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.
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.
One thought is that those are the only ways to get points for the victory (settlements abroad or captured settlements here) and the Mongols just get double of what anyone else does.
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.
It probably would be better if it was just 1 extra point for every captured settlement anywhere. (encouraging a conquest like the tried w Japan, and Spain did in real life New World, as opposed to the raze and rebuild model of England-America in the New World)
My first time hearing of the Erdene Zuu wonder, and it's great that it's being included! Very excited to hear more Mongolian music. The Mongol music in Civilization is always excellent.
One thought is that those are the only ways to get points for the victory (settlements abroad or captured settlements here) and the Mongols just get double of what anyone else does.
Well... I am wondering also if that is an attempt to un-penalize mongols having a harder time settling by themselves. If a lot of the VP require overseas colonization, it could be an attempt to balance out a weakness. If so I am not sure about it being a good idea, human players would probably work around it and reap bigger benefits.
Every transpastoralist nomadic culture started as a settled or semi-settled agricultural culture. The Scythians or Mongols or Tungu or Saami didn't just "never settle down" from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic; they settled down, as all agriculturalists did, and then started following their herds. While steppe nomads conquering cities and settling down into empires is more common, an example of the inverse is the perpetual cycle between Bedouin and Fellahin in the Levant.
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
The Xiongnu and Xianbei settled in Han lands, then destroyed the Western Jin dynasty during the Upheaval of the Five Barbarians in the 4th century (not that the Jin weren't doing a good job of tearing themselves apart too). The Xianbei would go on to found the Northern Wei (the first of a number of northern dynasties during this period) and suppressed Han culture, the Tang nobility are said to have Turkic origins, and obviously the Yuan and Qing were ruled by tribal-origin nobility. I don't think it's a terrible stretch to imagine the Han, after a period of crisis, falling to horse rider barbarians and adopting a number of their traditions to the point you could call them "Mongolia", even if they're still living in cities. Civ has never modelled steppe cultures without cities anyway, so I fail to see why our alt-history Han need to abandon cities to be Mongolian in the exploration age.
China becoming Mongol is ahistorical, because while China was conquered by the Mongols and ruled by a Mongol-origin dynasty, they did not spontaneously become pastoral nomads. They stayed Chinese and the Yuan dynasty became Chinese.
But having the Han transition to Mongolia makes begrudging sense in Civ 7 because of their regional proximity and that'sjust how Civ 7 works with 31 civs. Using the Yuan dynasty to excuse it is not appealing.
China becoming Mongol is ahistorical, because while China was conquered by the Mongols and ruled by a Mongol-origin dynasty, they did not spontaneously become pastoral nomads. They stayed Chinese and the Yuan dynasty became Chinese.
But having the Han transition to Mongolia makes begrudging sense in Civ 7 because of their regional proximity and that'sjust how Civ 7 works with 31 civs. Using the Yuan dynasty to excuse it is not appealing.
The way I see it, nobody is 'becoming' pastoral nomads, the Civ VII in-game system is that you keep and adopt some of the attributes and traits of the previous pastoral nomadic society/Civ. But how much and how strongly is going to vary from game to game, similar to how various Chinese Dynasties bought horses from the nomads to mount a strong nomad-like cavalry force, all the way to, say, the Tang Dynasty- whose aristocracy was partly pastoral-rooted and whose primary fighting force was - wait for it - mounted armored lancers with bows suspiciously similar to the elite forces of the pastoral nomads.
China becoming Mongol is ahistorical, because while China was conquered by the Mongols and ruled by a Mongol-origin dynasty, they did not spontaneously become pastoral nomads. They stayed Chinese and the Yuan dynasty became Chinese.
But having the Han transition to Mongolia makes begrudging sense in Civ 7 because of their regional proximity and that'sjust how Civ 7 works with 31 civs. Using the Yuan dynasty to excuse it is not appealing.
The society was run by Mongols and so the way the society behaved had some characteristics of pastoral nomads. (not every characteristic but some ie gameplay wise there were some uniques from the Mongols, but they kept Traditions from the Han.)
Not exactly the nomad civ with the ability to move settlements instead of founding new ones, which I was hoping for, but close enough. Definetely fitting Mongols.
I suppose this kind of "true nomad" functionality can still be possible in the game with an antiquty nomadic civ, like Scithians.
According to the Sarah's post in this reddit thread: "Ortöös only applies to the Mongols. But, a cool fact: if there happens to be multiple Mongols in the game (like, in a MP game), they can use each other's Ortöös."
It sounds like that the single campaign will not allow the duplicated civ choice, while MP will allow it. And it automaticly means there is no priority to civ choice in MP.
No, we only know that "in the Exploration Age, you can build walls between you and your enemies as the Norman civ" (Machiavelli First Look video). It could be an unlock, or only a "historical choice" indicator
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.
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 think your misreading it.
The stuff about foreign lands is just the text of Victory condition, not a requirement for the Mongols. Getting the victory point for free absolves them from needing to do this in full. (Not go over seas and just focus in homelands)
Or maybe I’m misreading it.
Wow, wasn't expecting the new guide yesterday (i guess they didn't want the hype to be a bit lost with people focusing on the usa election) so only saw this now. This looks like a really interesting civ / with interesting bonuses.
I'm curious about victory conditions that aren't on modern. I thought there was none on Ancient, but maybe they just never showed us? I guess they need victory conditions on every age just in case people play just that age (but then they would likely need to at least make them easier to get when people do a one age game).
While I agree Genghis will like be in because of what was said before, not so sure if he would be the Thursday reveal taking in account we will get the leader and another civ reveal on the stream on Thursday. So the leader revealed then may be instead related with the other civ we are getting this week.
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.
My guess is that the Mongolians seems a rare exception of Exploration civs with pretty much no naval / distant lands bonuses. So for them to get any settlement made there is extra hard, and so gets an extra bonus if you do it. Also a little incentive to do so if you happen to have an opportunity instead of just ignoring it and completely focusing on conquering others in your base continent.
Wow, wasn't expecting the new guide yesterday (i guess they didn't want the hype to be a bit lost with people focusing on the usa election) so only saw this now. This looks like a really interesting civ / with interesting bonuses.
I'm curious about victory conditions that aren't on modern. I thought there was none on Ancient, but maybe they just never showed us? I guess they need victory conditions on every age just in case people play just that age (but then they would likely need to at least make them easier to get when people do a one age game).
While I agree Genghis will like be in because of what was said before, not so sure if he would be the Thursday reveal taking in account we will get the leader and another civ reveal on the stream on Thursday. So the leader revealed then may be instead related with the other civ we are getting this week.
My guess is that the Mongolians seems a rare exception of Exploration civs with pretty much no naval / distant lands bonuses. So for them to get any settlement made there is extra hard, and so gets an extra bonus if you do it. Also a little incentive to do so if you happen to have an opportunity instead of just ignoring it and completely focusing on conquering others in your base continent.
Those are the Legacy Paths. We've also seen a sort of "Victory" screen, I believe in the Gameplay showcase, or in the B-roll that content creators had at that same time? It listed how many points each civ had in each Legacy Path.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.