Huns Ability

[Zhahz]

Just one of the many reasons the Huns really shouldn't be a Civ......

It's a game. A civ is a stat container for data. Does it really matter or impact gameplay in any way?

One positive is that it adds variety since the huns are a little different than the dozens of other civs.

 

[jjkrause84]

It's a game. A civ is a stat container for data. Does it really matter or impact gameplay in any way?

One positive is that it adds variety since the huns are a little different than the dozens of other civs.

If Civs were just containers for data why name them at all? It doesn't change gameplay, right?

Aesthetics is part of gameplay...it's the reason New Zealand, Tonga, and Jamaica are not playable Civs. As cool as each country undoubtedly is, they just wouldn't "feel" right as Civs.

 

[kgoodrid]

If Civs were just containers for data why name them at all? It doesn't change gameplay, right?

Aesthetics is part of gameplay...it's the reason New Zealand, Tonga, and Jamaica are not playable Civs. As cool as each country undoubtedly is, they just wouldn't "feel" right as Civs.

I agree that the history, flavor, and Aesthetics DO matter. A great deal in fact. However, I don't see any reason that the Huns should not be included. They had a significant place in the history of Europe, and they remain famous to this day. They were powerful, wide-spread, and had a big impact. The only problem with them is that there are some big gaps in our knowledge of them (such as their origins). However, that problem exists for all the older Civs.

I think almost any Civ can be justified, as long as they existed in real history. I would be silly to create a 'King Arthur' civ for the main, history-based game. Including a nation or culture like the Huns is fine. It really just comes down to arguing which Civs are most interesting to include, and whether their gameplay is well-designed. So far I think the Huns are a worthy choice.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The funny thing is, since the Huns don't have a regular Spearman and can't upgrade anything to Pikes when they become available, they are now the civ that's most vulnerable to enemy Horsemen. I'll see if I can exploit that if I meet them in my first game (and I'll play Byzantines ).

 

[huserib]

In my first game, playing back a level at emperor, I found Atilla to be a bit of a joke really. He came across the map with a huge mob of warriors, archers, horse archers and battering rams. He was slaughtered, and then I had to wait 600 years before he'd finally make peace after I took his capital when I finally got fed up of him asking everything from me even though he was spanked.

 

[NukeAJS]

The city names thing is a neat idea, and it does have an advantage. Strangely it's an advantage that applies to anyone who scouts out the lands that the Huns settle ...

It lets you know what civs are in the game before ever meeting them. It's a very strange advantage and one that applies to the Huns neighbors too.

I don't know why the Huns have such a prophetic ability. After they settled their horses down to cultivate some farm land, did someone immediately think "The Celts are on this world somewhere!"

Again, strange part of a UA.

 

[Depravo]

I have to share the scepticism about the inclusion of the Huns, whose European heyday lasted barely two generations. The Bulgars would be a far more convincing civ from every angle.

Ah well, it's there now.

 

[Harthhal]

Battering rams and horse archers are just too OP for how early in the game you get the 2 of them together. You have very weak cities and very weak melee units (GG if you dont have iron!) vs a city destroyer in the battering ram, that comes out just as fast as a spearman, and horse archers which just destroy anything in the open field.

 

[pwoz]

In my first game, playing back a level at emperor, I found Atilla to be a bit of a joke really. He came across the map with a huge mob of warriors, archers, horse archers and battering rams. He was slaughtered, and then I had to wait 600 years before he'd finally make peace after I took his capital when I finally got fed up of him asking everything from me even though he was spanked.

This seems to be the new peace treaty in G&K. I crushed Rome's army and was beating him down and he was still asking me for thousands of gold and all my cities. Not sure what is up with that.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

how can you possibly defend vs horse archers?
according to the manual: strength 7/10 cost 56. move 4(hit and run).
that sounds alot like a keshik only that it comes way earlier!
Ok i am aware that horsemen own them up, but that takes some time, a rush can happen in the meantime!

compared to a composite bowman: strength 7/11 cost 75! move 2.

I would never build composite bowmen or archers as the huns.

 

[headcase]

I don't think it is supposed to give them any advantage. It is just for flavor.

Agreed, and as flavor does it really need to be part of the UA? Doubtful anyone would get too confused if they just did it without it saying in the UA.

Edit: In fact every civ should have this ability, after running out of their own city names (which realistically wouldn't happen to many civs but still). Then give The Huns one city, and they'll naturally go this route. That way, if they make a civ in the future that only had a handful of known city names, they would use those names first and then do the same thing the Huns do.

 

[ezysquire]

Aesthetics is part of gameplay...it's the reason New Zealand, Tonga, and Jamaica are not playable Civs. As cool as each country undoubtedly is, they just wouldn't "feel" right as Civs.

I agree, NZ would be a lame civ... and I can say that as im from there!

Huns is ok though as they are an old people who sought their own self-determination; or at least freedom-from-rome.
I believe this notion of self-determination is a prerequisite for a "civilization".
So in a way the hun were like a settler and a warrior that got wiped out before hitting the 'build city' button.
That makes them a candidate to be a 'civ'.

On a side note, if New Zealand was to become a civ i would propose:
UA - number 8 wire: +1 per farm tile
UU - field doctor - free medic promotion on great war infantry
UB - dairy shed - replaces stables and adds +1 per pasture as well as normal stable benefits.

These are all a bit OP; and deliberately omit Maori elements owing to Polynesian civ.

 

[kgoodrid]

I am seeing the AI willing to sue for peace. I have mostly completed my first major war, playing Byzantium. Decided to conquer the Maya, who were my closest neighbor and strongest rival. They started suing for peace and offering cities and other big concessions fairly quickly (I think after I took one city and was starting to harass their capital), but I just ignored them until I had taken all of their cities on my continent. They somehow managed to survive though. At first I thought they had managed to get another city going (way before they could get across the oceans), then realized that I had the option on where you have to eliminate all their units too. They must have a scout or something running around somewhere I can't see. Either way, they made peace.

Back to the Huns...

I think some of you are downplaying their significance. They were around as a major player for much longer than 2 generations. We don't know much about their early history, but it must have been fairly substantial since they wouldn't have just emerged from a 'cradle of nations' as a fully-formed tribal nation that could sweep across Eurasia. People seem to be only looking at the time when they were invading Rome. Prior to that, they were displacing many other tribes, such as the Goths, which of course helped lead to the major barbarian wars and invasions that would weaken Rome by the time that the Huns actually invaded.

Other Civs, such as the Celts, were very significant and widespread, but never formed a unified nation or tribal alliance (except locally). The Huns also seemed to spend large periods of time in a dispersed state before forming larger tribal alliances / kingdoms. Both were very important, even if they look very different from our modern nation-state perspective.

 

[Depravo]

I think some of you are downplaying their significance. They were around as a major player for much longer than 2 generations. We don't know much about their early history, but it must have been fairly substantial since they wouldn't have just emerged from a 'cradle of nations' as a fully-formed tribal nation that could sweep across Eurasia. People seem to be only looking at the time when they were invading Rome. Prior to that, they were displacing many other tribes, such as the Goths, which of course helped lead to the major barbarian wars and invasions that would weaken Rome by the time that the Huns actually invaded.

I included their defeating the Goths in that 2 generation period. They entered Europe in the first 2 decades of the fifth century, scared the bejasus out of everyone but were evicted back to the steppe after 454. The Bulgars took up their mantle in the sixth and remained a force to be reckoned with at least until the 11th century. Their western arm developed from a nomadic Altaian culture to a Slavonic Christian monarchy during that period. That makes them a better choice IMO.

 

[LostKnight]

If you play as the Huns and your warrior gets a Upgrade Ruin, would it become a battering Ram? If this is in the very early game, is that Ram strong enough to take cities (sans defenders and walls) by itself?

In my very 1st game, my original warrior found a ruin a few hex from my capital, and it did, indeed, upgrade to a ram. Ram are VERY powerful vs undefended cities, my original ram captured my 2 closest neigbhour by itself within 30 turn(not kidding), allowing me to cruise to my easiest domination win ever.(having 3 capitals before turn 50, all with legendary start make for quite an easy game)

Knut_are_M: Horse archer are really god, but contrary to keshik, they cant move after attacking. So if you have enough troops to survive the initial volley, you can simply go melee and kill them.