Looks quite standard. I'm wondering if there are two types of "attack" civs (say warmongers and conquerors or horde or whatever) or whether warmonger is such a wide category that can have Mongol Cavalry, Roman Legions and Persian Immortals in them at the same time. We do have the Assyrians belonging to the type "Expansionist" already which is kinda war-oriented. Basically, what's the balance between war and peace civs in each era. And further on, can that shift (two options of one type in an era) or will we have the same ten types all the time? I can see it being quite constrictive if there's only ever one choice for "naval".
Also, we should collect these infos in the opening post or somewhere. Not all the information, but the civs will get asked a lot and there's no list on their website as far as I can see
Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how they quantify the difference between warmonger and expansionist since those two concepts tend to go hand in hand.
Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how they quantify the difference between warmonger and expansionist since those two concepts tend to go hand in hand.
Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how they quantify the difference between warmonger and expansionist since those two concepts tend to go hand in hand.
As the next post stated, 'Epansionist' could simply be grabbing territory as fast as you can - like the Greeks and Phoenicians of the 7th century BCE who planted colonies all over the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts, or, much later, the Russian and American states expanding into, respectively, Siberia and the North American interior. While all three of these examples could certainly be militant enough, their expansions were not particularly the result of massive and regular warfare.
On the other hand, making the Assyrians an 'Expansionist' Faction seems to indicate a very subtle distinction between Warmonger and Expansionist in the game, because the Assyrians were notorious by both their contemporary and historical reputation for being extremely warlike, and developing many of the siege techniques (towers, rams, wall-attacking mechanisms) that later became 'standard'. That would seem to me to be classic 'Warmonger' rather than Expansionist, so we'll have to see exactly how they are applying their terms and definitions.
But one boner comes up (for me) right away: their illustration shows a Hittite chariot with two men in it, and every description of a Hittite chariot in literature (mostly Egyptian) and picture (Hittite as well as Egyptian) shows and defines a "Hittite" chariot as having a three-man crew: it was the defining characteristic that differentiated the Hittite Anskurra (chariot or chariot warrior - 'kurra' is related to other Indo-European words for cart or chariot, including those in Sanskrit, Celtic, and all the Romance languages - and, of course, English 'cart' or 'chariot') from the Egyptian 2-man chariots.
ut one boner comes up (for me) right away: their illustration shows a Hittite chariot with two men in it, and every description of a Hittite chariot in literature (mostly Egyptian) and picture (Hittite as well as Egyptian) shows and defines a "Hittite" chariot as having a three-man crew: it was the defining characteristic that differentiated the Hittite Anskurra (chariot or chariot warrior - 'kurra' is related to other Indo-European words for cart or chariot, including those in Sanskrit, Celtic, and all the Romance languages - and, of course, English 'cart' or 'chariot') from the Egyptian 2-man chariots.
Considering the description suggests that only nobles fight on them, maybe they chose the 2-man chariot in front because they wanted to point out, like, "This guy is special."...so, a high-ranking noble and thus possibly the leader?
I mean, he certainly looks more special than the other (also noble) chariot warriors in the back.
Having spent a couple of decades in the military, I can tell you it is more likely to have been something like:
"Hey, Sergeant, the King needs someone to hold his spare horses - send a man over to the HQ tent tomorrow morning before the battle . . ."
But, had I looked more closely, I would have seen that the chariot in front has two men, but they are not armed with bow or spear, so it is apparently a 'command chariot', whereas the chariots in the rear include men waving spears and holding shields - and the 'normal' crew of a Hittite or Hurrian chariot was driver-spearman-shieldbearer.
Stupid suggestion, but could warmonger means something like we are going to conquer everything until there is nothing left, while expensionist means something like we are going to take your cities because I need more space for my citizens to live in but you will never get them back. Like their is a difference in the emblematic quarter in the way that that Hittites (Awari) have a more barack looking building and description, the emblematic quarter of the Assyrians (Dunnu) looks more like a fort and is described as one.
Stupid suggestion, but could warmonger means something like we are going to conquer everything until there is nothing left, while expensionist means something like we are going to take your cities because I need more space for my citizens to live in but you will never get them back. Like their is a difference in the emblematic quarter in the way that that Hittites (Awari) have a more barack looking building and description, the emblematic quarter of the Assyrians (Dunnu) looks more like a fort and is described as one.
Except that "Awari" means Border Fort or Fortification as reconstructed in both of the Hittite dictionaries that I consulted. Doesn't mean they couldn't use the word to mean something entirely different in the game, like an in-city District/Quarter, but it would be a mis-use of the original word's meaning, which specifically includes the concept of 'border'..
My question was less about expansionist versus warmonger, but more that having 2 martial traits to 8 peaceful ones seem off. Especially for a 4x game that naturally devolves a lot into war. So yeah, there might be a few more war or expansion oriented traits with the ones we haven't seen yet (for example naval-war or exploration or ...), but what would be a good ratio between peaceful and warlike traits?
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.
