As far as I know, we won't have indepth unit customization as we did in Legend. As has already been pointed out, we would need to include a lot of presets for historical units, and the authenticity of the individual pieces in the game is important to us.
As far as I know, we won't have indepth unit customization as we did in Legend. As has already been pointed out, we would need to include a lot of presets for historical units, and the authenticity of the individual pieces in the game is important to us.
Well, much as I find the idea of in-depth unit customization, I also recognize that it is a system prone to rampant abuse and very time-consuming to implement in a game.
I would expect that by using the 'normal' unit system, it would also be a lot easier to add new Factions with new Emblematic Units in the future.
Yeah, I know, the game isn't even out yet and we're already hinting at Expansions - what can you expect from Fanatics?
Thanx for the remainder: nomadic/pastoral. IF we are all going to start the game as 'nomads' in the first (Pre) Era of the game, will there be the chance to continue as nomads by playing, for instance, the Cimmerians, switch to a Classical pastoral group like the Scythians or Hsung-Nu, continue as the Medieval Mongols?
Since the basic cultures and technology of the Central Asia pastoral groups was very similar from the Cimmerians in 800 BCE to the Mongols in 1300 CE, there is a 'built-in' continuity there, yet there are still enough differences in individual attitudes and capacities in warfare, trade, and structures (Kurgans, Tumuli,, even some irrigation-fed settlements) to make them distinct and maybe even give somebody a chance at extra 'Fame' from taking the Non-City Route for over half of the game . . .
The answer to the question is pretty obvious: Hoplites in the rear, classic Doric Temple and Amphitheater: it's Classical Greeks.
NOTE: Does anybody remember if we've seen any screenshots explicitly from a Classical Faction/Civilization before?
But the screenshot raises a few questions of its own:
1. The 'Doric Temple' and the amphitheater are the only Special Buildings showing in this city. That means one of them has to be the City Center, and I'd think it's pretty obviously the Temple. And that hasn't been seen, I believe, in any other City Centers they've shown us, so the basic architecture of at least your City-Required Center Building does change with either Era or Faction - or maybe both.
2. That means the City Center was plunked down one tile from the coast. It would have been nice if this city had built a Harbor of some kind all ready, because that might tell us if, as in Civ VI, you can build a harbor to the right rear of the City Center - disconnected from the rest of the city - or it has to be connected to the city tiles, as in next to the amphitheater or all the way to the rear of the city center. In a previous screenshot we've sen a completely disconnected coastal Something, but I for one, couldn't;t tell if it was a Harbor/Trade tile of some kind or what they called in EL an 'Extractor" - a tile Improved so that some Resource could be 'extracted' from it.
3. Within the city, in addition to the City Center and Amphitheater tiles (Amphitheater = Culture? Happiness/Morale? for early Greeks, could even be Religion) all the other tiles in the city appear to be very similar, except that one (to the left rear of the City Center) has numerous smokestacks/chimneys belching away. I think we've decided that this means some kind of Production Quarter (presumably Workshops at this stage) but does that mean the non-smoking seats/Quarters are purely residential, or Something Else?
4. Outside the city walls to the right are the 'classic' tilled fields, which in EL meant they could be 'worked' by the city but weren't really part of it. To the left are two more 'outside' tiles, but these seem to be hill/forest terrain, and, again, there are chimneys working away in them. That, to me, indicates that there is in Humankind, like there is in Civ, different Yields from different Terrain. That might seem like a no-brainer, but I don't remember seeing anything up to now that showed it so explicitly.
Classical Greeks never build free standing theaters but Romans did. The temple does have columns the full length of all sides like a Greek temple and not just the front like a Roman.
Classical Greeks never build free standing theaters but Romans did. The temple does have columns the full length of all sides like a Greek temple and not just the front like a Roman.
True enough about the Greek theaters, which were always built into an existing slope, but 'free-standing' graphics makes it possible to put the building in any tile, flat or hilly. Just like Civ VI's Petra bringing its own mountain with it, I suspect this is a case of modifying the graphic to fit the game.
More importantly, there is no association of Romans with Theater - because the major Roman popular entertainments were chariot racing and the gladiatorial contests. Roman drama is utterly forgettable, while Roman comedy was almost all slapstick farce: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" was, in fact, a collection of actual Roman comedy routines (slightly) rewritten for a modern audience.
No, if there's going to be an amphitheater in the game, it's pretty certain to be Greek.
Now if it were an elongated Stadium, all bets are off: the Greeks might have invented it (and the measurement that gives it its name) but the Romans had chariot-racing stadia everywhere, as did the Byzantines after them: an entertainment/culture building suitable for three different cultures plus a potential Wonder - the site of the original Olympic Games and the World's First 'stadium'.
For me, what swung it towards the Greeks was how everything was white. White buildings are definitely an aspect of modern Greek culture, and I would have assumed that it is something that has been practiced for many centuries (if not thousands of years) in Greece, to help cool houses down. The design of the theatre also kinda made me think Greek, as I personally tend to associate semi-circular ones with Greece and circular (or elongated/oval) with Rome. I've also had the priviledge to go into a Greek volcano crater (Nisyros, I believe), so I know from personal experience that volcanoes are a part of Greek geography.
Wow that's a lovely screenshot I will be spending a lot of time just watching the cities!
So that temple is going to be the town centre district then? Will every civ have a unique centre building? I imagine there's going to be shared architecture sets for civs but I'd be very excited to see unique central districts for every civ.
For me, what swung it towards the Greeks was how everything was white. White buildings are definitely an aspect of modern Greek culture, and I would have assumed that it is something that has been practiced for many centuries (if not thousands of years) in Greece, to help cool houses down. The design of the theatre also kinda made me think Greek, as I personally tend to associate semi-circular ones with Greece and circular (or elongated/oval) with Rome. I've also had the priviledge to go into a Greek volcano crater (Nisyros, I believe), so I know from personal experience that volcanoes are a part of Greek geography.
Actually, while private homes presented a pretty plain exterior to the world, Greek statues and temples were brightly painted - the 'gleaming marble' appearance today is the result of a couple thousand years of paint weathering off and not being replaced or a statue being underwater for most of that time!
And Romans had the 'Greek-type' hemispherical Amphitheater, it just wasn't that important to their entertainment/culture options. As you say, the 'stadium' long track was their Entertainment of choice, for chariot racing primarily. Gladiatorial games were a close second, and the irony is that hey got their chariot technology from the Gaullic Celts (al the Latin words associated with chariots are Celtic in origin) and Gladiatorial games from the Etruscans, for whom they were part of the Funeral Rites for important people.
If some game designers wanted a really Iconic oman Civilization Trait, it would be the ability to 'Borrow' or appropriate cultural traits from everybody they came in contact with!
The round, deeply concave "Hoplon" ("Dinnerplate") shield was peculiarly Classical Greek. The majority of the Greek city-states had no 'standard' design on the face of the shield, so all symbols used were strictly individual. Common 'themses' included mythological, like the Gorgon's Head, Totem Animals, like bulls', horses' or lion's heads, owls, eagles, scorpions, or any other dangerous creature, or Greek letters. The famous exception to Individualism was the Spartan shields, which all had a red Greek 'Lambda" (looks like an upside-down 'V') standing for Lacedaemon - the 'real' name of Sparta. I'm still mildly p****d that Civ VI's Gorgo does not have her Hoplites with Lambdas on the shields and wearing the characteristic Spartan red cloaks.
Incidentally, there might also be no visible symbol on the shield. There is a famous anecdote about an Athenian Hoplite who put a life-sized picture of a Fly on his shield. When everybody said that it was too small, that the enemy would never see it, he answered that he planned to get close enough that the enemy would see it. Typical Classical Greek Bravado . . .
If some game designers wanted a really Iconic Roman Civilization Trait, it would be the ability to 'Borrow' or appropriate cultural traits from everybody they came in contact with!
Could that be said of all 'Expansionist' civs? It would make for some interesting asymmetrical play where you need to acquire your traits and religion from other civilizations.
Could that be said of all 'Expansionist' civs? It would make for some interesting asymmetrical play where you need to acquire your traits and religion from other civilizations.
Interesting point, but I don't think limited to Expansionists.
I've been reading a book lately, Tamim Ansary: The Invention of Yesterday, which discusses the ease with which Cultures with the same basic World View could exchange ideas and influences, compared to how hard it was to the same thing between cultures with different Basic Concepts. For one of his examples, all the different states in India shared the Hindu, Buddhist, or Jainist faiths, because all three faiths had the same basic concept: the eternal cycle of brith, death, rebirth, but the Middle East and Europe never adopted any of them because their religions all had a distinctly different basic concept. Since there was trade between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Middle East sin ce 2500 - 2000 BCE, contact didn't;t make a difference: starting point in Concepts did.
Hauling this concept into the game could be something like Factions/Civilizations of the same type: Expansionist, Warmonger, Agricultural, could assimilate, absorb, or 'gain' Civics or Religions or even Techs more easily than between different types of Civs/Factions.
To use my original 'example', Rome, if next to similar Civs (as they actually were in Europe and the Middle East) could 'grab' all kinds of Culture and Religion and even Technology (chariot tech and linked mail armor from the Celts, Theater, philosophy, and some religious concepts from the Greeks, and eventually Christianity from the Middle East) from their neighbors, but if, say, they were next to the Chinese or Indian (Han or Mauryan?) Civs it would be much harder to borrow anything other than 'hard' technology because Culturally they are just too different.
But of course, all this is SWAG ("Scientific Wild-A** Guessing") because there hasn't been any clue that anything like this is actually in the new game other than the fact that they have 'types' of Factions/Civs and that, therefore, there must be some kind of fundamental difference in the way those Factions can be played.
Interesting point, but I don't think limited to Expansionists.
I've been reading a book lately, Tamim Ansary: The Invention of Yesterday, which discusses the ease with which Cultures with the same basic World View could exchange ideas and influences, compared to how hard it was to the same thing between cultures with different Basic Concepts. For one of his examples, all the different states in India shared the Hindu, Buddhist, or Jainist faiths, because all three faiths had the same basic concept: the eternal cycle of brith, death, rebirth, but the Middle East and Europe never adopted any of them because their religions all had a distinctly different basic concept. Since there was trade between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Middle East sin ce 2500 - 2000 BCE, contact didn't;t make a difference: starting point in Concepts did.
There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilisations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf).[140]
Hauling this concept into the game could be something like Factions/Civilizations of the same type: Expansionist, Warmonger, Agricultural, could assimilate, absorb, or 'gain' Civics or Religions or even Techs more easily than between different types of Civs/Factions.
To use my original 'example', Rome, if next to similar Civs (as they actually were in Europe and the Middle East) could 'grab' all kinds of Culture and Religion and even Technology (chariot tech and linked mail armor from the Celts, Theater, philosophy, and some religious concepts from the Greeks, and eventually Christianity from the Middle East) from their neighbors, but if, say, they were next to the Chinese or Indian (Han or Mauryan?) Civs it would be much harder to borrow anything other than 'hard' technology because Culturally they are just too different.
Of course the indo-european Romans would adopt elements of Han or Mauryan cultures if they were next door - that would be an invitation for conquest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio_graeca
But of course, all this is SWAG ("Scientific Wild-A** Guessing") because there hasn't been any clue that anything like this is actually in the new game other than the fact that they have 'types' of Factions/Civs and that, therefore, there must be some kind of fundamental difference in the way those Factions can be played.
Yes, I think such concept would better fit in civ6, where we all rule empires from a similar seat like Sauron in Mordor - citizens are obeying minions we've created.
Actually, I think a humankind concept is missing in Civ and yet I've not seen much of it in the preview of this game. It's closer to a Civ ripoff than actually showing any humankind aspect.
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.
