That being said, I'd love an Aragonese leader of Spain in some future iteration, just because Catalan is my favorite Romance language (and Aragonese is closely related to Catalan). But if any Iberian kingdom ever got balkanized out of Spain, I'd expect to see Basque-speaking Navarre.
Surely Aragon would be a better option than Navarre, Aragon ruled most of Southern Europe including Catalonia, Corsica, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, and Greece at various stages before the union with Castille, and the Crown of Aragon existed until the early 18th century.
I’m also not sure why Istanbul/Constantinople is an issue. Istanbul was the capital of the Ottoman Empire for 470 years... it’d be kind of weird not to have it as a city in the game.
Having Mehmed rule from Edirne (aka Adrianople) doesn’t exactly prevent a clash with the Roman/Byzantine city list anyway.
Unfortunately, his period would get represented for the fourth time in a row. Make place for Herakleios this time Or Basil II Bulgaroktonos. Or some Komnenos.Or maybe Michael VIII Palaiologos...
I would love to see Sitting Bull with religion and combat bonuses.
For Byzantium I don't necessarily care who we get. People have been clamoring for a more "Greek" medieval Byzantine ruler, but we have plenty of Greeks in Civ VI and I would rather see the more Roman Constantine (speaking Latin), Justinian (speaking badly accented Greek or decent Latin), or Theodora (speaking decent Greek).
I'm more excited overall for what Near East civs we will get from among Babylon, Assyria, Palmyra, and/or the Hittites. Civ VI overall could use more ancient leaders.
I’m also not sure why Istanbul/Constantinople is an issue. Istanbul was the capital of the Ottoman Empire for 470 years... it’d be kind of weird not to have it as a city in the game.
Having Mehmed rule from Edirne (aka Adrianople) doesn’t exactly prevent a clash with the Roman/Byzantine city list anyway.
you can just remove adrianoole from the byzantine city list, which is much easier than omitting constantinople from the byzantine city lost. It’s not as big of a deal as the constantinople/istanbul clash
my other idea would be to have byzantium and ottomans lock each other out without manual override like duplicate civs normally do, so that the city lists never clash
Babylon might be this iteration's One City Challenge.
Idea:
May not Settle new cities.
May conquer City-States. Retains Suzerainty bonus of conquered City States.
Minus 1 Amenity in every city for each conquered City which is not a city-state.
---
On a different point, if Ethiopia doesn't get a 20th century leader, that would open the opportunity for Botswana to be represented in the game as a Modern Civ option.
you can just remove adrianoole from the byzantine city list, which is much easier than omitting constantinople from the byzantine city lost. It’s not as big of a deal as the constantinople/istanbul clash
my other idea would be to have byzantium and ottomans lock each other out without manual override like duplicate civs normally do, so that the city lists never clash
Having both Constantinople and Istanbul in the game has never been a problem. so I'm not sure why it would be now.
I mean Mexico city and Tenochtitlan are in the game as well now as Vatican City and Rome. It would be different if they shared the same name but they don't.
Having both Constantinople and Istanbul in the game has never been a problem. so I'm not sure why it would be now.
I mean Mexico city and Tenochtitlan are in the game as well now as Vatican City and Rome. It would be different if they shared the same name but they don't.
There have been TSL maps with Pericles, Gorgo and Alexander on them. Arabia, Egypt an Nubia start on top of each other as well. I'm sure it will be worked around.
There have been TSL maps with Pericles, Gorgo and Alexander on them. Arabia, Egypt an Nubia start on top of each other as well. I'm sure it will be worked around.
Or Byzantium and Ottomans will start next to each other. I don't much care since I think TSL is silly, but some folks around here do. I guess maybe they just shouldn't enable both at once!
Babylon might be this iteration's One City Challenge.
Idea:
May not Settle new cities.
May conquer City-States. Retains Suzerainty bonus of conquered City States.
Minus 1 Amenity in every city for each conquered City which is not a city-state.
---
On a different point, if Ethiopia doesn't get a 20th century leader, that would open the opportunity for Botswana to be represented in the game as a Modern Civ option.
One City Challenge civs really don't work for Civ VI, due to districts and wonders occupying tiles. Venice was interesting but had a big enough drawback in Civ V, this Babylon proposition of yours looks even worse.
Surely Aragon would be a better option than Navarre, Aragon ruled most of Southern Europe including Catalonia, Corsica, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, and Greece at various stages before the union with Castille, and the Crown of Aragon existed until the early 18th century.
I agree, but Aragon is also less distinct from Spain as a unit. The only way I can see Aragon being made its own civ is if Castille is also made its own civ, with no unified Spain. I don't think that would be a popular choice. I think Aragon's best bet is an Aragonese leader for Spain.
Having both Constantinople and Istanbul in the game has never been a problem. so I'm not sure why it would be now.
I mean Mexico city and Tenochtitlan are in the game as well now as Vatican City and Rome. It would be different if they shared the same name but they don't.
Not actually, following your logic, Istambul was a specific Neighbourhood from Constantinople, that grow to name the whole city, so it can be assimilated the Vatican example.
Vatican was a fortified borough of Rome since the italian unification, then it became a separate country but it's still Rome.
Mexico city was built on top of Tenochtitlan, but it's not like tenochtitlan disappeared and then the spanish came in and saw some fancy ruins on top of which they decided it would be nice to build a city on. It was conquered sacked and "renamed" (mexica was the term the aztec used to define themselves so mexico city has the same meaning as "aztec city").
Not actually, following your logic, Istambul was a specific Neighbourhood from Constantinople, that grow to name the whole city, so it can be assimilated the Vatican example.
i stand corrected then. I’d still prefer that if the byzantines have to be in, that they and the ottomans have the no duplicates without override situation that say, chandragupta and gandhi have, but I can live with pretending that Byzantine Constantinople doesn’t include the Istanbul neighborhood
Regardless if they are the same city or not, my point is geographically speaking they occupy the same place on the map. Looking at a detailed map on reddit, there is no reason why they couldn't start one tile to the left of the Ottomans on a TSL map because that would be the main concern.
Here is the link if you want you can zoom in:https://i.redd.it/5fnwmc1qdtg21.jpg
Spoiler:
But it would be worse for Pericles because he would be surrounded by Gorgo one tile to the south of him and Alexander one tile north. I'm talking about the world map because there is much more room on the Europe one.
Regardless if they are the same city or not, my point is geographically speaking they occupy the same place on the map. Looking at a detailed map on reddit, there is no reason why they couldn't start one tile to the left of the Ottomans on a TSL map because that would be the main concern.
Here is the link if you want you can zoom in:https://i.redd.it/5fnwmc1qdtg21.jpg
Spoiler:
But it would be worse for Pericles because he would be surrounded by Gorgo one tile to the south of him and Alexander one tile north. I'm talking about the world map because there is much more room on the Europe one.
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.
But if any Iberian kingdom ever got balkanized out of Spain, I'd expect to see Basque-speaking Navarre.
