Civilization VI - Now available, so you can sink all your free time into it

[Steve]

>"One of the things we raised with the art department was how in Civ 5, almost everyone had like this really statuesque and unbelievably attractive model even though in reality, historical leaders were of course just normal people like you and me. So one of things we wanted to do was make them look more grounded and relatable, and I think they did a really amazing job kind of conveying that."

>"Well we had a really long talk about [the Mongols] and whether we should include them in this installment of the series. Eventually we started asking ourselves if it was just time to move in a different direction and finally retire them from the series. The Mongols were known for committing mass rape and murder and just kind of being jerks {laughs}, and how would people feel if we included someone like Hitler in the game? We still wanted to have a nomadic horse people from the steppe though, and eventually someone suggested the Scythians led by Queen Tomyris, who most people never even heard about. I remember we were doing our research on her and Steven literally asked me "How have I never heard of this woman?" So yes, that really fit into the vision we wanted to have of showing off lesser known but still larger-than-life personalities. It was like the stars aligned, basically. Of course Genghis Khan can still show up as a great general, but I'll probably delete him if I ever get him." {laughs}

God damnit what a retarded reason to not have Mongols in the game as history is filled with atrocities committed by pretty much everybody, that's how most (if not all) nations got big enough to be considered a valid candidate for a faction in a civ game in the first place.

So with that reasoning they should also delete USA because it was based on genocide over native americans?!

I don't think there's any reason to be found in feminazi ramblings.

 

[Talby]

Jesus Christ, those faces. Is there any franchise that's safe from rainbow haired SJWs ruining everything?

 

[Snorkack]

Seems like they have dismissed pretty much any potentially controversial leaders: No Mao, no Stalin, no Napoleon, no Bismarck, no Caesar... that trend already started with C5.
But that they now scrap a whole civilization just because the misbehaving of one individual is, well, pretty racist.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Jesus Christ, those faces. Is there any franchise that's safe from rainbow haired SJWs ruining everything?

I thought Tetras was safe, but then I read about how the head of development, a Ms Konita Ountz, decided that that a V shaped block needed to be introduced to balance out the l shaped block's obvious penis inference. When asked how the new V shape was supposed to even be workable Ms Ountz said "Arguing about trivial things like that is exactly the kind of patriarchal bullshit we're trying to address here, the important thing is that it's in the game and you should be celebrating this momentous achievement, not attacking it".

 

[vonAchdorf]

Seems like they have dismissed pretty much any potentially controversial leaders: No Mao, no Stalin, no Napoleon, no Bismarck, no Caesar... that trend already started with C5.
But that they now scrap a whole civilization just because the misbehaving of one individual is, well, pretty racist.

Singling out the Mongols seems really forced, especially in a grand strategy game about conquering the world. Also their whole definition of "controversial" is kinda biased. There is nearly no ruler who doesn't have blood on his / her hands, even now in our democratic times, the average Western president of a non-irrelant country has a few hundred civilian deaths to answer for.

If Bismarck or Napoleon are too controversial to be included, Catherine de Medici who had thousands of innocents killed isn't exactly a model citizen. Qin Shi Huang's death toll isn't any better than the Mongols' and so on.

I don't mind of they come up with new leaders in this iteration, but they don't have to give some stupid explanations why they leave the old ones out.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Where is that quote coming from anyway. I don't see a source.

 

[Snorkack]

Seems like they have dismissed pretty much any potentially controversial leaders: No Mao, no Stalin, no Napoleon, no Bismarck, no Caesar... that trend already started with C5.
But that they now scrap a whole civilization just because the misbehaving of one individual is, well, pretty racist.

Singling out the Mongols seems really forced, especially in a grand strategy game about conquering the world. Also their whole definition of "controversial" is kinda biased. There is nearly no ruler who doesn't have blood on his / her hands, even now in our democratic times, the average Western president of a non-irrelant country has a few hundred civilian deaths to answer for.

If Bismarck or Napoleon are too controversial to be included, Catherine de Medici who had thousands of innocents killed isn't exactly a model citizen. Qin Shi Huang's death toll isn't any better then the Mongols' and so on.

I don't mind of they come up with new leaders in this iteration, but they don't have to give some stupid explanations why they leave the old ones out.

I guess it's just pure virtue signalling to preemptively appease the twitter/tumblr crowd. You can't badmouth western civs because patriots, you can't swap out china either, because the market is way too big. So just take one of the big Chinese leaders who hasn't as bad a reputation as Mao. Sacrificing the mongols seems like a safe bet, marketing-wise.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I don't even think leaving out the Mongols is to appease the twitter crowd - they probably have no clue about them other than from a movie and in doubt, they are non-white and therefore a protected class. To me it looks like they wanted more female leaders (therefore they had no problems to include mass-murdering women like Catherine de Medici) and had no room for two nomadic tribes. Instead of just swapping the Scythians in for the Mongols, they - wrongly - thought they somehow had to explain this.

I think, most civs will eventually get two leaders, so I wound't be amazed if many of the now missing ones make their comeback, especially because Bismarck, Napoleon and so on are probably popular and therefore DLC'able.

 

[Snorkack]

I think, most civs will eventually get two leaders

What makes you think that?
Last info I read was that there's 22 civs in the making with one leader each. 18 of them will be in the release version, the other four dlc.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I think, most civs will eventually get two leaders

What makes you think that?
Last info I read was that there's 22 civs in the making with one leader each. 18 of them will be in the release version, the other four dlc.

I read an article where they mentioned a text snipped from a special unit which only made sense if a civ can have different leaders (bonus if XX is leader). Maybe they read too much into it and it was just a misinterpretation.

 

[Snorkack]

Interesting! You have a link by chance? That would be good news, because I'm quite disappointed by the leader lineup that has been revealed (or better: reverse engineered) so far.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Just found it again - sorry wasn't an article, but a Steam discussion:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/289070/discussions/0/360671352682885910/

I wonder why they ditched Catherine of Russia - I liked her CIV4 character. No room for two Catherines maybe.

With their "unique" AI they maybe want to limit the number of leaders for now to cover the more interesting strategies.

 

[ArchAngel]

Seems like they have dismissed pretty much any potentially controversial leaders: No Mao, no Stalin, no Napoleon, no Bismarck, no Caesar... that trend already started with C5.
But that they now scrap a whole civilization just because the misbehaving of one individual is, well, pretty racist.

That is step one.
Step two involves removing them from the history books in school.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I think new leaders are good, but bullshit explanations like with the Mongols are not. So bring Tomyris, but don't tell me you excluded Mongols because they did bad things while keeping the Chinese, Aztecs and Germans.

Ignoring the leader discussion I liked the gameplay I saw so far.

 

[Anthedon]

Where is that quote coming from anyway. I don't see a source.

I couldn't find anything. Seems all made up.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Where is that quote coming from anyway. I don't see a source.

I couldn't find anything. Seems all made up.

Yup. I skimmed through that interview where the picture of pink haired chick is from, and she doesn't seem to be saying anything about the Mongols.

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

Civilization 6 - Now wth 100% more Endless Legend!

 

[Starwars]

They did a stream just now on the Firaxis twitch channel. Apparently there is a siege mechanic now where you can surround a city with units and if you have it completely surrounded, it will stop regenerating its health. If it's a coastal city, you'll have to have naval units for the water tiles as well.

Don't think that's been mentioned before?

 

[Castozor]

If true that's a decent addition. I found cities a bit too stron in Civ5 early game especially the ones behind a mountain/forest tile with no other land access. Still prefer Multiple units per Tile but that's not going to happen, so hoping for more refinements to the 1upt mechanic.

 

[Starwars]

I like using 1upt myself as a player but they really need to make the AI more effective with it. And somehow I doubt it's gonna happen. I'm sure it'll be a bit better than Civ V but I just doubt it'll be a huge improvement.

That said, wasn't there some talk that we'd be able to have more units per tile in Civ VI somehow?

 

[Castozor]

There will be some kind of support units from what I've heard who can be stacked, say a tank can be stacked with an anti-air unit.

 

[dukeofwhales]

Where is that quote coming from anyway. I don't see a source.

I couldn't find anything. Seems all made up.

Yup. I skimmed through that interview where the picture of pink haired chick is from, and she doesn't seem to be saying anything about the Mongols.

Yeah looks like it was definitely a "quote" invented by 4chan. Spooky scary SJW paranoia

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I like using 1upt myself as a player but they really need to make the AI more effective with it. And somehow I doubt it's gonna happen. I'm sure it'll be a bit better than Civ V but I just doubt it'll be a huge improvement.

That said, wasn't there some talk that we'd be able to have more units per tile in Civ VI somehow?

You get to combine units in later eras. Starts with 1, then goes up to 2 and eventually 3.

There' also separate class of support units that you can use as attachments. Supposedly there's medic class, siege class and so on.

 

[Space Satan]

1UPT is a cancer. Map still will be clogged and melee units still will be dominated by archers shitless.

 

[rezaf]

Isn't that a much more plausible reason for why the Mongols have been left out though? They can't be in the game, as they pretty much conquered the world with a stack of doom.