.

Buccaneer said:
"Gods and Kings" sounds a whole lot better than "Gods and Spies".
Click to expand...



I don't think it's all marketing BS though that is the most plausible conclusion given what we know. There might be a feature we don't know about yet.

We'll know more once they slowly roll out previews with the major magazines.
 
Without the 'Kings' bit they'd just be left with Civilization V: Gods which sounds a bit odd.
 
Or even 'Hidden and Unseen'. You have a point.
 
Perhaps they mean Princes when they mean Kings, but Kings is more recognisable. Therefore it could just refer to any Monarchical form of government, which might in turn represent the new Civs... though maybe not if Carthage should have Hannibal as their leader.

It would be interesting if they were referring to some HRE-esque component to do with City-States, though, akin to the Apostolic Palace in CIV IV. City-States could vote for an Imperial Union with the Civ with the greatest influence over them and from this resolutions could be implemented. This could also be a much needed way to assimilate City-States without having to conquer them. But that's probably wishful thinking, because it would probably require overhauling how the Diplomatic Victory worked.

Of course, they could just mean God-Kings, and they will be adding Kim Jong-un and Ali Khamenei as leaders. :)
 
Khamenei isn't a god-king. God-Kings claim divine status for themselves. He just claims to be appointed by God. Good examples of God-Kings include the Egyptian Pharaohs. Tibet would be the most modern example I can think of outside of North Korea (which is supposed to be atheist, so I'm not sure how that works). Even the Sumerian pantheon didn't actually have god-kings, iirc (they were also merely appointed).
 
I'm betting it's just marketing.

"of Gods and Kings" strikes a theatrical note.

... which, when you google it, bring up:

A book written about ancient Israel (~time of David).

and a movie that's coming out later (WB film, Spielberg directing) about Moses/Egypt.

and some no-name band.

So... sounds like 'bandwagon' marketing to me.
 
Louis XXIV said:
Khamenei isn't a god-king. God-Kings claim divine status for themselves. He just claims to be appointed by God. Good examples of God-Kings include the Egyptian Pharaohs. Tibet would be the most modern example I can think of outside of North Korea (which is supposed to be atheist, so I'm not sure how that works). Even the Sumerian pantheon didn't actually have god-kings, iirc (they were also merely appointed).
Click to expand...

I was just exaggerating for effect, indicating the theocracy and the autocratic way their countries are painted/indicating the way some people see the North Korean leaderhead. I don't believe either of them believe that they are sincerely dieties. Sorry for the disclarity. The smile-thing was supposed to indicate the statement as a joke, but perhaps it was chosen poorly.
 
Well, you can never tell with North Korea. Isn't Kim il Song supposed to still be ruling North Korea or something like that?
 
I think ''Gods and Spies'' sounds kindof silly, although it'd be the most logical name.
 
Louis XXIV said:
Well, you can never tell with North Korea. Isn't Kim il Song supposed to still be ruling North Korea or something like that?
Click to expand...

It depends on who you ask, I would imagine. Kim il Song is the actual "God-King", being the "Eternal President," and so he is still the constitutional Head of State. But most outside of North Korea would probably not recognise that (both spiritually and politically) and regard the incumbent leader as the President who functions like a King and is glorified like a God.
 
Louis XXIV said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree on the Bolded statement above. As mentioned, Queen Dido was legendary, but that doesn't mean she didn't exist. There are accounts other than Virgil of a Carthagian Queen, also referred to as Elissa.

As for Rome not having Kings, well, you mentioned the ancient Roman and Etruscan Kings before the formation of the Republic. And Imperial Rome was essentially a fancier way of naming a King (while still providing the illusion... no matter how thin... of a Republic).
 
There are other accounts outside of the Aeneid, but are any of them Carthaginian? As I understand it, they have a fairly different take on their founding. Even the whole ox-hide thing is actually kind of pejorative. It was essentially a way to say "Ah those sneaky backstabbing easterners."

The Kings thing was illustrative so I don't think you got my point at all. My point was that the Carthaginian Suffete was not any more of a King than a Roman Consul. Yeah, the later Emperors might qualify, but Carthage didn't have them. My point was, if they used any historically established ruler of Carthage, he would not be a King by any definition.
 
Louis XXIV said:
There are other accounts outside of the Aeneid, but are any of them Carthaginian? As I understand it, they have a fairly different take on their founding. Even the whole ox-hide thing is actually kind of pejorative. It was essentially a way to say "Ah those sneaky backstabbing easterners."

The Kings thing was illustrative so I don't think you got my point at all. My point was that the Carthaginian Suffete was not any more of a King than a Roman Consul. Yeah, the later Emperors might qualify, but Carthage didn't have them. My point was, if they used any historically established ruler of Carthage, he would not be a King by any definition.
Click to expand...

I get what your saying, and I agree that any King that Rome or Carthage may or may not of had would not likely be used. In fact, I am fairly certain that Hannibal will be the Carthagian leader in G&K. (heh... sidenote - Civ V: G&K = Civ V: GeeK :D )

The thing about Dido, to me saying that she never existed is like saying "The world is flat" or "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light" simply because nothing exists (or, in the case of flat world, nothing existed at the time) to prove otherwise.

**Before anybody says anything, yes, I know that Einstein came up with a formula that "proves" that nothing can go faster than light, and I do not deny his genius... I just feel that such an absolute statement should not be taken as the final word as there is the possibility that we are missing a factor that is presently beyond our comprehension.**

Anyway, as far as the Kings part goes, it could be a reference to the Diplomacy changes (espionage and religion being a part of that) that has been indicated.
 
"Gods" is obvious for religion, but what about the "Kings" part? I have figured it out, and it can only mean one thing.

Elvis is coming back, long live The King.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Q
[BNW] I'm a novice modder
Replies
0
Views
56
qorausdls
Q
Q
Help me, please. vp mod.
Replies
2
Views
237
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
D
Hi gang - it's been awhile 😊
Replies
3
Views
335
raider980
raider980
U
[BNW] [Request] Looking for ViceVirtuoso’s Gridania Civilization Mod
Replies
0
Views
190
unlucker
U
twsworld
Anyone know of a mod that adds the ability to have move civilizations on the map that works with the modbuddy worldbuilder?
Replies
0
Views
256
twsworld
twsworld
Back
Top Bottom