All those nations that lasted over a thousand years (few did, by the way. Even Rome didn't last a thousand years as a major power if you don't count the Church) never reached the size of the Mongol empire. And to be fair, if a nation survives for longer than a lifetime, or, in other words, some four or five generations, then yes, I'd call them a stable power. And that makes the Mongol empire one of the biggest powers the world has ever seen, even though they lasted "only" about a hundred years (for comparision, they lasted about as long as the time from the first aircraft until today, maybe even somewhat longer).
Genghis killed seven hundred thousand people in Merv and more than a million in Nishapur. these are just examples mind you.
Persia's total population fell from 2 and a half million to 250.000 due to mass extermination and famine and here I am debating you guys on whether or not he was a barbarian.
That's Hitler level genocide, I'm fine with your Genghis Khan fantasies but if you knew even a tiny bit of history and the atrocities he commited, you would've never made light of historical facts by defining barbarian like that.
Go ahead, tell me he wasn't a barbarian. 2 and a half million to 250.000? that's just irrelevant details.
Let's be real, standards were a LOT different back then. It was totally normal back then to slaughter a people that resisted you. And I want to repeat I'm NOT trying to tell you he didn't do horrible things, but in his timeframe he also did a lot of things better than most leaders. "Also" being the key word here, by the way. There's also things, of course, he did NOT do a lot better than most leaders.
Let's be real, standards were a LOT different back then. It was totally normal back then to slaughter a people that resisted you. And I want to repeat I'm NOT trying to tell you he didn't do horrible things, but in his timeframe he also did a lot of things better than most leaders. "Also" being the key word here, by the way. There's also things, of course, he did NOT do a lot better than most leaders.
2 and a Half million to 250.000....EVEN by that era's standard that was a new low for humanity, don't take my word for it, go research it yourself.
If we have issue with a guy like Hitler, I can't see why Chengiz should be given a pass simply because of the standard of the time, specially since humanity had seen someone like Cyrus before.
Though you're slightly overstating the amount of people that died (it was three quarters, not 90%, which I know is still a lot), I'm not trying to make a point about that.
The thing is, Hitler didn't do anything good. One could argue that his best actions were to create the first highways, and even that he did so that the army could move from one place to another faster. Genghis Khan, no matter how bad some of the things he did, also did things that we would call "enlightened" nowadays, like aforementioned promotion on merit or the (relative) religious freedom.
Once again, I'm not saying Genghis Khan was a fun person, I'm just saying he's not evil incarnate like a certain person about eighty years ago.
Moderator Action: Not sure how this happened, but this has become a thread about the level of indiscriminate deaths caused by Genghis and the Mongol hordes (with some Hitler comparisons to boot). Unless someone has evidence that the Mongols are going to be in this DLC, that's off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss the impact of the Mongol invasions on history, the World History forum is just a few clicks away. As for this thread, back on topic please.
Yes n no. While no one is as radically different as Venice (yet), the differences between all Civs in VI are far more significant than they were in V.
And Norway has the skill set of Polynesia from V. That and more variety.
I think the standard variety got higher, but we are missing civs that are really, really different.
Before release, I thought Kongo and Arabia would be these civs, but it turned out the difference is not that large (as Venice for example).
But I don't think we will find completely different civs in DLCs. Many people might be appalled if a civ has larger restrictions or plays fundamentally different. If an expansion adds 7+ civs and one/two of them plays radically different, that would probably easier to sell. I'm hoping for a nomadic civ at some point that plays very different. Or a civ (yay for 19th century Switzerland) that cannot declare war (would you buy it as DLC?)
In DLC I think we get strong civs that have strong bonuses and not restrictions or new mechanics.
I think the standard variety got higher, but we are missing civs that are really, really different.
Before release, I thought Kongo and Arabia would be these civs, but it turned out the difference is not that large (as Venice for example).
But I don't think we will find completely different civs in DLCs. Many people might be appalled if a civ has larger restrictions or plays fundamentally different. If an expansion adds 7+ civs and one/two of them plays radically different, that would probably easier to sell. I'm hoping for a nomadic civ at some point that plays very different. Or a civ (yay for 19th century Switzerland) that cannot declare war.
In DLC I think we get strong civs that have strong bonuses and not restrictions or new mechanics.
I know we don't want more European Civs until we fill up other areas of the world but I would love to see Switzerland! Cannot declare war or have war declared on but always has open boarders and units can always attack and be attacked. Trade routes and Civilian units are immune to pillaging and capture (Just so you don't accidentally take them). That ability means that they won't get warmongering penalties for declaring war because they can't and are kinda already at war with everyone.
Also they should have something that makes their cities seem independent like puppeting or separate governments seeing as they don't really have a central government. But they would get a bonus to gold/trade and foreign affairs.
I think the standard variety got higher, but we are missing civs that are really, really different.
Before release, I thought Kongo and Arabia would be these civs, but it turned out the difference is not that large (as Venice for example).
But I don't think we will find completely different civs in DLCs. Many people might be appalled if a civ has larger restrictions or plays fundamentally different. If an expansion adds 7+ civs and one/two of them plays radically different, that would probably easier to sell. I'm hoping for a nomadic civ at some point that plays very different. Or a civ (yay for 19th century Switzerland) that cannot declare war (would you buy it as DLC?)
In DLC I think we get strong civs that have strong bonuses and not restrictions or new mechanics.
I don't need to declare war. I wait until the AI declares war on me in the classical era and then I conquer so much I get a huge warmonger penalty, after which wars are easy to get.
I don't need to declare war. I wait until the AI declares war on me in the classical era and then I conquer so much I get a huge warmonger penalty, after which wars are easy to get.
I know we don't want more European Civs until we fill up other areas of the world but I would love to see Switzerland! Cannot declare war or have war declared on but always has open boarders and units can always attack and be attacked. Trade routes and Civilian units are immune to pillaging and capture (Just so you don't accidentally take them). That ability means that they won't get warmongering penalties for declaring war because they can't and are kinda already at war with everyone.
Also they should have something that makes their cities seem independent like puppeting or separate governments seeing as they don't really have a central government. But they would get a bonus to gold/trade and foreign affairs.
2 and a Half million to 250.000....EVEN by that era's standard that was a new low for humanity, don't take my word for it, go research it yourself.
If we have issue with a guy like Hitler, I can't see why Chengiz should be given a pass simply because of the standard of the time, specially since humanity had seen someone like Cyrus before.
I realize you may be hurt by mongols actions as a persian, since his armies killed millions of people. But you must remember that historians do not judge, but only state facts. And despite the tragedies occasioned by the Mongol Terror tactic (the real "surrender or die"), mongols built the greatest continuous empire (in extension), a powerful trading post to manage it, and left a mark too much important in central Asia to be forgotten, since most empires that followed claimed to be successors of the mongols : Timurids in actual Uzbekistan, Mughals in India, and even the Ottomans. Unlike Hitler who did not left any "structural" legacy, or a united empire behind him. Only a more damaged than ever Germany. I won't justify his actions, especially that he lived in steppe culture that I, as an average portuguese living in Belgium, may never understand the hardship. But as a historian, I cannot deny the mongol legacy that is simply too much important to overlook.
Moderator Action: When moderator text instructs posters to drop a particular subject and return to topic, you are not entitled to "one last shot" before returning to topic. Please comply with moderator instructions when posted in a thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Back on topic, as I stated before, I simply do not want Greece.2 (Macedonia). I'd far prefer a greek third leader in the form of Alexander, being a different kind of warmonger (since Gorgo already fills that role in the greek civ, Périclès being more "pacifist". But inthe end, I still hope it is only a mistake, or even a troll from the devs to make us talk about it. Some have stated that they do not care which civs are included, only matters the abilities and uniqueness of the civ. I disagree. Simply because at the moment we do not care what is the civ, we might as well add Atlantis (UA : build cities in water tiles !), Mordor (UA : You have a satellite from the begining of the game) or whatever. I dont care much about the eurocentrist question, but a little diversity doesn't hurt, and with Macedonia, I'll feel like playing more Total War : Rome, rather than Cvilization.
I think the standard variety got higher, but we are missing civs that are really, really different.
Before release, I thought Kongo and Arabia would be these civs, but it turned out the difference is not that large (as Venice for example).
But I don't think we will find completely different civs in DLCs. Many people might be appalled if a civ has larger restrictions or plays fundamentally different. If an expansion adds 7+ civs and one/two of them plays radically different, that would probably easier to sell. I'm hoping for a nomadic civ at some point that plays very different. Or a civ (yay for 19th century Switzerland) that cannot declare war (would you buy it as DLC?)
In DLC I think we get strong civs that have strong bonuses and not restrictions or new mechanics.
I think you put it better then I could, the base got a little wider but there weren't any extremes like venice. Even just some shoe horn civs is nice every once in a while though like Babylon. They were cool because they had a single solitary mode and that was it, it made them feel unique because even if they were a generic civ that naturally sceinced better then everybody. There are a few in VI that come close, but some get cut off by the games mechanics. Scythia is a good example, even though they look super geared for early horse archer, its still better most games to archer rush with them because the speed is more important then the power.
I think you put it better then I could, the base got a little wider but there weren't any extremes like venice. Even just some shoe horn civs is nice every once in a while though like Babylon. They were cool because they had a single solitary mode and that was it, it made them feel unique because even if they were a generic civ that naturally sceinced better then everybody. There are a few in VI that come close, but some get cut off by the games mechanics. Scythia is a good example, even though they look super geared for early horse archer, its still better most games to archer rush with them because the speed is more important then the power.
The base got a little wider?
Almost every civ in V fits your description of Babylon - "they had a single solitary mode and that was it". The base got a lot wider!! The variety in civ abilities in VI is 10 times what we saw in V.
Venice was one out of the box. But I bet only a few people actually played it often. In VI I think they are doing a great job of theming each civ well with it's special abilities, but without going to the point where people are wary of ending up with a civ they don't like. Kongo is a good comparison to make I think of having a civ that is very different (looses a whole win condition!) yet not so radically different that most players will be like 'flag that'. I'm happy to roll a random leader each time I start a new game, and that hasn't been the case in the past.
No? Talking down to people in a condescending tone and mocking there phrases isn't the best way to get them to respond to you in any kind of meaningful way. Im saying I want civs that play different, not "hey lets debate your opinion".
No? Talking down to people in a condescending tone and mocking there phrases isn't the best way to get them to respond to you in any kind of meaningful way. Im saying I want civs that play different, not "hey lets debate your opinion".
I'm not mocking your phrases, and I am sorry that you saw it that way. I am pointing out the inconsistencies in what you are saying.
If you take a stance in a forum and people disagree with you, or you disagree with someone making a stance; you have to be open to your view being challenged. Or...what is the point of posting? I expect people to take issue if I have said something and there is inconsistencies in it. You disagree with me, I disagree with you...but we can be civil about it.
What if Macedonia is not Alexander's Macedonia in the normal game, but the Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantine Empire? This is of course far fetched. But Konstantin VII Porphyrogennetos might be an interesting (and deserving) choice.
I said it is far fetched and I don't believe it either. I was just thinking what kind of Macedonia could be possible except for Alexander/Philip. And this is the only slight possibility that I could see.
Having a non-ancient Macedonia would set it a bit apart from the Greece we already have in the game now. And since I always disliked the modern term 'Byzantine Empire' in civ (and Theodora speaking Greek when you meet her...)...
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.
