- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,934
I'm not going to assume Mongolia is leaderless until we see who is shown on Thursday
pre-release info New Civ Game Guide: Mongolia
- Thread starter FXS_Sar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- civ vii game guide
pre-release info
I know that the statement of not having Genghis was coined about him as a leader, but I wouldn‘t rule out a „Mongols are in, that‘s good enough in this regard“ decision in light of the limited leader and civ slots. And what would Genghis do differently than this Mongols civ? He could turn it up to 11, but I doubt he would be an economic or trade leader type of person.
He could be military-diplomatic (unite the tribes bonus to greivances if you attack his trade routes)
You can play both peaceful as well. You just… aren‘t playing them optimally then. But who cares?Dear Firaxis: stop making civs I have no interest in playing have such gorgeous cities. First Persia, now this!
The mongols are already about uniting tribes, eh civs. No point in diplo actions with them.
True, and I did do a culture victory with Genghis in Civ6 for the "Wearing Our Deel" achievement (I'm not usually an achievement hunter, but that one amused me). Still, where Persia at least has some benefits for non-aggressive gameplay, Mongolia has virtually none. Don't mind stealing their wonder from them, though...
Diplo actions can unite tribes (ie IP). perhaps Genghis more easily gets IPs to join his empire
I took it to mean a settler production malus in the conquered settlement. I could be wrong though.
I'm 99.9% sure Genghis will show up as the new leader this week.
It’s not my favorite gameplay style either, but somehow the Mongols really captivated me.Dear Firaxis: stop making civs I have no interest in playing have such gorgeous cities. First Persia, now this!
Overall, the civs are much better designed than in previous editions. Egypt, Abbasids, Greece, and now the Mongols are simply magnificent.
They haven't usually announced the associated leader at the same time, so it's too early to say.
TheGhostEnthusiast
King
The allusions to mechanics are getting me so excited for Thursday... "controlled" as opposed to "conquered" is probably just differentiating all owned cities vs ones you didn't found, not alluding to a return of puppet cities, but it's made me really want to know what the victory condition is like. Does Mongolia just get more victory points in general to compensate for a lack of naval bonuses, or is taking over cities only part of it?
"Ortoo Detoo, where are you?" - C3PKhan
My question is still - what are historical connections to Mongolia in the previous and succeeding era? Han and Qing? I mean it has some merit, especially the latter as we kinda lack any really major post 16th century steppe civ (largely thanks to the actions of Qing itself 
) but I'd kinda prefer Scythians for the former and say Kazakh Khanate for the latter...
I think we really really need Scythians or some other ancient steppe nomad civ for this game. Okay, Qing is sort of sensible continuity of Mongolian empire (especially if we imagine it going there via Yuan phase which never collapses), but Scythians would be sooo useful for so many latter civs. From ancient Scythians you may get sensible continuities of Mongols, Seljuks, Turks, Khazars, Tatars, Avars, but also sort of sensible heirs of Magyars and Bulgarians... Hell as weird as it sounds Poland or Rus aren't the worst heirs of Scythians (it's second best option after ancient Slavs) - they had a lot of presence in case of Ukraine and while they have no actual connection to Poland they featured very prominently in Polish consciousness of the early modern era, as supposed progenitors of horse riding Polish nobility loving Oriental fashion
Plus you'd have one famous cavalry civ following another
) but I'd kinda prefer Scythians for the former and say Kazakh Khanate for the latter...I think we really really need Scythians or some other ancient steppe nomad civ for this game. Okay, Qing is sort of sensible continuity of Mongolian empire (especially if we imagine it going there via Yuan phase which never collapses), but Scythians would be sooo useful for so many latter civs. From ancient Scythians you may get sensible continuities of Mongols, Seljuks, Turks, Khazars, Tatars, Avars, but also sort of sensible heirs of Magyars and Bulgarians... Hell as weird as it sounds Poland or Rus aren't the worst heirs of Scythians (it's second best option after ancient Slavs) - they had a lot of presence in case of Ukraine and while they have no actual connection to Poland they featured very prominently in Polish consciousness of the early modern era, as supposed progenitors of horse riding Polish nobility loving Oriental fashion
Plus you'd have one famous cavalry civ following another
Last edited:
Persia and Han on one side, Qing and Russia on the other.My question is still - what are historical connections to Mongolia in previous and succeeding era? Han and Qing? I mean it has some merit, especially the latter as we kinda lack any really major post 16th century steppe empire
China to Mongols is ass backwards.
Hawke9
Immortal
I also like the addition of slight maluses, like the production penalty to settlers. I like the assymetrical civ designs like civ V Venice, and civ VI Maori and Mali. Those were a bit more extreme than this design, but I'm still really loving this. Hope we get to see some more!
It actually... kinda makes sense? Han Chinese obviously preceded and shaped all neighboring peoples and cultures, including Mongols. Persia is a bit of a moon logic but not that stupid moon logic, it's like going from ancient Persia either to Abbasids (Arabic cultural infusion) or Ilkhanate (Mongol, Turkic and Chinese cultural infusion). Qing I have already mentioned as a sensible succesor, and Russia also kinda makes sense as a heir to the Mongol Empire in Central Asia, many of its administrative systems, and assimilator of Turkic and Mongolian peoples.
