Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

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

Dzupakazul

Arbiter
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
707
Gandhi was in the ORIGINAL Civ.
So were Stalin and Mao, for that matter.
For what it's worth, I think the chronologically last leader depicted in Civilization series was the female leader of the Indians in Civ2, Indira Gandhi, passed away in 1984.
So yeah, you could have Margaret Thatcher. There probably isn't much of a market for her, though; she has a persistent, very vocal anti-fandom in certain parts of the UK (whereas the Maoist/Stalinist cult of personality has never quite died down + you can argue a lot about how much their respective eras did for "Civilization" as a whole (muh "Soviets won WW2 by themselves"), though Staliln has been pushed down to a "secondary" Civ choice in recent years; Civ2 replaced him with Lenin, Civ3 didn't have him at all and he only made it to Civ4 in an expansion pack next to two other leaders; I'm not sure though why they insisted on making Mao the face of China for such a long time) and, well, you could be playing an easily recognizable and nicely looking English king or queen instead, since that's what I assume most people associate "history of England" with. I don't think Civ4's Churchill was a popular leader pick (though that's also probably because his traits were worse than the two English queens).
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
22,221
Gandhi was in the ORIGINAL Civ.
So were Stalin and Mao, for that matter.
For what it's worth, I think the chronologically last leader depicted in Civilization series was the female leader of the Indians in Civ2, Indira Gandhi, passed away in 1984.
So yeah, you could have Margaret Thatcher. There probably isn't much of a market for her, though; she has a persistent, very vocal anti-fandom in certain parts of the UK (whereas the Maoist/Stalinist cult of personality has never quite died down + you can argue a lot about how much their respective eras did for "Civilization" as a whole (muh "Soviets won WW2 by themselves"), though Staliln has been pushed down to a "secondary" Civ choice in recent years; Civ2 replaced him with Lenin, Civ3 didn't have him at all and he only made it to Civ4 in an expansion pack next to two other leaders; I'm not sure though why they insisted on making Mao the face of China for such a long time) and, well, you could be playing an easily recognizable and nicely looking English king or queen instead, since that's what I assume most people associate "history of England" with. I don't think Civ4's Churchill was a popular leader pick (though that's also probably because his traits were worse than the two English queens).
Mao basically saved China from disintegration. If not for him unifying China at the point of a gun, we probably won't have China today. It is unfortunate the guy had such a bitch for a wife and gave her that much power.
 

Dzupakazul

Arbiter
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
707
Mao basically saved China from disintegration. If not for him unifying China at the point of a gun, we probably won't have China today. It is unfortunate the guy had such a bitch for a wife and gave her that much power.
OTOH, having Mao be a recurring Civ leader for many, many games, and there were many good candidates for alternate Chinese leaders (Qin Shi Huang in Civ4 was a good start) was probably one of the catalysts for those "but why not put in Hitler in the game" shitstorms. Cuz, you know, the killcount (and whatever Mao's wife did, I don't believe it made Mao not complicit in some fucked up shit) and "sure, Hitler was bad, but look at how he succeeded with the economy / war effort!" :roll:
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
22,221
Mao basically saved China from disintegration. If not for him unifying China at the point of a gun, we probably won't have China today. It is unfortunate the guy had such a bitch for a wife and gave her that much power.
OTOH, having Mao be a recurring Civ leader for many, many games, and there were many good candidates for alternate Chinese leaders (Qin Shi Huang in Civ4 was a good start) was probably one of the catalysts for those "but why not put in Hitler in the game" shitstorms. Cuz, you know, the killcount (and whatever Mao's wife did, I don't believe it made Mao not complicit in some fucked up shit) and "sure, Hitler was bad, but look at how he succeeded with the economy / war effort!" :roll:
Not exonerating the guy. Just that there is some evidence that a lot of the kill count is less because of him directly than his wife and cronies who took advantage of his old age and rumoured dementia.
 

Jason Liang

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
8,542
Location
Crait
Chinese and Japanese players would totally dig being able to play Hitler in Civ (reposted from AZN mind thread):

nazi-cosplay-03.jpg


I looked at the leaders for Civ VI, Catherine de Medici and Trajan, wtf. What was wrong the Napoleon and Julius Caesar? And if you're going to choose a French queen, choose the most famous one. I see that slut Cleopatra is still around.

Also

Timur was born in Transoxiana near the city of Kesh (modern Shahrisabz, Uzbekistan) some 80 kilometres (50 mi) south of Samarkand, part of what was then the Chagatai Khanate.[17] His father, Taraqai, was a minor noble of the Barlas,[17] a Mongolian tribe[18][19] that had been turkified in many aspects.
That's NOWHERE near Georgia.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
272
Mao basically saved China from disintegration. If not for him unifying China at the point of a gun, we probably won't have China today. It is unfortunate the guy had such a bitch for a wife and gave her that much power.
OTOH, having Mao be a recurring Civ leader for many, many games, and there were many good candidates for alternate Chinese leaders (Qin Shi Huang in Civ4 was a good start) was probably one of the catalysts for those "but why not put in Hitler in the game" shitstorms. Cuz, you know, the killcount (and whatever Mao's wife did, I don't believe it made Mao not complicit in some fucked up shit) and "sure, Hitler was bad, but look at how he succeeded with the economy / war effort!" :roll:
Not exonerating the guy. Just that there is some evidence that a lot of the kill count is less because of him directly than his wife and cronies who took advantage of his old age and rumoured dementia.

Nonsense.

1. Mao had already racked up 50+ million deaths by the time of the Cultural Revolution anyway. See: 1949 Revolution & Great Leap Forward
2. The Cultural Revolution was Mao's creation. He may not have personally approved everything & it certainly spiraled out of control at various points, but he initiated it in order to achieve his personal goals and reined it in at various points up until the very end when he was physically incapable. Dementia & blaming his wife is propaganda meant to whitewash his reputation.
 

Nirvash

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
1,736
Qin Shi Huang had a killcount % higher than mao, dude hardconquered whole china and enforced his legalism and standard culture in a almost genocidal way. (but like mao, all that had to be done)
 

Dzupakazul

Arbiter
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
707
Qin Shi Huang had a killcount % higher than mao
I'm really mostly saying that if they're going to switch around leaders for certain factions (France had a different leader in every mainline Civ game up to 4, including the fairly dubious inclusion of Jeanne d'Arc in 3; Russians got Catherine the Great and some more spotlight on the golden age of Tsarist Russia, etc.) then I don't really see a reason for China being only represented by their 20th century face for three games straight (well, Civ2 also had Wu Zhao as a female leader). Having a Chinese emperor is just nice for variety, especially since China's unique unit was always more representative of their pre-modern period.

Don't really mind mass murderers in my Civilization roster; Genghis Khan is a mainstay of the series, after all (and he still got an alternative in Civ4).
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
272
In Civ? Don't mind them at all. If we're only allowed to play as morally upright rulers they might as well scrap the whole game
 

oscar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
8,064
Location
NZ
Qin Shi Huang had a killcount % higher than mao, dude hardconquered whole china and enforced his legalism and standard culture in a almost genocidal way. (but like mao, all that had to be done)

If China had the population size then that it did in the 20th century too. Also why using killcounts to argue that 20th century authoritarians were a vast magnitude of evil worse than anything from the past is kind of silly, they had populations orders of magnitude larger than what anyone from the past was governing. If someone had gone Genghis Khan in 1950 their kill count would likely be in the hundreds of millions.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
272
Two points, oscar:

1. One thing that makes Mao's brutal rule so particularly noteworthy is that it was motivated by an ideology which is still not only often excused but actually advocated by well-meaning people. If Mao were simply an iron-fisted brute like many other dictators, he would still be evil but of a different and less concerning sort. It does make me roll my eyes a bit to see Communism and Fascism represented with +10 points to Army! -1 point to happiness! But it's just a game. Whatever.

2. I, at least, am not interested at all in playing Who's Got the Biggest Blackest Evil Cock In History. That is a very silly venture, as you say. I am interested in calling out anything hinting of apology for mass-murdering tyrants. Genghis Khan was indeed a truly bad dude in every sense of the word. That shouldn't change our appraisal of Mao.

Edit:

Mao on QSH:

"He buried 460 scholars alive; we have buried forty-six thousand scholars alive... You [intellectuals] revile us for being Qin Shi Huangs. You are wrong. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold. When you berate us for imitating his despotism, we are happy to agree! Your mistake was that you did not say so enough."
 
Last edited:

Infinitron

I post news
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
100,044
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
https://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-rise-and-fall-review/

CIVILIZATION 6: RISE AND FALL REVIEW

Continuing the last couple of Civilizations’ penchant for ‘unstacking’, Civilization 6: Rise and Fall has peeled apart more of the series’ fundamental systems. This time it’s the march through history itself. It’s more dynamic and messy, with civs—as the title promises—rising and falling as they enter new eras and experience Golden and Dark Ages. Yet Civilization has rarely felt this structured or cohesive.

Eras divide Civilization, representing a civ’s technological and cultural level. In Rise and Fall, the system has been been spun out into two different types of era: player eras and game eras. Player eras are the mark of a civ’s individual progress, while game eras start and end at predetermined moments and affect every civ.

The result is that you'll still be rewarded for investing in science and planning ahead, but if you don't, there’s going to be a fixed point where the new era officially begins, so you're not going to fall too far behind. It’s a nudge towards parity that keeps things interesting without diminishing the rewards for having the most enviable civ. And what is an otherwise daunting, massive game is split up into discrete, manageable chunks and accompanying objectives.

It’s with the introduction of Golden and Dark Ages that things get a bit messier. During a game era, every civ is in an unacknowledged race to increase their era score with historic moments. Being the first civ to befriend a city state, killing your first bandit camp, making a city a commercial centre—anything that represents an important decision or a world-first can net you points. Depending on how many you have, the next era will be a normal, Golden or Dark Age.

These ages affect the loyalty of your citizens and let you pick era-long buffs that give you new abilities, like recruiting builders by spending faith, or make it easier to accumulate era points through things like building districts or conquering. Get a Golden Age and you might see your civ enter a period of unparalleled prosperity with every city praising your name, while a Dark Age could spell civil war as citizens become disloyal and revolt, turning their cities into free cities that can be snatched up or seduced by other empires.

Rise and Fall and Maybe Rise Again doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, but a Dark Age isn’t the end. It introduces new challenges, certainly, but they’re all surmountable, and indeed there are even some advantages. If you’ve not expanded too quickly and your cities are pretty loyal, then you’ll likely make it through relatively unscathed. If you’ve done particularly well and gathered enough era points during the Dark Age, you’ll enter a supercharged Heroic Age.

If anything, it could stand to be a little harsher, though I do appreciate that it feels less like a punishment and more like a very different, slightly trickier path. I’ve yet to see it fully realise its promised potential, however. It’s unpredictable, but properly huge upheavals have been largely absent in my games.

There have been a few large-scale international emergencies, though. These are new cooperative events that task civs with banding together to solve a crisis, targeting another empire. In my game as Scotland and Robert the Bruce, I sparked one myself when I converted the Catholic holy city of Seville to Protestantism. It essentially created a mission where I had to hold it for 16 turns and the rest of the world had to stop me. Unfortunately for Spain, only a few friends lent a hand and I got myself a cash reward and an explosion of faith that converted yet another city. It helped that I had a religious governor—one of the seven new upgradable characters who make specialised cities—in my capital, churning out faith for me that I could spend on more missionaries.

While the objectives are simple and the AI isn’t a great team player, it’s a very effective way to force civs into big conflicts, making the world a bit livelier in the process. Perhaps more importantly, it turns what could have been overlooked moments into historically significant events. I wouldn’t have remembered the conversion of Seville in any other game, but now I remember it as this long religious siege with Spain and its allies furiously summoning lightning bolts out the sky in an effort to rid the city of my religion.

That’s what lies at the core of Rise and Fall. It’s an expansion that homes in on these single moments or specific periods and gives them greater meaning and impact. Sometimes, though, it can be hard to see the big picture, especially when you’re desperately trying to get enough era points and time’s running out. It shakes things up, so it won’t convert everyone, but the added tension and dynamism is a massive boon for a series where the pace can be a bit predictable.

THE VERDICT
80

CIVILIZATION 6: RISE AND FALL
Rise and Fall is a great addition to Civilization 6 that doesn’t quite go far enough to be essential.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
22,221
"...a nudge towards parity..."
That merely means your choices doesn't matter in the long run.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
10,112
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
The result is that you'll still be rewarded for investing in science and planning ahead, but if you don't, there’s going to be a fixed point where the new era officially begins, so you're not going to fall too far behind. It’s a nudge towards parity that keeps things interesting without diminishing the rewards for having the most enviable civ. And what is an otherwise daunting, massive game is split up into discrete, manageable chunks and accompanying objectives.
:prosper:
 

Trashos

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
3,413
The result is that you'll still be rewarded for investing in science and planning ahead, but if you don't, there’s going to be a fixed point where the new era officially begins, so you're not going to fall too far behind. It’s a nudge towards parity that keeps things interesting without diminishing the rewards for having the most enviable civ. And what is an otherwise daunting, massive game is split up into discrete, manageable chunks and accompanying objectives.
:prosper:

Civilization VII: Equity. A strategy game where everyone wins!
 

flyingjohn

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
3,226
I have to say this is the least modded civ game in the franchise.The first expansion has been released and the only mods are some the generic "ui, some more units and civ " mods.
No major or minor overhauls available.Also the scenario scene is dead.

Also their programming team is utterly incompetent.You never change most of your variable names at every single patch for no good reason.
And the expansion utterly changed most of the code so modders get fucked again.
Which is a good thing,since anybody wasting his time on modding this piece of shit should be grateful that firaxis is telling them to go away.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
9,439
Location
Italy
that's what i checked too some days ago: i went to the nexus and found 60 mods. sixty. most of which were the same stuff or useless things. it just can't be saved. but hey, pcgamer 93%, metacritic average probably around that, if you say otherwise you're a spoiled brat who doesn't deserve videogames.
 

flyingjohn

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
3,226
aRFO6s6.jpg


So leaders can now have a random agenda that they become gay or straight and will hate/love the same/opposing sex.
It is completely random,can effect anybody and you can't do anything about it.
 

Hellion

Arcane
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
1,695
Apparently leaders in Rise & Fall can have a secret agenda called "Flirtatious" which makes them hate leaders of the same sex.

I was looking forward to reviewing the expansion but for some reason 2K/Firaxis didn't send out review codes to media in my country :argh:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom