pre-release info New First Look: Charlemagne

[Evie]

I guess if appearing in a book that Aeneas is in makes one a mythological figure, pretty much the entire who's who of European and Middle Eastern Classical-to-Early Renaissance figures, including Caesar, Seneca, Cato, Saladdin, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and so forth all mythological figures. They are all, after all, in Limbo with him in Dante's Inferno,

Or maybe not, since Dante meets Aeneas in Dante's inferno, which makes him mythological, which means he never wrote Dante's inferno, which means I must have imagined reading it. But then if I imagined reading it, then Dante did not, in fact, appear in a story with Aeneas, is therefore real, and...my head hurts,

 

[Jkchart]

A yes, a self-aggrandizing piece of Roman propaganda is a great source. Elissa Dido is well-attested in Phoenician/Punic inscriptions--granted, as a divinity. (At an earlier time, I admit I doubted Dido's existence, assuming she was probably a goddess all along. I've since changed my mind. I think she was a real person who was deified, not unlike Augustus or Kubaba.)


So?


Did Pericles? Did Pakal or Lady Six Sky? Being a unified empire is irrelevant for being a civ, or a leader of a civ.


And they're all going to be warmongers from the Punic Wars, which fits very poorly with a good Phoenician/Punic design, which should be focused on trade, colonization, and thalassocracy. As far as Iron Age civilizations go, the Phoenicians were relatively un-warlike, and centering their civ design around the Punic Wars is a very poor design IMO. About the only historically attested person I can think of who would fit well would be Hanno the Navigator, and by your own metrics, he's only attested by Greek sources--which arguably makes him more mythical than Dido, who is at least attested in Punic.


Again, I don't see this as a problem. The woman herself was almost certainly real; she was a culture hero and minor divinity to her people; and she does a good job representing Phoenician cultural values in a way that a Punic Wars-era Carthaginian sufet or general would not. I simply can't imagine a leader design for Hannibal or Hamilcar Barca that would synergize well with Phoenicia/Carthage unless the civ is designed around the Punic Wars, which IMO feels as poorly though-out as designing the Shawnee around the War of 1812.

I need to now make a joke about Ludwig II…

 

[Lord Lakely]

And they're all going to be warmongers from the Punic Wars, which fits very poorly with a good Phoenician/Punic design, which should be focused on trade, colonization, and thalassocracy. As far as Iron Age civilizations go, the Phoenicians were relatively un-warlike, and centering their civ design around the Punic Wars is a very poor design IMO. About the only historically attested person I can think of who would fit well would be Hanno the Navigator, and by your own metrics, he's only attested by Greek sources--which arguably makes him more mythical than Dido, who is at least attested in Punic.

I'd argue the Phoenicians should be designed as a Civ that really goes out of its way to accumulate as much profit as possible. A Civ that actively pursues trade and trade agreements. I would say Diplomatic over Expansionist, even. The Punic colonies were a means to an end - their actual purpose was to serve as commercial entrepots where they could barter with local merchants.

And going with a Carthaginian war-like leader is fine. Machiavelli already offers a good fitting leader for the purpose of Phoenicia. A Carthaginian MIL/ECO leader would work, as long as they're more economic than militaristic. (Maybe focused on Mercs in way?)

 

[Uberfrog]

The first croisade is around the time when the Kingdom of the Franks became the Kingdom of France, and the king at that time was excommunicated, so he couldn't participate. Franks are still time-wise Exploration age (~500-~1100), but I would not link them to the croisades.

I say Franks really to differentiate the Exploration civ from the Modern France we know we are getting. As mildly anachronistic as it may be, Franks was also a common contemporary term for the crusaders as applied by the people in the Middle East. But I take your point.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd argue the Phoenicians should be designed as a Civ that really goes out of its way to accumulate as much profit as possible. A Civ that actively pursues trade and trade agreements. I would say Diplomatic over Expansionist, even. The Punic colonies were a means to an end - their actual purpose was to serve as commercial entrepots where they could barter with local merchants.

I 100% agree. All of the Phoenician colonies were established to secure trade with the interior (or as a waypoint for such trade, in the case of Carthage). In particular, the Phoenicians highly sought after metals--e.g., copper from Cyprus and silver and iron from Iberia.

And going with a Carthaginian war-like leader is fine. Machiavelli already offers a good fitting leader for the purpose of Phoenicia. A Carthaginian MIL/ECO leader would work, as long as they're more economic than militaristic. (Maybe focused on Mercs in way?)

I don't prefer it, but I wouldn't hate it. A merc focus would be fine considering the majority of the Carthaginian forces were made up of Numidians, Celtiberians, and Gauls, with actual Carthaginians chiefly in command positions. Someone like Hannibal or Hamilcar would be a prime candidate for focusing on hiring IP units. (Given the choice and denied Dido, I'd still choose someone from the homeland, though, with my first choice probably being Tabnit of Sidon, who left some very idiosyncratic inscriptions.)

 

[Ryansinbela]

What does Golden Shepherd refer to actually

 

[The Fanatical]

Elissa Dido is well-attested in Phoenician/Punic inscriptions--granted, as a divinity. (At an earlier time, I admit I doubted Dido's existence, assuming she was probably a goddess all along. I've since changed my mind. I think she was a real person who was deified, not unlike Augustus or Kubaba.)

Yes, as a divinity. If Octavian was known only by a few inscriptions naming him the worshiped divinity Augustus, would that make him a real emperor? Probably not.

Did Pericles? Did Pakal or Lady Six Sky? Being a unified empire is irrelevant for being a civ, or a leader of a civ.

My statement still stands. As a fugitive queen, she never had any power over the Punic cities in the Levant and lost contact with them if her story is to be believed, something that's really peculiar since colonies usually got support from home until they started to prosper.

And they're all going to be warmongers from the Punic Wars, which fits very poorly with a good Phoenician/Punic design, which should be focused on trade, colonization, and thalassocracy. As far as Iron Age civilizations go, the Phoenicians were relatively un-warlike, and centering their civ design around the Punic Wars is a very poor design IMO. About the only historically attested person I can think of who would fit well would be Hanno the Navigator, and by your own metrics, he's only attested by Greek sources--which arguably makes him more mythical than Dido, who is at least attested in Punic.

Warmongering abilities can easily be tied to economical, colonizing and naval bonuses. The people who had the most powerful navy in the Western Mediterranean Sea and who frequently hired mercenaries in order to wage wars with the Greeks and the Romans should hardly be called un-warlike. Especially when one of history's greatest generals was Carthaginian, but I agree with you that the civilization's main design should turn away from war. A militaristic civic branch won't hurt, though.

Again, I don't see this as a problem. The woman herself was almost certainly real; she was a culture hero and minor divinity to her people; and she does a good job representing Phoenician cultural values in a way that a Punic Wars-era Carthaginian sufet or general would not. I simply can't imagine a leader design for Hannibal or Hamilcar Barca that would synergize well with Phoenicia/Carthage unless the civ is designed around the Punic Wars, which IMO feels as poorly though-out as designing the Shawnee around the War of 1812.

Being a real person isn't attested by appropriate sources, I'm afraid. A Carthaginian sufet would represent Punic cultural values just as well. Even Hannibal can work with Economical and Militaristic attributes, in my opinion.

 

[kryat]

I really like the glowy window effect, even if it should be reversed. It's a gothic cathedral, sunlight should be illuminating the interior in an awesome display of colors, not interior lights illuminating from within.

It’s a nice effect. Agreed it’s a bit silly… they must have the literal light of God in there to get radiant beams out into sunlight. Or a fusion reactor?

 

[gdr_willter]

It’s a nice effect. Agreed it’s a bit silly… they must have the literal light of God in there to get radiant beams out into sunlight. Or a fusion reactor?

Or... a catastrophic fire

 

[pokiehl]

Very cool leader. I like the ability a lot! It's not difficult to think of a lot of fun synergies with existing civs!

 

[gdr_willter]

Very cool leader. I like the ability a lot! It's not difficult to think of a lot of fun synergies with existing civs!

About the leader ability, I think the FL video confirmed he will get bonus cavalry units as the unique unit if possible. Am I right?

 

[Krikkit1]

About the leader ability, I think the FL video confirmed he will get bonus cavalry units as the unique unit if possible. Am I right?

Leaders don't have unique units, he gets 2 free cavalry units at the start of a celebration and they are stronger

So in an Ancient Age Celebration he might get 2 Chariots
in a Modern Age Celebration he might get 2 Tanks
Whatever his best cavalry unit is.

 

[gdr_willter]

Leaders don't have unique units, he gets 2 free cavalry units at the start of a celebration and they are stronger

So in an Ancient Age Celebration he might get 2 Chariots
in a Modern Age Celebration he might get 2 Tanks
Whatever his best cavalry unit is.

I said the Civ unique cavalry unit.

 

[Krikkit1]

I said the Civ unique cavalry unit.

O missed that... yeah... it seems that you only have one Cavalry/Infantry/Ranged unit at a time... even if you have a unique... so you would.

 

[Bast]

He looks like he could be one of the characters out of CK3 lol

 

[Black Gate]

I really like the glowy window effect, even if it should be reversed. It's a gothic cathedral, sunlight should be illuminating the interior in an awesome display of colors, not interior lights illuminating from within.

Yeah it's a very cool effect even if it's not what the building looks like at all. The interior of the real Notre Dame is actually quite dark, lit only by candlelight and whatever gets through into the building.

 

[notNamed]

Yeah it's a very cool effect even if it's not what the building looks like at all. The interior of the real Notre Dame is actually quite dark, lit only by candlelight and whatever gets through into the building.

The real-real Notre Dame was also painted in color from the outside and so on. See its contemporary cousin from Amiens:

Civ 7 is just not going for detail or precision but recognisability in detail.
Like the other day when Mr. Johnson pointed out that Early Modern Middle Eastern Inns don't have distilleries, instead sporting hookahs. Which is a recognisable detail, not a historical detail since Middle Easterners people invented alcohol distilling methods and spread it to Europe, were themselves known to enjoy alcohol (though it was frowned upon) while hookahs/shishas really only made appearance and became popular in the area centuries after the end of the Abbassids.

Notre Dame follows the same principle. It is built to look modern and recognisable and the effect is likewise a recognisable detail, drawing attention to the massive stained glass windows, the religious nature of the place. Which works good for what it does, unlike taking the building and accurately painting its facade, which loses the well-known image and wouldn't fit the rest of the hand-crafted imaginary style of a Western European city that the game presents.

 

[Fummy]

Charlemagne is cool and all but can someone explain the logic behind adding leaders from civs that arent even in the game? They are releasing 1 leader for every 2 civs, and will do in the expansions as well, so what possible sense does it make to make this problem (lack of leaders for 50% of civs) even worse by adding leaders from civs that arent even in the game? Either have Franks on release with Charlemagne or have William the Conqueror with Normans, not mix and match. Are they just spreading it out to bait people into buying dlc?

 

[Evie]

The logic is that since two-thirds of your civs are going to be unrelated to your leader anyway (unless you play China), limiting yourself to leaders that match actual civs doesn't actually make sense.

 

[Zaarin]

Also, I don't really see them as DLC bait. I sort of doubt we'll ever see Hausa or Zazzau as a civ, and I think the jury is out on Franks or HRE, either. (I do think we'll see a Vietnamese civ eventually, but I doubt it will be Luoyue specifically. We may see an Italian civ eventually, though it won't necessarily be Florence.) So I'd say in some cases leaders without a civ are just a way to include an interesting leader whose civ doesn't necessarily bear inclusion (Charlemagne, Amina, arguably Trung Trac, arguably Machiavelli, hopefully someday Zenobia), or in others to represent a civ that hasn't been included yet (Machiavelli, Trung Trac).