It's kind of sad to me that you Macedon doesn't really benefit from Ancient era warmongering, since you don't get unit spam bonuses until after you get a barracks up, and your enemy has to have enough time to build some districts.
Seems more like Classical era warmongering to me, which considering the civ sounds perfectly logical to me. You want time to get an encampment or two up and then start building a bunch of your unique units through them whilst your neighbours get to build a couple districts as well. Then start sending wave after wave of units and just keep fighting. Something like that?
Not a big fan of having a different civilization to represent the exact same topographical area as Greece. I realize the Alexander and Macedon/Greece issue is a hot topic, but from the perspective of eurocentrism and spreading civilizations taken for the game all over the world, this seems like a bit of a waste. He could have easily been the third Greek leader in a minor DLC, rather than push back ancient Middle Eastern/West African/South American/South East Asian civilizations.
Not a big fan of having a different civilization to represent the exact same topographical area as Greece. I realize the Alexander and Macedon/Greece issue is a hot topic, but from the perspective of eurocentrism and spreading civilizations taken for the game all over the world, this seems like a bit of a waste. He could have easily been the third Greek leader in a minor DLC, rather than push back ancient Middle Eastern/West African/South American/South East Asian civilizations.
This way they can fully realize the cultural aspects of the Greek Golden Age and the absolute militarism of Alexander's conquest. Doing that with just a different LUA would have been sub-optimal.
Normally that first sentence is coupled with "less eurocentrism please".
Are you seriously suggesting that the Netherlands and Portugal achieved greater feats than Alexander the Great? There's a reason there is, for example, no Dutch leader called "the Great".
This way they can fully realize the cultural aspects of the Greek Golden Age and the absolute militarism of Alexander's conquest. Doing that with just a different LUA would have been sub-optimal.
I guess? But then they could've also taken a completely different leader and a different civilization from a different part of the world. Gorgo and Pericles already encapsulate Greek militarism and culture pretty well.
Oh well, I guess tastes differ. I've liked all the other civilizations and leaders so far, so I suppose I can't complain.
I guess? But then they could've also taken a completely different leader and a different civilization from a different part of the world. Gorgo and Pericles already encapsulate Greek militarism and culture pretty well.
Oh well, I guess tastes differ. I've liked all the other civilizations and leaders so far, so I suppose I can't complain.
Gorgo isn't nearly as military-focused as Alexander though. Alexander is 100% military bonuses: Two unique units in the same time frame (early classical era), unique building replacing first encampment building, less war weariness, science and culture bonuses for building units and conquering cities.
Meanwhile Gorgo also has a diplomatic policy slot and a special cultural district.
Normally that first sentence is coupled with "less eurocentrism please".
Are you seriously suggesting that the Netherlands and Portugal achieved greater feats than Alexander the Great? There's a reason there is, for example, no Dutch leader called "the Great".
This line of reasoning is kind of ridiculous when we've had "minor" leaders for many civilizations in Civ 6. It is never a "who achieved more" contest, otherwise we'd never see the likes of Australia and Kongo or leaders like Catherine de Medici. The games, and this game in particular, has always been more focused on showing a variety of the world's cultures and interesting leaders rather than necessarily the "best" ones. Which isn't strange, because that's a really tricky metric anyway.
This line of reasoning is kind of ridiculous when we've had "minor" leaders for many civilizations in Civ 6. It is never a "who achieved more" contest, otherwise we'd never see the likes of Australia and Kongo or leaders like Catherine de Medici. The games, and this game in particular, has always been more focused on showing a variety of the world's cultures and interesting leaders rather than necessarily the "best" ones. Which isn't strange, because that's a really tricky metric anyway.
How is Alexandre the Great not interesting? He is considered either the best military commander ever, or second after Genghis Khan. I mean, if that doesn't get you interested, then what does? He's an extreme in warfare, just like Rome is an extreme in building a great empire, just like Germany is an extreme in building things, just like Japan is an extreme in cramming a lot on an island. And so on.
I'm wondering if the unique units will be strong enough together to not need archers to capture cities, and I'm a bit doubtful of that, which will limit their usefulness to some extent. As pointed out by multiple users, siege towers (and battering rams), doh! Either way, this is possibly the best result of the not-so-fun situation of Macedon becoming a full civ. They look fun, if not being who I would have selected next. I suppose that is the point of DLC over expansion civs, and Persia is definitely a major win, so, there's that
I'm wondering if the unique units will be strong enough together to not need archers to capture cities, and I'm a bit doubtful of that, which will limit their usefulness to some extent.
I'm wondering if the unique units will be strong enough together to not need archers to capture cities, and I'm a bit doubtful of that, which will limit their usefulness to some extent. Either way, this is possibly the best result of the not-so-fun situation of Macedon becoming a full civ. They look fun, if not being who I would have selected next. I suppose that is the point of DLC over expansion civs, and Persia is definitely a major win, so, there's that
I'm wondering if the unique units will be strong enough together to not need archers to capture cities, and I'm a bit doubtful of that, which will limit their usefulness to some extent. Either way, this is possibly the best result of the not-so-fun situation of Macedon becoming a full civ. They look fun, if not being who I would have selected next. I suppose that is the point of DLC over expansion civs, and Persia is definitely a major win, so, there's that
It's quite possible to conquer cities without ranged units. As long as they don't have walls, a few swordsmen (with siege bonus, no less) will do the job, and once they do have walls either a siege tower or one or two catapults allow you to do the same.
Not a big warmonger, so I probably will be playing Macedon for one game only. Looking at the bonuses makes me wonder how they will handle the Mongols, if they appear in Civ6 at all...
I wonder if the Macedon theme is based on an actual Greek song. Hopefully Macedon in the game doesn't mean it will take the spot of another civ I'm hoping for. It can take Venice's spot though
I have nothing against Macedon as a civ, but I would find it more feasible to have it as an alternative leader of Greece. Though, its inclusion is justified only by Alexander.
Anyway, Macedon is an extremely warm civilian, I can see it as a sort of Hunos of civ5, in which its only objective is to invade cities of the neighbors and to be a nuisance in that continet. To be honest, I like civs with this segment.
Not a big fan of having a different civilization to represent the exact same topographical area as Greece. I realize the Alexander and Macedon/Greece issue is a hot topic, but from the perspective of eurocentrism and spreading civilizations taken for the game all over the world, this seems like a bit of a waste. He could have easily been the third Greek leader in a minor DLC, rather than push back ancient Middle Eastern/West African/South American/South East Asian civilizations.
It's becoming more and more obvious that the first expac is going to have some sort of 'New World' theme to offer representation for neglected civilizations in Africa, SE Asia and the Americas.
I love new Civs and new leaders; the more the merrier. And they have done a good job with Alex/Macedon in terms of selling it as a straight-up warmonger Civ instead of the more cultural Greek leaders. But while all of these DLC ones are nice to have, it's bizarre to me to have a roster full of European/culturally European Civs and then only a handful of token representatives from the rest of the world. No Mongols, no Babylon, no Siam/Vietnam, no Native American Civ, no Incas... but one more ancient Hellenic Civ couldn't wait until the expac? Doesn't seem quite right to me.
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.
Either way, this is possibly the best result of the not-so-fun situation of Macedon becoming a full civ. They look fun, if not being who I would have selected next. I suppose that is the point of DLC over expansion civs, and Persia is definitely a major win, so, there's that
