First Look: Macedon with Alex the Great

[Eagle Pursuit]

Makes Gandhi's bonus look stupid...

Guess we know who Gandhi is going to use those nukes on.

 

[Guandao]

Alexander's agenda involves liking Civs that are at war with civs that are not Macedon, and disliking civs at peace. Very similar to Gorgo's Agenda in my opinion. Will I be seeing his animation pop up several times like Gorgo?

 

[Tacgnol]

Alexander's agenda involves liking Civs that are at war with civs that are not Macedon, and disliking civs at peace. Very similar to Gorgo's Agenda in my opinion. Will I be seeing his animation pop up several times like Gorgo?

No doubt, you'll be getting updates every single time you declare war or make peace letting you know how he feels about it

 

[Katakanja]

No doubt, you'll be getting updates every single time you declare war or make peace letting you know how he feels about it

This is one of the cases where constant interruption to tell you his feelings actually fits with the character they're going for. He looks so full of himself that of course he would assume that everyone would be fascinated to hear about what he thinks of them

 

[Civciv5]

Alex looks hot...

But what doesn't make sense is Macedon as a seperate civ. Might as well go back to "Holy Rome" as a civ, and splitting China and India into various dynasties.

What makes even less sense is the name Macedon. First of all, the proper name is Macedonia (Makedonia) and there would be no confusion since FYROM didn't exist until the 20th century. I don't understand why they went with Macedon as the name (Fyromians?). Might as well call the civ Alexandria (as in the Alexandrian Empire).

 

[Zaarin]

What makes even less sense is the name Macedon. First of all, the proper name is Macedonia (Makedonia) and there would be no confusion since FYROM didn't exist until the 20th century. I don't understand why they went with Macedon as the name (Fyromians?). Might as well call the civ Alexandria (as in the Alexandrian Empire).

Not sure what your native language is, but in English Macedon is absolutely the correct term for the Hellenistic kingdom--Macedonia is FYROM. The only real surprise is that Firaxis actually used the correct name after adamantly insisting on "Sumeria" (which isn't incorrect per se, but is certainly less correct than "Sumer").

splitting China and India into various dynasties.

Given that India was only unified quite recently, that would actually make a lot of sense for India. I think one could argue both ways for China; I personally wouldn't object to it.

 

[nzcamel]

Well that's not true for India, it was multiple political entities for most of its history.... its just been unified in Recent history.

Yeah but for the most part the various political entities do not stand out enough to warrant their own Civ. In terms of dominanting their world or leaving an imprint on ours (good or bad) they do not have the same impact as the Euro countries included thus far, or Portugal or the Netherlands, or Austria-Hungary (even with bias taken into account)...

Mughals when

...but seeing as we now have Macedon; I think the Mughals have a better case than they would otherwise. Though let's not pretend that we would have Macedon if it weren't for Alex.

Yeah, that is what I thought I remembered as well. So outside occupation issues, there is nothing to stop Alex from a never ending war.

Amenities...?

 

[Civciv5]

Not sure what your native language is, but in English Macedon is absolutely the correct term for the Hellenistic kingdom--Macedonia is FYROM.

Macedonia is not FYROM, and is definitely not the primary meaning of Macedonia. Macedon is an anglicism and is not used by the ancient Macedonians, the correct historical term is Macedonia.

 

[Leyrann]

Macedonia is not FYROM, and is definitely not the primary meaning of Macedonia. Macedon is an anglicism and is not used by the ancient Macedonians, the correct historical term is Macedonia.

English shortens every single name from ancient time though. The only ones that seem to have been spared are the Roman consuls and emperors.

 

[Zaarin]

Macedonia is not FYROM, and is definitely not the primary meaning of Macedonia. Macedon is an anglicism and is not used by the ancient Macedonians, the correct historical term is Macedonia.

Greece, Spain, China, India, Arabia, Germany--they're all "Anglicisms" as you put it. Macedon is the correct term in English for the Kingdom of Macedon; Macedonia is the correct term in English for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

 

[Civciv5]

No it's not. Macedonia means:
-Macedonia (kingdom)
-Macedonia (province in Greece)
-Macedonia (region)
-Republic of Macedonia/FYROM

All are correct. The Republic of Macedonia is a modern nation and using the name Macedonia would be perfectly fine in a game where most playable factions are quite old.

Using Macedon instead feels like they're afraid to use the name because some modern republic claimed this name.

 

[Katakanja]

No it's not. Macedonia means:
-Macedonia (kingdom)
-Macedonia (province in Greece)
-Macedonia (region)
-Republic of Macedonia/FYROM

All are correct. The Republic of Macedonia is a modern nation and using the name Macedonia would be perfectly fine in a game where most playable factions are quite old.

Using Macedon instead feels like they're afraid to use the name because some modern republic claimed this name.

They're afraid to use the name because of ongoing disputes exactly like this one... I mean the reason its FYROM and not just Macedonia is for this very reason also

 

[Leyrann]

There's no reason to step on toes if you don't have to.

 

[ferretbacon]

Perhaps he counters Alex and causes him to gain weariness normally?

I mean, it would be appropriate if India caused Macedon to finally feel some bit of war weariness. It's where Alexander stopped his campaign.

 

[standingwolf]

I am similarly irritated by the over-representation of the region and the neglect of African and Pre-Columbian civs. Having said that, the gameplay for Alexander looks fantastic (although severely overpowered at first glance).

I posted this in another thread, but I'm hoping they're releasing civs region by region, Europe being the first because some of the devs are supposedly huge european history nerds. ... Hopefully they will shift focus and give a slew of Pre-Columbian, African and then Asian civilizations for future DLC/expansions.

this. if they're going to be releasing civs by region, why not simply announce this and preempt the criticism?

and the devs may simply be including all their own faves--i do think that's the most likely explanation--but civ games have always done a good job of including a mix of world civilizations. civ 5 was particularly strong in this regard, so it at least bears comment that they're taking another tack. again, a simple announcement could clear things up. racism after all is one of these things where the simple appearance of it is almost as bad as the real thing.

the problem with the "they're targeting their mostly euro-american audience" argument is that they've already used up most of the euro-american civs, so if they're trying to be strong on that front now, they'll be comparatively weak in the expansions. is it a good marketing decision to have a first expansion that's all civs from africa?

in any case, i maintain that if the initial release of civ 6 had included china, japan, korea, mongolia, tibet, siam, cambodia, vietnam, indonesia, the philippines, and burma; and then on the european side, england; even if many of us thought it was interesting to have some of those civs in the game for the first time, nearly everyone on this board would notice that something was off.

 

[Leyrann]

this. if they're going to be releasing civs by region, why not simply announce this and preempt the criticism?

and the devs may simply be including all their own faves--i do think that's the most likely explanation--but civ games have always done a good job of including a mix of world civilizations. civ 5 was particularly strong in this regard, so it at least bears comment that they're taking another tack. again, a simple announcement could clear things up. racism after all is one of these things where the simple appearance of it is almost as bad as the real thing.

the problem with the "they're targeting their mostly euro-american audience" argument is that they've already used up most of the euro-american civs, so if they're trying to be strong on that front now, they'll be comparatively weak in the expansions. is it a good marketing decision to have a first expansion that's all civs from africa?

in any case, i maintain that if the initial release of civ 6 had included china, japan, korea, mongolia, tibet, siam, cambodia, vietnam, indonesia, the philippines, and burma; and then on the european side, england; even if many of us thought it was interesting to have some of those civs in the game for the first time, nearly everyone on this board would notice that something was off.

Yeah. At no point in history did the represented countries ever hold more than 50% of the land area of the world.

 

[Katakanja]

this. if they're going to be releasing civs by region, why not simply announce this and preempt the criticism?

It may be as simple an explanation as '2k's marketing department wont let them'. So far it seems like they have very little freedom as to what they can talk about, particularly stuff that may yet be in the distant future.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Using Macedon instead feels like they're afraid to use the name because some modern republic claimed this name.

Using Macedon feels like they are referring to the Kingdom of Macedon which is the exact intent.

 

[nzcamel]

this. if they're going to be releasing civs by region, why not simply announce this and preempt the criticism?

and the devs may simply be including all their own faves--i do think that's the most likely explanation--but civ games have always done a good job of including a mix of world civilizations. civ 5 was particularly strong in this regard, so it at least bears comment that they're taking another tack. again, a simple announcement could clear things up. racism after all is one of these things where the simple appearance of it is almost as bad as the real thing.

I cannot agree that you seeing racism here is as bad as actual racism. We all view things differently, so there is no way to cater to what will trigger different people.
I'd say Civ V was the exception in terms of adding more Civs that generally struggle to stake a claim. Like I said, each Civ game has had what could be called a wild card entry. V threw the doors wide open with Brazil & Indonesia etc.

the problem with the "they're targeting their mostly euro-american audience" argument is that they've already used up most of the euro-american civs, so if they're trying to be strong on that front now, they'll be comparatively weak in the expansions. is it a good marketing decision to have a first expansion that's all civs from africa?

in any case, i maintain that if the initial release of civ 6 had included china, japan, korea, mongolia, tibet, siam, cambodia, vietnam, indonesia, the philippines, and burma; and then on the european side, england; even if many of us thought it was interesting to have some of those civs in the game for the first time, nearly everyone on this board would notice that something was off.

I know this is likely a casual comment on your part, but there is a tonne of good Civs from all around the world that are available for expansion 1.
As to your list of Asian countries, there is no way that they have had as significant an impact on the world as their Euro counterparts. It isn't even close. Aside from the powers of Mongolia, China, and Japan, some of the others do belong in the game; but they are in a third tier, still below some European Civs yet to be added. Of course I would also argue that Australia and Brazil are in a forth tier below them...

 

[standingwolf]

i know i'm taking the bait here, but...

I cannot agree that you seeing racism here is as bad as actual racism. We all view things differently, so there is no way to cater to what will trigger different people.

it's true that we all view things differently, but it's not true that we can never predict what might bother people. any time there's a situation which favours one group and disadvantages others, it's pretty easy to predict who will be fine with it and who won't. this is why i find it hard to look at 11-14 white civs versus 1 black civ and say, well, that could mean anything.

As to your list of Asian countries, there is no way that they have had as significant an impact on the world as their Euro counterparts. It isn't even close. Aside from the powers of Mongolia, China, and Japan, some of the others do belong in the game; but they are in a third tier, still below some European Civs yet to be added. Of course I would also argue that Australia and Brazil are in a forth tier below them...

the problem with this view is that you're only looking at the last 500 years. prior to 1492 the vast majority of the world had either never heard of europeans or would have dismissed them as backward and irrelevant. there's also no particular reason to believe that european states or colonies will continue to be dominant indefinitely into the future. and regardless of how actual history plays out, the whole point of civ is that you get to live all sorts of alternative histories, in which, say, the iroquois conquer america, or, as in my last game, scythia ends up controlling half the globe. this is why it doesn't make sense to me to rig the game in favour of one cultural or racial group by stacking the deck with them.