Some counterpoints: Assyria was further away--culturally as well as geographically--from Sumer. Assyria was considerably bigger. As an empire, Assyria lasted longer. Assyria had better leaders. A lot of the successes attributed to Babylon were probably Assyrian (e.g., Hanging Gardens). And there are still people who identify as Assyrian; outside of poetic usage or Sadam Hussein's propaganda, there are not still people who consider themselves Babylonian. (I'm expecting Babylon; I'd like both; but if I had to choose one, with Sumer already in the game [albeit poorly done], I'd choose Assyria.)
Some counterpoints: Assyria was further away--culturally as well as geographically--from Sumer. Assyria was considerably bigger. As an empire, Assyria lasted longer. Assyria had better leaders. A lot of the successes attributed to Babylon were probably Assyrian (e.g., Hanging Gardens). And there are still people who identify as Assyrian; outside of poetic usage or Sadam Hussein's propaganda, there are not still people who consider themselves Babylonian. (I'm expecting Babylon; I'd like both; but if I had to choose one, with Sumer already in the game [albeit poorly done], I'd choose Assyria.)
Map-gap theory agrees with this. If for whatever reason we need a different Levant civ from Phoenicia, Assyria can fill that role geographically and culturally. Babylon overlaps quite a bit more geographically and culturally with Sumeria.
And again, I have to point out like I did just a page ago that Babylon was a staple when city-states weren't even invented yet. Given that V's idea of city states was rather rough, I would argue VI is the first instance where city-states were planned and thought out as smaller kingdoms and empires. So this is really the first time where we have been presented with the question of which, if any, staples could or should be downgraded to city-states. It's kind of a non-argument to say that Babylon must be a civ because it has always been a civ, when this is the first time we can even have the discussion of whether it might be better as a city-state.
Map-gap theory agrees with this. If for whatever reason we need a different Levant civ from Phoenicia, Assyria can fill that role geographically and culturally. Babylon overlaps quite a bit more geographically and culturally with Sumeria.
And again, I have to point out like I did just a page ago that Babylon was a staple when city-states weren't even invented yet. Given that V's idea of city states was rather rough, I would argue VI is the first instance where city-states were planned and thought out as smaller kingdoms and empires. So this is really the first time where we have been presented with the question of which, if any, staples could or should be downgraded to city-states. It's kind of a non-argument to say that Babylon must be a civ because it has always been a civ, when this is the first time we can even have the discussion of whether it might be better as a city-state.
I'm of the mindset that if they wanted to do something different completely out of the box it would be to make Babylon a playable city-state just like Venice was in Civ 5.
I think that's possibly the best way they could do it and the only way for you to gain more cities is by conquering them, considering that's how the region of Babylonia formed.
I'm not necessarily saying I want that because a regular Assyrian civ where you found, and or conquer cities, would be ideal though over another playable city-state, but it's an option that I've thought of and brought up before.
I'm of the mindset that if they wanted to do something different completely out of the box it would be to make Babylon a playable city-state just like Venice was in Civ 5.
I think that's possibly the best way they could do it and the only way for you to gain more cities is by conquering them, considering that's how the region of Babylonia formed.
I'm not necessarily saying I want that because a regular Assyrian civ where you found, and or conquer cities, would be ideal though over another playable city-state, but it's an option that I've thought of and brought up before.
I suspect that's the only way Babylon is happening at this point. Although I do have to nitpick and say that most kingdoms/empires formed out of unifying city-states or smaller polities; I don't think that alone is the justification for Babylon so much as Babylon itself was defined by a very strong city-state at its epicenter.
We also have Macedon being a civ that practically doesn't function without conquering cities ... So I'm not sure how much more design space is for another-yet-different conquest-oriented civ.
They like big personalities and madness is kind of like having a personality, isn't it? In all fairness, she was considered a rather effective leader before her psychotic breakdown.
Have you ever been to Italy? The entire country is an archaeological field. We lost so many artifacts because landowners found something but didn't want their construction to be halted for several years so they just threw it away. You can't walk into Rome without stumbling every three step against a Roman artifact. Italians live in the greatest open-air museum of the size of their country!
Also, if we have Italy, not having the Opera House as their UI would be a shame. They invented modern opera, and the main language of opera and the most prominent masterpieces are still, today, for a large part, in italian.
We also have Macedon being a civ that practically doesn't function without conquering cities ... So I'm not sure how much more design space is for another-yet-different conquest-oriented civ.
Have you ever been to Italy? The entire country is an archaeological field. We lost so many artifacts because landowners found something but didn't want their construction to be halted for several years so they just threw it away. You can't walk into Rome without stumbling every three step against a Roman artifact. Italians live in the greatest open-air museum of the size of their country!
No I haven't. Thanks for reminding me.
Anyway I guess what I was trying to say is I associate Italy more with their artwork so I would assume a unique art museum replacement before an archaeological one, though I don't expect either.
I guess there is Pompeii now that you mention it. In fact I guess you made a point that they could get a third unique museum option to hold both which I was unsure about before, which is why I made that comment.
Also, if we have Italy, not having the Opera House as their UI would be a shame. They invented modern opera, and the main language of opera and the most prominent masterpieces are still, today, for a large part, in italian.
I can agree with this. I've been holding out on the possibility of an Opera House building that anyone can build, for the sole purpose of needing more slots for music, but if that doesn't happen it should go to Italy.
I can agree with this. I've been holding out on the possibility of an Opera House building that anyone can build, for the sole purpose of needing more slots for music, but if that doesn't happen it should go to Italy.
The only other country I could see with an Opera House would be Austria, but seeing we already have Hungary and Germany, I think it would not be a thing, so Italy it is. I WANT RENAISSANCE ITALY SOOOO BAD!
Anyway I guess what I was trying to say is I associate Italy more with their artwork so I would assume a unique art museum replacement before an archaeological one, though I don't expect either
The only way I'd accept a replacement for a Museum for Italy would be a complete museum with six slots, three for artifacts and three for GWA. You don't have to choose anymore, and it would fit the fact that Italy is an artifact field and produce a lot of artistic works.
To be fair, the Hittites were a muti-faceted people with a wide variety of historical attributes. Depending on the aspect of Hittite history they'd chose to focus on, the Hittites could either be diplomatic, militaristic, religious, or scientific or some combination of these. If it does indeed become a one-trick dom civ, it will only be because Firaxis chooses to make it so, which is a possibility with any potential civ that had a good military record.
As previously stated, I personally find Portugal and some North-African civ (maybe some kind of Moorish-related civ) the most likely. I would be curious to hear some more opinions on this as well
To be fair, the Hittites were a muti-faceted people with a wide variety of historical attributes. Depending on the aspect of Hittite history they'd chose to focus on, the Hittites could either be diplomatic, militaristic, religious, or scientific or some combination of these. If it does indeed become a one-trick dom civ, it will only be because Firaxis chooses to make it so, which is a possibility with any potential civ that had a good military record.
To be fair, pretty much every great civilization was multi-faceted.
Take France, for example: they were builders, scientists, conquerors, expansionists, legalists, diplomats... And yet they're reduced in each iteration in the cultural powerhouse.
Every civilization that stood the test of time had to be multi-faceted. After all, you can't stand for centuries only with religion or culture. You need a mix of everything. And the state in which FXS reduced each civ is what stood for it in all their achievments. And Assyria is known outside of academic/geek circles as a warmonger/conqueror/imperialist empire.
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.
