• We created a new subforum for the Civ7 reviews, please check them here!

pre-release info New Civ Game Guide: Mongolia

pre-release info
I think this has a similar issue, it could be read as "receives reduced Production towards Settlers for controlled Settlements in the Distant Lands and conquered Settlements in the Homelands." I think the best way to go about it is make the malus its own sentence.
Probably right.
 
I'm not surprised that Mongolia is pretty one-note for aggression, but wish it were a little less hyper-focused on a single playstyle.

That being said, it's a really cool design for an aggressive civ, and the Ortoo bonus is :goodjob:
The thing is its only got that playstyle for one Era...
so
setup your ancient empire
burst for with Mongol Exploration conquest

In Modern you get to either be a peaceful High production , High Happiness civ from your Mongol Traditions (in those conquered cities)
(or get a bonus to Culture and Cavalry War from your Wonder, UI and other Mongol Tradition)
 
Which to me, as soon as I read that, implies that having the possible choice of Mongols may not be that difficult unless you start in the middle of a Tundra or Rainforest. If you are expanding anyway, expand to where there are Horses and it shouldn't take that many new Settlements in 150 - 200 turns to get 3 of them - unless Resource distribution is 'way different from Civs V or VI . . .
I expect all of the unlocks will be relatively low barriers to entry if you really want them.
 
I expect all of the unlocks will be relatively low barriers to entry if you really want them.
I'm not sure if they would be that low. The unlock mentioned for Mongols was 3 Horses... now that sounds low, but in Civ 7 you can build Cavalry units without any Horses... 3 Horses might be the total amount of Horses in the entire Antiquity World (ie the part of the map you have access to in Age 1)..

That said... I don't think it will be That Hard, but I don't think you will get 3 Horses in Ancient without trying for it somewhat. (say maybe 4-6 in one whole section of the Ancient World, split among 2-3 civs there)
 
Tecumseh will always unlock the Shawnee and Machiavelli apparently always unlocks the Normans.
Do we know for sure that playing as Machiavelli always unlocks the Normans?
 
I'm not sure if they would be that low. The unlock mentioned for Mongols was 3 Horses... now that sounds low, but in Civ 7 you can build Cavalry units without any Horses... 3 Horses might be the total amount of Horses in the entire Antiquity World (ie the part of the map you have access to in Age 1)
As posted, we don't really know enough about the entire resource distribution system yet in Civ VII maps to be certain of anything. So far, though, there are about 22 land Resources listed or at least semi-confirmed for Antiquity and the old 'strategic' resources are no longer a requirement for building units, only 'improving' them.

That implies that the distribution may be less than, certainly no more than, in Civ VI, in which it was perfectly possible to have a starting position without a Horse on the horizon, but not really common. 3 or more Horses was generally uncommon, unless you went hunting for them, and that is the situation I suspect will be the norm in Civ VII.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Fair enough! I have a thing in VI where I try to play every Civ in the way they were intended, even if it isn't optimal or it isn't my usual style. I'll likely do the same in VII.
I usually get aggro at the endgame and Mongolia's policies set up an aggressive third age. So I would use their abilities for that purpose.
 
So Mongolia gets a Victory Point towards the "conquest/domination" victory condition for "for controlled Settlements in the Distant Lands and conquered Settlements in the Homelands".
  • I assume that this Victory Point is an extra VP over and above whatever VP other civs may or may not get for controlling or conquering settlements.
  • The conquering settlements in the Homelands part ties in understandably to actual Mongolian history.
  • What do we make of the controlled settlements in Distant Lands part of the ability? Is it meant to be tied to Mongolian history? If so, could any part of your starting continent end up being classified as Distant Lands? If not, why is Mongolia given a bonus for settling other continents? I could see them getting whatever the standard VPs associated with colonizing a new continent, but why would they be given a bigger bonus than other civs?
Based on what we know, seems like the 2nd age rewards exploration.
So maybe some military points in homelands and likely even more for distant lands.
This free point spares Mongolia from needing to chase the latter and just focus on what they do best.
Conquer homelands and manage trade.
The point minimizes their need to go over seas.
 
So Mongolia gets a Victory Point towards the "conquest/domination" victory condition for "for controlled Settlements in the Distant Lands and conquered Settlements in the Homelands".
  • I assume that this Victory Point is an extra VP over and above whatever VP other civs may or may not get for controlling or conquering settlements.
  • The conquering settlements in the Homelands part ties in understandably to actual Mongolian history.
  • What do we make of the controlled settlements in Distant Lands part of the ability? Is it meant to be tied to Mongolian history? If so, could any part of your starting continent end up being classified as Distant Lands? If not, why is Mongolia given a bonus for settling other continents? I could see them getting whatever the standard VPs associated with colonizing a new continent, but why would they be given a bigger bonus than other civs?
Maybe "distant lands" are those not in your original field of view.
 
That was Mongols becoming China, not the other way around. Hence the word "backwards."
Historically, China became Mongol under Yuan, before the Chinese took over again. Then siblings of the Mongols, the Qing, took over a while. Then Chinese in the 20th century.
 
Historically, China became Mongol under Yuan, before the Chinese took over again. Then siblings of the Mongols, the Qing, took over a while. Then Chinese in the 20th century.
China never "became Mongol" culturally; on the contrary, the Mongol conquerors were assimilated into Chinese culture. The civilizations in Civ7 represent changes in culture, not in political control.

I don't know of any historical examples of a sedentary city-building culture wandering into steppes and becoming nomadic; it always seems to be the other way around. So trying to integrate civilizations like the Mongols into the civ-switching mechanic is problematic from a historical perspective.
 
The point minimizes their need to go over seas.

Yes, that's what I take the extra VP for conquering settlements in the Homelands to be. But why do they also get extra VP for settling overseas? That second part of the ability actually encourages them to expand across the oceans. Which seems odd to attach to the historical Mongols, compared say to the historical Spanish.

Maybe "distant lands" are those not in your original field of view.

That's what I'm wondering, too! I mean, I don't expect it to be the case, but the way the Mongol ability is worded made me wonder. If there's any truth to this at all, it sheds a whole different light on the map-types discussion, especially the discussion around Pangea maps.
 
I don't know of any historical examples of a sedentary city-building culture wandering into steppes and becoming nomadic; it always seems to be the other way around. So trying to integrate civilizations like the Mongols into the civ-switching mechanic is problematic from a historical perspective.
Pre-City it happened a lot. Since the pastoral/nomadic lifestyle really required domesticated horses, it was impossible before about 4000 - 3500 BCE, and all the cultures (known) that adopted that lifestyle were hunter-gatherers on foot before that. In central Asia there is copious archeological evidence for early groups hunting, gathering, and even practicing very primitive agriculture along the great rivers, but once they acquired horses they also acquired the capability of exploitng the broad plains and grasslands between the rivers and apparently never looked back.

In the Americas, the Sioux for example were originally hunter-gatherers along the marshy backwaters just south of the Great Lakes before they moved onto the plains and acquired horses and the Kiowa were originally corn-planters along the rivers of the southwest before they got horses and adopted buffalo hunting and pastoralism. For relatively small, unconcentrated groups pastoralism had a lot of advantages in personal time and freedom over grubbing in the dirt for your food.

Once you built cities and adopted the technologies (agriculture primarily) to feed them, it was really not possible to Go Back. Furthermore, the difference in population size between a pastoral and an urbanized group was enormous: the earliest Mongol armies we have figures for numbered in the several hundred thousand, but that represented a large percentage of their adult males - and China's population was in the tens of millions at that time, so that the Mongolian 'conquerors' were simply overwhelmed culturally and genetically.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom