Dn't forget every over-ambitious military leader from Rome on, every one of whom who ever heard of Alexander's conquests wanted to try to do as well or better. Alexander's influence on Overwhelming Ambition in Later Leaders might be his most enduring Influence - unfortunately.
One of my favorite quotes pertaining to Alexander is from Hannibal Barca. When Scipio asked him who the greatest general in history had been, he responded Alexander, followed by Pyrrhus of Epirus, followed by himself. When Scipio asked where he'd place himself had he not been defeated, he said above Alexander.
So far the city-states that have replaced another city-state have been from the same continent. Antioch was in present-day Turkey but it's basically European in terms of culture being founded by the Seleucids and then part of Roman/Byzantine Empire.
By that logic it seems plausible that it should either replace Lisbon or Antioch, which the latter already replaced Amsterdam.
I was hoping Antioch would be replaced by Sana'a as both Middle Eastern civs, but since Antioch is European-ish and replaced Amsterdam Venice is fine. I strongly suspect Antioch is the city-state that has been replaced.
So far we haven't had a city-state be double-replaced, so I am guessing we are getting Portugal in expack 3. Fingers crossed it's Portugal and Bulgaria...they wouldn't replace two commercial civs at once I would think.
How weird to have specifically Venice and Bologna as city-states. Bologna seems all but irrelevant now and makes me wish we had Genoa or Florence instead to better balance out Venice. I don't even know exactly what sort of kingdom or empire Bologna is supposed to be representing...
I am still holding out hope that we're actually getting Oman instead, although the obvious replacement for Muscat would have been Abu Dhabi or Dubai.
And my personal feelings on the matter are mixed. I would have been fine with a Venice return and had recently been getting my hopes up that it made more sense than Genoa or a unified Italy. But then again, of the civ V civs, Venice and Babylon were really the two strongest candidates to be downgraded to city-states.
I was hoping Antioch would be replaced by Sana'a as both Middle Eastern civs, but since Antioch is European-ish and replaced Amsterdam Venice is fine. I strongly suspect Antioch is the city-state that has been replaced.
In Civ 5 was there ever any instance where a specific city-state ended up being replaced twice, by two different cities, or would this be the first? Possibly Babylon would fall into the category as well.
I’d like to point out that multiple city-states could also be being replaced. So perhaps Byzantium AND Portugal, or Portugal AND the Swahili (Zanzibar), or Portugal AND Oman (Muscat).
In Civ 5 was there ever any instance where a specific city-state ended up being replaced twice, by two different cities, or would this be the first? Possibly Babylon would fall into the category as well.
Well Jakarta, Lisbon, and Marrakech were newly added in Gods and Kings but then replaced in Brave New World. But it's hard to tell if they were intended to replace Dublin, Edinburgh, Helsinki, Stockholm, or Vienna, given that the expacks removed a handful of city-states and added quite a few more.
I'm not saying it's not Portugal, but I don't think the fact that it hasn't happened before can be used as an argument that it can't happen now. As the pass's very title suggests, we're in unprecedented territory here. It's highly probable that Byzantium is coming, if not in this DLC then another, and it's highly probable that Antioch is on their city-list (it really doesn't have the same justification as Granada to be left as a city-state).
How weird to have specifically Venice and Bologna as city-states. Bologna seems all but irrelevant now and makes me wish we had Genoa or Florence instead to better balance out Venice. I don't even know exactly what sort of kingdom or empire Bologna is supposed to be representing...
I'm sure Bologna is just supposed to represent Bologna. In essence it could be seen as the defacto Italy city-state considering Venice did it's own thing and was way more independent from the rest of Medieval/Renaissance Italy.
It also made the most sense to get Stockholm's suzerain bonus.
How weird to have specifically Venice and Bologna as city-states. Bologna seems all but irrelevant now and makes me wish we had Genoa or Florence instead to better balance out Venice. I don't even know exactly what sort of kingdom or empire Bologna is supposed to be representing...
perhaps it just represents Italy while Venice represents Venice? Or maybe city-states don’t necessarily represent empires and bologna was picked just bcs it hosts one of europe’s oldest and best universities?
I'm not saying it's not Portugal, but I don't think the fact that it hasn't happened before can be used as an argument that it can't happen now. As the pass's very title suggests, we're in unprecedented territory here. It's highly probable that Byzantium is coming, if not in this DLC then another, and it's highly probable that Antioch is on their city-list (it really doesn't have the same justification as Granada to be left as a city-state).
I'm still hoping Byzantium is being held back for season 2 so I don't need this rule to be broken. Although if it meant Morocco had a chance just to keep the devs' Maghrebi options open, I would be okay with it.
I'm sure Bologna is just supposed to represent Bologna. In essence it could be seen as the defacto Italy city-state considering Venice did it's own thing and was way more independent from the rest of Medieval/Renaissance Italy.
It also made the most sense to get Stockholm's suzerain bonus.
perhaps it just represents Italy while Venice represents Venice? Or maybe city-states don’t necessarily represent empires and bologna was picked just bcs it hosts one of europe’s oldest and best universities?
While I don't think either of you are wrong, I don't think every city-state replacement has inherited the same suze bonus? Also, Bologna may represent "Italy", but nowhere nearly as well as Florence would have. So the choice still frustrates me.
Remember when city-states were actually city-states and not stand-ins for entire Civilization?
I’m personally glad Venice has just been deconfirmed as being a Civilization anytime soon though. I’d much rather a single Italian blob civ like we have for the Greeks and Mayans.
I dont think Bologna was added with the intention to represent Italy. I think it was added bcs it has one of Europe’s oldest universities and was the best city state option to replace Stockholm. Florence thematically would not replace stockholm well, since it would be more cultural in my mind, plus, liek I said, the devs probably focus more on fitting potential city states to the abilities and finding city states that fit what they want out of the abilities than worry about what empire the city states vicariously represent and which city state would represent an empire the best
Based on the city-states in the livestream, Morocco is deconfirmed (at least for September) due to Fez. Timurids are deconfirmed due to Kabul (unless my history is wrong). Madagascar is deconfirmed (although not very likely to begin with, but could have been paired with Portugal) due to Antananarivo.
While I don't think either of you are wrong, I don't think every city-state replacement has inherited the same suze bonus? Also, Bologna may represent "Italy", but nowhere nearly as well as Florence would have.
Babylon was the only one that got a whole new one but it was so generic: Gain a free Eureka when you advance to the next era. Vilnius had the same one but for Inspirations and they changed it in R&F without it being replaced.
Edit: I guess Carthage changed too in R&F but that was before it was replaced.
I agree that Florence would be the best "Italy" representation but it probably wouldn't have been as a science city replacing Stockholm, but cultural. Well @Thenewwwguy beat me to it.
Remember when city-states were actually city-states and not stand-ins for entire Civilization?
I’m personally glad Venice has just been deconfirmed as being a Civilization anytime soon though. I’d much rather a single Italian blob civ like we have for the Greeks and Mayans.
Remember when city-states were actually city-states and not stand-ins for entire Civilization?
I’m personally glad Venice has just been deconfirmed as being a Civilization anytime soon though. I’d much rather a single Italian blob civ like we have for the Greeks and Mayans.
I dont think Bologna was added with the intention to represent Italy. I think it was added bcs it has one of Europe’s oldest universities and was the best city state option to replace Stockholm. Florence thematically would not replace stockholm well, since it would be more cultural in my mind, plus, liek I said, the devs probably focus more on fitting potential city states to the abilities and finding city states that fit what they want out of the abilities than worry about what empire the city states vicariously represent and which city state would represent an empire the best
I would buy that except that nearly every city-state is meant to represent a smaller kingdom or empire (or in the case of native peoples, cultures which were the closest thing we could find to an empire). I can accept Geneva and Vatican and Jerusalem and Singapore for various reasons, but I would say the only CS which comes close to Bologna's ambiguity is Cardiff, which even still somewhat justifies itself as giving the two British civs some smaller kingdoms to compete for. We now have three city-states jammed up against Rome with no real competition. It baffles me lol.
Based on the city-states in the livestream, Morocco is deconfirmed (at least for September) due to Fez. Timurids are deconfirmed due to Kabul (unless my history is wrong). Madagascar is deconfirmed (although not very likely to begin with, but could have been paired with Portugal) due to Antananarivo.
Timurids are deconfirmed due to Kabul (unless my history is wrong). Madagascar is deconfirmed (although not very likely to begin with, but could have been paired with Portugal) due to Antananarivo.
Timurids ruled a lot of cities, including many which are in different civs already. Kabul wasn’t especially important to them compared to other more important cities (Think Bukhara, Samarqand) which are still absent. While I doubt the Timurids will be in this pack, Kabul’s existence doesn’t necessarily deconfirm them. Kabul being there probably decomfirms the Afghans, Ghaznavids or Pashtuns more so than the Timurids.
I'm not saying it's not Portugal, but I don't think the fact that it hasn't happened before can be used as an argument that it can't happen now. As the pass's very title suggests, we're in unprecedented territory here. It's highly probable that Byzantium is coming, if not in this DLC then another, and it's highly probable that Antioch is on their city-list (it really doesn't have the same justification as Granada to be left as a city-state).
a leader leading two civs wasn’t seen until civ 6, as were non-one-tile-cities as well. Precedence from previous games hardly matters, and considering we’re receiving more content than we did prior, the fact that until now we haven’t gotten doubly-replaced city states probably says more about necessity than any preconceived notions or arbitrary rules the devs have apparently put upon themselves. I mean seriously, do people honestly think the devs are sitting around in a board room (or a zoom call now, i guess) and saying “I want Byzantines and Babylon but gosh darn it we’ve already used Antioch and Babylon as replacement city states. Guess we can’t put them in civ cuz we haven’t doubly replaced city states before. Oh well.”
That sounds so ridiculous that I have a hard time believing that anyone actually thinks that a city state being a replacement for a different city state means that it can’t be replaced itself for a new civ. That’s such an arbitrary rule.
Maybe, but maybe not. I mean they felt Venice was separate enough from Italy to make Venice a whole civ back in Civ 5 after all. They’d probably replace Bologna though, but if we accept Antioch as replaceable then Bologna should still be too.
“I want Byzantines and Babylon but gosh darn it we’ve already used Antioch and Babylon as replacement city states. Guess we can’t put them in civ cuz we haven’t doubly replaced city states before. Oh well.”
Maybe, but maybe not. I mean they felt Venice was separate enough from Italy to make Venice a whole civ back in Civ 5 after all. They’d probably replace Bologna though, but if we accept Antioch as replaceable then Bologna should still be too.
it would be kinda weird if it didn’t. If a city like say, Travancore/Thiravunantapuram/Trivandrum or Thanjavur wasn’t in India’s city list and instead a city-state, it makes sense since it clearly would represent a time when the south of india was independent and contained various independent nations. But it would be difficult to apply that reasoning to many Italian city states outside of Sicilian, Genoan and Venetian ones, especially if italy as a civ represents the fractured city state period of Italy (which obstensibly is not the case with Gandhi’s india in civ)
Timurids ruled a lot of cities, including many which are in different civs already. Kabul wasn’t especially important to them compared to other more important cities (Think Bukhara, Samarqand) which are still absent. While I doubt the Timurids will be in this pack, Kabul’s existence doesn’t necessarily deconfirm them. Kabul being there probably decomfirms the Afghans, Ghaznavids or Pashtuns more so than the Timurids.
a leader leading two civs wasn’t seen until civ 6, as were non-one-tile-cities as well. Precedence from previous games hardly matters, and considering we’re receiving more content than we did prior, the fact that until now we haven’t gotten doubly-replaced city states probably says more about necessity than any preconceived notions or arbitrary rules the devs have apparently put upon themselves. I mean seriously, do people honestly think the devs are sitting around in a board room (or a zoom call now, i guess) and saying “I want Byzantines and Babylon but gosh darn it we’ve already used Antioch and Babylon as replacement city states. Guess we can’t put them in civ cuz we haven’t doubly replaced city states before. Oh well.”
That sounds so ridiculous that I have a hard time believing that anyone actually thinks that a city state being a replacement for a different city state means that it can’t be replaced itself for a new civ. That’s such an arbitrary rule.
It's not that arbitrary. For a game like VI which seems to have undergone a lot of preproduction planning, one would think the devs would keep potential civs out as city-states, and only add them if they were fairly certain they would never be up for consideration. This is why we didn't get Fez or Venice or Babylon until later; because they were likely still being considered. And this is why we still don't have Pagan or Samarkand or Copenhagen; because the devs either a) weren't sure what they were going to settle on for those regions yet and/or b) wanted to maintain a certain level of intrigue so that we wouldn't know if they went with, say, Vietnam over Burma or vice versa until the civ was announced.
So far the only city-states which have been replaced are those which came with the base game. This is consistent with a design plan that decided to fill the base game out as best as possible, and then more pointedly fill in the map with expansions. None of the city-state additions so far have indicated that devs want to fall into a development pattern of releasing city-states only to have to replace them the next year; absent new data, it is a totally fair presumption to believe that city states which were added after the base game have all been abandoned causes.
I'm not saying precedent won't be broken, especially if the game is developed long enough and lost causes are brought back into consideration. But like many other speculations, such a development would prove an exception to the apparent rules we are seeing. It's fine to hope for exceptions, but that hope is generally always held in check by what we expect from past behavior.
Well rest in City-State sized pieces Italy. I can't argue with making Venice a trade city state, as it is built for the role. I could see it filling a Lisbon replacement more than Antioch just based on abilities, but we will just have to wait and see.
I reject the notion that multiple replacements are impossible, especially for Babylon and Antioch as those replacements date back to Rise and Fall where the Civ 6 development roadmap may have looked a lot different. Considering that city states are not that resource intensive (an icon and a civilopedia entry), I think the developers would have interest in civs like Babylon or the Byzantines (Plus the Byzantine city list could just not include Antioch as they have plenty of options).
Fast edit: Ah so Babylon is still a city state per the stream. That's fair.
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.
![[pissed]](/images/smilies/pissed.gif "Pissed [pissed]")
