@granttodd3118none of the games are actually trash bro. This is such a niche genre that isn't popular and has only a few games. Fans don't need assholes dismissing these peoples hard work, calling good historic 4x games trash.
My fear is that the "cities" are of continental or regional dimensions like in Humankind, instead of being smaller like in pre-6 civs. I don't really like a medieval world for example but the cities being the size of Eperopolis
Yeah, I do find the size of cities in Humankind to be kinda odd. If there was a Europe map one city would be the size of a country, or more... unless the map the absolutely huge. Even cities in Civ 6 can end up being the size of States.
I played the second beta of this game, and had an absolute blast. The crafting mechanic to get advanced units and buildings is unique in the genre and allows stockpiling of resources for war prep or trading.
My fear is that the "cities" are of continental or regional dimensions like in Humankind, instead of being smaller like in pre-6 civs. I don't really like a medieval world for example but the cities being the size of Eperopolis.
@@BIGluisluis I think it handled it a bit more reasonably, but in fairness I don't see the big issue with Humankind. It is farmlands around an urban centre, and then later a industrial complex.
@@MrBrianofarrell I have a issue, where 50% of a region in humankind is a single city by the medieval age. It's like making London half of the size of Great Britain by 1300
@@BIGluisluisBut it doesn't have to adhere 100% to our history? It's not linear and maybe there could have been such large cities build during different circumstances.
@@basilofgoodwishes4138 i dont think you are grasping the point, there is nothing to do with history, its phisycal space, a continental city, or a regional city with the size of italy makes absolutely 0 sense, there is no way you can actually think this is even feasible even in a fantastical world.
For the record, Sappho was a Greek Poet, who is famous for love poems to other women. She was from the Isle of Lesbos and is the reason for the modern meaning of lesbian.
@@Pigraider268, yeah, it might seem bizarre, but leaders in Ara aren't leaders in the Civ sense. You can have multiple active at once in Ara, if I recall correctly.
@@shokion1697, oh get off it. ESG is literally just about basic respect for the people around you. If you have a problem with that, you're the problem. Would you rather companies be working you to the bone for minimal pay while dumping toxic waste in your drinking water, because that's the kind of stuff ESG deals with (albeit, those are extreme examples). Besides, this is literally just part of a game mechanic to help differentiate Ara. Again, leaders in Ara don't work like in Civ. You don't have 1 monolithic leader that is the be all, end all of your entire civilization, which is pretty much how it works in real life.
@@shokion1697, as a white male, I have not been negatively impacted by ESG. Moreover, the social aspect also encompasses workplace health and safety, as well as fair pay and employee benefits, all of which I benefit from. As for clean drinking water, that's the environmental aspect - which is basically about reducing what we in the finance industry call externalities. Externalities are basically costs of productive activities that are not part of operational costs. For instance, emissions are an example of an externality. They negatively impact the environment, which is a cost imposed by the business on others. ESG seeks to enforce businesses paying the costs of such pollution that they generate. I mean, it's only fair to expect them to clean up their own mess, is it not?
I like how the tech tree works. You get limited picks, but I think less is more so you don't have to follow the same path as every civilization. Though one thing that triggers me is the aesthetics. Not a lot of contrast. It is plain and greyish. Seems like it is going for a realistic style but the UI and avatars appear cartoony
Something I like is how they choose to include more informal leaders like Sappho, civilization has had leaders like Gandhi Heihachirō for a while now but I like this more creative direction, I think most people would have more fun playing as Rasputin and richielieu then just the more generic leaders like Catherine and napoleon
At the same time, tho, Sappho was never a leader of Greece, she was “only” a poet. It’s like having Leonardo da Vinci as the leader of Italy or Molière for France, it’s heavy alt-history. Rasputin and Richelieu, on the other hand, had political power and influence over rulers or even controlled the state, even if for a brief moment.🤔
She has never led Greece. There are many much more important historical greek leaders eg. Pericles, Philip, Alexander and even not leaders like Demosthenes who was the big propagator of panhellenism and was fighting with Macedonian influences on the penisula
@@aloneill6337 I’m not convinced by this thesis, from the trailer I haven’t seen anything distinguishing Ara from all the other games in this genre, all of them are alt-history. Just look at Humankind early trailers, with Lucy “conquering Rome after uniting all of Africa” or something like that. Note, Lucy is the name of the default avatar, named after the earliest hominid found (which at the same time is named after the Beatles’ song “Lucy in the sky with diamonds”). Or Civ 5 trailers, where they tell the story of a game as if it was an history lessons. I remember something about vikings in space or something like that (of course, for a science victory). Ara doesn’t seem to have anything more then these games when it come to “alt-history”. Moreover, if they pick up a famous people and then they explain the fact that such people complete different role with “alt-history”, they could just make some original characters… and I red Sappho, I doubt her game strategy/abilities will involve thirsting over women😂
that looks very interesting. the system of civilizations being out of the game after each act will leave it being extremely dynamic, but we need to know what will happen to their territories too now for the simultaneous turn, if you played the Game of Thrones board game(or the online version that was free on epic a while ago) you know how crazy it can get(i played the board one, there was a lot of chaos between me and my friends) i'll be getting it if the public opinion is positive and i think it will be
Hey man I really appreciate you putting the release schedule in the beginning. Too many times I've watched yours or others and I go to impulse buy the game only to find it ain't out yet. Glad I'm subscribed. Subscribe if you're reading this and haven't, he's one of the best channels for learning about new 4X games.
Don't sleep on the act system. It might seem gamey to break gameplay continuity, but one of the biggest challenges for immersion in any grand strategy/4x game is scaling up to larger geographical areas while maintaining the same city geographies. If it works how I hope, with each act eliminating bottom players and scaling up the map to add in new players/unlock more of the map, the scaling dissonance will be solved by increasing scope roughly historically. Bronze Age collapse and Medieval collapse were arguably very similar to this act system and would be a cool way to control the scaling of the player's progress while also keeping that progress meaningful the entire game.
@@CausticSpace While less ubiquitous than the Bronze Age collapse, the Medieval collapse was in large part due to the fall of the Roman empire and subsequent fracturing into feuding city states. It makes sense to call the terms synonymous in Western Europe, but other factors played equally large roles in other parts of the world. Famines, plagues, trade disruptions, and more turned the early Medieval period into an age of warfare and scaled political scopes to more local levels. I would posit that the Medieval collapse took place during different periods in different locations, but yes, the Roman collapse was a huge factor in the historical timeline of Western civilization.
The Bubonic Plague of Justinian in the 540's (50-100 years after the Western Roman collapse) is probably the most universal start of the Medieval collapse, IMO.
@@brandonzzz9924 Think you’re using the term wrong, as the medieval era is largely regarded to have happened AFTER the fall of rome. Collapse also implies the end of something, as the Bronze Age Collapse is largely regarded as the end of the bronze age. With your definition, the medieval era basically ended as soon as it started.
Lots of wonderful nuance and potential for depth, particularly with combat and city building. Could be mould-breaking for 4x. Or it could feel flat if these elements are just gimmicks. Really hope they take the time to develop these ideas they have into something that gameplay wise lives up to its potential, rather than just looking good in a showcase
War will not be like Total War. You will recruit and move the armies on the map, but when they engage in battle you can watch a simulation of them fighting in Phases. Wich will be influenced by number and tech level + bonuses.
This is the first I have heard of it! To me, I think nothing will ever beat the Civilization series in that genre. However, it is very cool to see new games of similar style coming along, so now I am anticipating it. It will be on GamePass, too? That to me, is a bonus!
Definitely interested in the simultaneous turns - simultaneous turn based strategy gets ignored a lot and I'm not really sure why. It's far more dynamic and puts the emphasis on skill and adaptability, as opposed to arbitrarily following a stupid series of steps defines by a meta.
Love to see new 4X games coming out, but I really really hate the model of changing your culture/Civ each era like in Humankind. Breaks the immersion for me.
simultaneous turns I feel are a great idea. simultaneous turns are present in another strategy game ive played, fire and manuever, and it adds a lot of depth and strategy to everything. instead of just moving units and attacking, you have to take into consideration the priority of certain units attacking vs others, since the later a unit attacks, the more likely they are to be in a position where they cannot attack their targeted enemy. edit: apparently its just higher speed goes first in terms of military conflict, which i feel is kind of underwhelming (unless im misunderstanding something)
I personally suspect that they will give you those first few leader choices, and come out with another leader DLC for $$$ every month until you have spent hundreds of $ on the game. However, I will be keeping my eye on this one
nice i like decision based history games. im not so much like human kind did but more like say japan came to where they removed samari but instead you can choose to go the other way. less drastic of an effect toward the direction
Lmao at Washington "focusing on formations to win battles." He certainly did do that but it rarely had any positive effects. He was one of those generals that overcomplicate things and end up tripping themselves up.
only thing I'd say that's very minor is it's a little weird having a poet for example in charge of a nation. IDK just in terms of immersion I would have preferred historical leaders imo xD
Did you know humankind shadow dropped on consoles yesterday? I’ve been checking for news regularly but to be honest this is the first time I’ve checked since August second… been to distracted. I’m not looking at that bear 😰
i guess it'll change going forward but it sort of feels.... mobile games-y. the UI, the way that building are placed sort of has that loot box look to it.
all i want is a 4x game that lets us zoom in. zoom into our city. zoom into combat. i dont even care if the controls are in depth. *just let me see my culture in action*
Their combat vid said "this is not a wargame" and looks like it's just a numbers thing with no tactics. So.. domination is out. Sad. I guess gotta wait for civ7 or Millennia.
I disagree with your stance on push backs mechanics for warmonger. War and conquest is inherently snowbally, so wars should really cost a lot and make you hated by everyone else. I personally think that the warmonger mechanics in Civ VI are not harsh enough. And all these posts on Reddit where people ask "I got attacked, but I wiped them out, why does everyone hate me???" show that people need to get taught that war is the last resort and should never be an easy option.
The warmonger mechanics in civ 6 inherently made no sense even if you got attacked by a warmongering nation that everyone hates only to barely just survive with a peace treaty your still the bad guy and you get massive diplomatic penalties for it. Not all wars are the same therefore not all wars should be treated the same with the same diplomatic consequences
I think the system of removing the players from the game is a big mistake. Generally the less players there are in the game, the more boring, shallow and predictable it becomes. There are less and less entities in the world you can interact with, there are less emergent events, less variables to take into account, less interesting things in the game. The games should actually be designed around giving as much opportunities as possible to a player for a comback to keep the game more exciting, interesting, dynamic, unpredictable and full of meaningful events. When a game goes into an opposite direction, it makes me extremely sceptical about the quality of its game design. If such fundamental things are handled this way, the rest of their game design decisions are likely to be problematic as well.
As a Civ player I will have to give this and Humankind a go. Just starting on Anno 1800, so there's lots of choice now. Better graphics doesn't always translate to a better game though. Civ 5 was more fun to play than Civ 6. I like the idea of whoever starts a wonder gets to build it, in Civ I use huge resources only to find another player builds it one turn before. I also would like to be able to see what tech the other plays have, so I don't end up being wiped out by Tanks just as I discover Musketmen. Civ 6's super difficulty in declaring war spoiled it a bit. Maybe there are less penalty's for this game. The creators of Civ 7 have the advantage of seeing what their competitors have come up with and making something to outshine them. This is just reinventing the wheel in a way, and I would prefer a Civilization beyond Earth style focus. Perhaps the colonization of the Solar system based on the the series 'The Expanse'. There is a game, but it is not really a turn based strategy game.
Sappho as leader of Greece? Let's go, lesbians, let's go! One of George Washington's traits is "woodsman." Does this mean "good at leading armies through the woods" or "has a bad habit of chopping down trees he isn't supposed to"?
Haha woke propaganda in strategy game 😂 First of Sapho was never a leader of Greece or any polis for that matter nor she had any political ambitions, second you know she herself wasn't completely lesbian? I feel like you that know much about your "icon"
Am I the only person who doesn’t like the look of the cities in this game? They are just “roads with buildings on them.” At least with civ and humankind the cities have a more “clustered” look
Hopefully this and Millenia will be better than Civilization series. There are way too many of this Civilization games. We need more diversity and Humankind failed to deliver.
I wish we can get a REAL civilization simulator. I'm talking about getting approval from Congress before declaring war, and even then, there has to be some sort of approval/disapproval rate for war actions. If more than 80% approval, you get reduced war worriness and combat buffs. If more than 80% disapproval, higher war worriness, and debuffs on units, also increase chances of civil unrest. Also, the empire is divided up into different regions with their own subculture and needs, and you have to attend to their needs or civil war may break out. If you want to go down the totalitarian/dictator path, you have to get rid of certain groups within the Empire to consolidate control. You can use the propaganda perk to keep disapproval rates down, and your soldiers gain combat bonuses. However, the propaganda perk is expensive and may bankrupt your nation if not managed correctly and you go into civil unrest anyway. I think the AI should have legitimate reasons for going to war. It should be biased more towards scarity of resources. So if a nation is landlocked, it gains a bias for war towards neighboring nation that has coastal waters. Also, land fertility should play a big part in war decision-making by the AI. Nations with high land fertility should be less likely to go to war. I think a nation's success should be heavily influenced by its diversity of resources. So if you have more gold than others, your currency is more valuable and other nations are more likely to adopt it. But let's say your population isn't that big, your borders aren't that big and your military sucks. Nations are more likely to declare war on your nation They should also introduce Currency, because Currency plays a big part in how nations influence other nations. If another nation adopts your currency, they can potentially become allies or even vessel/puppet states without going to war. The more nations that adopt your currency, the less expensive units and buildings become. But sometimes, there can be currency wars between 2 or more nations. Meaning some natural resources can be excluded from trading. So lets say the nation of Zambia only trades Marble if you adopt their currency. But you, the nation of Zimbaba already adopted the United Arabia currency. But you need this marble really bad because it's required to build a wonder/building. You have two options: go to war and steal their marble or adopt Zambia currency and being on United Arabia's bad side or increase in trading cost.
Also, it should be nearly impossble to conquer every nation on earth militarily because of the enormous cost and civil unrest, including the moral of units. It should not be like Civ6 where you just snowball and plow through everything towards endgame. Endgame should get harder, not easier.
I, for one, am never going to complain about having more 4x games to play. Old World, Humankind, Civilization VI.....I love them all.
What about civ V?
@@jorregritter3669 it was OK, but I dropped it when Civ6 came out.
let's be honest old world is pretty wack
I agree. I play them all.
@granttodd3118none of the games are actually trash bro. This is such a niche genre that isn't popular and has only a few games. Fans don't need assholes dismissing these peoples hard work, calling good historic 4x games trash.
My fear is that the "cities" are of continental or regional dimensions like in Humankind, instead of being smaller like in pre-6 civs. I don't really like a medieval world for example but the cities being the size of Eperopolis
Yeah, I do find the size of cities in Humankind to be kinda odd. If there was a Europe map one city would be the size of a country, or more... unless the map the absolutely huge.
Even cities in Civ 6 can end up being the size of States.
@@coolbanana165❤
Ara you looking forward to Ara?
ara ara
Ara ara
Ara Ara
Ara ara
Ara Ara
I played the second beta of this game, and had an absolute blast. The crafting mechanic to get advanced units and buildings is unique in the genre and allows stockpiling of resources for war prep or trading.
My fear is that the "cities" are of continental or regional dimensions like in Humankind, instead of being smaller like in pre-6 civs. I don't really like a medieval world for example but the cities being the size of Eperopolis.
@@BIGluisluis I think it handled it a bit more reasonably, but in fairness I don't see the big issue with Humankind. It is farmlands around an urban centre, and then later a industrial complex.
@@MrBrianofarrell I have a issue, where 50% of a region in humankind is a single city by the medieval age. It's like making London half of the size of Great Britain by 1300
@@BIGluisluisBut it doesn't have to adhere 100% to our history? It's not linear and maybe there could have been such large cities build during different circumstances.
@@basilofgoodwishes4138 i dont think you are grasping the point, there is nothing to do with history, its phisycal space, a continental city, or a regional city with the size of italy makes absolutely 0 sense, there is no way you can actually think this is even feasible even in a fantastical world.
For the record, Sappho was a Greek Poet, who is famous for love poems to other women. She was from the Isle of Lesbos and is the reason for the modern meaning of lesbian.
Yes hence her choice for the leader of Greece is bizarre
@@Pigraider268, yeah, it might seem bizarre, but leaders in Ara aren't leaders in the Civ sense. You can have multiple active at once in Ara, if I recall correctly.
@@shokion1697, oh get off it. ESG is literally just about basic respect for the people around you. If you have a problem with that, you're the problem. Would you rather companies be working you to the bone for minimal pay while dumping toxic waste in your drinking water, because that's the kind of stuff ESG deals with (albeit, those are extreme examples).
Besides, this is literally just part of a game mechanic to help differentiate Ara. Again, leaders in Ara don't work like in Civ. You don't have 1 monolithic leader that is the be all, end all of your entire civilization, which is pretty much how it works in real life.
@@shokion1697, as a white male, I have not been negatively impacted by ESG. Moreover, the social aspect also encompasses workplace health and safety, as well as fair pay and employee benefits, all of which I benefit from.
As for clean drinking water, that's the environmental aspect - which is basically about reducing what we in the finance industry call externalities. Externalities are basically costs of productive activities that are not part of operational costs. For instance, emissions are an example of an externality. They negatively impact the environment, which is a cost imposed by the business on others. ESG seeks to enforce businesses paying the costs of such pollution that they generate. I mean, it's only fair to expect them to clean up their own mess, is it not?
I like how the tech tree works. You get limited picks, but I think less is more so you don't have to follow the same path as every civilization. Though one thing that triggers me is the aesthetics. Not a lot of contrast. It is plain and greyish. Seems like it is going for a realistic style but the UI and avatars appear cartoony
This could be promising, looking like a bit of a hybrid between Civ and Humankind with a potentially fun combat system.
Like a hybrid between the Indominus Rex and the Raptor. A double hybrid.
Ara Ara sounds awesome.
exactly
Something I like is how they choose to include more informal leaders like Sappho, civilization has had leaders like Gandhi Heihachirō for a while now but I like this more creative direction, I think most people would have more fun playing as Rasputin and richielieu then just the more generic leaders like Catherine and napoleon
At the same time, tho, Sappho was never a leader of Greece, she was “only” a poet. It’s like having Leonardo da Vinci as the leader of Italy or Molière for France, it’s heavy alt-history. Rasputin and Richelieu, on the other hand, had political power and influence over rulers or even controlled the state, even if for a brief moment.🤔
I would make sense for Richelieu yeah but in the example of France there are so many famous leaders that I don't see a point in including poets
She has never led Greece. There are many much more important historical greek leaders eg. Pericles, Philip, Alexander and even not leaders like Demosthenes who was the big propagator of panhellenism and was fighting with Macedonian influences on the penisula
@@ilianceroni, Ara's whole thing is its focus on alt-history, though.
@@aloneill6337 I’m not convinced by this thesis, from the trailer I haven’t seen anything distinguishing Ara from all the other games in this genre, all of them are alt-history.
Just look at Humankind early trailers, with Lucy “conquering Rome after uniting all of Africa” or something like that. Note, Lucy is the name of the default avatar, named after the earliest hominid found (which at the same time is named after the Beatles’ song “Lucy in the sky with diamonds”).
Or Civ 5 trailers, where they tell the story of a game as if it was an history lessons. I remember something about vikings in space or something like that (of course, for a science victory).
Ara doesn’t seem to have anything more then these games when it come to “alt-history”. Moreover, if they pick up a famous people and then they explain the fact that such people complete different role with “alt-history”, they could just make some original characters… and I red Sappho, I doubt her game strategy/abilities will involve thirsting over women😂
Looks epic, I just don’t like how the map looks realistic but the Leaders look like they’re from Civ VI lol but still looking forward to it!
tbh thats why i like ARA the history untold because of the realistic map and real scale of models
that looks very interesting. the system of civilizations being out of the game after each act will leave it being extremely dynamic, but we need to know what will happen to their territories too
now for the simultaneous turn, if you played the Game of Thrones board game(or the online version that was free on epic a while ago) you know how crazy it can get(i played the board one, there was a lot of chaos between me and my friends)
i'll be getting it if the public opinion is positive and i think it will be
Very intrigued to see where this game goes!
Hey man I really appreciate you putting the release schedule in the beginning. Too many times I've watched yours or others and I go to impulse buy the game only to find it ain't out yet. Glad I'm subscribed. Subscribe if you're reading this and haven't, he's one of the best channels for learning about new 4X games.
Looks awesome. Can't wait to check it out.
Don't sleep on the act system. It might seem gamey to break gameplay continuity, but one of the biggest challenges for immersion in any grand strategy/4x game is scaling up to larger geographical areas while maintaining the same city geographies. If it works how I hope, with each act eliminating bottom players and scaling up the map to add in new players/unlock more of the map, the scaling dissonance will be solved by increasing scope roughly historically. Bronze Age collapse and Medieval collapse were arguably very similar to this act system and would be a cool way to control the scaling of the player's progress while also keeping that progress meaningful the entire game.
Medieval collapse? You mean the fall of rome?
@@CausticSpace While less ubiquitous than the Bronze Age collapse, the Medieval collapse was in large part due to the fall of the Roman empire and subsequent fracturing into feuding city states. It makes sense to call the terms synonymous in Western Europe, but other factors played equally large roles in other parts of the world. Famines, plagues, trade disruptions, and more turned the early Medieval period into an age of warfare and scaled political scopes to more local levels. I would posit that the Medieval collapse took place during different periods in different locations, but yes, the Roman collapse was a huge factor in the historical timeline of Western civilization.
The Bubonic Plague of Justinian in the 540's (50-100 years after the Western Roman collapse) is probably the most universal start of the Medieval collapse, IMO.
@@brandonzzz9924 Think you’re using the term wrong, as the medieval era is largely regarded to have happened AFTER the fall of rome. Collapse also implies the end of something, as the Bronze Age Collapse is largely regarded as the end of the bronze age. With your definition, the medieval era basically ended as soon as it started.
i cant wait for the Ara Ara memes for this game.
Lots of wonderful nuance and potential for depth, particularly with combat and city building. Could be mould-breaking for 4x. Or it could feel flat if these elements are just gimmicks.
Really hope they take the time to develop these ideas they have into something that gameplay wise lives up to its potential, rather than just looking good in a showcase
Definitely on my radar. Look forward to seeing how all this shakes out.
War will not be like Total War.
You will recruit and move the armies on the map, but when they engage in battle you can watch a simulation of them fighting in Phases.
Wich will be influenced by number and tech level + bonuses.
yes closer to a turn based stellaris battle.
I do find it interesting that there seem to be quite specific resources like wood, stone and tools in comparison to Civs and Humankinds production.
I love it. I think I'll like this version of humankind and Civ6 the most.
This is the first I have heard of it! To me, I think nothing will ever beat the Civilization series in that genre. However, it is very cool to see new games of similar style coming along, so now I am anticipating it. It will be on GamePass, too? That to me, is a bonus!
Let’s hope it really is different. Neither Humankind nor Old World are the equal of civilisation. They promised much but are just dull.
Looks better than civ6 to be honest, but let's hope the ai is not braindead like civ6. Also Ara Ara.
i hope it'll be a success
Ara ara~ history untold
Hopefully this will turn into a solid city-building game series
SAPPHO IS HERE ?! Let's go lesbians !!!
0:28 Man really pulled out his weeb voice for that
I was playing alpha test , I hope they will fix the combat , because actually I could do anything with my army , except moving them forward .
Upon first glance I thought it was news on Civ7.. I guess you can never have enough 4x.. But Sid Meier/Firaxis seems more my speed
Definitely interested in the simultaneous turns - simultaneous turn based strategy gets ignored a lot and I'm not really sure why. It's far more dynamic and puts the emphasis on skill and adaptability, as opposed to arbitrarily following a stupid series of steps defines by a meta.
This looks unreal? Too good to be true
The remove civilisation per act is intriguing :o
I wonder how it will feel when we play with friends
This game looks very interesting. I looking forward to seeing where it goes in the future updates.
This is looking good. It's been on my wishlist some time now.
Been looking forward to this game for a bit...
Looks interesting enough so far
it's look promising. My only question is that the units and buildings making process is like the civ series, humankind or like the age of wonder 4?
One of my biggest pet peeves with civ is that I feel constricted only using civ leaders with very specific abilities.
reminds me quite a bit of the Caesar games, with those meters
Love to see new 4X games coming out, but I really really hate the model of changing your culture/Civ each era like in Humankind. Breaks the immersion for me.
I had actually forgotten about this game, thx for reminding me, is it available to wish list on Steam so I dont forget again?
I've been hypothesizing the return of the RTS as Action 4X for about a year now. Fingers crossed on that theory being correct!
Allright. I think I will buy it once it releases. I hope it's gonna be on October, I have a big holiday that month😂
It's Jeff Keighley (Key-Lee), not Knightly. Just a clarification.
Very neat looking!!
simultaneous turns I feel are a great idea.
simultaneous turns are present in another strategy game ive played, fire and manuever, and it adds a lot of depth and strategy to everything. instead of just moving units and attacking, you have to take into consideration the priority of certain units attacking vs others, since the later a unit attacks, the more likely they are to be in a position where they cannot attack their targeted enemy.
edit: apparently its just higher speed goes first in terms of military conflict, which i feel is kind of underwhelming (unless im misunderstanding something)
I personally suspect that they will give you those first few leader choices, and come out with another leader DLC for $$$ every month until you have spent hundreds of $ on the game. However, I will be keeping my eye on this one
nice, looks like Civ and Cities Skylines had a secret child
nice i like decision based history games. im not so much like human kind did but more like say japan came to where they removed samari but instead you can choose to go the other way. less drastic of an effect toward the direction
Lmao at Washington "focusing on formations to win battles." He certainly did do that but it rarely had any positive effects. He was one of those generals that overcomplicate things and end up tripping themselves up.
He was much better at politics and being a very rich slave owner.
Why is Greece led by lesbian poet who doesn't have anything in common with politics?
As I recall from the test version, leaders in Ara are not like in Civ. You can have several active at once serving different roles.
Ara ara!
only thing I'd say that's very minor is it's a little weird having a poet for example in charge of a nation. IDK just in terms of immersion I would have preferred historical leaders imo xD
Did you know humankind shadow dropped on consoles yesterday? I’ve been checking for news regularly but to be honest this is the first time I’ve checked since August second… been to distracted. I’m not looking at that bear 😰
Looks extremely good. Too bad my laptop not strong enough to run.
Love at first sight doesn't exis.... 😮
The orders system sounds like it was nicked from the boardgames Wallenstein and Shogun designed by Dirk Henn
ara ara ❤
_Ara-Ara._
i guess it'll change going forward but it sort of feels.... mobile games-y.
the UI, the way that building are placed sort of has that loot box look to it.
stupid comment
The graphics are beautiful, but as usual the devil will be in the details. I hope the gameplay is as good as the visuals look.
We need Rise of Nations type of game. If this is it, I’m in.
releas date ? any idea as i got lost
all i want is a 4x game that lets us zoom in. zoom into our city. zoom into combat.
i dont even care if the controls are in depth.
*just let me see my culture in action*
you can see all details of your cities. 😏 I can promise.
Their combat vid said "this is not a wargame" and looks like it's just a numbers thing with no tactics. So.. domination is out. Sad. I guess gotta wait for civ7 or Millennia.
The prestige system seems unfortunate for a multiplayer game if nothing is working out for you
Interesting!
I disagree with your stance on push backs mechanics for warmonger. War and conquest is inherently snowbally, so wars should really cost a lot and make you hated by everyone else. I personally think that the warmonger mechanics in Civ VI are not harsh enough. And all these posts on Reddit where people ask "I got attacked, but I wiped them out, why does everyone hate me???" show that people need to get taught that war is the last resort and should never be an easy option.
The warmonger mechanics in civ 6 inherently made no sense even if you got attacked by a warmongering nation that everyone hates only to barely just survive with a peace treaty your still the bad guy and you get massive diplomatic penalties for it. Not all wars are the same therefore not all wars should be treated the same with the same diplomatic consequences
I was the 1k like 🥰
Looks good
Ara ara uwu
owo
Okay but... can we move nukes?
Is 4X the same as 2K? I've been playing Civ 6 on prince level and I keep losing. The barbarians are nuts.
I like the historic leaders. Humankind made me hate custom characters
4X are not grand strategy games.. That would require asymetric starts and resource management.
Ara ara
ara ara
Ara Ara
I think the system of removing the players from the game is a big mistake.
Generally the less players there are in the game, the more boring, shallow and predictable it becomes.
There are less and less entities in the world you can interact with, there are less emergent events, less variables to take into account, less interesting things in the game.
The games should actually be designed around giving as much opportunities as possible to a player for a comback to keep the game more exciting, interesting, dynamic, unpredictable and full of meaningful events.
When a game goes into an opposite direction, it makes me extremely sceptical about the quality of its game design.
If such fundamental things are handled this way, the rest of their game design decisions are likely to be problematic as well.
If there's no Incas, I might not get it.
That ui looks very rough
How could anyone not know who Sappho was?
Meh. I just want the 2nd expansion that never came for Civ Beyond Earth. That's when Firaxis died for me.
Why does he keep calling it Otter ?
seeing as how I generally don't like Civ 6 I'll probably buy this as a replacement, it looks ok so far.
As a Civ player I will have to give this and Humankind a go. Just starting on Anno 1800, so there's lots of choice now. Better graphics doesn't always translate to a better game though. Civ 5 was more fun to play than Civ 6. I like the idea of whoever starts a wonder gets to build it, in Civ I use huge resources only to find another player builds it one turn before. I also would like to be able to see what tech the other plays have, so I don't end up being wiped out by Tanks just as I discover Musketmen. Civ 6's super difficulty in declaring war spoiled it a bit. Maybe there are less penalty's for this game. The creators of Civ 7 have the advantage of seeing what their competitors have come up with and making something to outshine them. This is just reinventing the wheel in a way, and I would prefer a Civilization beyond Earth style focus. Perhaps the colonization of the Solar system based on the the series 'The Expanse'. There is a game, but it is not really a turn based strategy game.
Civ 5 is terrible
What you talking about, it's super easy to declaring war and win it in Civ 6 O_o
Ara-ara...
The trailer felt like a mobile fake game trailer. Especially the battles.
Sappho as leader of Greece? Let's go, lesbians, let's go!
One of George Washington's traits is "woodsman." Does this mean "good at leading armies through the woods" or "has a bad habit of chopping down trees he isn't supposed to"?
Haha woke propaganda in strategy game 😂 First of Sapho was never a leader of Greece or any polis for that matter nor she had any political ambitions, second you know she herself wasn't completely lesbian? I feel like you that know much about your "icon"
@@Pigraider268 lol I was being playful and referencing that Billy Eichner bit; don't be so triggered, you conservative snowflake 😂
ui is not good atm
Am I the only person who doesn’t like the look of the cities in this game? They are just “roads with buildings on them.” At least with civ and humankind the cities have a more “clustered” look
Hopefully this and Millenia will be better than Civilization series. There are way too many of this Civilization games. We need more diversity and Humankind failed to deliver.
Looks promising and I hope they can deliver and does not become a total failure like Humankind
Ara ara...
I wish we can get a REAL civilization simulator. I'm talking about getting approval from Congress before declaring war, and even then, there has to be some sort of approval/disapproval rate for war actions. If more than 80% approval, you get reduced war worriness and combat buffs. If more than 80% disapproval, higher war worriness, and debuffs on units, also increase chances of civil unrest. Also, the empire is divided up into different regions with their own subculture and needs, and you have to attend to their needs or civil war may break out.
If you want to go down the totalitarian/dictator path, you have to get rid of certain groups within the Empire to consolidate control. You can use the propaganda perk to keep disapproval rates down, and your soldiers gain combat bonuses. However, the propaganda perk is expensive and may bankrupt your nation if not managed correctly and you go into civil unrest anyway.
I think the AI should have legitimate reasons for going to war. It should be biased more towards scarity of resources. So if a nation is landlocked, it gains a bias for war towards neighboring nation that has coastal waters.
Also, land fertility should play a big part in war decision-making by the AI. Nations with high land fertility should be less likely to go to war.
I think a nation's success should be heavily influenced by its diversity of resources. So if you have more gold than others, your currency is more valuable and other nations are more likely to adopt it. But let's say your population isn't that big, your borders aren't that big and your military sucks. Nations are more likely to declare war on your nation
They should also introduce Currency, because Currency plays a big part in how nations influence other nations. If another nation adopts your currency, they can potentially become allies or even vessel/puppet states without going to war. The more nations that adopt your currency, the less expensive units and buildings become. But sometimes, there can be currency wars between 2 or more nations. Meaning some natural resources can be excluded from trading. So lets say the nation of Zambia only trades Marble if you adopt their currency. But you, the nation of Zimbaba already adopted the United Arabia currency. But you need this marble really bad because it's required to build a wonder/building. You have two options: go to war and steal their marble or adopt Zambia currency and being on United Arabia's bad side or increase in trading cost.
Also, it should be nearly impossble to conquer every nation on earth militarily because of the enormous cost and civil unrest, including the moral of units. It should not be like Civ6 where you just snowball and plow through everything towards endgame. Endgame should get harder, not easier.
Not a fan of the art - looks pretty gray and dull.
Needs some color.
Otherwise I’m interested
Gameplay is going to be important - not impressed by the graphics though - looks dull and rather ugly
Hopefully this game is better than civ5, because civ5 was absolute shite … Civ6 saved that franchise
It's kind of a shame the game looks really good until the U.I. comes up. It's pretty bulky and blah.