New Civ Game Guide: Abbasid

[Vitruvian Guar]

^ Ottomans to be Age 3 civ?

I'm expecting them in the base game. Nothing really fits as good as Ottomans for civ switching purposes. And then later we can have Seldjuks and Byzantines as extra Age 2 predecessors.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

This is a alternate history simulation game, not a means to right perceived wrongs of history. Many nations were ruled by foreigners for hundreds of years, just consider Egypt or Italy. Nationalism on the other hand, an anti-Islamic Iranian nationalism, even, is a fairly recent innovation from 20th century.

Moderator Action: Deleted quoted post. AH

That's what I've been trying to say for so long

 

[j51]

So is the Mamluk a purely defensive cavalry unit in a sense? It loses its bonus when it’s not in or near its affiliated settlement?

 

[Krikkit1]

So is the Mamluk a purely defensive cavalry unit in a sense? It loses its bonus when it’s not in or near its affiliated settlement?

it seems specifically in settlement that you control. That could include the urban tiles and cities you just conquered. (occupy..potentially settlements you are in the process of conquering)

 

[j51]

it seems specifically in settlement that you control. That could include the urban tiles and cities you just conquered.

So would you still have to ‘assign’ it to a newly conquered settlement?

 

[Krikkit1]

So would you still have to ‘assign’ it to a newly conquered settlement?

I think just located in a settlement

Stationed in a settlement you fully control
or
Occupying a settlement you conquered/ don’t fully control

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Mamluk: Unique Cavalry Unit. When Stationed in or Occupying a Settlement, receive increased Combat Strength for every Urban Population in this Settlement.

What exactly the "Stationed in/Occupying" terminology means is unknown (anywhere? only the center? does it have to be owned by you?), but it doesn't seem to be "affiliated" with the specific town in which it is trained or anything. Just the town it's in.

 

[Black Gate]

Remember, when attacking/defending a city, to conquer it you must take over all walled tiles. I suspect what it means is that the Mamluk unit gains combat bonuses when it is inside a controlled walled tile of a settlement (occupied when you haven't conquered the settlement yet but *have* conquered that specific tile; stationed when you own the settlement entirely). So it's strong on defense, and very dangerous when you're being attacked once you concede a settlement tile but probably more easily countered before that.

I'd really like to see what attacking a multi-tile city looks like. Will there be UI indicators for which tiles of an enemy settlement we control? Does it revert to the owner if you move units out of the tile after X turns? Too many unknowns at the moment.

 

[Siptah]

It just occurred to me that the starting bias of the Abbasid is camels and coast. I can see camels and presumably that comes with some desert attached. But why would Abbasid start on coast? It doesn't seem too important historically (besides obviously having access to coast and having maritime trade) and it's not necessary for their ingame bonuses.

 

[Prester John 2]

It just occurred to me that the starting bias of the Abbasid is camels and coast. I can see camels and presumably that comes with some desert attached. But why would Abbasid start on coast? It doesn't seem too important historically (besides obviously having access to coast and having maritime trade) and it's not necessary for their ingame bonuses.

I was wondering the same. River or desert bias would have been more fitting.

 

[Krikkit1]

I was wondering the same. River or desert bias would have been more fitting.

I could see Camel=Desert and they want to ensure it’s not an interior desert

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I have some suspicions about the Exploration Legacy objectives (that they emphasize contacting, exploring, settling, trading in, and/or conquering the Distant Lands), and some civs may be at a disadvantage if they start away from the coast.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I don't understand why they call the civ 'Abbasid' when its design is based loosely on the three caliphates. Why not go for 'Arabia' the way they did for 'Persia'?

Even the description in the game guide is for the Arabs in general, not specifically the Abbasids

 

[Siptah]

I don't understand why they call the civ 'Abbasid' when its design is based loosely on the three caliphates. Why not go for 'Arabia' the way they did for 'Persia'?

Even the description in the game guide is for the Arabs in general, not specifically the Abbasids

There might be another Arabian civ at some point, e.g., Oman, Yemeni or Nabataeans. Or maybe we‘ll get another Caliphate even - militaristic/cultural Umayyads as a contrast to the expansionist/scientific Abbasids. The more precise name (in contrast to some of the civs design and unique names) gives me some hope in that regard.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There might be another Arabian civ at some point, e.g., Oman, Yemeni or Nabataeans. Or maybe we‘ll get another Caliphate even - militaristic/cultural Umayyads as a contrast to the expansionist/scientific Abbasids. The more precise name (in contrast to some of the civs design and unique names) gives me some hope in that regard.

I could still see another Caliphate centered more on the Maghreb. I agree that it's really hard to not see the Abbasids as the Arabia for this game, especially when they went with generic infrastructure such as Madrasahs and Mosques, which can be found all over the Islamic world.

 

[Siptah]

I could still see another Caliphate centered more on the Maghreb. I agree that it's really hard to not see the Abbasids as the Arabia for this game, especially when they went with generic infrastructure such as Madrasahs and Mosques, which can be found all over the Islamic world.

But Maghreb doesn‘t contradict „Arabia“. There is no problem of overlap between Arabia and whatever Moroccan or Tunisian dynasty (at least not more than between Greece and Rome). But there is between Arabia and Oman, for example, or between Arabia and Umayyads.

 

[j51]

They should really give the madrasahs and mosques modifying adjectives at least.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But Maghreb doesn‘t contradict „Arabia“. There is no problem of overlap between Arabia and whatever Moroccan or Tunisian dynasty (at least not more than between Greece and Rome). But there is between Arabia and Oman, for example, or between Arabia and Umayyads.

I guess I should clarify it's hard for me to see another caliphate centered around Arabia in the Exploration Age, considering how generic the Abbasids seem to be. There's always the possibility that there could be Antiquity Nabateans or Modern Age Oman.
But I could see the Almohads in the Exploration Age into Morocco for Modern. Medina is the name of the Abbasid's civ ability, but I could still see one of these civs get a Madinah as their unique quarter with a socco (souk) and kasbah building.

 

[Siptah]

Morocco is a prime choice for the modern age imho, and I'm convinced we'll see them in the not too distant future. I think for exploration, I would usually prefer Al-Andalus over a Maghreb representation, but I guess Al-Andalus would be too similar to the Abbasids we are getting. So, maybe a pirate oriented Maghreb exploration era civ would be fun. Tunisia would be the prime choice per se, but they didn't really shine in new world piracy, rather in the Med.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Added the theme song to the OP