pokiehl
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 2,765
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but you quite literally entered the conversation by mocking me with sarcasm.I also see we’ve graduated from veiled insults to overt ones.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but you quite literally entered the conversation by mocking me with sarcasm.I also see we’ve graduated from veiled insults to overt ones.
You made an argument that the Ptolemies were the appropriate level of incestuous to represent Egypt. You earned that one, tiger.I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but you quite literally entered the conversation by mocking me with sarcasm.
Stop being rude to me. Don't call me "tiger" condescendingly, and drop the sarcasm. I have done none of that to you.You made an argument that the Ptolemies were the appropriate level of incestuous to represent Egypt. You earned that one, tiger.
There were actually 9 Rameses' in all, but the ones after III aren't nearly as memorable.I don't see a difference in the Rameses from 2 or 3. I've seen so many Rameses in the series before civ 6 that I just cant tell which Rameses to choose.
You're right. I was never interested in arguing whether the Ptolemies would make good leaders for Egypt or not. And yeah I did really take the lazy way out in my responses to you. But there ya go.That tells me you're not interested in this conversation anymore, and I don't think I am either.
I believe it's been Ramses II that's depicted every time?I don't see a difference in the Rameses from 2 or 3. I've seen so many Rameses in the series before civ 6 that I just cant tell which Rameses to choose.
That I can agree with. I don't need to see Cleopatra every iteration, but I don't think her ethnicity should ever preclude her from appearing.And with 2800 years of native rule full of awesome Pharaoh's, it would be disappointing to see Cleopatra again.
Rameses II.. ok.. so what would make III different?I believe it's been Ramses II that's depicted every time?
That I can agree with. I don't need to see Cleopatra every iteration, but I don't think her ethnicity should ever preclude her from appearing.
If you count the Civ Rev games, she has him beat.Yeah, I think "with 2800 years of leaders to chose from, Cleopatra AGAIN would be disappointing" is a logic a lot of us can get behind. I certainly can.
Though the same goes for Ramses II who actually has way more main series appearance (Every game except III) than Cleo (II, III, VI twice). Both of them have been overexposed, the rest (Hatshepsut who only has one, and everyone else who has none) can have their turns.
I don't know. I was just point out that Ramses II is the only one that's ever been depicted. Actually, he's been the only male leader for Egypt in the series.Rameses II.. ok.. so what would make III different?
In the case of Rameses III, his wars against the Sea Peoples is what he's best known for.Rameses II.. ok.. so what would make III different?
In a different context, that type of phrase sounds almost paleoconservatve and hypertraditionalist, like some stern old elder with a long beard uttered it.They should just keep Rameses II because it has been Rameses II all along and like Gandhi, Elizabeth, Alexander and other leaders from civilization that keep being brought back, Rameses II should remain and stay the leader because it always has been this way.
I noticed that, so I edited it and suggested the third insteadIn a different context, that type of phrase sounds almost paleoconservatve and hypertraditionalist, like some stern old elder with a long beard uttered it.
I also thought that Rameses couldn't have been in all of them but he probably meant most of them.He wasn't in III, so he's not a "been in every game" leader. Nor should he be,
There are several cases where a civ has a long list of good choices, but they keep being drowned out by repeated use of one or two pernicious re-occuraces - Egypt, as well as, infamously, India, are definitely among them.He wasn't in III, so he's not a "been in every game" leader. Nor should he be.
Also for stalling the gradual decline of Kemet as a power diplomatically and economically. He was sort of the last good Pharaoh. Was able to defeat the Sea People, but the economy collapsed during his reign due to loss of trade routes, failed Nile floods, and the loss of a fair chunk of the workforce during the Sea People invasion. First trade strikes occurred during his reign. After him, no one could stop the inevitable end of the New Kingdom.In the case of Rameses III, his wars against the Sea Peoples is what he's best known for.
Yes, that's what I meant. Every time Egypt has had a male leader it's been Ramses II, which has been 5 times.I also thought that Rameses couldn't have been in all of them but he probably meant most of them.