Is it really Rome -> Normans?

[dagriggstar]

Given there isn’t enough information for them to go with a more ancient choice than the Khmer for south east Asia I am not sure how there is suddenly enough information for an ancient Norse faction.

I think all the progressions will look wonky if you think for more than two seconds about it. Like Maurya into Chola, those empires are almost 1000 years apart and their power base is a totally different part of their continent.

Honestly, given how much Ancient Greek work was translated by Arabia if they said Greece leads to Arabia I’d be fine with that too.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Given there isn’t enough information for them to go with a more ancient choice than the Khmer for south east Asia I am not sure how there is suddenly enough information for an ancient Norse faction.

I think all the progressions will look wonky if you think for more than two seconds about it. Like Maurya into Chola, those empires are almost 1000 years apart and their power base is a totally different part of their continent.

Honestly, given how much Ancient Greek work was translated by Arabia if they said Greece leads to Arabia I’d be fine with that too.

For exactly the same reason as Khmer, Norse antiquity is being pushed later as a starting point for Scandinavia. It actually works out okay in their case.

The progressions look wonky if you are always comparing them by the same standard, and not by the flow each leader is suggesting they share in common.

I could probably stomach a Greek -> Abbasid path, I just don't see any "ideas" of leaders or civs that really necessitate, but I could be wrong. Would be a fun inclusion if there were particular idea to be expressed by Greece -> Abbasids -> ??? that was different than Persia -> Abbasids -> Mamluks.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the whole idea of strict paths does a great disservice for those speculations. The game doesn't have to have direct ascendants or descendants for a particular civ. Historical and regional paths in the game serve only 2 purposes:

• Player should always have a choice between several choices on age transition, even if the player wasn't good enough at unlocking civs by their specific conditions
• AI should have some resemblance of historical evolution for players who want this

That's all. Civ is a game about alternative history.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Hm, interesting choice. I would only give Cnut the slight edge for unifying the North Seas path to Britain due to having actually been King of England. But Ragnar gets some better Swedish representation which I really like. Could see him in a Norse -...-> Sweden path very easily, even if I give better odds at Margaret for that path.

Considering Cnut and Margaret were my two picks for a Danish civ, I have no problem with either of these options. Margaret gets points for ruling Sweden, but Cnut is the pop culture Viking leader so he might have the slight edge. Ragnar as a leader is less historically accurate, otherwise he'd get in based on name recognition only.

Given there isn’t enough information for them to go with a more ancient choice than the Khmer for south east Asia I am not sure how there is suddenly enough information for an ancient Norse faction.

It would basically be Vikings in the Antiquity, which is no different than the Khmer Empire in Antiquity. Which honestly isn't that far off from Civ 6 with their Longships replacing Galleys and unique Temple (Stave Church) design.

 

[Krikkit1]

Given there isn’t enough information for them to go with a more ancient choice than the Khmer for south east Asia I am not sure how there is suddenly enough information for an ancient Norse faction.

I think all the progressions will look wonky if you think for more than two seconds about it. Like Maurya into Chola, those empires are almost 1000 years apart and their power base is a totally different part of their continent.

Honestly, given how much Ancient Greek work was translated by Arabia if they said Greece leads to Arabia I’d be fine with that too.

Abbasids should definitely be unlocked by Greece (a chance for Greece to unlock something Rome doesn’t)

 

[Olleus]

Norse antiquity is being pushed later as a starting point for Scandinavia.

You're using very firm language to describe what is purely your personal speculation. I get that you enjoyed working on your predictions, but you now seem to have gone a step further and are treating them as if they were fact. That's going to confuse a lot of people.

 

[Siptah]

Abbasids should definitely be unlocked by Greece (a chance for Greece to unlock something Rome doesn’t)

Rome can unlock the Abbasids just as well. If you want to see Roman ruins, there is no place to see more of them than in the Middle East. They often don't get the same exposure and treatment as the remains in Europe, as they are often overshadowed by older/more distinct remains "nearby" (especially in Egypt, but also in Jordan and Iraq). Yet, Romans are clearly an important cornerstone in that part of the world, and some their legacy is still visible in the modern culture. But I guess the options unlocked by Rome will be limited for gameplay reasons.

I think there are some good leader choices that could unlock Greece and Abbasids: al-Mamun for his high interest in greek philosophy and his great contribution to making them known in his day and to this day. And Aristotle and Plato (do we really need Alexander again now that we can finally have non-leaders?) for their "afterlife" in the Caliphates.

 

[Zaarin]

Rome can unlock the Abbasids just as well. If you want to see Roman ruins, there is no place to see more of them than in the Middle East. They often don't get the same exposure and treatment as the remains in Europe, as they are often overshadowed by older/more distinct remains "nearby" (especially in Egypt, but also in Jordan and Iraq). Yet, Romans are clearly an important cornerstone in that part of the world, and some their legacy is still visible in the modern culture. But I guess the options unlocked by Rome will be limited for gameplay reasons.

I just finished reading Gertrude Bell's travel memoir Syria: The Desert and the Sown, and while I was chiefly reading for her descriptions of Bedouin life, she has some lovely descriptions and photographs of the fusion of Asian and Greek and Roman architecture in Syria. (Asian here chiefly means Aramaic but also later Arab.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think there are some good leader choices that could unlock Greece and Abbasids: al-Mamun for his high interest in greek philosophy and his great contribution to making them known in his day and to this day. And Aristotle and Plato (do we really need Alexander again now that we can finally have non-leaders?) for their "afterlife" in the Caliphates.

Aristotle and Plato are one of Greek's Logios units, so they won't be available as a leader. Though arguably you could have Archimedes if you want to roleplay a Mathematics route from Greece/Rome>Abbasids, since he didn't show up as one of them.
Though I would argue that this game might fit Alexander the best of not being tied to any actual civ.

 

[Siptah]

Aristotle and Plato are one of Greek's Logios units, so they won't be available as a leader. Though arguably you could have Archimedes if you want to roleplay a Mathematics route from Greece/Rome>Abbasids, since he didn't show up as one of them.
Though I would argue that this game might fit Alexander the best of not being tied to any actual civ.

Ah, you're right, forgot about that. What a shame! Next we won't get Machiavelli because he will be a great Person as well (not sure myself if I'm kidding).

You will obviously disagree, but I'm just tired of Alexander. I'd welcome his dad, wearing his original armor and eyepatch. Or Antigonos, since he also doesn't need his civ

 

[Evolena]

Rome can unlock the Abbasids just as well. If you want to see Roman ruins, there is no place to see more of them than in the Middle East. They often don't get the same exposure and treatment as the remains in Europe, as they are often overshadowed by older/more distinct remains "nearby" (especially in Egypt, but also in Jordan and Iraq). Yet, Romans are clearly an important cornerstone in that part of the world, and some their legacy is still visible in the modern culture. But I guess the options unlocked by Rome will be limited for gameplay reasons.

I think there are some good leader choices that could unlock Greece and Abbasids: al-Mamun for his high interest in greek philosophy and his great contribution to making them known in his day and to this day. And Aristotle and Plato (do we really need Alexander again now that we can finally have non-leaders?) for their "afterlife" in the Caliphates.

We've seen that Augustus of Rome had the Abbasid choice locked but tagged as an historical choice. We also know from the Augustus First Look that he admired Greek culture, pointing to Greece being also a historical choice for him. Then we can speculate that in order to make the Abbasid historical choice for Augustus a thing, Greece could unlock it (as neither Rome nor Augustus do). At least within the game build used for the Antiquity livestream.

 

[Uberfrog]

I still think people are getting too hung up on looking at only the data points revealed and not the obvious one being left out. Namely, that Normans point toward a Norse antiquity civ.

I don’t think you can blame people for basing their assumptions on what they know, rather than what they don’t know!

You may be right that the Norse are soon to be revealed, but we have seen no evidence (no wonder, no symbol, no glimpse of a berserker or longship on the map…) So it remains an assumption based on an assumption, namely that the Norse are required to justify the inclusion of the Normans. I disagree with this latter assumption, as based on what the developers have said, the inclusion of the Normans followed quite naturally from Ed’s initial design concept based on the evolution of London from Roman city to Norman city to British city. There doesn’t have to be any more justification than this!

I would be very glad to see Cnut as a leader though - although the typo-wary among you may prefer the Norse spelling Knútr or the modern Danish Knud.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don’t think you can blame people for basing their assumptions on what they know, rather than what they don’t know!

You may be right that the Norse are soon to be revealed, but we have seen no evidence (no wonder, no symbol, no glimpse of a berserker or longship on the map…) So it remains an assumption based on an assumption, namely that the Norse are required to justify the inclusion of the Normans. I disagree with this latter assumption, as based on what the developers have said, the inclusion of the Normans followed quite naturally from Ed’s initial design concept based on the evolution of London from Roman city to Norman city to British city. There doesn’t have to be any more justification than this!

I do think that you can easily justify them being in a DLC/expansion down the line though. But yeah, for the base game we already have Greece and Rome going into the Normans, and I don't see any other reason to include them right now.
The only other Antiquity civ in Europe I can visualize in the base game is the Goths. We've seen a wonder for them and Spain needs another progression, other than Rome/Augustus. Not to mention it would also progress to any future German civ line.

 

[Uberfrog]

Oh yes, I am sure we will see the Norse eventually, and they will probably appear (strangely) in the Antiquity era. I just don’t know if they will be in at launch, especially as we seem to be expecting the Goths because of the otherwise odd-to-include Mausoleum of Theodoric.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Alexander

I think I'd say we still need him.

I'm excited about the divorce of leaders from civs. More than civ switching itself. It opens up a lot of gameplay and narrative opportunities, letting you personify your particular vision of your civs culture.

But with that said, most of the new leaders detached from political leadership are probably not going to be very wild. Alex was irrational in the extent of his ambitions(though this worked out better than rationality, as occasionally happens). I don't expect the mathematicians, artists and philosophers could plausibly be expected to behave as warmongering conquerors. Not really known for that.

I want Alex more because I want a few AI's to be consistently irrational. Can't really completely represent the human experience without quite a bit of that present.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The only other Antiquity civ in Europe I can visualize in the base game is the Goths. We've seen a wonder for them and Spain needs another progression, other than Rome/Augustus. Not to mention it would also progress to any future German civ line.

Are there still historians that believe Goths, Geats and Gotlanders to have a common origin? If so, Goths to Normans works out better than some other morphs. Links there may be more plausible than some others.

 

[ehecatzin]

It's also worth noting that the area of Norman conquests was significantly larger than just parts of France, and included parts of modern-day Italy, Turkey, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia - all of which have significant overlap with Roman territories:

This, in my mind If I go Rome into Normans, I'm going Sicily, which honestly sounds good.

 

[untitledjuan]

We have to also keep in mind that the Normans weren't only the Norse conquerors of what would become the Duchy of Normandy. Sure, those early Pagan Norse conquerors were the rulling class of Normandy, but the general population were descendants of the Gallo-Roman peoples that spoke some form of Vulgar Latin. There's even a Romance Norman language (though it will sadly be extinct in the near future) that still exists to the present day and whose Medieval version influenced the English language. This language and these peoples descend from the Romans in the same way the Spanish do.

 

[Zaarin]

We have to also keep in mind that the Normans weren't only the Norse conquerors of what would become the Duchy of Normandy. Sure, those early Pagan Norse conquerors were the rulling class of Normandy, but the general population were descendants of the Gallo-Roman peoples that spoke some form of Vulgar Latin. There's even a Romance Norman language (though it will sadly be extinct in the near future) that still exists to the present day and whose Medieval version influenced the English language. This language and these peoples descend from the Romans in the same way the Spanish do.

Norman is my favorite langue d'oil.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We have to also keep in mind that the Normans weren't only the Norse conquerors of what would become the Duchy of Normandy. Sure, those early Pagan Norse conquerors were the rulling class of Normandy, but the general population were descendants of the Gallo-Roman peoples that spoke some form of Vulgar Latin. There's even a Romance Norman language (though it will sadly be extinct in the near future) that still exists to the present day and whose Medieval version influenced the English language. This language and these peoples descend from the Romans in the same way the Spanish do.

In fact, at least as of the last time I was in Normandy (late 1980s) even when they were speaking French the people spoke a form of French that was not easy to follow by someone who thought they knew French: it resembled 'mainstream' French somewhat less than Bavarian German resembles mainstream German: full of strange constructions and word use that I suspect date back to the 'some form of Latin' rather than French . . .