pre-release info New Civ Game Guide: Persia

[Zaarin]

Canada's Coat of Arms includes:

• 6 lions
• 6 fleur-de-lys
• 3 maple leafs
• 2 thistles
• 1 harp
• 1 unicorn (?!)
• 0 bears, moose, or beavers

Clearly, we suck at designing coats of arms.

I feel like you need some lords a-leaping and geese a-laying in there.

 

[Krikkit1]

Alternately, Persia > Mongols > Ottomans.

My only holdup with Russia is that I can’t think of a second “historical” path into it - which I think is needed for every Exploration/Modern civ, so that AI doesn’t get bricked if their only historical path is taken by the player + they have also failed to achieve any gameplay unlocks. Yes, AI could be coded to just pick a completely random civ from the pool at that point, but I feel like FXS would at least have a second historical option ready before resorting to such extreme approach.

Ottomans seem like they could house both Abbasid and Mongolia paths, while I don’t quite see a secondary path into Russia. Maybe Norman’s and Ming, but that’s a lot of stretching needed to see that pipeline.

I don't think you need 2 paths Into a civ, you should have at least two paths Out of a civ though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Canada's Coat of Arms includes:

• 6 lions
• 6 fleur-de-lys
• 3 maple leafs
• 2 thistles
• 1 harp
• 1 unicorn (?!)
• 0 bears, moose, or beavers

Clearly, we suck at designing coats of arms.

I think they tried to include every European who ever set foot in Canada: lions were England's, fleur-de-lys French, thistles Scots, the harp was the Irish symbol: thank your stars you got the maple leaf on your flag or you'd be marching under a red and white Unicorn.

And yeah, given the chance to have a Moose and a Beaver giving the finger to everyone else, they missed a great chance for a really evocative Coat of Arms . . .

 

[Sagax]

I don't think you need 2 paths Into a civ, you should have at least two paths Out of a civ though.

One is the consequence of the other, though? If we go with the current assumption of 10 civs per age, then each later civ will need to house at least two paths in, if the previous ages are having at least two paths out. Being short of that overcrowds means that another civ needs to take in more potential paths, making it more likely for those paths to get blocked, depending on the roster of your specific game.

(Disclaimer: my logical reasoning can be shaky here, feel free to ELI5)

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think they tried to include every European who ever set foot in Canada: lions were England's, fleur-de-lys French, thistles Scots, the harp was the Irish symbol: thank your stars you got the maple leaf on your flag or you'd be marching under a red and white Unicorn.

And yeah, given the chance to have a Moose and a Beaver giving the finger to everyone else, they missed a great chance for a really evocative Coat of Arms . . .

An angry polar bear riding an angrier moose, flanked by a phalanx of beavers carrying freshly gnawed spears, their privates covered by maple leafs. A red-and-white unicorn I could take or leave.

 

[Josephias]

Clearly, we suck at designing coats of arms.

Actually, you are pretty good and active at designing coat of arms, mixing traditional and new elements.

Just for some reason, you have decided not to review your coat of arms, surely granted by an englishmen

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Alternately, Persia > Mongols > Ottomans.

My only holdup with Russia is that I can’t think of a second “historical” path into it - which I think is needed for every Exploration/Modern civ, so that AI doesn’t get bricked if their only historical path is taken by the player + they have also failed to achieve any gameplay unlocks. Yes, AI could be coded to just pick a completely random civ from the pool at that point, but I feel like FXS would at least have a second historical option ready before resorting to such extreme approach.

Ottomans seem like they could house both Abbasid and Mongolia paths, while I don’t quite see a secondary path into Russia. Maybe Norman’s and Ming, but that’s a lot of stretching needed to see that pipeline.

if you have a game with the AI playing Mongols and Abbasid who gets what?
Abbasid will surely in 1st in line for Ottomans, so who does Mongolia preference?
Qing will be the 1st preference of the Chinese Civs, each Civ needs their own 1st preference for things to work even if they can take others.
Russia is maybe a back up for Ming if Mongols takes Qing

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's a Russian Elk from 1941-42, but feel free to incorporate a similar Assault Moose into your symbolism . . .

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think you need 2 paths Into a civ, you should have at least two paths Out of a civ though.

I'm sure every civ will need a second one for backup. Buganda, I think even can come from the Abbasids, as well as Songhai.

I think they tried to include every European who ever set foot in Canada: lions were England's, fleur-de-lys French, thistles Scots, the harp was the Irish symbol: thank your stars you got the maple leaf on your flag or you'd be marching under a red and white Unicorn.

The Unicorn is Scottish too, so not sure if it was needed if the thistles were there. Could have at least made it a one antlered moose.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

View attachment 707308
It's a Russian Elk from 1941-42, but feel free to incorporate a similar Assault Moose into your symbolism . . .

That actually is a moose, or what we would call a moose today. The terms elk and moose have been used interchangeably in the past.

 

[Krikkit1]

One is the consequence of the other, though? If we go with the current assumption of 10 civs per age, then each later civ will need to house at least two paths in, if the previous ages are having at least two paths out. Being short of that overcrowds means that another civ needs to take in more potential paths, making it more likely for those paths to get blocked, depending on the roster of your specific game.

(Disclaimer: my logical reasoning can be shaky here, feel free to ELI5)

Not necessarily,,,
if all civs in 1 Age have at least 2 paths out (20+ total paths)
some of the civs in the next age could have 1 path in while others may have 3 paths in.

 

[Lord Lakely]

:salivating: @ all the juicy city cap that I can use on my usual Huge Map With Reduced Amount of Players games.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That actually is a moose, or what we would call a moose today. The terms elk and moose have been used interchangeably in the past.

Both German and Russian accounts in WWII speak only of Elk north of Moscow, but what do they know: I doubt that 1 out of 100,000 had ever been to Canada and seen a Moose to be able to tell the difference.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Both German and Russian accounts in WWII speak only of Elk north of Moscow, but what do they know: I doubt that 1 out of 100,000 had ever been to Canada and seen a Moose to be able to tell the difference.

"Elk" is the European name for Moose. When Europeans reached the Americas, they encountered the same animals and learned the name Moose from First Nations peoples. This became the norm for Americanized Europeans, but they retained the idea that an elk was a very large deer. So, a few generations later they reached lands where there were wapitis. They saw the wapitis and thought they were elk. The name stuck. So, the name "elk" now applies to two different animals in two different places.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

"Elk" is the European name for Moose. When Europeans reached the Americas, they encountered the same animals and learned the name Moose from First Nations peoples. This became the norm for Americanized Europeans, but they retained the idea that an elk was a very large deer. So, a few generations later they reached lands where there were wapitis. They saw the wapitis and thought they were elk. The name stuck. So, the name "elk" now applies to two different animals in two different places.

Thank you! I thought the original photograph looked like a Moose, but in translating 5000+ pages of German and Soviet accounts from the period of 1941 - 45, never heard them called anything but 'Elk'. Now I know.

 

[moondog385]

Just now seeing this. A new civ and a leader on the same day? Wow we’re spoiled!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Now that I'm thinking about it, a healing ability on military units fits Alexander rather well, but it needs to work more consistently than the version of Civilization VI where the healing triggered only when a city with a World Wonder was captured. Perhaps, it will work better if the healing triggers on every conquered city or would that be too powerful? We are talking about Alexander the Great though.

We both got pre-empted, sort of: the Immortals Unit for the Persians has the "Heal (some) upon defeating an enemy unit", which approaches what we were talking about: an in-game abstraction of the conscription system behind the unit.

Something similar, then, is not out of the question - but with different triggers than Victory over an enemy - for other units, armies or Civs.

 

[notNamed]

That fact does argue in favor of the Lion, Bear and Eagle, all of which once lived in various sub-species in virtually all areas where people started concentrating in large numbers: middle east, Europe, India, East Asia, etc. Familiarity makes it easy to incorporate into symbols.

Historical China (the Central Plains region) did not have lions nor bears and was fairly limited in eagles (effectively treated as a sort of hawk) so I wouldn't call it that universal.
Of the three mentioned, only the lions gained any prominence in grander East Asian tradition and it was a later import. A fact gleaned best by the fact the "lion" in question is actually more of a mythical creature that gets its shape from people hearing about it, rather than ever seeing it. The name itself is also a loanword.

Compare that with the elephant, which while absent in later historical (and modern) China, has an ancient dedicated character which actually looks like a real elephant. And indeed elephants did exist in Northern China at the time the Chinese (and thus grander East Asian) tradition was being formed, only later losing their range and slowly being pushed further south by the local peoples, ending up with the current state where it's northernmost habitat is the mountains of central Vietnam (eradicated in central China, southern China, northern Vietnam).

 

[Zaarin]

Historical China (the Central Plains region) did not have lions nor bears and was fairly limited in eagles (effectively treated as a sort of hawk) so I wouldn't call it that universal.
Of the three mentioned, only the lions gained any prominence in grander East Asian tradition and it was a later import. A fact gleaned best by the fact the "lion" in question is actually more of a mythical creature that gets its shape from people hearing about it, rather than ever seeing it. The name itself is also a loanword.

Compare that with the elephant, which while absent in later historical (and modern) China, has an ancient dedicated character which actually looks like a real elephant. And indeed elephants did exist in Northern China at the time the Chinese (and thus grander East Asian) tradition was being formed, only later losing their range and slowly being pushed further south by the local peoples, ending up with the current state where it's northernmost habitat is the mountains of central Vietnam (eradicated in central China, southern China, northern Vietnam).

TBF the same is true of lions in Europe, where they figure prominently in symbolism but were nearly extirpated by the historical period.

 

[notNamed]

TBF the same is true of lions in Europe, where they figure prominently in symbolism but were nearly extirpated by the historical period.

Yeah, but lions did exist in Ancient Greece, Rome, while lions and bears did not.
In that way they're an equivalent of the elephant, not the lion/bear/eagle trifecta suggested universal by Boris.

Though the nudging towards predators like the tigers is still a thing even over there (or in Mesoamerica, which also had eagles and tigers but no bears or lions).