Attila can borrow city names?

...or...

Heinage said:
Make it so that Atilla cannot found new cities and that their settlers can instead 'build' barb camps instead of cities (i.e Plop down a barb camp like you normally would a city and watch it spawn barbs that could then be used by you). << now that would add flavour, be unique and fun to play, and be somewhat more immersive!
Click to expand...
 
benjwils said:
Anyone know the historical basis behind this UA?
Click to expand...


"The origin and language of the Huns has been the subject of debate for centuries."
-Wikipedia

That's why they don't have their own city names. Huns would kinda just show up, raze, rape, and murder, and ride towards the next town.
 
A good one for Atilla would`ve been to make enemy cities individually sue for peace if he`s right next to them with several units, giving a portion of the Civ`s gold so that Genghis would not attack it. The city would then become neutral, providing nothing for its own Civ until new troops arrive to relieve it or the war ends.Genghis could still be at war, but just ignore that city and move on.

It would create an interesting war dynamic; imagine several of your cities choosing to just pay off Attila and becoming neutral because of their fear of him and his might? It would fit with history too.

Or maybe have Attila able to adapt foreign units as part of his own and learning the unit so he can recruit more? This is how Attila learned to use siege weapons.

I just thought of this off the top of my head, I`m sure Firaxis could do even better.
 
Arachnofiend said:
I kinda feel like they missed the opportunity to do something radically different with the Huns. What if they made it where Attila's Court moves?
Click to expand...

The Huns were essentially a a confederation of tribes who razed cities and moved on, so any 'city' names could be more accurately described as defeated tribes/city-states - e.g. the Alans, Ostrogoths, Greuthungi, Burgundians, Franks, Thracians etc.

It would have been interesting to have given the Huns a 'city razing' ability rather like the way the Mongolian 'Ger' worked in Civ IV (and in the 'Genghis Khan' scenario in the Civ IV Warlords expansion - one of the best IMO!): i.e. once a city has been defeated you can choose to either annex it, make it a puppet, or convert it into new Ger that could move and spawn units depending what type of resource tile it was on, but they would also possess some of the other properties of a city (generate science, culture, faith and currency).
 
I just look at the Huns as the Hunnic-Turkic peoples and keep a city list of my own to represent that part of the world. Then when I settle new cities, I just rename them.
 
It'd be funny if the Huns couldn't build settlers, but suffered no ill effects from excess unhappiness.

So you had your one starting city, and just went mad on conquest. Doesn't matter if you hit -50. In fact, it'd be funnier if the rebels that spawned at -20 were themselves Huns. Free units!
 
This post made me think itd be pretty awesome if there was a Hun ability to move the capital to whatever city they saw fit at any time, new city would then become named "Atillas Court" and the previous city would get a different name. Just a thought!
 
Being able to move the Hun capital without going into anarchy could be helpful.
 
Then it should be Attila's trait that he only ever plays one-city-challenge. When he captures a city, it should automatically be raised, and he should get some sort of significant bonus out of raising the city, like an amount of gold based on the population size.
 
Xiao Xiong said:
Then it should be Attila's trait that he only ever plays one-city-challenge. When he captures a city, it should automatically be raised, and he should get some sort of significant bonus out of raising the city, like an amount of gold based on the population size.
Click to expand...

Attila's already hit and miss. there's a window when his rams are killer, but it closes. Making him OCC because you don't like random city names will completely break him as it will any other AI civ.

The only way this can work is the capital gains the production of the capture city that is razed and that scales as if the city is growing over time, allowing it to produce more and more and maybe even produce 2-3 units per turn on top of buildings.

That would be insane.

Probably will turn him into a human favorite for OCC games. On second thought, no let's not go there, it cheapens the whole OCC experience.
 
I feel as though they could have given them some sort of bonus towards pillaging tiles, and maybe some sort of bonus to extorting gold via diplomacy

Either that or a bonus involving barbarians
 
I remember the possibility of Attila being unable to build Settlers and instead having to expand by conquest being widely discussed in the build-up to G&K. Always felt it was a bit of a shame the developers never went down that route. Instead we've got what feels like a ham-fisted attempt to create the sense of an all-conquering Civ by just giving them other Civs' city names - although it can be quite a handy way of working out who else is on the map if you start near Attila.

Opportunity missed, 2K!
 
Yeah maybe prevent him building settlers and give him free courthouses in captured cities.
 
apocalypse105 said:
... (that is not in the game).

It usally picks city at the end of a civ's list. for example it will not pick paris or orleon but some unknow cities of france that you would get if you settle you're 5th city. if you're france.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that's a requirement to be honest. I recently played a game with Denmark, and England was Atilla's closest neighbour. Atilla's 3rd city however was named Norwich, and England had only founded London and York.

Norwich is also in the middle of the English city list. :king:
 
blackcatatonic said:
I remember the possibility of Attila being unable to build Settlers and instead having to expand by conquest being widely discussed in the build-up to G&K. Always felt it was a bit of a shame the developers never went down that route. Instead we've got what feels like a ham-fisted attempt to create the sense of an all-conquering Civ by just giving them other Civs' city names - although it can be quite a handy way of working out who else is on the map if you start near Attila.

Opportunity missed, 2K!
Click to expand...
I've made a small mod removing the settlers from the Huns and buffing a bit all their melee units against city.

I've not done enough test game already (only 2 :D) but in both the Huns were razed early. I can release it if some of you want to test it too.
 
When you borrow the city names, you start paying interest in the form of gpt based on the scrabble value of the city name. However, this is generally not a problem if you take out your creditors quickly.

For example:
 
Gedemon said:
I've made a small mod removing the settlers from the Huns and buffing a bit all their melee units against city.

I've not done enough test game already (only 2 :D) but in both the Huns were razed early. I can release it if some of you want to test it too.
Click to expand...

That sounds awesome. I'd be up for testing :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Loss of infrastructure when city is conquered
Replies
9
Views
546
martindo
M
V
TSG 238 Announcement
Replies
5
Views
2K
lerrocco
L
mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
339
mastrude
mastrude
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
837
coolhandluke11
C
S
City names starting with special characters
Replies
6
Views
662
somegrue
S
Top Bottom