I could see the Ishtar Gate as part of a unique government district perhaps. But Babylon’s walls were unique and impressive. Not every city ruled by Nebuchadnezzar was so ornately and impressively attired, as happened in Civ5 when every Babylonian city got to build the “walls of Babylon.” That’s like every Babylonian city being able to build the Hanging Gardens.
I could see the Ishtar Gate as part of a unique government district perhaps. But Babylon’s walls were unique and impressive. Not every city ruled by Nebuchadnezzar was so ornately and impressively attired, as happened in Civ5 when every Babylonian city got to build the “walls of Babylon.” That’s like every Babylonian city being able to build the Hanging Gardens.
Well here is my idea of Babylon which ties together some things people have been asking:
Leader: Hammurabi
Capital: Babylon
Agenda: House of Marduk- Likes to build up his capital in terms of population, districts and wonders. Dislikes Civs who have a better capital than him.
LA: Hammurabi's Legacy- Start the game with Code of Laws Civic. All yields are doubled in the capital city center including amenities and the capital city center provides an additional adjacency bonus. You cannot build settlers and conquered cities give extra gold and production to the capital from trade routes.
UA: Walls of Babylon- Cities founded or conquered already have ranged strike attack and have the strength of Ancient Walls when defending. Ancient Walls when built have the strength of Medieval Walls.
UU: Sirāku (Replaces Archer) Stronger attack against cities and defensible districts. (As far as I can tell these were temple slaves that were called to defend the cities/go to war during the Neo-Babylonian Empire)
UB: Tablet House- (Replaces the Library) More science per turn than regular library and more great scientist points per turn. Also grants +1 Great work of writing slot.
(I can see this as an Assyrian UB as well)
Well here is my idea of Babylon which ties together some things people have been asking:
Leader: Hammurabi
Capital: Babylon
Agenda: House of Marduk- Likes to build up his capital in terms of population, districts and wonders. Dislikes Civs who have a better capital than him.
LA: Hammurabi's Legacy- Start the game with Code of Laws Civic. All yields are doubled in the capital city center including amenities and the capital city center provides an additional adjacency bonus. You cannot build settlers and conquered cities give extra gold and production to the capital from trade routes.
UA: Walls of Babylon- Cities founded or conquered already have ranged strike attack and have the strength of Ancient Walls when defending. Ancient Walls when built have the strength of Medieval Walls.
UU: Sirāku (Replaces Archer) Stronger attack against cities and defensible districts. (As far as I can tell these were temple slaves that were called to defend the cities/go to war during the Neo-Babylonian Empire)
UB: Tablet House- (Replaces the Library) More science per turn than regular library and more great scientist points per turn. Also grants +1 Great work of writing slot.
(I can see this as an Assyrian UB as well)
I’d rather have the tablet house used for Assyria (with royal library as Ashurbanipal’s unique) and have the Kudurru temple be used as a shrine or monument replacement or an improvement for Babylon,
and if Sirakku defended temples shouldn’t they have a defensive tilt?
I’d rather have the tablet house used for Assyria (with royal library as Ashurbanipal’s unique) and have the Kudurru temple be used as a shrine or monument replacement or an improvement for Babylon,
I'd figured that only one of them would get in so I thought it could go to either Assyria or Babylon. I guess the kudurru as a shrine replacement would also make sense, considering we don't have one of those either. Then we could get Assyria as well with the Tablet House. Wishful thinking maybe?
They were primarily taken from the temples as archers into the armies, not necessarily to defend the temples, at least from what I have read. I came across the name looking for something that sounded better than calling a UU Bowman again.
I'd figured that only one of them would get in so I thought it could go to either Assyria or Babylon. I guess the kudurru as a shrine replacement would also make sense, considering we don't have one of those either. Then we could get Assyria as well with the Tablet House. Wishful thinking maybe?
They were primarily taken from the temples as archers into the armies, not necessarily to defend the temples, at least from what I have read. I came across the name looking for something that sounded better than calling a UU Bowman again.
i’m holding out hope that we’ll get both in NF or one will get in NF and one will get in in the next season (provided there is one).
Both deserve to get in. Assyria is too big of a civ to skip.
so i think the kadurru temple should be Babylon’s ui, especially cuz it’s be so unique: a improvement that can only be built on your border, 1 per city, to culture bomb the land next to it and provide a big loyalty boost,
OR a shrine/monument replacement which grants a considerable amount of culture, diplo favor or loyalty
My idea is that Babylon could be a playable city-state. It's restriction would be that it couldn't settle cities, but instead having to conquer them and it has nothing to do with rivers at all.
They already tried a "city-State" civ with the Mayans, and people are already complaining about the fact that you're punished for going wide while you can have 7 cities quite comfortably. But for a lot of players 7 isn't enough and with the Mayans they made it clear. So a one-city civ would be out of question.
Knowing that the Châteaux in Civ VI are clearly representing the Châteaux de la Loire, a serie of ornamented castles that you find pretty much only along the Loire river, it appears that IRL those Châteaux had some sort of river limitation, so it makes absolute sense to have the same limitation in-game. Chenonceaux, Chambord, Villandry, Amboise, Chinon, Ussé, Clos-Lucé... all those names renowned are found along a river.
I know it's very unlikely, but I would like to see Denmark make a reappearance to complete the Scandinavian trio.
I see kind of 3 options:
King Christian IV as leader, with strong focus on naval warfare, gold income (sound dues - get gold from every foreign trade route that cross into Danish territory), as well as great person accumulation and building of Medieval and Renaissance wonders. Potentially a bonus for settling as well, but maybe not until later in the game. Christian founded a LOT of cities (almost all named after himself - bonus points if half the Danish city list is just cities named after Christian )
The other option is Queen Margrethe I. Strong focus on alliances and diplomacy (she started the Kalmar union which combined all the three Scandinavian countries under one monarch). Otherwise a focus on trade income and naval infrastructure.
Lastly, a more modern leader (Stauning?) with focus on trade/diplomacy, powering cities using environmentally friendly power sources like windmills, and amenities and keeping cities happy (a la Scotland).
Knowing that the Châteaux in Civ VI are clearly representing the Châteaux de la Loire, a serie of ornamented castles that you find pretty much only along the Loire river, it appears that IRL those Châteaux had some sort of river limitation, so it makes absolute sense to have the same limitation in-game. Chenonceaux, Chambord, Villandry, Amboise, Chinon, Ussé, Clos-Lucé... all those names renowned are found along a river.
Yes, but chateaux without that limitation would also have made absolute sense, because there are plenty of chateaux that are not next to rivers. And given how strict the limitation is, it's actually quite hobbling to French gameplay, so it only exists for flavor, i.e. encouraging France settle next to rivers more often than Spain or Germany (although Germany is impliedly encouraged with the hansa benefiting from adjacencies to many riverside districts). Now adding a terrain bonus amounting to a malus might have been intentionally trying to distinguish France from its continental neighbors, or it might have been an accidental consequence of making chateaux require rivers because of what you observed above. But regardless of whether you look at it as being related specifically to chateaux or French cities generally (Paris, Lyon, Bordeaux, Toulouse, etc.), France has a river bias in VI. And I am pretty sure that if France had chateaux in V, there wouldn't have been any such limitation and France probably would not have had any sort of terrain bias.
Honestly a unique Govt. Plaza for Assyria would have been cool considering their palaces were large complexes, or even to have a Royal Library UB in as a first tier option.
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.
)
