First Look: Macedon with Alex the Great

[DefiantMars]

Kill the Warmonger before he can mong any wars!!!

Alex and I were never on good terms to begin with. If he's Conquest leader, as he should be, I don't see my opinion of him improving any time soon. My districts shall not fuel your campaign, Alex!

 

[PhilBowles]

Oh well.... I've been really against the idea of Macedon being a sole civ ever since I've speculated about the two-pack DLC (together with others here in the forums), but I guess I have to submit and get used to this.wit

Besides the Holy Roman Empire was in Civ4: BTS and it's appearance in the game is a bit problematic, but I just went along with it.

How will this be explained to Greek players? Do you guys think there will be less Greeks playing Civ6 now that Alexander isn't placed in Greece? Or will there be no bother at all, since they label Alex's civ as Macedon and not Macedonia?

I think the reasoning is that, now that civs get more unique bonuses than ever before, it's difficult to accommodate radically different leaders or playstyles within a single civ. And Greece as it is isn't especially well-suited to a conquering civ.

This is not without problems conceptually - it means Macedon has no access to Hoplites while Greece does, for a start. A desire to distinguish the two might also be behind the anachronistic decision to give Macedon a UU that requires Iron Working. But the barracks replacement does make more sense than the Acropolis.

Of course the bigger question is why have Alexander at all if he can't fit a Greek civ. The bonuses here, aside from the horsemen, could equally well be given to the Zulu (except the swordsman UU, but as above that's not a brilliant fit for Macedon either and its design is in any case rather uninspired). The double-civ pack probably demanded two civs that played well together for scenario purposes (as with the Spain/Inca DLC for Civ V), but given that Cyrus was chosen as the Persian leader surely Babylon would have been a better companion civ anyway.

Though in any case why are they being so aggressive with DLC? Didn't they state publicly that people didn't like the DLC model for Civ V? They almost completely dispensed with DLC once they started releasing expansions.

 

[Tiger Genocide]

Alexander, Napoleon, Shaka, Attila, and Monty were all equally evil in Civ5; I hated starting near any of them. Alexander and Napoleon were raging expansionists who then got huffy if you tried expanding yourself; Shaka and Attila declared war for no apparent reason every few hundred years; and Monty was like Shaka and Attila only less so.


Yeah, if you're playing as Alexander and not conquering everything that moves, you're doing it wrong...Not my style of civilization, that's for sure.

The only caveat with Shaka was if you could bribe him and send him trade routes, he could stay your friend for the entire game. He had the highest loyalty score if I recall correctly. Napoleon on the other hand had 8-10 for a Backstabber score, it was one of the highest along with Attila's. You had to fight him and Attila at some point, it was not even an option.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree except, I can see him becoming a real nuisance like India is right now. If you don't remove him from the game it might end up being a mistake. You would have to cripple him pretty hard. I think anything less than taking his capital and his second city would not be good enough.

Well, the good news is that Cyrus looks like the perfect solution to Alexander.

The only caveat with Shaka was if you could bribe him and send him trade routes, he could stay your friend for the entire game. He had the highest loyalty score if I recall correctly. Napoleon on the other hand had 8-10 for a Backstabber score, it was one of the highest along with Attila's. You had to fight him and Attila at some point, it was not even an option.

That would explain why the only time I got along with Shaka was the one time I played as Arabia and just spammed trade routes everywhere...

 

[bbbt]

Of course the bigger question is why have Alexander at all if he can't fit a Greek civ.

I'm guessing the felt Alexander was obligatory for a civ game, and decided to have return in all his punchable 'memeable' glory.

Though in any case why are they being so aggressive with DLC? Didn't they state publicly that people didn't like the DLC model for Civ V? They almost completely dispensed with DLC once they started releasing expansions.

They sold a 'Deluxe Edition' with 4 free DLC, so these are probably to satisfy that. I bought it and am fine with what I got (what I expected more or less), but a number of people are vocally unhappy with it, so I'm not sure they'd do it again (at least from a PR standpoint). Whether we can expect more small DLC (map packs?) after this, or they are moving up the expansion pace, or they will do 'mini-expansions', who knows.

 

[Scaramanga]

In the video Xi'an is renamed Alexandria after it is captured. Nice.

 

[Guandao]

In the video Xi'an is renamed Alexandria after it is captured. Nice.

Seems to be a joke, rather than an actual mechanic in the game. Having multiple cities named Alexandria would be confusing...I thought most of the real life Alexandrias were built mainly from scratch or founded on minor pre-existing settlements.

 

[nzcamel]

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.

I disagree. Civ has always centered on the titans of world history (regardless of race) and so it should. Yes, there is usually a wildcard entry, and I don't mind that, as long as the vast majority are those who did excel in world domination (their known world anyway).

If I am playing a sports game, I want the best teams of that sport or league to be present. I don't want a random team included from a different part of the world simply for diversities sake! When I watch the 100m final at the Olympics I want to see the 8 fastest men go head to head. Don't throw an Asian or European who has not earned their lane into that mix to make anyone feel better!
There are a few of the titans missing at this stage: The Mongols, the Ottomans, and the Incans being the obvious candidates. I have no doubt that they will join the game at some point, along with other nations which left a massive imprint on the world like Babylon, the Netherlands and the Portuguese. And yes, plenty of other middling nations will get their place too, and rightly so (Australia should have waited till then).

The crying over Eurocentrism does not impress me for a second in a game that focuses on domination, be it physical or cultural etc

 

[nzcamel]

Seems to be a joke, rather than an actual mechanic in the game. Having multiple cities named Alexandria would be confusing...I thought most of the real life Alexandrias were built mainly from scratch or founded on minor pre-existing settlements.

I'd say it is a joke. Too impractical. I'm the kinda guy though who may rename conquered cities Alexandria I, Alexandria II, etc just for the immersive lols

 

[Morningcalm]

Macedon's unique building, the Basilikoi Paides, is actually not a building, but a group of young aristocrats of the Macedonian hetairoi class.

In historical terms, the Odeon would have made more sense for Alexander, but I guess they needed some structural thing or other that fit the Macedonian domination victory.

 

[bbbt]

Macedon's unique building, the Basilikoi Paides, is actually not a building, but a group of young aristocrats of the Macedonian hetairoi class.

In historical terms, the Odeon would have made more sense for Alexander, but I guess they needed some structural thing or other that fit the Macedonian domination victory.

That would have been hilarious though, if they made a new Macedon civ for Alexander, and then gave him a unique cultural district as well

 

[God of Kings]

Alexander's teeth look too good.

 

[DWilson]

It seems apparent that the uniqueness derives not so much from the building (which may or may not exist as a distinct building), but rather represents the setting of a cultural tradition. (Which lasted at least throughout his reign).

 

[MantaRevan]

Alexander was the most annoying leader in Civ 5 for me. Marbozir and others hate Trollface the most, but I hated Alexander with a passion. I always felt like punching my screen because of him. Something tells me that he is going to be very annoying in Civ 6 too.

Trollface?

 

[nzcamel]

Trollface?

Yeah...who's that? Lol

 

[CivLuvah]

I think the reasoning is that, now that civs get more unique bonuses than ever before, it's difficult to accommodate radically different leaders or playstyles within a single civ. And Greece as it is isn't especially well-suited to a conquering civ.

Cramming a Domination-flavored leader into a culture-themed civ would be crappy design. This is better from a gameplay perspective.

Yeah, I've just now realized it would feel wrong in a gameplay standpoint to have a warmonging leader as an alternate for a culture focused civ.

I'm not really a warmonger myself, but I'm still going to play him, for the sake of playing him.

Clearly you've never watched the Eurovision Song Contest

It'd have been burned into your memory forever if so

Yep. Very. Huge fan of the contest here, love it to bits. Although ironically I get more agitated when people bash Civ6 than bash Eurovision. Cheesy music and on-stage absurdity is part of its charm.

The Olympics names Macedonia the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) too

 

[Cerilis]

Alexander was the most annoying leader in Civ 5 for me. Marbozir and others hate Trollface the most, but I hated Alexander with a passion. I always felt like punching my screen because of him. Something tells me that he is going to be very annoying in Civ 6 too.

Tbf, I mostly hated him because of the city state bonus.

Trollface?

Yeah...who's that? Lol

The Siam-guy, Ramkhamhaeng.

I'd also like to mention that I spelled that right without looking it up on the first try.

 

[nzcamel]

Tbf, I mostly hated him because of the city state bonus.

The Siam-guy, Ramkhamhaeng.

I'd also like to mention that I spelled that right without looking it up on the first try.

Kudos to you

I missed out on the V hated for Alexander by playing as Greece most of the time. Loved that CS bonus

 

[Tiger Genocide]

Tbf, I mostly hated him because of the city state bonus.




The Siam-guy, Ramkhamhaeng.

I'd also like to mention that I spelled that right without looking it up on the first try.

Yeah he nicknamed him Ram Kham Trollface, because of his cheesy smile and the fact that he always forward settled every civ in a game with what Marbozir called a troll city.

I'm pretty sure he was the worst forward settling AI in civ 5. If not he was easily top 3.

 

[MantaRevan]

Yeah he nicknamed him Ram Kham Trollface, because of his cheesy smile and the fact that he always forward settled every civ in a game with what Marbozir called a troll city.

I'm pretty sure he was the worst forward settling AI in civ 5. If not he was easily top 3.

Hiawatha and Catherine say hi.