I'm not going to read through this thread to see pages of people defending the decision, and I'm sure it makes sense from a game-play point of view, but it really irks me that Alexander is not another leader for Greece. It's almost like Firaxis is buying the narrative of the FYROM .
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.
Stop judging the merits of different civilizations based on skin colour. That will help a lot. Other than start locations, I do not see the shade of melanin in our skin being especially relevant.
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.
Ummm, no I'm not! Yes, Europes supreme dominance is a more recent thing, but I judge all these Civs all throughout history against each other (with a certain respect to how big "their" known world was) and make comparisons. Alexander, for instance, didn't live in the last 500 years
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.
The game isn't stacked in the favour of any racial or cultural group. Like you said, the Iroquois (who hopefully we see in VI) and the Sycthians can dominate in ways they never quite did in the real world. The game does however favour including the titans of world history over everyone else. See the difference? It might be easier if you drop your melanin coloured glasses
Just as I said in a sports game, you want to have the best teams available to play as. Hell, it's nice the more real world teams they can stuff in no matter where they come from; but if they are going to add only 50 nations say to a Football game, you don't want to see New Zealand in there (even with being undefeated at our last world cup appearance!) over most of the nations who make the finals; and quite a few who don't!... yet who are better than NZ.
If it is a cricket simulator, expect to see a heavy sub continent representation, and zero oriental Asian teams. That isn't racist - that is just reflecting the reality of cricket.
And sure, Civ does head into the future a little. But it isn't Beyond Earth. It is a history "simulator" which draws on history as we know it. Basing the game fully on what if's is not as interesting as grounding it in reality. Sure, in a different world Man United & Real Madrid may never rise to be the power houses they are. But while I wouldn't mind beating them in a football sim with a minor club...they must be in the game (if it's a game including European clubs). Or Brazil if we are talking international football.
You can make a game featuring random clubs n nations from the football world, but it will not have the draw that it would with the titans of the game.
I don't think Firaxis shares FYROM's pov.I believe they wanted more units and abilities to fit Alexander so they decided to take the liberty and portray Macedon as a separate civ.In every game that Alexander has been into,he leads the greek civ and in their blog page they clearly state what they believe...
On that, the same can be said of many Civs represented in game. Germany and Japan spring to mind immediately. I still do not think they should get another Civ (though yes the HRE was in IV).
Ed mentioned in the livestream that the ability to fully heal all units anywhere on the map when any unit captures a city with a wonder is not just for the scenario but in the base game as well. Does that sound really OP to anyone else, especially combined with the reduced (or possibly no) war weariness? I know not every city you capture will have a wonder but still, fully healing every unit you have is pretty insane.
Ed mentioned in the livestream that the ability to fully heal all units anywhere on the map when any unit captures a city with a wonder is not just for the scenario but in the base game as well. Does that sound really OP to anyone else, especially combined with the reduced (or possibly no) war weariness? I know not every city you capture will have a wonder but still, fully healing every unit you have is pretty insane.
I thought so too! When we think Scythia's healing capabilities are OP, now what more for Alexander's units? I'd like to think the healing bonus should be confined only up to Renaissance Era to make it not so OP.
Can you see it now? I changed the permissions on the album to everyone.
Anyways, it says:
HETAIROI
Unit (replaces Horseman)
Promotion Class: Heavy Cavalry
Base Cost: 100 Production
Maintenance: 2 Gold
Macedonian unique heavy cavalry unit that replaces the Horseman. Additional +5 Combat Strength when adjacent to a Great General. +5 Great General points when killing an enemy unit. Starts with 1 free Promotion.
Do Great Generals still stack? If so, the Hetairoi bonus GG points might be better than the healing.
The fact GG points come from encampments, rather than on kills, has been rather annoying to me (as when on attack you don't otherwise really want encampments).
Stop judging the merits of different civilizations based on skin colour. That will help a lot. Other than start locations, I do not see the shade of melanin in our skin being especially relevant.
This is deflection and I think you know it. The person you're trying to argue with is talking about regions of the globe, not skin color. Africa is geographically sparse, white or black. He's arguing to the contrary, that interesting civs are being ignored in spite of region, not because of it.
There are only so many civs to add. Firaxis will run out of western civs soon before they start including stuff like Italy or Canada. Not undeserving picks per se, but they make the experience of playing the game less flavorful regarding the opportunity cost of having a more exciting cast including Korea, Ottomans, Babylon, Inca, ect.
Previous posters are correct that the game is historical fantasy. It needs to have a historically accurate toolkit, but dominating the world with unlikely civs such are Zulu is part of the fun.
This is deflection and I think you know it. The person you're trying to argue with is talking about regions of the globe, not skin color. Africa is geographically sparse, white or black. He's arguing to the contrary, that interesting civs are being ignored in spite of region, not because of it.
There are only so many civs to add. Firaxis will run out of western civs soon before they start including stuff like Italy or Canada. Not undeserving picks per se, but they make the experience of playing the game less flavorful regarding the opportunity cost of having a more exciting cast including Korea, Ottomans, Babylon, Inca, ect.
Previous posters are correct that the game is historical fantasy. It needs to have a historically accurate toolkit, but dominating the world with unlikely civs such are Zulu is part of the fun.
Oh bullocks it's deflection. Racism was the charge with the table earlier.
Were it about regions of the world, people would be happier about Australia. Skin colour/racial heritage are a bone of contention for those who go on and on about Eurocenterism.
Not that they differentiate between latin Europeans and Northern etc.
Civ VI has way more flavour than any previous addition of Civ. It's a pity that you're not colourblind enough to see that.
Edit: Were it about regions then Egypt would be counted as an African Civ. The county does sit in Africa for goodness sake!
Just as a devil's advocate, not saying I agree either way, but technically Arabia also starts in Egypt, and thus Africa. I'm not saying they count as an African civ, just pointing out where they are based in game.
I count 11 European and post-colonial empires that covered more than 2% of the world's total land area.
Meanwhile, I count exactly zero African empires that managed to do the same thing (except if one of the caliphates in the list had their capital in Africa).
Let's just say that there's a very real historical reason why, at least for the initial release, there's more European than African civs. And it's based in hard facts.
I would note that at least half the game occurs during a stretch in which the most dominant powers in the world are basically entirely represented by China, Russia, Japan, the USA, and/or various European countries (the industrial era).
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.
.
