Arent11
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,230
1..They aren’t from independence wars/invasions that you lose (those happen during the Crisis and if you lose then you lose the game). They could be migrations of people that you incorporated into your empire successfully, an internal rearrangement of power within your empire due to changing technological social conditions.
That sounds exactly as anticlimactic as I fear it will be.
Give me an actual rise and fall of civs. Make the rise great and the fall great. Don't wiggle out of the gain/loss of knowledge, literacy, life expectancy and security the rise & fall of a civ actually means.
And... we still don't know how Firaxis explains the change narratively or do we already have some text exerpts? I don't think they will argue that there was migration of people so that Romans became Normans. Even though technically (plus plundering, conquests, violence and slavery) that would correct.
2. The AI will not have Montezuma leading the Mongols/Korea, or the Mongols going into Korea. The AI will always choose from the “historical” paths for their leader/current civ.
Monty would go
?Maya?->Aztec->Mexico?Modern Native Mesoamericans?
Mongols would probably go to Russia or Qing
That's good. I mean, there can be an *option* to allow civ/leader mixing, but there should be one to stay on the historical path.
Last edited: