I've been thinking, something about the screenshot isn't right

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2012/03/civ5gandkscreen1.jpg

Here are my observations (conspiracy theorist unite)

1. Carthage has only FOUR cities present at this time (and so does the main player/Netherlands)

2. Why would the Carthage conquer (succesfully) a whole nation with only 2-3 cities (and more so, why would The Huns have only ONE city and not expand?)

3. Does it really mean that Hun's aren't able to build cities at all?

4. Is it possible that Atilla's Court is actually a Carthagian city (which, believe me, I don't believe it is, but it's a possibilty)

5. Ignorign all the above, this could really be just a screenshot set up in a way, maybe it's all placed, and a real game isn't happening

5. Ignorign all the above, this could really be just a screenshot set up in a way, maybe it's all placed, and a real game isn't happening


bingo.

5. Ignorign all the above, this could really be just a screenshot set up in a way, maybe it's all placed, and a real game isn't happening


bingo.

We can only assume that.. :P

We can only assume that.. :P

It's pretty obvious actually.

Check the turn time vs. the beaker/turn vs. the type of units. Even an AI can do better than that!

At 1300+ bpt, we could have finished the tech tree by then, or at least be very close.

It's pretty obvious actually.

Check the turn time vs. the beaker/turn vs. the type of units. Even an AI can do better than that!

At 1300+ bpt, we could have finished the tech tree by then, or at least be very close.

Actually, if it's true that there is a new era, then its' very plausible the game is not longer, meaning it takes more turn to finish

Beacuse of this, they haven't adjusted the rate of years per turn (like 200 years for the beginning, and 1 year at the end) this is techncially a BETA, and I doubt they would make a priority of the rate. they have better things, we don't know when these screenshots were actually made. They could be months old, and only released now.

I don't think it's 1300+ bpt, it looks like +371. if you look closely, you can see the horizontal dash going through the vertical one.

-Mark

Attila's court never was a Carthaginian city, but it was a Hunnic city. The Huns are confirmed in the game. Looking at that mini-map, it's entirely possible to fit three civs there comfortably, but Carthage expanded west instead of east. This set up conflict between Carthage and the Huns. Even leaving aside the argument that the whole picture was set up (which most believe anyway), that's the easiest explanation.

#2 - This can be from just being a set-up to show off a few things. It could even have been set-up as a hotseat game so they could show off multiple new civs without having to set-up multiple games.

#4 - This isn't possible, because Attila's Court has the puppet icon. If it were a Carthage City it couldn't have that icon as long as Carthage owns the city. Even if they had to retake it after it was captured, it wouldn't even give the puppet option to its original owner.

Why is the infantry icon a muffin?

#2 - This can be from just being a set-up to show off a few things. It could even have been set-up as a hotseat game so they could show off multiple new civs without having to set-up multiple games.

#4 - This isn't possible, because Attila's Court has the puppet icon. If it were a Carthage City it couldn't have that icon as long as Carthage owns the city. Even if they had to retake it after it was captured, it wouldn't even give the puppet option to its original owner.

It's funny how the Puppet State, even after you told me I had slight difficulty locating the icon, you're right, it's a Puppet State.

And you know, Hot seat is very likely, indeed, but I doubt it.

I don't think it's 1300+ bpt, it looks like +371. if you look closely, you can see the horizontal dash going through the vertical one.

-Mark

I think he was saying that by 2039 A.D/Turn 307-ish, you would be making way more than 1300 beakers.. which by the looks of the size of Netherlands, I doubt it.

Why is the infantry icon a muffin?

That made me laugh... it's an old-fashioned WW1 helmet (i believe)

It's a helmet, dude.

I believe it's a Brodie helmet, used in WW1 by the US:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/M1917helmet.jpg

Believe me, it does look like a muffin xD

Must be said, it's a great nickname, though :p

Attila's court never was a Carthaginian city, but it was a Hunnic city. The Huns are confirmed in the game. Looking at that mini-map, it's entirely possible to fit three civs there comfortably, but Carthage expanded west instead of east. This set up conflict between Carthage and the Huns. Even leaving aside the argument that the whole picture was set up (which most believe anyway), that's the easiest explanation.

They are discussing the Huns at 2k forums, speculating there is some new mechanic in the game to move Hunnic cities, to simulate the movement of nomads.

"Hey, hey! Watch it with that bank! You drop that building and we'll be picking up coins all week! And be careful with the aqueduct. It's sloshing water all over the place!"
"Oh no, look out! They were dragging the colosseum and the ropes snapped. Now it's rolling straight towards us!"
"You ever wonder if it might make sense for us to stop being nomads at some point?"
"Stop talking crazy and run!" A bit of humor I found.

I think this game was started at a later era to profile these units.

Due to the fact that Attila's Court has built the terra cotta army, I would guess this is an early wonder, maybe it's bronze age, bumping the colossus back.

Assuming that the screenshot isn't just mocked up, it could simply be that Carthage conquered the Huns very early, when they only had one or two cities.

Assuming that the screenshot isn't just mocked up, it could simply be that Carthage conquered the Huns very early, when they only had one or two cities.

It's plausible, but Carthage couldn't have more than 2 cities themselves. Maybe it's also religion related (+20% strength in cities with Carthage's religion)

Unless the Huns can't build cities, they get more by conquering?

Unless the Huns can't build cities, they get more by conquering?

But if Huns can't build cities, then this screenshot shows how bad the UA is.. they got conquered.

They are discussing the Huns at 2k forums, speculating there is some new mechanic in the game to move Hunnic cities, to simulate the movement of nomads.

"Hey, hey! Watch it with that bank! You drop that building and we'll be picking up coins all week! And be careful with the aqueduct. It's sloshing water all over the place!"
"Oh no, look out! They were dragging the colosseum and the ropes snapped. Now it's rolling straight towards us!"
"You ever wonder if it might make sense for us to stop being nomads at some point?"
"Stop talking crazy and run!" A bit of humor I found.

roflmao those are some funny quotes.

roflmao those are some funny quotes.

Yes they are hilarious.

I've seen a previous post in another thread noting that the plains tile in that screenshot is changed to the polder unique improvement in another screenshot; given that the Dutch are able to improve marshland and not plains, it seems very likely that this is just a set up image.

I shouldn't read much into it at all.

But if Huns can't build cities, then this screenshot shows how bad the UA is.. they got conquered.

Um, in every game I've played someone has gotten conquered at some point by another civ. Is every one of them bad?

Um, in every game I've played someone has gotten conquered at some point by another civ. Is every one of them bad?

No not at all. I have heard rumors of them making the Hun cities movable. Isn't that unreal?

Um, in every game I've played someone has gotten conquered at some point by another civ. Is every one of them bad?

No, because they could expand, how easy is it to conquer a very weak nation? That's my point. If they are really making Huns unable to expand they could very much be easy to conquer.

If the Huns are nomads essentially, it may explain why the one city we've seen connected with them is "Attila's court" rather than a city name. Perhaps they can't build settlers but are able to build units more quickly?

No, because they could expand, how easy is it to conquer a very weak nation? That's my point. If they are really making Huns unable to expand they could very much be easy to conquer.

I'm sure that they will balance it relatively well; this is a set up image and not something created during a game.

I'm still not that excited about the addition of the Hun though.

No, because they could expand, how easy is it to conquer a very weak nation? That's my point. If they are really making Huns unable to expand they could very much be easy to conquer.

By that logic a OCC game would be impossible on any difficulty. The difference here of course is so what if they can't build another city, they can surely capture all the cities they want. In fact, in the time it takes to build a settler, even with the boost from the social policy, you can build at least 2 combat units.

Also, look at all the guides and videos of early rushes where they only built 1 city before going and capturing more cities.

By that logic a OCC game would be impossible on any difficulty. The difference here of course is so what if they can't build another city, they can surely capture all the cities they want. In fact, in the time it takes to build a settler, even with the boost from the social policy, you can build at least 2 combat units.

Also, look at all the guides and videos of early rushes where they only built 1 city before going and capturing more cities.

Hm, I guess that's very likely.. I guess we'll have to see.

I just noticed I mistyped the Title xD.

No not at all. I have heard rumors of them making the Hun cities movable. Isn't that unreal?

I don't know if I'd call that a rumor, more like fan speculation.

Technically, Attila's Court is a name of a location given in the historical records. It was obviously founded by Attila and I can't say if it was located at a real city or not before that point, but it would have been a physical location as long as Attila was alive.

I believe it's a Brodie helmet, used in WW1 by the US

...and by the British who designed it. :p

lol, you're right, my bad :)

I don't know if I'd call that a rumor, more like fan speculation.

Technically, Attila's Court is a name of a location given in the historical records. It was obviously founded by Attila and I can't say if it was located at a real city or not before that point, but it would have been a physical location as long as Attila was alive.

Yes it is certainly a rumor. Still though, I have always wanted to learn more about the Huns. What a fearsome people. The Hunnic composite bow was as important to the Hun warrior as a sword was to a samurai. I hope they truly have added them to the game. There has been speculation that one of the new units is a horse archer. So I believe the Huns UU will be an upgunned horse archer. That makes obvious sense to me, but you never know the devs may think differently.

I was wondering one other thing though. I have heard that Attila visited Rome and was fascinated with the advancements of the Romans, especially the baths. So much so that he built one of his own, probably at Attila's Court. Have you heard of this being true?

I would love to find a book on his life.

Anyway, my first game on Gods and Kings will be as either the Huns, Carthage, or the Byzantines, not sure which. Not sure why I am saying that, other than the fact that I simply cannot wait for the expansion to come out. :)

...and by the British who designed it. :p

The German stahlhelm was superior in design and protection. The Germans should wear them in the game for their WWI infantry. They can stick the picklehaube on their rifleman. A little unit diversity would go a long way in CiV.

Yes it is certainly a rumor. Still though, I have always wanted to learn more about the Huns. What a fearsome people. The Hunnic composite bow was as important to the Hun warrior as a sword was to a samurai. I hope they truly have added them to the game. There has been speculation that one of the new units is a horse archer. So I believe the Huns UU will be an upgunned horse archer. That makes obvious sense to me, but you never know the devs may think differently.

I was wondering one other thing though. I have heard that Attila visited Rome and was fascinated with the advancements of the Romans, especially the baths. So much so that he built one of his own, probably at Attila's Court. Have you heard of this being true?

I would love to find a book on his life.

Anyway, my first game on Gods and Kings will be as either the Huns, Carthage, or the Byzantines, not sure which. Not sure why I am saying that, other than the fact that I simply cannot wait for the expansion to come out. :)



The German stahlhelm was superior in design and protection. The Germans should wear them in the game for their WWI infantry. They can stick the picklehaube on their rifleman. A little unit diversity would go a long way in CiV.

I know this is Offtopic, but my first game is gonna be a 10 player game with all the new civs against myself :D

I know this is Offtopic, but my first game is gonna be a 10 player game with all the new civs against myself :D

So your using a current civ? Obviously dumb question. That's an excellent idea. Who is your favorite civ to play as now? Lately mine has been Arabia, but I just started my first Emperor game as the Mongols. Ten civs large map of Asia. All victory conditions. All five Asian civs, along with Persia, the Ottomans, Russia, Germany, Rome, and India. So far so good, but I am a bit scared. Japan is my neighbor. I'd love to take him out early. I am not sure how I'll do. The best advice I have heard was this...

1. Obtain horses.
2. Build Keshiks.
3. Don't let Keshiks die.
4. Obtain more horses.
5. Goto 2.

I have six horses and two cities thus far, so I am on the right track. :lol:


Sorry about being Offtopic as well. I will steer back on track asap.

So your using a current civ? Obviously dumb question. That's an excellent idea. Who is your favorite civ to play as now? Lately mine has been Arabia, but I just started my first Emperor game as the Mongols. Ten civs large map of Asia. All victory conditions. All five Asian civs, along with Persia, the Ottomans, Russia, Germany, Rome, and India. So far so good, but I am a bit scared. Japan is my neighbor. I'd love to take him out early. I am not sure how I'll do. The best advice I have heard was this...

1. Obtain horses.
2. Build Keshiks.
3. Don't let Keshiks die.
4. Obtain more horses.
5. Goto 2.

I have six horses and two cities thus far, so I am on the right track. :lol:


Sorry about being Offtopic as well. I will steer back on track asap.

I'll plan on playing as SPain.

BACK TO THE TOPIC (which I made xD)

I'm wondering how exactly the Huns are gonna work, it's weeird how much of a mystery Huns became. Is it possible that The Huns are gonna have the list of Gothic/Hungarian (if they came from there.. I gotta check it on Wiki) cities?

Ah! Found an interesting episode of Deadliest Warrior. Alexander the Great vs. Attila the Hun. Perhaps I can learn some useful info about how the Huns fought. ;)

The BBC made a show called Heroe&Villains about famous military leaders. There's an episode about Attila and the Huns, it might interest you.

Ah! Found an interesting episode of Deadliest Warrior. Alexander the Great vs. Attila the Hun. Perhaps I can learn some useful info about how the Huns fought. ;)

Alexander so should have won that!

Alexander so should have won that!

Just as Napoleon should have won against Washington!

The BBC made a show called Heroe&Villains about famous military leaders. There's an episode about Attila and the Huns, it might interest you.

Yes indeed, I had watched the episode about Napoleon some time ago. I have found several episodes on youtube, all full episodes. Thank you for reminding me about this show. :)

Just as Napoleon should have won against Washington!

Well, that one goes without saying ;)

Alexander so should have won that!

:lol: I could not believe he lost. The sword of Mars through his neck. Come on! :(

Just as Napoleon should have won against Washington!

I have to agree. Napoleon was a far better field commander. They should make an episode with Frederick the Great vs. Napoleon, or Wellington vs. Washington. Try this one on for size, how about Lt. General George Armstrong Custer vs. Lt. General Lord Chelmsford?

Ok all this about Huns having no settlers or movable camp etc. are good ideas but just speculations.

What if they will be a more traditional Civ, but with cool units and some very special UA.
Are you going to be disappointed? :)

I don't know that much about their history but I'm interested if they are going to be a really wild Civ like Polynesia for example.

People are only having those speculations because nobody knows what cities they're gonna have, they might easily have Gothic or Hungarian cities.

What if they will be a more traditional Civ, but with cool units and some very special UA.
Are you going to be disappointed? :)

I won't be. It's what I expect. However, it would make me think they're too close to the Mongols.

If the no settler for the huns thing is true, I am a bit worried.

sure it sounds awesome, but it's so easily either underpowered (total expansion failure) or overpowered (nearby civs have no chance to survive). I'm guessing it might involve barbarians, that under certain circumstances they will join you freely.

I would be a little bit disappointed, yes.

Not much, as I expect them to be "traditional", too. But I would feel that Firaxis wasted a great opportunity.

That's the problem with all this speculation (and especially *own* ideas, like my movable encampment): you fall in love with them and - of course - don't find them represented in the real game.
The same happend with the Danes, for me. They are not bad now, but traditional. I think, I had so much cooler ideas for them...

I'm not necessairly super excited for Huns, but curious to see how they're implemented.

(Note to mods)

It might be a good idea to either merge parts/whole of the thread to a Huns related thread? I don't think there's much left to discuss of the topic... except.. Huns...

(Note to mods)

It might be a good idea to either merge parts/whole of the thread to a Huns related thread? I don't think there's much left to discuss of the topic... except.. Huns...

Would be an awful merge, because with 3 pages the topic is already long.
I'd rather close it :think:...

Would be an awful merge, because with 3 pages the topic is already long.
I'd rather close it :think:...

Life would be much simpler if the person who invented forums of these format woudl allow posts to be transported (remvoed from the thread) :lol:

:lol: Moving Hun cities remind me of Municipal darwinism from Mortal engines.

I won't be. It's what I expect. However, it would make me think they're too close to the Mongols.

It seems to me the Huns will have the advantage in the limited Classical era, wheras the Mongols would have the advantage in the longer Medieval era. I am curious how that would play out? If your playing as the Huns and your next to the Mongols do you destroy them early? I believe I would get rid of them.

Yeah, but the ancient vs. medieval distinction's not a very good one.

Yeah, but the ancient vs. medieval distinction's not a very good one.

Yes that is true. Still militarily speaking there is difference enough. The Huns will have other abilities which will balance them with other civs. I just wish I knew what they will be.

It seems to me the Huns will have the advantage in the limited Classical era, wheras the Mongols would have the advantage in the longer Medieval era. I am curious how that would play out? If your playing as the Huns and your next to the Mongols do you destroy them early? I believe I would get rid of them.

it's an age old question... :mischief:

If you spawn with Alex on one side and Napoleon on the other, which do you kill first? Alex is strong early, so might be more dangerous while you try to get set up, but Napoleon only gets stronger, especially when musketeers start spamming out.

Both love a good mass settler spam, so one has to be removed. What do you do? :crazyeye: :lol:

it's an age old question... :mischief:

If you spawn with Alex on one side and Napoleon on the other, which do you kill first? Alex is strong early, so might be more dangerous while you try to get set up, but Napoleon only gets stronger, especially when musketeers start spamming out.

Both love a good mass settler spam, so one has to be removed. What do you do? :crazyeye: :lol:

I would take out Napoleon first and defend against Alex. Alex is impudent later in the game when compared to Napoleon. Hopefully they would not declare war on me at the same time.

Do you have an LP to watch where this little nightmare scenario happened to you? :lol:

If you do I'd like to watch it. I've learned a lot from your videos, the ones I have watched, and your easy to listen too. Lately I started watching your Spain LP. I believe the one I watched before was your England LP.

I would take out Napoleon first and defend against Alex. Alex is impudent later in the game when compared to Napoleon. Hopefully they would not declare war on me at the same time.

Do you have an LP to watch where this little nightmare scenario happened to you? :lol:

If you do I'd like to watch it. I've learned a lot from your videos, the ones I have watched, and your easy to listen too. Lately I started watching your Spain LP. I believe the one I watched before was your England LP.

I agree. It seems better to defend against a superiour foe first while defeating an inferior foe, then the superior foe has become inferior and you can take him out. Otherwise it's two uphill battles (especially the second one since France had time to preprare)

If the Hunns are limmited to one city I hope they will have a higher unit limmit.

If the Hunns are limmited to one city I hope they will have a higher unit limmit.
Why everybody keep saying that ? Is there a source that hints that Huns can found only one city ?

It's speculation based on the fact that no one knows if the Huns actually founded any cities and the one Hunnic city seen in a screen cap is possibly the capital named Atilla's Court. And the Huns were well known for taking cities.

It's pure, unadulterated speculation.

Which is the best kind ;)

We also don't know what the Carthaginian ability is. I've made suggestions in the past, but we have no idea.

We could also speculate about the Mayan ability because all we know for that is you get culture boosts having to do with the calendar.

Was it culture? I thought it was just 'something' related to the Mayans' famed calenders.

IGN Article: (http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/121/1218810p1.html)
Firaxis remains mum on the specifics, but did state that the expansion includes the Maya. Like what's often heard in popular culture, the Mayan calendar is a big part of how the civilization operates, and plays a significant role in their cultural bonuses.

I have a feeling that Carthage might have an Elephant UU or something related to elephants. Look at the sign of Carthage, it is an elephant. Pure & unadulterated speculation ofcourse as AriochIV stated. :p

I'm still hoping they don't, but it'll depend on whether they want to give Carthage 2 UUs. They had Elephants, but so did Epirus, Macedon, Egypt, Seleucid Empire, and the Parthians during this period.

Then again, I haven't gotten much of what I've wanted for Carthage this time around ;)

I think two UUs would suit the best for Carthage :)

Perhaps Sacred Band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Carthage) a Spearman replacement with much higher strength than regular and can be "drafted" from Carthaginian cities (decreases one population) or can be bought cheaper.

The Sacred Band of Carthage is the name used by Greek historians to refer to an infantry unit of Carthaginian foot citizens that served in Carthaginian armies during the fourth century BC. The presence of Carthaginian citizens fighting as infantry in these armies is unusual as Carthaginian citizens usually only served as officers or cavalry in the Carthaginian armed forces and the bulk of Carthaginian armies were usually made up of mercenaries, infantry from allied communities (who might be Punic colonists) and subject levies.

Trained from an early age to be tough phalanx spearmen, these men were from wealthy Carthaginian families, and as such had extremely good equipment. They were trained from birth to be great warriors and they were able to afford high quality armor and weapons. They fought as a traditional phalanx organized in the Hellenic style.

The "Sacred Band" consisted of a small heavy infantry unit of 2000-3000 men, who were "inferior to none among them as to birth, wealth, or reputation" and distinguished by "the splendour of their arms, and the slowness and order of their march".


Quinquereme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquereme#Quinquereme) would fit perfectly as the second UU. In past I have favored an Elephant UU for Carthaginians, but my opinion has changed somewhat. I think Elephant symbol as Carthaginian sign reminds nicely about that and is enough. :)

The navy of Carthage was the city's primary security, and it was the preeminent force patrolling the Mediterranean in Carthage's golden age. This was due to its central location, control of the pathway between Sicily and Tunisia, through which all ships must travel in order to cross the Mediterranean, and the skill with which its ships were designed and built.[citation needed]

Originally based on Tyrian designs with two or three levels of rowers that were perfected by generations of Phoenician seamanship[citation needed], it also included quadriremes and quinqueremes, warships with four and five ranks of rowers on no more than three levels (see galley). These latter ships were much larger than their predecessors. Archaeological investigations confirm the presence of ship-sheds on the island in the circular harbour reported by ancient sources.

Polybius wrote in the sixth book of his History that the Carthaginians were, "more exercised in maritime affairs than any other people."[19] Their navy included some 300 to 350 warships that continuously patrolled the expanse of the Mediterranean. The Romans, unable to defeat them through conventional maritime tactics, developed the Corvus, or the crow, a spiked boarding bridge that could be impaled onto an enemy ship so that the Romans could send over marines to capture or sink the Carthaginian vessels.


Cothon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cothon) would be nice UB as well with some Gold and Navy bonuses but I'd prefer two UUs as I see Carthage mainly as a militaristic Civ. UA could be something along these lines: Mercenary Armies -20% Discount to All Unit Purchases and Units can be Upgraded at Half the Cost. Representing the presence and use of mercenaries in ancient Carthage.

Of course all this is just pure, unadulterated speculation from my part :)

The Sacred Band would be a nice unit for Carthage or they could bring back the Libyan Mercenary from Civ3. Another possible unit could be the Numidian Cavalry since they are quite famous as well.
I hope they give us some new info on the Civs and their units soon, can't wait anymore!

Every time you move a Hun military unit next to a barbarian camp you have a 50% chance of converting that barb camp into Attila's Court 2! Wild speculation is fun. Seriously I think the odds of the huns not being able to found cities is very, very low. What were the names of the cities they used in Civ 4? I forget. Maybe they'll just do similar to whatever was done in the past.

I'm not sure Huns were ever a civilization in previous Civ games.. I think they're a first.. At least I know for sure they weren't in Civ 4.

Huns are new.

I still hope they will give the Huns a ''no settlers'' ability, offset by a powerfull offensive ability. But this seems hard to balance and kindof ''out there'', you know?

I think it's not unlikely they will be a more or less normal civ. After all, Polynesia has cities, Iroquois too. Huns are not such a far stretch in comparison.

"Out there" is good IMHO, but it would be hard to balance.

I'm not sure Huns were ever a civilization in previous Civ games.. I think they're a first.. At least I know for sure they weren't in Civ 4.


Must be remembering something else, maybe a mod or something...

On a side note, I just saw the poster art, the one with Attila, Boudica and the statue of David... looks incredibly kitsch.

I still hope they will give the Huns a ''no settlers'' ability, offset by a powerfull offensive ability. But this seems hard to balance and kindof ''out there'', you know?

I think it's not unlikely they will be a more or less normal civ. After all, Polynesia has cities, Iroquois too. Huns are not such a far stretch in comparison.

If such UA is given to Huns, then I bet Atilla AI will steamroll everyone or will suck completely just like Genghis who even doesn't know how to use its Keshliks.

If such UA is given to Huns, then I bet Atilla AI will steamroll everyone or will suck completely just like Genghis who even doesn't know how to use its Keshliks.

It would indeed be superhard to balance. He's either going to take out one or more civs superearly, leading to the most lethal steamroll so far. Or he will not be able to expand and either have to go cultural or suck completely.

Then again, the expansion will bring unforeseen changes, we must wait and see.

After all, Polynesia has cities, Iroquois too. Huns are not such a far stretch in comparison.

I just want to correct any possible misconceptions. The Iroquois in real life had cities. They were a sedentary, farming people. They were as much nomads as we are today.

The Huns, through most of their history, were nomads. But that doesn't mean they can't have a city list reflecting the cities they conquered. Technically even the Roman city list is mostly of cities they conquered (even if in Italy).

The Huns, through most of their history, were nomads. But that doesn't mean they can't have a city list reflecting the cities they conquered. Technically even the Roman city list is mostly of cities they conquered (even if in Italy).

The question then becomes: Did they conquer any cities that are currently on other civs' city lists? Of course it wouldn't be the first time in history that there were mutiple cities with the same name. In the "old world" there are 2 Tripolis (one in Lebenon and one in Libya). I can't think of any others off the top of my head (outside of, say, most of the towns around here in Massachusetts being named after cities from England), but I'm sure people who know geography/history better than I do could come up with more examples.

Thebes the capital of Egypt and Thebes the capital of the Polis Boeotia (in Greece).

The Huns will have a lot of eastern European cities. If these cities are in other city lists, they'll likely have different names which seems to be ok (Byzantion, Constantinople, Istanbul).

What is the light blue div in the lower right hand corner of the map? It doesn't quite look like Babylon or anything else that we know of so far.

What is the light blue div in the lower right hand corner of the map? It doesn't quite look like Babylon or anything else that we know of so far.

We cannot be sure, but I'd say it's the Byzantines.
(Not a good color for them...)

We cannot be sure, but I'd say it's the Byzantines.
(Not a good color for them...)

I hope it's not the Byzantine Empire down there. The baby blue colour is nice, but dark red or purple are more fitting for Byzantium.

It could be the Maya?

I think Maya are the ones behind the Great Prophet, which are very different in colour

As far as we know
The Orange + White - Netherlands
The Dark Forest Green + Blue - Celts
Grey + Purple - Netherlands
Orangey + Green? - The Mayans.

We cannot be sure, but I'd say it's the Byzantines.
(Not a good color for them...)

That could work, but I agree it's a terrible color choice. Red and Purple should be their colors.

That could work, but I agree it's a terrible color choice. Red and Purple should be their colors.

I agree, but then again, it might not be them at all. we don't know the civilization.

But I agree, Dark Red is a color that comes to midn when I think of Byzantine, mostly because of Civ 3 :D

In that picture, is the white Japan or someone else (possibly new)? Based on the descriptions of the walkthroughs they've seen, Theodora wanted to attack Boudicca. Since Boudicca is on the map, one of the other two are likely to be Byzantium. If they're the baby blue, they'll have purple as their secondary color, at least.

In that picture, is the white Japan or someone else (possibly new)?

White/Red Japan, for sure.

Another scenario is that it's a civilization we don't know of yet

White/Red Japan, for sure.

OK, then Blue/Purple must be Byzantium. It fits the story about wanting to attack the Celts. While it's true the demo could have been different, it doesn't make sense that it would be.

Actually, I don't think it's a screencap of the actual "demo"... I dno't think it is..

Is this because you don't want Byzantium's colors to be blue and purple or because you have some other reason to believe that it's not a screenshot of the demo?

As far as we know
The Orange + White - Netherlands
The Dark Forest Green + Blue - Celts
Grey + Purple - Netherlands
Orangey + Green? - The Mayans.

You mean Grey+ Purple is Carthage, Right?
The Mayans color looks more yellowish to me.
That light blue civ prolly is the Byzantines. And the white/red one is Japanese.

Oh yes, I meant Carthage, don't know how I got Netherlands in there.. but yes, Carthage.

I think Attila's Court is a Militaristic City-State.

No, it's not. We are having the Huns, it's been mentioned in interviews with Beach. Deal with it people

I think Attila's Court is a Militaristic City-State.

It doesn't have the City State icon on the city bar, as has been noted.

The Hun is in, whatever we might think about it.

What if the Huns' UI was an encampment that instead of creating barbs, it would create their units. There would have to be some heavy counter to spamming them to prevent mass invasions though...

If the Huns had some new very different and interesting raider-civ mechanic... don't you think Firaxis would be touting it as a wonderful new feature?

If the Huns had some new very different and interesting raider-civ mechanic... don't you think Firaxis would be touting it as a wonderful new feature?

Believe me there is much they have not touted yet. Who cares play Fall of the Samurai until Gods and Kings comes out! ;)

Who cares play Fall of the Samurai until Gods and Kings comes out! ;)
My plan exactly, with small digressions towards other Total War games and Civ5 itself. :) Unless I misunderstood this sentence and you're not recommending FotS at all :D

I can't imagine Huns being non-unique. Their inclusion brings high expectations towards what they will be like. It might result in disappointment, but I doubt Firaxis would include them without something special up their sleeve. All other civs are unique enough, but I hope the Huns will be crazy. :crazyeye:

My plan exactly, with small digressions towards other Total War games and Civ5 itself. :) Unless I misunderstood this sentence and you're not recommending FotS at all :D

No I am recommending it. So far it has been a learning experience, with the more modern techs and units, but very addictive. :)

Oh and for topic, I cannot wait for the Huns either. The Huns loved to circle their wagons when attacked, I wonder if they will have some UA or bonuses taking that into effect. They als had pontoon bridging equipment with them in those wagons, they should get a bonus for crossing rivers, or a free river crossing promotion. The devs really have some interesting choices they could use for the Huns. The Huns certainly were quite a unique, interesting, and deadly group of barbarians.

I can't imagine Huns being non-unique. Their inclusion brings high expectations towards what they will be like. It might result in disappointment, but I doubt Firaxis would include them without something special up their sleeve. All other civs are unique enough, but I hope the Huns will be crazy. :crazyeye:

Yeah, people were mad at them before these speculations began, and some are still having a hard time trying to accept them.

If their gameplay is indeed unique, I'd like to see such mechanism shared with the Mongols (although it's too early to wish this kind of thing) .

If the Huns had some new very different and interesting raider-civ mechanic... don't you think Firaxis would be touting it as a wonderful new feature?

They've been fairly silent about each Civs traits so far and they're also very silent about the Huns (they've really only gotten an off-hand mention). I wouldn't read their silence to mean much one way or the other.

I wouldn't car them "silent" as opposed to "not having opportunity to go into greater detail"

I'm not even sure if they FULLY confirmed Huns are present, we only know this because we saw Attila's Court as a puppeted city in a single screenshot AND a poster with Attila behind Ed.

I wouldn't car them "silent" as opposed to "not having opportunity to go into greater detail"

I'm not even sure if they FULLY confirmed Huns are present, we only know this because we saw Attila's Court as a puppeted city in a single screenshot AND a poster with Attila behind Ed.

It is in the interview, isn't it? There's talk of a scenario and the fact that it enabled them to make use of a number of the new civilisations. They are in the fall of Rome situation.

I thought that everyone was convinced now, whatever we might think about it.

I don't know, is it in the interview :P I don't recall xD. I'm not denying it. We'll probably get info on the Huns at the PAX.

I've been thinking, something about the screenshot isn't right

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2012/03/civ5gandkscreen1.jpg

Here are my observations (conspiracy theorist unite)

1. Carthage has only FOUR cities present at this time (and so does the main player/Netherlands)

2. Why would the Carthage conquer (succesfully) a whole nation with only 2-3 cities (and more so, why would The Huns have only ONE city and not expand?)

3. Does it really mean that Hun's aren't able to build cities at all?

4. Is it possible that Atilla's Court is actually a Carthagian city (which, believe me, I don't believe it is, but it's a possibilty)

5. Ignorign all the above, this could really be just a screenshot set up in a way, maybe it's all placed, and a real game isn't happening

One thing I wanted to point out (that I believe hasn't been previously stated) is that Carthage doesn't necessarily have only 2-3 cities, as the area behind the 4 map-visible cities seems to be unscouted rather than empty. Japan for example has 10 cities, I think it much more likely that the rest of the continent is filled, and those 4 cities are the four Netherlands has known about since scouting the map at the start.

I highly doubt it, it looks as if he ALMOST discovered Satellites, he discovered like 95% of the map, the Carthage doesn't have a single city outside the landmass them and Huns along with Netherlands are on.

I highly doubt it, it looks as if he ALMOST discovered Satellites, he discovered like 95% of the map, the Carthage doesn't have a single city outside the landmass them and Huns along with Netherlands are on.

Seems to me like they probably just threw some cities on a map so they could do a quick demonstration of the game. Ha, it's the simplest explanation for issues people are inventing entirely new game mechanics to explain. ;)

I wouldn't car them "silent" as opposed to "not having opportunity to go into greater detail"

I'm not even sure if they FULLY confirmed Huns are present, we only know this because we saw Attila's Court as a puppeted city in a single screenshot AND a poster with Attila behind Ed.

Ed also mentioned them.

By silent I meant silent so far. Obviously, they're parceling out information over time.

It [Atilla's Court] doesn't have the City State icon on the city bar, as has been noted.

The Hun is in, whatever we might think about it.

but, as someone else pointed out, it does have the puppet icon.

but, as someone else pointed out, it does have the puppet icon.

That simply means it got conquered.

but, as someone else pointed out, it does have the puppet icon.

City-States always have an icon indicating they were once City-States.

but, as someone else pointed out, it does have the puppet icon.

The Huns are in, just wish we knew more is all.

City-States always have an icon indicating they were once City-States.

i guess i never paid attention to that.

Why is the infantry icon a muffin?

I'm definitely going to be calling those units muffins.


I know this is Offtopic, but my first game is gonna be a 10 player game with all the new civs against myself :D

Me too, and currently I'm playing a game with all the DLC civs I got in the Steam sale :)

Edit: my bad, this post ended up being more off-topic than intended. But if the Huns can't settle cities, will that mean their "Settler" will be a UU? A low-cost spammable UU, perhaps?

But if the Huns can't settle cities, will that mean their "Settler" will be a UU? A low-cost spammable UU, perhaps?

Perhaps a very cheap unit that creates a barbarian camp? Then you can set a few camps near your enemies to keep them occupied and weak while you attack them from another side to actually get new cities.

Perhaps a very cheap unit that creates a barbarian camp? Then you can set a few camps near your enemies to keep them occupied and weak while you attack them from another side to actually get new cities.

I'll be pretty surprised if they don't just make settlers and cities like every other cities. This is all pretty baseless speculation. It's fun to think about, though.

I'll be pretty surprised if they don't just make settlers and cities like every other cities. This is all pretty baseless speculation. It's fun to think about, though.

Baseless and unrealistic is basicly my life motto :)

You're right ofcourse. Any civ with UA that actually goes against a fundamental part of the game would be very hard to balance.

So more baseless speculation, bit more realistic: The Huns are not attacked by barbarians, barbarians ignore their territory and units (huns may still attack barbarians if they want to though).

I'll be pretty surprised if they don't just make settlers and cities like every other cities. This is all pretty baseless speculation. It's fun to think about, though.

I wouldn't call it "speculation". I would prefer calling it "dreaming"...

But you are right, I don't expect my dream to come true, here.

Well if they think it's too extreme, a UA like that should at least be moddable :) The balance problem is hard to figure out... how can the Huns expand adequately through conquest without putting nearby civs at a huge disadvantage compared to farther away civs? Maybe they could make barb encampments into cities, but that just doesn't feel right. Weird UAs are one of my fav things about Civ 5 so it'd be awesome to see one that crazy that actually worked well.

I was thinking maybe they could have an ability to spawn Barbarian encampments themselves. Kind of like a Scout or an Spy from the older games, they could sneak near certain territories and just implant them. Could be kind of cool for late game too, since you rarely see Barbarians at a certain point. Though it would be a little bizarre to cool a Civilization barbarians, seeing as how that is a slur that implies the opposite of what a Civilization is.

If the huns can build cities, what on earth would their city names be?

If the huns can build cities, what on earth would their city names be?

Would it be possible for them to use Hungarian City-List? Gothic City-List? God knows what? I think something is figured out for sure.

The logical thing would be to figure out places they conquered or were vassals to Attila.

Hungarian city names would be completely odd and random. I really of no connection between the Huns and Hungary other than the name. Not aware that the Goths really had cities, and in any regards, the goths were the enemies of the Huns. I guess they could have just of the name of places they conquered, but that would be odd. Have difficulty seeing how it would not mostly be a repetition of Roman city names.

I still can't quite believe the Huns are a civ, it makes so little sense in very many regards. What language will they speak? There is 0 UB they can have, guess they could have UU, but I dont recall them having particularly different weaponry or tactics than anyone else at the time. Other than perhaps a precursor to the Keshik.

The logical thing would be to figure out places they conquered or were vassals to Attila.

They had such a huge empire. There must have been cities they had to govern. I know they captured a bunch of cities on their way to Constantinople.

"Hun armies came alarmingly close to Constantinople, sacking Sardica, Arcadiopolis and Philippopolis along the way. Suffering a complete defeat at the Battle of Chersonesus, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II gave in to Hun demands and the Peace of Anatolius was signed in autumn 443. The Huns returned to their lands with a vast train full of plunder." Wikipedia oh well. But you get the point.

They sacked these places, but they still stood. Did the Huns govern them? Thats what I don't know. They had a huge empire with many many villages, towns, and cities. My guess is that the Huns relied on a system of tribute to Attila, who in place of this let these cities and regions govern themselves.

So the cities the Huns controlled could be names for their city list. As long as they don't coincide with any other civs list. In that case they could change some names or organize them in a way that they don't show up twice on the map. I am sure they have this worked out already.

Maybe the Huns should start with a horde (which could be an x amount of military units, and when this horde sacks a city, they then have a choice. They can sack or loot the city giving them a nice chunk of gold, or they can settle the place and have it become their capital. When the city is taken maybe it can be renamed whatever you want to name it. Attila's court could be a name someone decided to use. Even though it existed in history. Could the person playing the demo have named it that? Or changed the name to that from the original name that popped up, which could have been Buda, for instance? City names can be edited. After the Huns take this initial capital, then they can take more cities the same as any other civ.

Buda was one city. It was known as the Huns HQ of Europe. "Anyway: The HQ of the Huns in Europe was Buda in Hungary, later to merge with Pest to Budapest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda

Those cities sound like Roman cities, so, no, they don't count. Ideally, we need cities across the Danube. Of course, we might not have contemporary sources, in which case, archaeological sites are best if known.

Hungarian city names would be completely odd and random. I really of no connection between the Huns and Hungary other than the name. Not aware that the Goths really had cities, and in any regards, the goths were the enemies of the Huns. I guess they could have just of the name of places they conquered, but that would be odd. Have difficulty seeing how it would not mostly be a repetition of Roman city names.

I still can't quite believe the Huns are a civ, it makes so little sense in very many regards. What language will they speak? There is 0 UB they can have, guess they could have UU, but I dont recall them having particularly different weaponry or tactics than anyone else at the time. Other than perhaps a precursor to the Keshik.

If I remember it correctly stirrup was an invented by Huns. In Aoe2 there UU was Tarkan. I think they'll probably have 2 UUs. One of them would replace horseman. What special trait it could have. We already have city bonus cav Mandluke Cavalry, pillaging cav Sipahi... :hmm:

Or maybe the cities will be the names of the groups that fought under them.

They sacked these places, but they still stood. Did the Huns govern them? Thats what I don't know. They had a huge empire with many many villages, towns, and cities. My guess is that the Huns relied on a system of tribute to Attila, who in place of this let these cities and regions govern themselves.


Perhaps the Huns UA could be some kind of bonus for Puppet States? Being the "ultimate" Conqueror Civilization with another bonus for Unhappiness from Annexing cities. Then you would have two different kind of strategies to choose from, many puppets cities or rather annexing them.

Summary about Annexation:

Annexing the City (http://www.dndjunkie.com/civilopedia/CONCEPT_CITY_ANNEX.aspx)

If you annex the city, you make it a part of your empire. You have total control over the city, just as if you had constructed the city yourself. The one downside to annexation is that doing so makes your citizens very unhappy, and you will be required to construct happiness-related buildings like colosseums or connect up to luxury resources to counteract their extreme displeasure. Annexing too many cities too rapidly can bring your empire to a grinding halt.

I think reduced unhappiness bonus from annexation might be a powerful trait for a militaristic Civ.

If I remember it correctly stirrup was an invented by Huns. In Aoe2 there UU was Tarkan. I think they'll probably have 2 UUs. One of them would replace horseman. What special trait it could have. We already have city bonus cav Mandluke Cavalry, pillaging cav Sipahi... :hmm:

According to the always reliable[?] Wikipeadia;
The first dependable representation of a rider with paired stirrups was found in China in a (Eastern) Jin Dynasty tomb of about AD 322.[16][17][18] The stirrup appeared to be in widespread use across China by AD 477.[19]

And

By the late 6th or early 7th century, primarily due to invaders from Central Asia, such as the Avars, stirrups began spreading across Asia to Europe.[20] In terms of acheaological finds, the iron pear-shaped form of stirrups, the ancestor of medieval European types, has been found in Europe in 7th century Avar graves in Hungary.[21] A total of 111 specimens of early Avar-age, apple shaped, cast-iron stirrups with elongated suspension loop and flat, slightly inward bent tread had been excavated from 55 burial sites in Hungary and surrounding regions by 2005.[22] The first European literary reference to the stirrup is in the Strategikon of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice, written sometime between 575 and 628 AD. [23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

Also from Wikipedia:

"In warfare they utilised the bow and javelin.[16]

They could be creative with a javelin unit. They could just replace a ranged unit with it, but even better they could replace the pikeman (or spearman) and give it a ranged attack on top of melee abilities. That's if Firaxis feels that fighting with a javelin is really unique enough to inspire a UU which it might not be.

Another way to go would be two horse UUs allowing one to upgrade to the other. While it sounds OP, giving a free Blitz promotion to one of the UUs would fit the city-sacking ability of the Huns nicely (or city attack I guess).

The problem with giving the Huns a ranged Javelin-throwing Horseman is that is literally what Carthage's UU is likely to be.

They had such a huge empire. There must have been cities they had to govern. I know they captured a bunch of cities on their way to Constantinople.

"Hun armies came alarmingly close to Constantinople, sacking Sardica, Arcadiopolis and Philippopolis along the way. Suffering a complete defeat at the Battle of Chersonesus, the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II gave in to Hun demands and the Peace of Anatolius was signed in autumn 443. The Huns returned to their lands with a vast train full of plunder." Wikipedia oh well. But you get the point.

They sacked these places, but they still stood. Did the Huns govern them? Thats what I don't know. They had a huge empire with many many villages, towns, and cities. My guess is that the Huns relied on a system of tribute to Attila, who in place of this let these cities and regions govern themselves.

So the cities the Huns controlled could be names for their city list. As long as they don't coincide with any other civs list. In that case they could change some names or organize them in a way that they don't show up twice on the map. I am sure they have this worked out already.

Maybe the Huns should start with a horde (which could be an x amount of military units, and when this horde sacks a city, they then have a choice. They can sack or loot the city giving them a nice chunk of gold, or they can settle the place and have it become their capital. When the city is taken maybe it can be renamed whatever you want to name it. Attila's court could be a name someone decided to use. Even though it existed in history. Could the person playing the demo have named it that? Or changed the name to that from the original name that popped up, which could have been Buda, for instance? City names can be edited. After the Huns take this initial capital, then they can take more cities the same as any other civ.

Buda was one city. It was known as the Huns HQ of Europe. "Anyway: The HQ of the Huns in Europe was Buda in Hungary, later to merge with Pest to Budapest" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buda


The problem is if the Huns start with enough fire power to take cities, what would stop a Hun from just sweeping the entire map/continent every game?

Hungarian city names would be completely odd and random. I really of no connection between the Huns and Hungary other than the name. Not aware that the Goths really had cities, and in any regards, the goths were the enemies of the Huns. I guess they could have just of the name of places they conquered, but that would be odd. Have difficulty seeing how it would not mostly be a repetition of Roman city names.

I still can't quite believe the Huns are a civ, it makes so little sense in very many regards. What language will they speak? There is 0 UB they can have, guess they could have UU, but I dont recall them having particularly different weaponry or tactics than anyone else at the time. Other than perhaps a precursor to the Keshik.


Well, that's how the Mongols have most of their city names.

Perhaps the Huns UA could be some kind of bonus for Puppet States? Being the "ultimate" Conqueror Civilization with another bonus for Unhappiness from Annexing cities. Then you would have two different kind of strategies to choose from, many puppets cities or rather annexing them.

Summary about Annexation:



I think reduced unhappiness bonus from annexation might be a powerful trait for a militaristic Civ.

These are good ideas! ;) Maybe they get the courthouse at half the cost of production. Resistance of taken cities is drastically reduced. The Huns simply eliminated anyone who gave them a problem, the rest were made slaves or sold into slavery. They should get a bonus percentage increase for loot after capturing cities.

I would think they should get+25% gold production in puppeted cities. The Huns loved to trade and did so from horse back, they loved gold and riches, so we could say the get a bonus for any trade route they capture. Their trade routes should not have to be connected to their capital, just city to city under their control. Any of these could work, there are so many interesting ideas for them.

The problem is if the Huns start with enough fire power to take cities, what would stop a Hun from just sweeping the entire map/continent every game?

This surely is something to consider. The Huns would only get so many forces to gain a city to establish themselves. That would be their main objective at the outset of the game. Instead of settling they have to conquer to establish themselves. They should not be able to build settlers. The Huns for sure have to be balanced in a way that they do not take over the whole map before you can blink. Also, on the other hand they can't be wimps either. They should be feared as they truly were. Saying all of this though. I wonder how firaxis did it? I wonder if my guesses are anywhere close to reality?

I haven't really thought this one all the way through but it seems kinda cool in my head right now. Maybe the Huns should have extremely reduced unit maintenance, like 1/4 or less. BUT the interesting part is that with each city they found, maintenance gets increased at a certain increment. Personally I think it would be most balanced if they have the bonus was only significantly good up until they build four or five cities (which is an early-game usual amount of cities), that way in the early game they focus on conquest rather than expansion. I'm not good at math so I'm not even going to try to work an actual system of implementation.
Also, maybe it would be more balanced if after they reached the "normal" level of unit maintenance (i.e. whatever everyone else has as a default mechanic) the ability continues to increase unit maintenance but at an extremely lower rate. That way they are capable of settling cities at one point, but at the expense of their military edge.

I haven't really thought this one all the way through but it seems kinda cool in my head right now. Maybe the Huns should have extremely reduced unit maintenance, like 1/4 or less. BUT the interesting part is that with each city they found, maintenance gets increased at a certain increment. Personally I think it would be most balanced if they have the bonus was only significantly good up until they build four or five cities (which is an early-game usual amount of cities), that way in the early game they focus on conquest rather than expansion. I'm not good at math so I'm not even going to try to work an actual system of implementation.
Also, maybe it would be more balanced if after they reached the "normal" level of unit maintenance (i.e. whatever everyone else has as a default mechanic) the ability continues to increase unit maintenance but at an extremely lower rate. That way they are capable of settling cities at one point, but at the expense of their military edge.

Still, the nearest civ is basicly dead, they won't stand a chance.

Still, the nearest civ is basicly dead, they won't stand a chance.

Exactly, this is the tricky part of the equation. The only way I see around it is to have them make cities out of barbs (e.g. barbs make more encampments which Huns can turn into cities). That way nearby civs will have time to play a military game and compete with the Hun's (likely) superior troops. There's probably other methods though.

But yeah, strange UAs like this make the game more interesting, if less balanced.

Exactly, this is the tricky part of the equation. The only way I see around it is to have them make cities out of barbs (e.g. barbs make more encampments which Huns can turn into cities). That way nearby civs will have time to play a military game and compete with the Hun's (likely) superior troops. There's probably other methods though.

But yeah, strange UAs like this make the game more interesting, if less balanced.

I suppose that could work. It'd be hard to expand for them, barb camps don't often spam in nice locations. But with a bit of luck they could get a second city up without conquest if needed.

Man, all this speculation is making me really curious about the huns.

Hmm... I think this screenshot is from the "Victorian-era science fiction scenario" That this link ( http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/09/civilization-v-gods-kings-interview-with-lead-designer-ed-beach/ ) mentions. This would explain many things (like those strange units).

Any time you have a civ with very early UUs, their neighbours are basically dead (if played well), so it's not really an issue.

See Greece as an example.

Hmm... I think this screenshot is from the "Victorian-era science fiction scenario" That this link ( http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/09/civilization-v-gods-kings-interview-with-lead-designer-ed-beach/ ) mentions. This would explain many things (like those strange units).

Unless yu.. no.. I'm not gonna say it

Those AREN'T the screenshots from the Victorian Era for MANY MANY MANY reasons

1. Carthage is present
2. THose aren't Sci-Fi/Steampunk units, those are Historical World War I units (not Steampunk)
3. THy've confirmed a new era (wether it's an expansion to Industrial/Modern, or a brand new era in-between) with World War 1 Units.

Any time you have a civ with very early UUs, their neighbours are basically dead (if played well), so it's not really an issue.

See Greece as an example.

Sure. But imagine early UU + UA with high focus on war + no other way to expand than conquest. That's basicly greece with a millitary UA and going for war from the get go because it can't settle cities.

Sure. But imagine early UU + UA with high focus on war + no other way to expand than conquest. That's basicly greece with a millitary UA and going for war from the get go because it can't settle cities.

I think people are getting a little to 'silly' with the UA speculations, so I'm somewhat discounting the no settler thing.

Sure. But imagine early UU + UA with high focus on war + no other way to expand than conquest. That's basicly greece with a millitary UA and going for war from the get go because it can't settle cities.

Thats what the Huns were, a scourge. They are not meant to be kindly wimps. Conquest was their one true goal. So in CiV I feel that is how they should be portrayed. They have to be balanced correctly though and I am sure they will be.

The devs may have come up with some kind of mobile camp that they spread out from, who knows? What is in this thread is all speculation, we have no evidence. I just hope the Huns have their own artwork. I don't like the idea of them taking over barb camps that would just be boring. Unless if they took the place the camp changed to some improvement unique to the Huns. In that case IMO that would be ok.

I think we are going to be finding out some info about the Huns at PAX East. The speculation is unreal. I have come up with several doozies myself, but I can't help it. Now to get back to the Fall of the Samurai. The game is really addictive.

I can't help but think Hun's color scheme is going to end up being reverse Barbarian one (Red as main color and Black as their secondary, as opposed to Black as 1st and Red as 2nd)

I think the Hunnic UU will be a settler that can defend itself.

The color scheme will probably be a blood-red and brown

Preview (http://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Invasions-Shaped-Modern-World/dp/1592333036#reader_1592333036)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519j7WY-zwL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

I bought this excellent book in last weekend. It covers nicely about the Hunnic Invasion of Europe. After reading it, I'm pretty sure one of their uniques will be the new Composite Bow unit replacement and second UU perhaps a Horseman replacement with unique attack promotion. Which gives them a high withdrawal chance and ability to give damage when retreating. Hunnic cavalry units were famous of using Lasso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasso), but can't think of how it could be incorporated to the unit.

UA has to involve some kind of bonus of converting barbarians to their side (though reminds too much Germanys UA) as many Barbaric tribes (Goths, Alans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alains)) turned to their side. Thus the Puppet State bonus would also be appropriate (which I mentioned earlier). Also ability to destroy City State and Capital cities to represent Hunnic "Scorched Earth" tactic would be nice.

There has been really many different kind of portraits of Attila. Often being described as tall, muscular and white skinned/bearded man, but most realistic description of him tells he was actually short, flat nosed, big headed, scarred face with unkempt beard. The concept art in the G&K box art (http://postimage.org/image/kdtzfahrf/) looks decent, but I am really curious to see what he'll look like in the in-game leader screen. Perhaps sitting on a horse with corpses scattered around and burning countryside in the background (though that would look a lot like Genghis on Askias background).


I can't help but think Hun's color scheme is going to end up being reverse Barbarian one (Red as main color and Black as their secondary, as opposed to Black as 1st and Red as 2nd)
The color scheme will probably be a blood-red and brown


I think both would look real good. Red/Black perhaps better. :)

A lot of the leaders use similiar colours to their leaderscreen, and Attila is very likely to have Red outfit, and I do think it fits, a reversed Barbarian would fit nicely as they are considered "barbarians".

The inverted Barbarian colour scheme would be awesome!

I have to say, as long as I have waited for the Celts and Byzantines to be introduced in this game, the Huns are by far the most exciting for me.

#2 - This can be from just being a set-up to show off a few things. It could even have been set-up as a hotseat game so they could show off multiple new civs without having to set-up multiple games.

#4 - This isn't possible, because Attila's Court has the puppet icon. If it were a Carthage City it couldn't have that icon as long as Carthage owns the city. Even if they had to retake it after it was captured, it wouldn't even give the puppet option to its original owner.

Might it be a City State? Or maybe Barbarians will get named cities now a la Civ IV?

City-States have indicators even when captured showing they were once City-States. Having Attila's Court as a City-State would make no sense since they also have the Huns as a civ, which has been confirmed by Ed Beach himself.

The problem with some of the more outlandish ideas for the Huns as an early-game scourge is that, while indisputably being "interesting" compared to other UAs, they risk turning the civ into a one-trick pony.

Many UAs encourage the adoption of a particular strategy, or the focus on a particular victory (India and culture, Mongols and conquest), as they rightly should; it would, however be wrong for them to effectively railroad you into one type of play.

A Hunnic ability that didn't let you found your own cities would require you to immediately start conquering your neighbours to stay competitive. Aside from the problems that would arise if you started alone on an island (in, for instance an Archipelago or Small Continents map) this would require very careful balancing to work. Too weak, and the Huns would be a flash in the pan; too strong, and starting near the Huns will effectively be a death sentence.

I'm not sure the outcome is even that desirable, to be honest. Early conquest is one thing (and is already encouraged by those civs with powerful classical UUs, like Greece), but I much prefer if civs are allowed to form before they start falling. If the Huns couldn't even build a second city before having to start annihilating their neighbours (who would presumably also be one- or two-city proto-empires), it would make the game less interesting in my view.

City-States have indicators even when captured showing they were once City-States. Having Attila's Court as a City-State would make no sense since they also have the Huns as a civ, which has been confirmed by Ed Beach himself.

What I am glad about is that you can conquer city states now, without this huge game long diplo penalty.

What I am glad about is that you can conquer city states now, without this huge game long diplo penalty.

I'm sure if you constnantly conquer CS you will still get the hit.. just after a while it will wear off, same with regular wars.

I'm sure if you constnantly conquer CS you will still get the hit.. just after a while it will wear off, same with regular wars.

Yes, and you have the potential to make all new enemies in the process. Which I think will make the game more interesting. The changing politcal situations, which unfold as the game continues will be really interesting and immersive. The way the game is now, city states always ask you to destroy other city states, and I never do because of the serious diplo hit you get from all the civs that know you at the time. I am glad that will be changed somewhat coming up. At least it will wear off over time. I am not saying I would want to destroy city states all the time, but it would be nice to go in and wreck a choice one here and there, in order to gain influence with another CS, which happens to have a resource or capabilty you want to use.

The other thing that I hope changes are the diplo information screens. It would be nice if they designed the diplomacy interface in a way which makes it easier to determine another civs feelings towards you and other civs. (Sometimes I get confused about attitudes etc of other civs.) Maybe then I won't have to use info addict every game.

My wild and entirely unbased speculation as to what Carthage and the Huns will be like:


Huns:
UA: The Scourge of God - +100 gold per population killed while razing a city
UU: Horsemen replacement - Can attack twice per turn (not blitz, carries with upgrade)
UU: Composite Bowmen replacement - Upon defeating an enemy unit, a 25% chance of spawning a new friendly infantry unit nearby (unit starts at 50% health).

Clearly based on war, but none of the crazy one city only thing. I simply don't see how the game could work with that. Gone with a slightly weak UA (that gets weaker with time) but two very strong UUs that work in tandem, but with different focuses.


Carthage
UA: Maritime Trading Empire - All coastal tiles provide +1 gold, all sea resources +1 food.
UU: Numidian Mercernary (replaces Horsemen) - Ranged unit (Range 1, can only attack adjacent unit, cant move after firing) Ranged strength 8, Combat strength 10
UB: Colon (replaces Harbour) - No maintenance cost, +33% ship production

Perhaps less speculative, gone for a UA which is maritime but very different to England and the Ottomans. A gold powerhouse on watery maps, which is enhanced by the Colon meaning that roads are a thing they may never build. The ship bonus to the Colon is no mean thing either, and the Numidian Mercernary is a Keshik-light which excels at fast attacks and ambushes, but would do badly in a drawn out fight.

My wild and entirely unbased speculation as to what Carthage and the Huns will be like:

Carthage
UA: Maritime Trading Empire - All coastal tiles provide +1 gold, all sea resources +1 food.
UU: Numidian Mercernary (replaces Horsemen) - Ranged unit (Range 1, can only attack adjacent unit, cant move after firing) Ranged strength 8, Combat strength 10
UB: Colon (replaces Harbour) - No maintenance cost, +33% ship production

Perhaps less speculative, gone for a UA which is maritime but very different to England and the Ottomans. A gold powerhouse on watery maps, which is enhanced by the Colon meaning that roads are a thing they may never build. The ship bonus to the Colon is no mean thing either, and the Numidian Mercernary is a Keshik-light which excels at fast attacks and ambushes, but would do badly in a drawn out fight.

Personally I'd prefer "Mercenary Armies" as the UA, which gives a bonus to buying troops (to better represent the dependence on Carthage's military successes on mercenary armies); and perhaps a very cheap galley as the UU. Give the Colon the UA ability you suggest, more gold and food per sea resource and no maintenance cost.

Though its more fun to guess the Huns stuff, as we have no idea what on earth it could be. Carthage is easy since we have 700 years of Civilization to draw from

Yeah, my suggestion was Cothon +1 gold per harbor (no maintenance) and Mercenary Armies (buy units cheaper). But I think there are other valid options. Carthage needs something maritime mercantile, though.

Looks like the Huns will be able to make new cities, but they will "steal" city names from other civs whenever they make a new city.

Part of their UA is razing cities twice as fast. That sounds pretty weak compared to less unhappiness while razing, or gold while razing but oh well. It's only part of their UA anyway.

Why is Tongwancheng not the Hun capital?

They spoke a Turkic language, btw.

Why is Tongwancheng not the Hun capital?

They spoke a Turkic language, btw.

Because we're talking about the "Huns" in Europe not the ones in China. There's some scholarly debate about whether they were the same people and, either way, the cities still don't work. It's the same reason Ashgabat isn't an Ottoman city.

Hmmm, then it should be called the Northern Hunnic Empire, I think.

Well, I think Attila will clue you into which group we are talking about.

Willem van Oranje doesn't make me think I'm dealing with the Seven Provinces.

Attila could just as easily represent the entire Hun civilization. Which, is my point, had plenty of cities.

The Hun and the Xiongnu are not the same people. The only similarity is the name. The Xiong in Xiongnu was pronounced more like hon back then. You might as well as add the white Huns or Hepthalites too.

Mulan makes that same mistake. plus the leader's name was Shanyu/Chanyu, a Xiongnu title for their leaders.

There seems to exist a controversy on this matter. Interesting.

If Attila's Huns did not come from the Xiongnu, then where?

The answer is lost to history.

There seems to exist a controversy on this matter. Interesting.

If Attila's Huns did not come from the Xiongnu, then where?

Where did the Etruscans come from? The sad truth is there's a lot we don't know and, barring a miracle, will never know.

The only problem is lack of evidence to connect those two people into one family or group. There easily might have been an ancient connection between them, or a common root. But the Hunnic Empire is commonly perceived as this based in Europe.

Plus, it would be stupid (because of gampelay and fun factor) to refrain from adding a cool civ into the game. Especially if you're making a Fall of Rome scenario - European branch of Huns is then inevitable.

Where did the Etruscans come from? The sad truth is there's a lot we don't know and, barring a miracle, will never know.

If only we had the phone booth from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure or Doc Brown's Delorian :(

Oh Time Travel, Wish we had it but a situation like this would come up :p.

Seriously so many things would be better if an uncorrupt person had the ability for time travel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBBw9E2Q_aY For some reason Youtube tag isn't working...

Oh Time Travel, Wish we had it but a situation like this would come up :p.

Seriously so many things would be better if an uncorrupt person had the ability for time travel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBBw9E2Q_aY For some reason Youtube tag isn't working...

You only put the "bBBw9E2Q_aY" in the youtube code.