First Look: Macedon with Alex the Great

[The Kingmaker]

I'm thinking they wanted to represent the different incarnations of Hellenic/Hellenistic civilization this time around.

They've done Alexander for Greece in every other version of Civ.

Civ5's iteration seemed especially Macedonian based on its features. Only Civ4 even had Pericles as a second option.

I can appreciate their efforts to give us a more traditional Greece based on Athens and Sparta. Looks like they're releasing Alexander for those who still liked the more aggressive Macedonian play style from earlier versions of Civ.

I'm withholding judgment for now in the hope that we also ultimately get the other more diverse civs we've been hoping for.

We just need to make it clear what the fans want. If enough of us are demanding a certain civ, it should incentivize 2K to let Firaxis give it to us.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

For those of you who wanted this:

Alexander - Greece
UA - free wildcard
UU - lackluster spearman
UI - culture district
LUA - DOMINATION GALORE

That would be a terrible design. A focused warmonger civ is better than a warmonger LUA attached to a culture civ.

 

[Abraxis]

New least attractive leader.

 

[Tacgnol]

Leaving aside civs that aren't represented, if we're going to get that particular it feels like India should get another civ.

What would that even be, though? The Mughals?

Actually, YES. Mughal civ next xpac please, give Muslims on the Indian subcontinent some recognition there are hundreds of millions of them...more than Greeks, Macedonians, Persians/Iranians and Australians combined...

 

[Onii-chan]

My issue is extremely nerdy and kind of irrelevant, but, like, the iconic unique unit of Macedon was the hoplite phalanx. Not swordsman, not auxiliary cavalry, the hoplite phalanx itself. And now Macedon doesn't even get hoplites, Greece does and they get swords and cavalry instead.

Like what the hell even is a hypaspist. Its like they were playing as Greece in Age of Mythology and were like 'damn, we already used hoplites, what other unit names are around we can copy'. I'm no historian but I have never heard anything to do with Macedonian swordsmen being fearsome or especially powerful.

Well from what I can see, they're pretty similar to hoplites:
http://www.ancient.eu/Hypaspist/

 

[Leathaface]

Oh man, this is too much.

*mouth salivates*

 

[Leyrann]

Well from what I can see, they're pretty similar to hoplites:
http://www.ancient.eu/Hypaspist/

So it's unclear if there was even a difference with phalanx. Why aren't they just called phalanx?

(sorry if I'm wrong, I only scanned the article; still, why not just phalanx?)

 

[ehecatzin]

I for one am happy that they finally split Greece and Macedon, if anything just for gameplay purposes. That way we can have a Greece that represents Sparta and Athens and a Macedon completely focused on conquest.

 

[Siptah]

Did anyone realize that Xi'an was renamed to Alexandria after being conquered? In 00:50 from the video?

you can see at one point them hovering over the science per turn thing in the upper left. And there are 4 Alexandrias there.

 

[Onii-chan]

So it's unclear if there was even a difference with phalanx. Why aren't they just called phalanx?

(sorry if I'm wrong, I only scanned the article; still, why not just phalanx?)

Well it says:
"In this they differed from the line infantry of Alexander's army, the phalangites, who used a smaller shield and carried a 16-18 foot pike into battle - but controversy exists as to whether this difference in equipment actually occurred."

So clearly they're not the same thing, hence why they wouldn't call them phalanxes. The bigger question is rather whether the seemingly unclear accuracy of their supposed differences should make them a viable choice for the game or not, but of course it'd be weird if they had the exact same thing as Greece so from a gameplay perspective it makes sense at least

 

[Katakanja]

you can see at one point them hovering over the science per turn thing in the upper left. And there are 4 Alexandrias there.

They're really pushing Alex as a narcissist, aren't they? Naming all his cities after himself and that leader animation where he's gazing lovingly at his reflection in the sword

 

[Felis Renidens]

I appreciate the split, I'm not much of a warmonger so this DLC can wait unless I need to get him in order to get Persia which is the only DLC I'm considering at this point (I'll get them all eventually, but it can wait).
I would have preferred it to come after an expansion pack when we have more civs with 2 leaders.But OK. Fine. Next time focus on some other part of the world.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I appreciate the split, I'm not much of a warmonger so this DLC can wait unless I need to get him in order to get Persia which is the only DLC I'm considering at this point (I'll get them all eventually, but it can wait).
I would have preferred it to come after an expansion pack when we have more civs with 2 leaders.But OK. Fine. Next time focus on some other part of the world.

Persia and Macedon are paired for the 4th DLC.

 

[Siptah]

I'm very happy. I like the inclusion of Macedon as a civ (I just wish it would be called Macedonia...). Alexander would not fit civ VI's Greece very well. And I take a good design of a completely new civ over a mediocre leader any time. It seems a good design and will play very different from Greece, and that's the point. If you can't immerse yourself with that, I'm sorry for you. (A good (recent) book on ancient Macedonia might be able to help here though). I don't care for TSL, so I have no issue here. Regarding missing civs, I also don't care. I'm sure we'll see at least the biggest missing names at some point, and I'm in no hurry. Only complain is that he looks horrible, and the colors should not stay like this (too close to Australia and Arabia).
I think the Hypaspist having 35 strength might indicate that the video is not that new, rather than redoing the swordsman buff, which seemed needed. This might also enhance the Persian Immortal with its 30 melee strength then being 35 perhaps.

 

[Zaarin]

I(I just wish it would be called Macedonia...)

Why? Macedonia suggests the FYROM, not the Greek kingdom of Macedon.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Persia and Macedon are paired for the 4th DLC.

Oh well, some more early wars.

 

[Tacgnol]

Well it says:
"In this they differed from the line infantry of Alexander's army, the phalangites, who used a smaller shield and carried a 16-18 foot pike into battle - but controversy exists as to whether this difference in equipment actually occurred."

So clearly they're not the same thing, hence why they wouldn't call them phalanxes. The bigger question is rather whether the seemingly unclear accuracy of their supposed differences should make them a viable choice for the game or not, but of course it'd be weird if they had the exact same thing as Greece so from a gameplay perspective it makes sense at least

Yeah, ya know when I first posted I hadn't seen the video and assumed the animation was swords like in AoE but after seeing it's spears I'm chill with it.

I'm not saying I like the way they use garbled complicated latinized versions of specific words from foreign languages all over the place instead of using the anglicized version or a more general term but it's at least in keeping with that tradition.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

 

[Siptah]

Why? Macedonia suggests the FYROM, not the Greek kingdom of Macedon.

No, not to me. Nothing besides FYROM suggests FYROM to me, and why should it? (and on top of that, in German there is a difference Mazedonien/Makedonien between FYROM and the ancient Kingdom / today's greek region)

 

[Leyrann]

Until today I didn't even know modern Macedonia is officially named Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia...