Kings??

Olleus

Olleus

Deity
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
6,478
Location
Beyond the Veil
As we all know the title of the expansion is Kings and Gods. We know a bit about how the 'Gods' part will work with customisable religions.

About I haven't heard a single word about 'Kings'. Will there be a EU3 style dynasty that you will have to look after? Does it refer to new diplomatic opportunities?

Anyone caught a clue about this in any of the previews/screenshots or fancy some wild speculation?
 
My first impression was that it was fluff to make the name sound better to sell more copies.

It could be related to the immense number of civs being added to the game.

It could be related to the fact that leaders now have more options to manage their empire (faith, espionage)
 
there are no woman who play games so it just refers to us being the kings of our civs :)
 
"Gods & Kings" rings better than "Gods & Monarchs" or worse yet "Monarchs & Higher Powers"
 
Hopefully, it means all but one of the new civs will be led by a monarch.
 
Well, so far we have Boudica, who was an Iceni Queen (I think Cassius Dio referred to her as a "King" but that's just because he was embarrassed Rome lost to a woman).

Aside from that, we'll have a Stadtholder, Suffette, Empreror (or Empress), and whatever Pacal is.

So at least two won't be Kings (William and Hannibal). The rest depends on definition.
 
I'm going with the 'fluff to make the title sound better' opinion. It might also refer to some of the new Civs being led by kings, or scenario(s) which haven't been discussed in detail yet.

ilmonstre said:
there are no woman who play games so it just refers to us being the kings of our civs :)
Click to expand...

Hi there! :queen:
 
Yeah, I think it's fluff. If pressed, they'll say it represents the new civs, but I don't think it necessarily means much.
 
Carthage did have "kings" in the functional sense of the word though, until it became a republic. Boudica is a "queen" yes but that's just semantics. For purposes of generalization, she's a "king" in the expansion, just as Elizabeth I was. "Gods and Monarchs" sounds lame anyway.
 
Carthage had Kings in the same way that Rome had Kings. If they have Hannibal, he certainly wasn't a King.
 
How do you know Carthage will be Hannibal?

As for Rome, Rome also had kings, though if they use Caesar, clearly he's not a king per se. I think your comparison with Rome is quite flawed, especially since Rome had far less of a history with kingship than Carthage did. Rome for much of its glory days was a Republic or Empire.

For Carthage, they could easily use the legendary Queen Dido for some more female representation, thus keeping their theme intact.
 
Dido wasn't real.

Carthage had Kings but they got rid of their Kings. Carthage at their golden age was an Oligarchy. It was fairly similar to Rome in that regard. If Carthage is given a King, they might as well have Tarquin the Proud as King of Rome (I'm not talking about the Roman Emperors, I'm talking about the really early times with a King. Carthage was the same way).

I don't know it's Hannibal. However, the point remains that, whomever they pick, it will be someone who was a Suffette, not a King. Just like Rome had Consuls, not Kings. Still, I'm fairly confident it will be Hannibal.
 
Queen Dido was legendary, like Hiawatha.

I'm fairly sure that even a technical king or monarch would fit within "Gods and Kings" thematically. Whether the ruler is an oligarch or not, a Carthaginian ruler could still work, and as I suggested, Queen Dido would fit perfectly (much like the legendary Pharaoh Menes they were going to go with for Civ IV).

The reason why Rome "feels" different from a king theme as opposed to Carthage is because:
1) Rome was a Republic for much of the history people care about.
2) Rome's oligarch was Caesar, or an Emperor, which implies much more than just a king.

Still, I think overall we're quibbling about something very minor. The Dutch are the ones that really don't fit, as they were neither known for being especially religious or having a history of kings per se.
 
The reason I drew the analogy to Rome is this. The Roman Republic and Carthaginian Oligarchy were fairly similar. There was no one ruler (there were two, just like Roman Consuls). There was a deliberative body. The people could vote and approve or disapprove actions. If the Carthaginian Suffete was a King, so was the Dutch Stadtholder. Hell, so was George Washington.

In fact, the Carthaginian Suffete had less power than the Roman Consul because generals were independent.

ETA: The difference between Hiawatha and Dido is the Iroquois at least have stories of Hiawatha in their legends. Dido was invented by the Romans.
 
Hiawatha is likely real, as well, albeit with a lot of mythology and confusion attached.
 
"Gods and Kings" sounds serious and high-falutin', like you're walking with a melodramatic tour guide down the annals of history. It fits well with Civ 5's somber presentation style. It also sounds like "God-King", which is definitely played up with Civ 5's intro movie and narration.
 
I'm also more on the side to say "pure aesthetical", but this:

FeiLing said:
Isn't a medieval campaign/scenario coming along with it? That might be were a lot of kings appear.
Click to expand...

sounds also reasonable.
We have a medieval scenario -> monarchs.
victorian scifi scenario -> also monarchs
Fall or Rome -> eh...emperor is also a monarch, isn't he?
 
Yeah, two Emperors (Augusti) and a whole lot of Germanic Kings. Plus, a Sassanian Shah (another King).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blake00
Kings and Emperors (Civ5 like 4X browser game)
Replies
0
Views
796
Blake00
Blake00
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Millennia Review: General.
Replies
0
Views
392
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Lonecat Nekophrodite
PDX Firefly
Developer Diary | Ages Part One
Replies
2
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
The_J
  • Sticky
Old World update #121
Replies
3
Views
492
Solver
Solver
Top Bottom