That would be interesting. Would you need to build bridges or dams to cross the river then? Also the idea of damming up rivers to creat large lakes would be cool too.
I think river could easily be a tile type instead of existing between tiles like it is in every civ so far. River tile would not be strictly water or land tile, but in between.
I think the basic solution here is that the river goes in the middle of the hexagon instead of on the edge. All units (water and land) can use it (at least before larger, later boats), but water units can go much faster. It would work exactly like a road except you don't have to build it, and it benefits a different class of units.
I'm not sure how you would affect district building and stuff with this, but there should be a simple enough solution.
would love to see navigable rivers up to a certain point inland (like the Atlantic coast fall line in USA), with a load of non navigable tributaries too.
I’d love a riverboat unique unit for US. Travels only on river tiles and sea. Generates massive gold when stationary inside a city, but perhaps reduces amenities due to gambling addiction?
With all these great ideas people are having, I feel like I’m just setting myself up for disappointment when it turns all these things won’t be in the game
Yeah. I just hope some of the more common things are implemented in some way. Namely navigable rivers and an economic victory condition. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised of Civ 7 goes the free to play Fortnite style model, since a lot of game companies seem to be implementing that.
Free to play wouldn’t really suit the Civ series, since it’s a more niche game meant specifically for those who really enjoy it. Free to play game are usually ones directed at capturing the more casual general audience.
I wouldn't want King Herod cause he was kind of a tyrant who was hated by the Jews of his day, but Salome Alexandra or King Solomon would be a dream come true.
I think there's a perception among non-Jews, particularly in America, that Judaism is "just a religion", and the Jewish people's long history as a nation and world civilization is ignored/downplayed. Personally I love Jewish history so I really really hope to see some sort of representation in the next game. We deserve more than a B-tier city-state.
Also Dido being Jewish in the base-game is just so incredibly stupid and ignorant of both Jewish and Phoenician history.
The reasoning with Dido is they're both Semitic; better to have one civ tenuously prefer Judaism than none. Judaism is an important religion historically and I think the devs wanted to do it justice by having a leader who would go for it.
But the Phoenicians weren’t Jewish, they retained Semitic polytheism and developed a religion based on the worship of Ba’al. They might as well make the Arabians Jewish cause they’re Semitic too (although Saladin was actually a Kurd, but whatever).
I agree Judaism is important and they should do it justice- that’s why I think they should make a Jewish civ.
I understand what you're saying, but since the Arabians already have a major religion associated with them, their preferred religion should be Islam. Semitic polytheism isn't a world religion, and the Phoenicians are the closest to being representatives of Judaism, so better something than nothing. Dido's lines also mention those older deities. For what it's worth, the Civ wiki on Wikia has a paragraph on this as well.
Anti-Semitic morons or current controversies regarding the State of Israel are no reason to exclude a people that have had a major role in world civilization for thousands of years. Hell, they had Mao and Stalin in previous games, and have fascism as a government type. Those are hotter potatoes in my view.
Current controversies are very relevant to a company trying to turn a profit. As long as you avoid taking a stance on an issue, you can kinda play off both sides. As soon as you do something, you piss off one group or another. And then, the only thing worse they could do is backtrack, because then they'd piss off everyone.
I'm not (ironically) trying to take a stance either way here; just observing that from a purely business point of view, I can see the reasoning behind avoiding this particular batch of history that still has very contentious current relevance.
I get where you’re coming from, but that’s why I specifically think they should call it “Judea” and not “Israel”. I don’t see why putting an ancient kingdom, more broadly representing five thousand years of Jewish history, should cause such controversy. I’m sure there are some who will take any depiction of Jewish people or a Jewish state as making a political statement about Israel, but those people are idiots, so fuck ‘em. Are they not gonna put Russia in the next game cause of the current controversies with Ukraine?
> I’m not (ironically) trying to take a stance either way here;
I understand that, and I appreciate it. Believe me I don’t want to get into a political argument. I just think excluding Judea to avoid possible controversies would be disrespectful, shortsighted and wrong.
Biomes would be great. Spreading from one biome to another should require your Civ to spend time to adjust to that environment - sort of like how Europeans struggled to implement their farming techniques in their colonies.
You could send some of your citizens to temporarily live in a city state in that biome to acquire that knowledge. \[Sid Meier's Colonization had this mechanic just without the biomes\]
Or maybe you need to find the right crop resource before you can build even regular farms in that biome - eg acquire rice or maize first to farm in the tropics as wheat doesn't grow there.
Try the Got Lakes map mod. You can change the gradient of climates so you have really drastic changes in landscape or gradual changes among a ton of other changes you can do.
I want navigable rivers. Imagine being Norway and getting to raid upriver. I know it’s possible with canals but that’s too late in the game
I feel like rivers should be a tile-wide. Think of the interesting scenarios to play out over contested river sections
That would be interesting. Would you need to build bridges or dams to cross the river then? Also the idea of damming up rivers to creat large lakes would be cool too.
It would have to be a little more workable for early game units to cross rivers. Maybe a 2 turn delay or something
Ford that bitch and risk yer wagon.
You jest, but you are on to something. Before a certain technology, units incur damage while embarked.
Also increased movement speed going along rivers, make them function like roads. Increases trade route range along rivers.
I think river could easily be a tile type instead of existing between tiles like it is in every civ so far. River tile would not be strictly water or land tile, but in between.
I think the basic solution here is that the river goes in the middle of the hexagon instead of on the edge. All units (water and land) can use it (at least before larger, later boats), but water units can go much faster. It would work exactly like a road except you don't have to build it, and it benefits a different class of units. I'm not sure how you would affect district building and stuff with this, but there should be a simple enough solution.
So river would basically be natural canals?
Well isn't that what they are in real life? I'm surprised Fireaxis hasn't made rivers navigable already.
True true
I'd like this too, if the AI could actually use it.
would love to see navigable rivers up to a certain point inland (like the Atlantic coast fall line in USA), with a load of non navigable tributaries too.
I’d love a riverboat unique unit for US. Travels only on river tiles and sea. Generates massive gold when stationary inside a city, but perhaps reduces amenities due to gambling addiction?
travel along rivers should be faster as well.. assuming that if you are going "along" a river your using rafts / canoes / boats
With all these great ideas people are having, I feel like I’m just setting myself up for disappointment when it turns all these things won’t be in the game
Yeah. I just hope some of the more common things are implemented in some way. Namely navigable rivers and an economic victory condition. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised of Civ 7 goes the free to play Fortnite style model, since a lot of game companies seem to be implementing that.
Free to play wouldn’t really suit the Civ series, since it’s a more niche game meant specifically for those who really enjoy it. Free to play game are usually ones directed at capturing the more casual general audience.
Economic victory and a Judea civ are my #1 hopes. If I can get at least one of those I'll be a happy camper.
I’d loooove a Judean civ. King Herod, Mattityahu, and Salome Alexandra would all be amazing choices
I wouldn't want King Herod cause he was kind of a tyrant who was hated by the Jews of his day, but Salome Alexandra or King Solomon would be a dream come true.
Judea/Israel is one of my biggest wants. I always found it peculiar that Judaism is in the game but the Jews themselves are not.
I think there's a perception among non-Jews, particularly in America, that Judaism is "just a religion", and the Jewish people's long history as a nation and world civilization is ignored/downplayed. Personally I love Jewish history so I really really hope to see some sort of representation in the next game. We deserve more than a B-tier city-state. Also Dido being Jewish in the base-game is just so incredibly stupid and ignorant of both Jewish and Phoenician history.
The reasoning with Dido is they're both Semitic; better to have one civ tenuously prefer Judaism than none. Judaism is an important religion historically and I think the devs wanted to do it justice by having a leader who would go for it.
But the Phoenicians weren’t Jewish, they retained Semitic polytheism and developed a religion based on the worship of Ba’al. They might as well make the Arabians Jewish cause they’re Semitic too (although Saladin was actually a Kurd, but whatever). I agree Judaism is important and they should do it justice- that’s why I think they should make a Jewish civ.
I understand what you're saying, but since the Arabians already have a major religion associated with them, their preferred religion should be Islam. Semitic polytheism isn't a world religion, and the Phoenicians are the closest to being representatives of Judaism, so better something than nothing. Dido's lines also mention those older deities. For what it's worth, the Civ wiki on Wikia has a paragraph on this as well.
I know what the reason was for it, I just think those reasons are flawed. Anyway, yeah, they should make an actual Jewish civ in the next game.
I think it's very possible that Firaxis simply doesn't want to deal with that particular hot potato.
Anti-Semitic morons or current controversies regarding the State of Israel are no reason to exclude a people that have had a major role in world civilization for thousands of years. Hell, they had Mao and Stalin in previous games, and have fascism as a government type. Those are hotter potatoes in my view.
Current controversies are very relevant to a company trying to turn a profit. As long as you avoid taking a stance on an issue, you can kinda play off both sides. As soon as you do something, you piss off one group or another. And then, the only thing worse they could do is backtrack, because then they'd piss off everyone. I'm not (ironically) trying to take a stance either way here; just observing that from a purely business point of view, I can see the reasoning behind avoiding this particular batch of history that still has very contentious current relevance.
I get where you’re coming from, but that’s why I specifically think they should call it “Judea” and not “Israel”. I don’t see why putting an ancient kingdom, more broadly representing five thousand years of Jewish history, should cause such controversy. I’m sure there are some who will take any depiction of Jewish people or a Jewish state as making a political statement about Israel, but those people are idiots, so fuck ‘em. Are they not gonna put Russia in the next game cause of the current controversies with Ukraine? > I’m not (ironically) trying to take a stance either way here; I understand that, and I appreciate it. Believe me I don’t want to get into a political argument. I just think excluding Judea to avoid possible controversies would be disrespectful, shortsighted and wrong.
That would be great, even it is mostly a visual distinction.
Beyond Earth had that
If we're talking desserts in the landscape, have we considered Baked Alaska?
Would be interesting if bogs made passing through a nightmare for knights siege machines and other heavy units.
Biomes would be great. Spreading from one biome to another should require your Civ to spend time to adjust to that environment - sort of like how Europeans struggled to implement their farming techniques in their colonies. You could send some of your citizens to temporarily live in a city state in that biome to acquire that knowledge. \[Sid Meier's Colonization had this mechanic just without the biomes\] Or maybe you need to find the right crop resource before you can build even regular farms in that biome - eg acquire rice or maize first to farm in the tropics as wheat doesn't grow there.
I'll be happy if it doesn't have a goofy cartoon look.
I honestly could care less how it looks. Gameplay is everything at this point. We'd all be playing another game if we cared that much about graphics.
Try the Got Lakes map mod. You can change the gradient of climates so you have really drastic changes in landscape or gradual changes among a ton of other changes you can do.