Well, if it was up to me, he would be leading Greece lol. Either way, I think if Zenobia gets into the game, she should be leading "Palmyra." I just wouldn't mind a nod to Syria in some way, musically or otherwise.
Though, the term, "Syria," long predates the Modern nation, and refers to cultures and polities in the unrelated. It was the Greek name for the Aramaic heartand, then the central territories (and later rump state) of the Seleucid Empire, then a Roman, followed by a Byzantine Province, and an Ottoman Sanjak, then Beyelik. It was also a contemporary reference for Palmyra. Pope Zachary in the 6th Century, the last Non-European-born Pope until Francis, came from Syria. But, this land has had many, many different dominant cultures, religions, and languages, and, through the vast majority of it's history, didn't, at all resemble modern Syria.
Generally speaking, I'd agree, but I don't mind outstanding cases like Rome/Greece/Byzantium. Taking that to an extreme could end up blobbing America with Britain, which I wouldn't want. There just needs to be a bit of leeway on when something becomes its "own thing" for the sake of the game.
if this is referring to the use of Slavic North Macedonian music for the Ancient Greek Civ of Macedon, please don't endorse this (coming from someone who has written a replacement theme using actual modern Greek Macedonian music).
I see your logic, but we also shouldn't undervalue the examples of successful multi-ethnic kingdoms and empires, where the ethnicity was less important to the "civilization," as the games would term them.
I see your logic, but we also shouldn't undervalue the examples of successful multi-ethnic kingdoms and empires, where the ethnicity was less important to the "civilization," as the games would term them.
Also, basing things on, "Ethnic Group," feeds, both into jarring, disconcerted, "hodgepodge," civ's, but also into Nationalistic conceits and myths, as well as traps. Like, the Kievan 'Rus was a group of city-states, each ruled by a Prince (Knyaz), who had adopted Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and lasted until conquered by the Mongol Empire, under the two eldest sons of Genghis Khan ("the old boys campaign"), who were en route to Europe. This civ was inhabited by Old East Slavs, who were the direct culturally and linguistically undifferentiated ancestors of ALL THREE of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians. One can see the problem with that example, right there.
Also, basing things on, "Ethnic Group," feeds, both into jarring, disconcerted, "hodgepodge," civ's, but also into Nationalistic conceits and myths, as well as traps. Like, the Kievan 'Rus was a group of city-states, each ruled by a Prince (Knyaz), who had adopted Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and lasted until conquered by the Mongol Empire, under the two eldest sons of Genghis Khan ("the old boys campaign"), who were en route to Europe. This civ was inhabited by Old East Slavs, who were the direct culturally and linguistically undifferentiated ancestors of ALL THREE of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians. One can see the problem with that example, right there.
This. Even the Macedonian/Greek example falls into the same trap.
Claims of cultural continuity are bollocks for both modern ethnicities. Claims of genetic purity are likewise building on air.
Modern Greeks were convinced to stop identifying as Romans. Modern Macedonians were convinced to stop identifying as Bulgarians. And those Romans and Bulgarians also weren't thinking themselves such since time immemorial, the Flood or the Babylonian Tower as the popular origin stories of that time go.
Clear historical "continuities" are nothing more than contrived nationalist narratives. Some continuities of course exist but none are able to clearly define the modern ethnostates as perfectly as those states and the artificial ethnicities created by them claim. That's fairy tales for people who never opened a history book, usually but not always looking at the past to elevate their not-so-enviable life situation or complexes. Like the 300kg bedridden fella who's a diehard fan of Barcelona's football team. He's never played and will never play football. He's not even Spanish/Catalan/Barcelonian. But he still believes he's a part of the in-group, part of that team winning championships on the TV.
Alexander Internetovich and Alexandros Internetilis are no different, their Messi is just Aristotle. Despite not sharing any significant connection with him.
I find it interesting how some people are trying to assign specific abilities with numbers/yields associated to them rather than just being generalistic with "Mongolia will get benefits to Horses, England will get benefits to boats, Shirvan will get benefits to Oil" and stuff like that as we've not seen any gameplay yet or any of the mechanics to actually pin down what each hypertherical Cic would do.
If Civ7 comes out like Civ6 did (And iirc Ed Beach wanted to simplify some Civ abilities rather than three paragraphs of text) the base game Civs will (at least initially) have very basic abilities ties to the core game mechanics rather than specific abilities that get reused constantly.
Eg, in Civ6 we had:
England: Continents & Archology
Spain: Religion and Continents
Greece: Culture and Government
America: Goverment & Legacy bonuses (if you can even remember them)
Arabia: Religion and Science
Kongo: Population and Religion*
Aztecs: Districts and Luxuries
Etc...
Putting numbers to Civs in Civ7 without seeing the first gameplay would be foolish.
I find it interesting how some people are trying to assign specific abilities with numbers/yields associated to them rather than just being generalistic with "Mongolia will get benefits to Horses, England will get benefits to boats, Shirvan will get benefits to Oil" and stuff like that as we've not seen any gameplay yet or any of the mechanics to actually pin down what each hypertherical Cic would do.
If Civ7 comes out like Civ6 did (And iirc Ed Beach wanted to simplify some Civ abilities rather than three paragraphs of text) the base game Civs will (at least initially) have very basic abilities ties to the core game mechanics rather than specific abilities that get reused constantly.
Eg, in Civ6 we had:
England: Continents & Archology
Spain: Religion and Continents
Greece: Culture and Government
America: Goverment & Legacy bonuses (if you can even remember them)
Arabia: Religion and Science
Kongo: Population and Religion*
Aztecs: Districts and Luxuries
Etc...
Putting numbers to Civs in Civ7 without seeing the first gameplay would be foolish.
I will say it again: this thread is a wishlist, not a prediction. So all those numbers are part of stuff we wish to see. Of course, we have no idea yet what gameplay features Civ VII will have, so meanwhile we are imagining the game as we like.
Just from a cursory glance of online Syrian communities, she is very highly thought of and seen as a national and patriotic symbol. She was featured on currency for the modern Syrian state for a time. So modern Syrians see a throughline. We don't need a connection, but it's one that's been created by Syrians, not me. Remember, this is the same series that tried to tie Alexander to modern Macedon, so there's precedent for these kinds of leaps.
I think Alexander should sit this one out. I'm not a fan of the splitting leaders of Greece to represent Sparta and Athens. I'd rather have Athens and Sparta as distinct civs. I also think leader abilities aren't unique enough generally to warrant making a separate leader, if the civ remains the same and it would allow for a Sparta to really represent Sparta and Athens to really represent Athens for instance. If you have Athens, Sparta, you could also add Macedon or even another Greek civ if you intend to have a 100 civilisations at the end of VI. A greek themed DLC could also work well, and probably also open the base game spot for a more surprising/interesting civ. You could also throw in a Ptolemaic Egypt civ or a Seleucid civ, and while in theory it sounds interesting, we've basically had four of these in civ 6 (since Egypt was... Ptolemaic Egypt). So i think it's more of an idea for civ 8 or at the end of the development cycle of civ 7 (and they aren't going to wait that long to add something Greek).
And given we are trending away from blobbing civs, i think Sparta, Athens, Macedon not existing and it all being Greece is also kind of blobby. But I think other areas are more in need of deblobbing giving Greece isn't too large of an area.
I think Alexander should sit this one out. I'm not a fan of the splitting leaders of Greece to represent Sparta and Athens. I'd rather have Athens and Sparta as distinct civs. I also think leader abilities aren't unique enough generally to warrant making a separate leader, if the civ remains the same and it would allow for a Sparta to really represent Sparta and Athens to really represent Athens for instance. If you have Athens, Sparta, you could also add Macedon or even another Greek civ if you intend to have a 100 civilisations at the end of VI. A greek themed DLC could also work well, and probably also open the base game spot for a more surprising/interesting civ. You could also throw in a Ptolemaic Egypt civ or a Seleucid civ, and while in theory it sounds interesting, we've basically had four of these in civ 6 (since Egypt was... Ptolemaic Egypt). So i think it's more of an idea for civ 8 or at the end of the development cycle of civ 7 (and they aren't going to wait that long to add something Greek).
And given we are trending away from blobbing civs, i think Sparta, Athens, Macedon not existing and it all being Greece is also kind of blobby. But I think other areas are more in need of deblobbing giving Greece isn't too large of an area.
There’s no way that Sparta is more worthwhile than Macedon. Alexander the Great is one of the most impactful human beings to ever live. I fully support him being a mainstay.
Sparta’s military prowess was vastly overstated by 19th- and 20th century historians, and they have practically no cultural heritage. Sparta wasn’t even a real city.
I do agree in spirit it’d be more interesting to have the Greek civ be focused on a particular city state or confederation.
There’s no way that Sparta is more worthwhile than Macedon. Alexander the Great is one of the most impactful human beings to ever live. I fully support him being a mainstay.
Sparta’s military prowess was vastly overstated by 19th- and 20th century historians, and they have practically no cultural heritage. Sparta wasn’t even a real city.
I do agree in spirit it’d be more interesting to have the Greek civ be focused on a particular city state or confederation.
With so many interesting Greek persons, i think it'd be a waste if it's always the same leader over & over again. And Alexander is sort of the opposite of what the Greeks are usually associated and known for until that point. Alexander is just unique, I understand the idea of Macedon - for gameplay reasons, to make Greece feel well like Greece and not like some kind of warmongering civ.
With so many interesting Greek persons, i think it'd be a waste if it's always the same leader over & over again. And Alexander is sort of the opposite of what the Greeks are usually associated and known for until that point. Alexander is just unique, I understand the idea of Macedon - for gameplay reasons, to make Greece feel well like Greece and not like some kind of warmongering civ.
Honestly my idea was to either a) include Macedonia again, or allow Alexander to be an alternative leader for Greece AND Persia. Maybe even throw Egypt in there...but there are other alternative/double leaders for Egypt I'd rather see. Either way I wouldn't mind a more diplomatic athenian or theban leader for the inevitable Greek civ while Alexander could lead either and bring the Heteroi and some sick military bonuses.
I agree that it's hard for Alexander to not be included given his role in defining the entire western/middle eastern ideals of empire. Kinda important for a game like civ...I don't think he is needed for the base game but as an alternative leader later on I would be all for it.
Honestly my idea was to either a) include Macedonia again, or allow Alexander to be an alternative leader for Greece AND Persia. Maybe even throw Egypt in there...but there are other alternative/double leaders for Egypt I'd rather see. Either way I wouldn't mind a more diplomatic athenian or theban leader for the inevitable Greek civ while Alexander could lead either and bring the Heteroi and some sick military bonuses.
I agree that it's hard for Alexander to not be included given his role in defining the entire western/middle eastern ideals of empire. Kinda important for a game like civ...I don't think he is needed for the base game but as an alternative leader later on I would be all for it.
Given how rich Egyptian and Persian history is, it would be kind of a waste for Alexander to fill up one of their leader slots (and a bit disrespectful for Egyptiand/Persians to have a Greek be one of their leaders, even as alternate). I generally don't really like the idea of alternates anymore. I'd rather have the resources be given to unique civs even if that includes balkanizing civs like India, Greece etc.
I agree totally that having one person who led an empire be assigned as an alt leader for its constituent lands is not a good idea.
I think it’s just kind of corny, and I don’t think in most hypothetical cases, like Alexander, it’d even be accurate. Achaemenid Persia ceased to be Achaemenid Persia when Alexander conquered it. I get you’re trying to make the point that those lands were part of his empire, but so what?
The Achaemenids also conquered Egypt. So did the Romans. So did Nubians. Should they all be alt leaders for Egypt? And so on for any number of factions.
If this mechanic is to return, it should only be reserved for specific cases like Eleanor. I’d rather just not have it at all though.
Honestly my idea was to either a) include Macedonia again, or allow Alexander to be an alternative leader for Greece AND Persia. Maybe even throw Egypt in there...but there are other alternative/double leaders for Egypt I'd rather see. Either way I wouldn't mind a more diplomatic athenian or theban leader for the inevitable Greek civ while Alexander could lead either and bring the Heteroi and some sick military bonuses.
I agree that it's hard for Alexander to not be included given his role in defining the entire western/middle eastern ideals of empire. Kinda important for a game like civ...I don't think he is needed for the base game but as an alternative leader later on I would be all for it.
Yeah, there's no way he needs to be an alternate Egypt or Persian leader.
I think the best solution would be just an alternate militaristic leader for Greece, or have him lead his own Macedon civ again.
Given how rich Egyptian and Persian history is, it would be kind of a waste for Alexander to fill up one of their leader slots (and a bit disrespectful for Egyptiand/Persians to have a Greek be one of their leaders, even as alternate). I generally don't really like the idea of alternates anymore. I'd rather have the resources be given to unique civs even if that includes balkanizing civs like India, Greece etc.
Although I agree with the first part, I do still see a lot ot potential and value in alternate leaders where they are appropriate, and do not feel that every leader needs their own, separate, and distinct civ cooked up, in many cases as a conttivance.
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.
