It would be a completely different game, actually. Civilization is all about 'rewriting history', so historical accuracy is kept to a minimum. But that's a whole different discussion.
It would be a completely different game, actually. Civilization is all about 'rewriting history', so historical accuracy is kept to a minimum. But that's a whole different discussion.
Oh my - now that is an excellent point. I was going to suggest that the leader is less important than the nation/people and therefore it would make sense to select the most historically significant capital. But I like this more.
Since you can rename your capital to anything that you like, it's hard to imagine a more pointless complaint than the choice of the name of the capital.
Not Persia 2.0. The Assyrian civilization originated far to the west of Persia. In addition, the Assyrians were a Semitic culture, like Sumer and Babylon. Persia was Indo-European. A more reasonable objection might be, "Do we really need Babylon 2.0?
I think the Assyria is designed to be the diametric opposite of Babylon. Babylon is defensive and scientific where as Assyria is offensive and steals the fruits of scientific research.
But it matches with the whole "Library of Nivenah" thing, the Royal Library held great works, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Thats where I think it comes in...
That leads to the question of whether you can steal Great Works. Do they come with the city like Wonders do? Especially since culture buildings are destroyed when you take over a city.
Frankly I'm a little tired to dig up the source, but yes I do believe it's been confirmed that one captures another civilization's great works upon taking the host city.
Frankly I'm a little tired to dig up the source, but yes I do believe it's been confirmed that one captures another civilization's great works upon taking the host city.
Since you can rename your capital to anything that you like, it's hard to imagine a more pointless complaint than the choice of the name of the capital.
But I can hardly rename AI capitals or MP capitals. I do realise it is an incredibly insignificant complaint and one that wont even begin to prevent me from playing as them (if that UA is correct) but it just bothers me a tiny bit. I realise its a bit silly but i cannot help it.
Frankly I'm a little tired to dig up the source, but yes I do believe it's been confirmed that one captures another civilization's great works upon taking the host city.
But I can hardly rename AI capitals or MP capitals. I do realise it is an incredibly insignificant complaint and one that wont even begin to prevent me from playing as them (if that UA is correct) but it just bothers me a tiny bit. I realise its a bit silly but i cannot help it.
Why on earth is Nineveh not the capital?!?!?! This is an outrage! I exaggerate but it just seems wrong historically to make (likely) Assur the capital if Ash is the ruler. Oh well.
Assur was the first capital, though. It was a capital for quite a large period of their history. They kept moving it around for strategic reasons and Nineveh ended up being the capital, but both are completely legitimate.
Also, there's more to Assyria than Ashurbanipal. This is civilization, not "time when some guy was ruling a nation."
It's funny though since they decided to name the unique ability "Treasures of Nineveh".
It's also realistic to be able to loot Great Works, though it's probably a hassle to balance gameplay wise, no? We'll see. I just ask whether we will be able to teleport the Great Works out of the city or if it takes time/open road to do that. Then again, you should never lose a city anyways if you want to win the game, especially one so developed that it has Great Works in it...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.