boring without their Civ.I just hope Firaxis finds a way to allow the player to stay as one civ through the ages. I don't mind the culture based civ switch but forcing it to "evolve" is too much.
>>1896350What is extra stupid is that the civ bonuses are absolutely miniscule too. There is next to zero difference between them, which means that the choice is meaningless and circles back around to the question: Why did you do this?
>>1896396>bonuses are absolutely miniscule too.Have you even read the list of these bonuses? They actually seem much more substantial than in the previous games (with all those unique civics, buildings and improvements, civil and military units, adjacency and terrain bonuses for every civ) and I can already see the potential for some wild comboes, especially if you choose your leader correctly as well. It's confirmed that the game will require you to have multiple 40 yield tiles to achieve science victory in the Exploration age, this is actually insane to even think about all these yields the game will allow you to get if you play it correctly.
The more I learn about Civ 7 the less I want to play it.
Dropped Civ after 3 bros, we can’t stop winning
>>1896403I saw the initial reveal and they showed a civ that got like +1 food on two tile types and a granary type building. Absolutely snoring.
>>1896412Well, in every civ games there were civs that suck ass, nothing new there. Only actual experience with the game will tell what is op and what's not.
>>1896426A shame nobody will buy it to tell us.
>>1896432RP autists and "history" nerds are a minority.
>>1896440Yeah and people not in those categories who buy civ at launch are even fewer.
>>1896440kek didn't civ games used to have every major European culture?
>>1896206I was willing to give the civ switching a chance as long as you could have some logical paths to follow, say, Celts -> Kingdom of France -> Quebec/Canada or somehthing along those lines. You could have had potentially interesting trees with some civs sharing branches , like say Byzantines being an option for both Rome and Greece, or two same antiquity civs ending up as completely different by the end of the game. But this is just as schizo as humankind. I'd much rather have changing leaders that changing civ if we must change stuff for no reason.If I started the game as Rome why would I ever want to pick any of those exploration era choices? Rome into Inca — very cool! Lot's of upboats on reddit, I bet.
>>1896453>kek didn't civ games used to have every major European culture?I'm sure this game also will have them all by the end of its life cycle. For an additional 300$, kek>>1896461>like say Byzantines being an option for both Rome and Greece,It is like this right now tho. There won't be Byzantium at the release but in their Spain stream devs showed that both Greece and Rome could become Spain in the Antiquity age.>If I started the game as Rome why would I ever want to pick any of those exploration era choices? Rome into Inca — very cool! Because you spawned and spread in a highly mountainous terrain and want to use it to your advantage? Actually playing a competitive game instead of useless larp, you know.
>>1896206Mother of God, why would they do it like this? It's fine if they get experimental at times but this just turns it into a completely different game. Age exclusive leaders? What on earth were they thinking? Tons of these make no sense either. >>1896461 put it really well. In theory, your civilization evolving or splitting as a logical evolution tied to the actual civilization isn't bad but this is just silly. This is gonna be one of those games I pick up on Steam at a 95% discount after all DLC drop and still feel like I should've bought a burger for the same price instead.
>>1896476nayrt but I just don't like them radically changing a mechanic I like for no reason and turning it into an imitation of a different game that I had no interest in playing and I don't think there's any reason to get snarky about it. Entirely swapping out a core fundamental is definitely something questionable when it's worked fine with tweaks for decades.
>>1896453Gotta make room for 3 china civs, 3 india civs and a bunch of mesoamerican civs including one we know nothing about! Oh and throw out mesopotamia too, 'cradle of civilization'? Fuck that!
>>1896478>as a logical evolution tied to the actual civilizationWhat is the "logic" in becoming Abbasids as Egypt if you don't have a single desert tile in your empire's borders but it's situated on tropical islands somehow (anyone who actually plays civ games knows it can happen). There is your "logic"? I don't see it in this case.
>>1896480>when it's worked fine with tweaks for decades.Maybe this the answer? They probably reached a dead on how to further improve the old formula.>it into an imitation of a different gameFrom this illiterate statement I can tell that you play neither. Civ 7 has a lot more stuff from civs 5 and 6 than from Humankind. It's already noticeable.
>>1896206I live less than 1000 feet from Firaxis and they come in to my family's restaurant every day. What should I tell/ask them?
>>1896549tell them they're retarded for copying a failed game's mechanic and they should fire whoever made that decision.
>>1896493>Firaxis shill>Acts like a rude cunt for no reason Checks out.
It's like they assumed that Humankind would be a massive success and that they needed to copy it's mechanics for their game, and then Humankind was a massive flop but they were too deep in development to backtrack.
>>1896476>Because you spawned and spread in a highly mountainous terrain and want to use it to your advantage? Actually playing a competitive game instead of useless larp, you know.Then how about multiple choices of leaders upon age change then? Or any of the myriad of choices you already have available on civic or culture trees? This isn't a sound basis for such a schizo mechanic which undermines the very foundation of the whole game. Himankind is proof enough that "copetitivess" and isn't going to carry the game.
>>1896206>if you want to play as India you'll end up getting owned by Muslims or Brits no matter whatDamn, that's rough.
>>1896476>civ>competitive gameLOLThe LARP is what sells these types of games.
>>1896206>can play as China from start to finish>can play as India from start to finishI guess we know who the target audience are for this game.
>they changed game difficulty names cause gendered King, Prince, Emperor were too problematicyou cant make this shit up
>>1896564>Then how about multiple choices of leaders upon age change then?The thing is that unique units, buildings and the like have always been attached to civs, not leaders. And tying these attributes to leaders not only doesn't make sense overall, but we'll get the same problems as with civ switching anyway. Just imagine, I don't know, Jadwiga rules Vietnam with her winged hussars which is even more absurd.>Himankind is proof Shut up about this shit already. Slopkind was just a bad strategy game where devs somehow got every single aspect of the genre wrong, from combat to multiplayer. Remove civ switching from this game and it's still crap.>>1896582Civ has always been awful for larping. Every game session is so absurd that you need a very unique way of thinking to justify what is going in there. And if you were able to do this in the previous parts, then civ switching is much less of a problem.
>>1896585Shouldn't have let your cultural tradition to cease, LOSER.
>>1896585Don't worry, we'll get Celts and Germanic tribes as dlcs
> no akkadia> no macedonia> no assyriaWhat is this antiquity category even?
>>1896634We'll need some 30 civs per era to properly play this
>>1896602>jadwiga in vietnam???How about having Jadwiga as a choice for Poland alongside Casimir or Pilsudski or whoever, and having Vietnamese leaders for Vietnam? Changing leaders is far less schizo than changing the civ and you can have different bonuses attached to them without any issue.You are so weird and contradictory for arguing that civ-changing is ok, but at the same time saying that we can't tie unique stuff to leaders since unique units and building have always been attached to civs. What is your damage, my friend? Fucking multiplayer brainrot must be real. How would you feel like if you hadn't eaten breakfast today?When people think about why humankind failed then they won't be thinking about some civs were imbalanced for multiplayer or how some lacking qol made sessions bothersome or whatever your problems in mp were. Instead the vast majority will be mentioning the schizo civ-shuffling as the very first thing.
The most pathetic Civ roster to date. Thirty civs translates to only ten options per age. It's very obvious that they want Civ to become a paradox style DLC pipeline rather than a complete game.
>Firaxis doesn't frees the DLL to modders in VI>they 99% won't do it in VII>tfw large scale mod that nixes the civ swapping never ever
>>1896654I jumped in at IV on the last expansion and was blown away by how extensive the modding was. 5 was a disappointment after seeing what modders were once capable of. Having mods also block achievements, even basic UI ones, didn't help matters.
>>1896642>How about having Jadwiga as a choice for Poland alongside Casimir or Pilsudski or whoever, and having Vietnamese leaders for Vietnam?Well okay, in that case we'll just have a whole bunch of civs that won't have their leaders either for Antiquity or in Modernity, or in between because some of these either didn't exist back then or are dead.>Instead the vast majority will be mentioning the schizo civ-shuffling as the very first thing.Those who haven't played this game and know about it from memes surely will. But for me, the switching mechanic was the last thing worth complaining about. This game failed at the very basics of 4X games.
>Civ I-IV China was the CCP>In the Chinese version of III and IV, China was represented by Taizong of the Tang Dynasty>Civ II, V-VI, Wu Zetian, also Tang Dynasty> Qin Shi Huang (IV, VI), Qin Dynasty>Kublai Khan (VI), Yuan Dynasty> Yongle (VI), Ming DynastyOkay so in VII, China will be the Han dynasty, the peak of Chinese culture, so who's going to be the Chinese leader? Liu Bang, the peasant-turned-emperor? Han Wudi, the great conqueror? Maybe even Liu Bei as a more "popular" choice...FUCKING CONFUCIUS IS PICKED INSTEAD
>>1896649>The most pathetic Civ roster to date.Civ 6 had 19 at the release, lmao. And I have a feeling that civ 5 had even less than that.
>>1896663Imo they're focusing too much on the leaders and this goofy "personalities" stuff than the actual Civilisations
>>1896663Confucius is a much better choice than all those literally who emperors. All Chinese empires (except Qin) relied on his teaching and were organized accordingly.
Really no HRE or Germany? LmaoAlso no Italy or Ottomans, horrible list.
>>1896680They had to make space for titanical civs like Hawaii and Shawty and such
>>1896659The age thing hasn't been a problem for civ since the very beginning. Both Ghandi and Alex are iconic despite being from the relative opposite ends of the history depicted in the game. And anyway, I'd still argue that having decoupled leaders is less schizo than having decoupled civs.>basicsHistory and historicity have always been the foundational tenets of civ that make it distinctly civ and not just a 4x game optimized for multiplayer that just happens to have a historical paint over it, like say, Ozymandias. Schizo civ-swapping undermines this core immensly, swapping leaders less so.
>>1896685>Both Ghandi and Alex are iconic despite being from the relative opposite ends of the history depicted in the game.Yeah, because previously they represented their respective civ entire history. Now, with much deeper and more divisional eras you need to adapt leaders to the characteristics of these eras as well, much like in civ 7 civs seem to be adapted to the eras they exist in. How you're supposed to adapt, say, Washington to the Antiquity age is beyond me.>History and historicity have always been the foundational tenets of civWhat fucking "history", what "historicity"??? Do you really believe that Sumerians fighting their neighbor Japan in 1289 over who'll control the Pantanal while their neighbor Zulu is ready to finish Angkor Wat has anything to do with "historicity"? This is absurd by any margin. Civilization is a game with a historical flavor, not a historical game per se.
>>1896412there's much more than that tho. you gonna be able to see some only during gameplay in a culture overview tab or something and there are shits only your civ can specialise to
>>1896206What the fuck is Mississippi civ?
>>1896732>need to adapt leaders to erasNot neccessarily, as I already stated. In case of Washington you'd obviously have him either as an expansionist or a defensive military leader, contrasting, say, Franklin who'd be a science or culture/civic leader. Something along those lines.>"historicity"Now I'm questioning whether you have even played civ. Civ has alwaysed emphasized history and, yes, historicity. It's self-evident from having a civpedia in every game as well as having historical leaders with fitting characteristics and personality values. The unique stuff has always been more or less historical and tied to the civ and/or leader with recognisable logic, though obviously some examples have been more sound than other. It goes beyond, for example again, Ozymandias which has only a mere history-flavoured paint over a table-top 4x game core. You can also ompare civ units with Gothic Knights or Sherwood archers or whatever they were called from M2TW. It's readily apparent that historicity has been more important to Civ than RTW and M2TW. That you can't follow this simple reasoning makes me question the state of your mental faculties and the quality of basic education of whichever third-world shithole you reside in.
>>1896206I wish I could play as Parthia in civ
>>1896762https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=235685139
>>1896764Noice, thanks. Might reinstall Civ 5 for old times sake, too.It makes me wonder about the whole civ switching thing, gamewise Parthia could fit in the ancient Persian civ (even if they were a different Iranian people)
>>1896750they wuz Kangs and had anti gravity flying pyramids but whitey flu got them
>>1896589You're pulling my leg now, are they just going to remove every single thing they've put in every civ before?
>>189666419 > 10
>>1896750They built some mudhuts and we don't know what their language or culture were like. Great choice for a game about civilizations!
>>1896754>Not neccessarily, as I already stated.You shifted the goalpost. You haven't answered how you suppose to make leaders thematically fitting to each era they are in, but rather gave these leaders small unrelated bonuses and that's it. This undermines the very concept of eras itself and turns them into nothingburger again.>Civ has alwaysed emphasized history and, yes, historicity. It's self-evident from having a civpedia in every game as well as having historical leaders with fitting characteristics and personality values. The unique stuff has always been more or less historical and tied to the civ and/or leader with recognisable logic, though obviously some examples have been more sound than other.And this doesn't even make sense if we are talking about "historicity". Why does this "Japan " even exists in the first place if it lacks the fundamental cultural traits that shaped this country in the real world, such as its insular location, close ties to Korea and China, abundance of marine resource but lack of natural minerals, etc. In any civ session you can never get all these factors together and yet you are getting a representation of our world's Japan inspired by RL geography and history of this country. How could it develop all these uniquely Japanese traits in the middle of Pangea, surrounded by Zulu and Sumer and producing ivory as a main luxury resource? This is anything but "historicity"
no germans, no purchase
>>1896750https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_cultureSome North American Injuns were possibly in the early stages of developing something that may have ended up akin to Mesoamerican civilization. We need to be very impressed by this because otherwise that's racist.
>>1896869Germans are notorious civilisation-destroyers, not builders. You can pretend the barbarians are Germans.
>>1896898barbarians got removed.
>>1896350>Rome or China can't exist for thousands of years>but Ben Franklin canits all so stupid
>>1896941It's a shame Civ never made proper nomadic barbarian mechanics so we could interact with them, like paying off one tribe to attack your enemy as Byzantium did
>>1896944They sorta added that in VI with the barbarian game mode toggle, but it didn't work well.
>>1896869
>>1896951Now that's a well-trained kraut.
>>1896858>leaderaThats's ultimayely technical question that could be approached in many ways. How about having each civ have leaders for each of the victory paths, forcing you to choose from the same pool every era, but you can only use each one once. There's one idea.>japanAbstraction in games isn't all or nothing, it can be a gradient. The more you abstract mechanics away the more you lose context and relatability. Games by definition need a degree of abstracation, but going too far can create a disociation effect where you just end up clicking to make numbers go up. This is a pitfall eu4 fell into where instead of developing your nation you just click to make the number next to "development" button get bigger. Civ has always leaned into the context and relatability, hence all of the effort which has gone into the civs and leaders. Compare this to, say, Millenia where it's just a name and nothing else.You must literally have assburgers if this isn't obvious to you, but then again you are a mpfag.
>>1896963>How about having each civ have leaders for each of the victory paths, forcing you to choose from the same pool every era, but you can only use each one once.And how does this solve the problem of the lack of unique meta (bonuses, units, buildings and improvements) for ancient civs in modern era and for modern civs in ancient era? In no way, indeed.>Games by definition need a degree of abstracation, but going too far can create a disociation effectOh, now we are talking about abstractions, very well. But who decides what is "too far" and what's not? By that logic I can pretty much say that civs have always been abstractions as well. You start your game in a riverine terrain, so you are "Egypt" in the sense that it is a riverine civilization, but then you spread out into more mountainous terrain, gradually becoming a somewhat mountainous civ which is represented by "Inca" in the game. But no, apparently abstraction of Japan breeding elephants and selling ivory to Sumerians for their fur is a more believable thing according to you. Of course, you personally have the right to believe this nonsense but it is a hypocritical position for anyone who is unbiased enough.>Civ has always leaned into the context and relatability,A settler difficulty enjoyer, I see. If you don't play the game efficiently enough (i.e. don't make your abstract points getting bigger and bigger all the time) and choose to larp instead, then you'll find yourself getting rect by boosted AI pretty quickly on anything higher than king.
>>189685030 > 19
>>1896851> we don't know what their language or culture were likeNot true at all. The Natchez still exist today.
DOA./thread(it will still set a new sales record with plebs)
>>1897014You don't get 30 civs retard, you get 30 .3 of a civ.
>>1897060Objectively wrong. Civs in 7 are even more full-fledged than civs in previous games. Now all of them have their own unique civic trees, military and civil units, buildings, improvements and districts and even their cities and non-unique units are fully represent their cultures visually for the first time.
>>1897073bait used to be believable.
>>1897090I was just stating the facts, kid.
Remember how civ5 had multiple (more than 3) ages with different renditions of each civ specific music piece?
>>1897094oh, a leftist.
No gaul...
>>1897102No I don't, because it was in civ 6, actually.
>>1897134It wasn't, you're thinking of Civ5
>>1896206>HimikoThey straight up pulling myth figures now.Also why do some leaders have 2 versions?
>>1896206>two napoleonsgee mom
>>1897165>now.Since civ 4, newfag.
>>1896206It cannot be that low number.It would be a disaster.
>>1897179anon...
>>1897060All 30 of them have all of the features of civs from past civ games. In what sense exactly are they .3 of a civ?
>>1897102>>1897138Literally just not true. The Civ themes in 5 had peace and war variants but that was it. In 6 they got rid of war themes and instead have variations for Ancient/Medieval/Industrial/Atomic era.
>>1897186you get them for .3 of the game so they're .3 of a civ. If I wanna build a roman empire I can only do that for .3 of the game.
>>1897165You're confusing the Pimingo/卑弥呼 from the 3rd century Chinese record of a diplomatic expedition made by Cao Cao's Wei kingdom with Tenseu, later Amanderasu/天照, a mythical we-wuz of the Japanese Imperial family from the 8th century.
>>1896206not a single one of those exploration age civs seem remotely interesting. jesus.
>>1897198You can play a full game with China and India. Just stop being a stereotypical strategy nerd and play something other than Rome for once in your life.
>>1897198>pick rome in civ 3/4/5/6>get some uus and ubs that are only relevant in ancient/classical era and become essentially a generic civ from medieval era onwards>pick rome in civ 7>get some uus and ubs that are only relevant in ancient/classical era and then get to pick another civ with medieval-era bonuses to play in medieval eraHow is this not an improvement?
>>1896669Jesus is a much better choice than all those literally who Europeans. All European nations relied on his teaching and were organized accordingly.
>>1897295Jesus didn't exist.
>>1897310Neither did Confucius, nor Dido nor Amaterasu for that matter. Hasn't stopped them before, why should it factor in now?
>>1897318>Neither did ConfuciusLol, lmao even. There is nothing in Confucius' biography to indicate that he didn't exist.
>>1896206why were there never Jews in this game?
>>1897351Venice had a Jewish leader in 5.
>>1897351There's no mechanic to expel them from civ to civ
>>1897351The real answer is that it'd be way too controversial because of Israel. Same reason we've never had a Serbian or Croatian civ.
>>1896206Wait a minute, Russia's not on this list.Damn
>>1897396There's screenshots of T-34s in battle, so maybe they're in. Or in a dlc alongside Germany, because y'know, Buganda had to be in
>>1897351judaism has been in at least 3 of them. It turns out the jews haven't had a nation in a place and time that they didn't usurp the land from their neighbors(who eventually get rid of them) so it's easier to just not include a jewish state.
>>1897310ummm sweetiehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/jesus-christ-shroud-of-turin-b2601565.html
>>1897351corruption was a hugely impactful mechanic in civ 3
>>1896206I wonder what civ evolves into Hawaii, they really have nothing at all in common with anything in the first age, nothing from the same continent or even a vague historical connection. Maybe they won't have any associated civ and you can only unlock them via having a bunch of coastal cities or something?
>>1897565Or having many cities on small islands
>>1897565egypt and mississippi
>>1897565>and you can only unlock them via having a bunch of coastal cities or something?Yes. Your geographic location and available resources unlock civs as well. They showed this on Mongolia, where you need access to 3 horse resources to unlock it. Similarly, we already know that you can unlock Abbasids by having enough camels and desert tiles in your empire's borders.
>>1896206My guess is the last civ will be Ottomans or maybe Morocco or a modern-age Egypt/Iran, Modern age is the only one missing a Middle Eastern civ.
>>1896206There's only 10 to choose from at the start? Man, if their mid-game and late-game balancing is garbage none of the other 20 will even matter for the average player. That's quite the risk from a game design perspective.>Maybe they will make mid-game and late-game take 2 hours to get to so people can't refund.
>>1897688The whole point of the civ switching feature is better balance so that early-age civs don't snowball the game.
>>1896206Not playing it/10But if someone mods Ben Franklin into Chris Chan then I will pirate it for the shiggles.
>>1897375That's also because slavs aren't civilised.
>>1897690Which already worked fine. Warlike civs are warlike, science civs make science. Of course gilgamesh is gonna do better in ancient era and sejong better the longer the game goes. Dicing everything into thirds means they will be even less impactful.
>>1897774The problem is that because of how the game works bonuses that you get in the early game are way, way stronger than bonuses that you get in the late game, because those early game bonuses allow you to snowball. Why play America when in most games the result is already decided by the end of Medieval? Those unique planes and modern-era buildings may as well not exist because they'll almost never be relevant, but if you play a civ like Egypt or Rome you'll get use out of your Chariots and Legionaries every single game.With the civ 7 system this is no longer an issue because you will always be playing a civ who is balanced around the current era.
>>1897821The way to balance it out is to give late game civs meaningful game-long abilities that they can lean into until their units come online. Manifest Destiny, for example, should allow America to expand like a motherfucker in every era.
>>1897821Weren't some of the strongest civs in 5 mid-late game focused anyway?Yeah sure setting up next to monty and genghis probably meant a hell of a fight if not game over, but not spawning next to super early aggressors just meant you could set up a snowball yourself. Part of babylon's strength for instance was being science centric to snowball while having a UU and UB to survive the early game.
We need way more civs, there's too many classics left out
>>1897864>there's too many classics left outIt was always like this at the release (well, at least in 5 and 6) But yeah. not having Russia and Germany from the start is unprecedented.
>>1897867>not having Russia and Germany from the start is unprecedentedI'll miss them, they're two of my favorite civs to play
>>1897090> each civ has at least 1 unique building and a smattering of unique great people> on top they have other typical bonuses pertaining to the tile bonuses> the leader is a vessel to apply bonuses that apply across all ages> civic policies for each civ you choose stay with you into new ages> each age, you’ll be working towards new goals while unlocking new buildings to replace the old buildings from the previous age> this stacks and you are expected to reach 20-40 yields on tiles based on strategic placementsYou neigh-sayers are humourous. While you hate things before you even play it, I’ll be happily playing with friends. The worst part is that modding will probably be heavily locked down like the last few civ games hence why they dodged modding questions in their livestreams. I miss renaming Judaism to Parasitism. But more to the point, civs are now always relevant within an age instead of a civ being interesting only when their UU or UB goes online and then fizzles back to being generic civ playing. I find it hard to see why people are so fucking infuriated without even playing it. We all know Firaxis has gone full woke for a while. They literally made a DLC for Civ6 that was “ocean levels rising is inevitable so build those ocean walls or you’ll drown.” They also were trying to highlight lesser known cultures to “give them visibility”.
>>1897991>They literally made a DLC for Civ6 that was “ocean levels rising is inevitable so build those ocean walls or you’ll drown.”Global warming is in since Civ 1
>>1897991There's nothing "woke" about environmentalism you've just been psyoped by big oil into fighting against your own self-interest.
>>1896206>Antiquity>Khmer>Exploration>Norman...?Why is Exploration not a part of Modern?Who the fuck is Buganda? Is that a racist dogwhistle?>Before the arrival of Europeans in the region, Buganda was an expanding, "embryonic empire". It built fleets of war canoes from the 1840s to take control of Lake Victoria and the surrounding regions and subjugated several weaker peoples. These subject peoples were then exploited for cheap labor.>embryonic empire>fleets of war canoesLOL>the parliament of Buganda, declared independence on 8 October 1960 and requested that the British protectorate be terminated.>declared independence, then requested Britain to agreeLMAOGreater Buganda is smaller than Sicily. The Romans would have genocided them and not bothered writing about it. I can't tell if it's an insult or a joke that they're in the same game list as Romans, Mongols, the Spanish, and literally fucking who "First Nation" nomads and cannibals. Only history's greatest conquerors and giants should be in a Civ game.>>1896338>can't keep playing as RomeMakes me think of Humankind. If you take out politically acceptable regimes, you wind up needing to insert modern ones and modern Italy, even if not Mussolini's, is completely unacceptable, despite being far less genocidal, slaving, and well everything else the Romans did that's not really worth saying when comparing to their mass genocides.>>1896942What makes you think Rome or China could last for a thousand years? That sounds really stupid.
>>1898056This Firaxis guy explained the civ-age thing as pic rel. I kinda see where they're coming from, but it is still weird in some aspectsAlso>CEYikes
>>1898013climate change is caused by:>drydocks>laboratories (but not the internet)>nuclear weapons>nuclear power plants>large populations created thanks to hospitals and modern medicinewot climate change does:>trees die>grassland becomes marginal land>marginal land becomes the sahara desert>coasts become swamps ???>coasts become floodedhow to avoid:>more trees>mass transit (trains and buses don't emit CO2)>recycling>solar and wind power>science will remove CO2 somehowAs a game mechanic, it's... underdeveloped and a holdover from the first game. It makes sense that you'd want to throw a wrench into the works for higher level play that exploits the game better with more snowballing, but the fact that it affects everyone equally and therefore is an argument to lean into polluting rather than avoiding it, is peculiar, which hasn't changed in any game at all.>>1898031>There's nothing "woke" about environmentalismIt's supported by the same people who support "woke" things. It's a virtuous pursuit. It's for the rich to signal they're doing something right... when they're actually doing the opposite behind closed doors. It's a drum middle men retailers and the media bang to scare you. It's something only the west cares about.Why isn't that woke?
>>1898115I've never played Civ 6 because they botched movement so incredibly badly in an incredibly basic way that it shattered my belief that the game could ever be any good. Does the game really have nuclear weapons and power plants cause climate change? Because that might be the most insanely ignorant thing I've ever heard.
>>1897991ok CHUD
>>1898172>they botched movement so incredibly badly in an incredibly basic way that it shattered my belief that the game could ever be any good.wonder what can that possibly mean
>>1898115>because rich hypocrites are hypocrites you shouldn't do the right thing Actual subhuman logic
>>1898172nuclear weapons have caused climate change since at least 2 dude.
>>1898082>CE>They have been promoted as more sensitive to non-Christians by not referring to Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, especially via the religious terms "Christ" and Dominus ("Lord") used by the other abbreviations.I feel like the people asking for this the least are the atheists.
>>1898214What is the Right Thing™, anon?
>>1898225But what about power plants? It should be clean energy. Nuclear weapons causing climate change is just the nuclear winter meme which is about as old as nukes themselves.>>1898272And who do you think asks for it, Muslims? Anglicans? It's atheist Jews who push this stuff. They don't even write + in Israel because it will forever remind them.
>>1898298https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Nuclear_Plant_(Civ2)EffectIncreases Factory output by 50%.Cleaner than Power Plant (same as Hydro Plant)Risk of Nuclear Meltdown unless civilization has discovered Fusion Power.
>>1898115>It's supported by the same people who support "woke" things. Hitler drank water.
>>1896206This game needed at least twice as many civs for this idea to work. But the concept is already naturally flawed as Humankind showed.
>>1898329I don't find the civ switching that bad, but I agree, there must be many more civs. I did a mini list myself just for autistic fun and imo the correct amount of civs for the game should be, at least, 25-30 for each era.
>>1898172>botched movementYeah it's really awful.>Does the game really have nuclear weapons and power plants cause climate change?Nukes have always caused climate change... except in Civ6.Nuclear power plants I think only did on meltdown but in Civ6 they always contribute to climate change, though it's negligible. The big problem is that you need to risk meltdowns to use nuclear power properly in game, which is weird given the message of the DLC.
>>1898357Same lmaoPost yours, maybe modders will make it a reality
nothings says modern age more than huts made of shit
>>1896338Yeah they need to add a mechanic where civs can continue into the next age maybe with a debuff like no unique unit. Especially if they're concerned about about colonialism and erasure of indigenous people.
>>1898326And look how he turned out, he shot Hitler.
>>1898375Hah, you are relying too much on modders, where is the DLL then
>>1896206Once again there is a SEVERE lack of representation of BIPoC civilizations.Honestly, I find it disgusting and inexcusable at this point. They cannot claim ignorance and they have a RESPONSIBILITY as a major game publisher to present a whole and diverse array of civilizations.This is outright ERASURE of cultures and histories just so we can have another copy and paste Greece or Rome. Everyone is bored of these stale European factions anyway can we please get something interesting like the Eora nation which we have not seen before?
>>1898583At least put some effort in.
>>1898583Ancient Greece and Rome are BIPoC though?
>>1896206Where's Harriet tub man?
>>1896338Literally the mechanic from Humankind but somehow worse
>>1898705It's nothing like Humankind, the mechanics are totally different.
>>1898708Yeah, they're even worse lmao, humankind at least let you stay as the civ
>>1898400I don't know how to make a dll but here's mine so far.Green is for existing civsYellow I changed the era or nameRed I removed
>>1898954
>>1898718Why would you want to stay as an ancient age civ in the medieval age?
>>1898974Because rome is eternal
>>1898955Good one, but for Iran I'd keep Persia for the name to encompass all Iranian dynasties, and for Mongolia maybe add the Hsiong-nu as an ancient alternative.Also Japan could have an ancient civ as the Yamato, but for an exploration civ I'd would not know what to call them besides, well, Japan
