New First Look: Xerxes

[AriochIV]

The original conquest victory was to capture all cities (I still remember searching for this last city AI found on a remote island). The solution you're describing was in Civ 3 and 4 only. It was scrapped with the introduction of tall gameplay viability as incompatible. And while Civ 6 and 7 are not that focused on tall gameplay as Civ 5 (luckily), they still allow this playstyle.

Yes, the Conquest and Domination were two different victory conditions, but the Conquest condition was pointless since you'd reach the Domination condition first.

Ironically, a working diplomatic system is what's needed to allow peaceful empires to compete against conquerors, but that's what Civilization has never yet had.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We know that the Antiquity Domination Legacy Path doesn't even require conquest (just is a lot harder without it), just owning a certain number of cities, so here's hoping that's a trend.

Since the major thing that revolved around wars in the 20th century was ideology based, maybe domination could deal with that? Especially if culture ends up being tourism again.

 

[Guandao]

So this is Xerxes I, who was assassinated in a plot by Artabanus? I guess he has some Pop-Culture presence due to appearing in 300 and the Assassin's Creed games (where he got assassinated by Darius instead of Artabanus). There's barely any pop-culture presence for the Sassanids or even the Parthians.

And the use of Green for his Achaemenid clothing might be a conscious choice to differentiate him from a later (added later to the game, I mean) Mesopotamian leader who would have blue in their attire.

I've seen one comment on Reddit claiming he looks more "Arab" than Iranian. Do they want him to look like a pale European man?

 

[Zaarin]

And the use of Green for his Achaemenid clothing might be a conscious choice to differentiate him from a later (added later to the game, I mean) Mesopotamian leader who would have blue in their attire.

Most likely, though Mesopotamian clothing was a little different from Persian. In particular, Persians wore pants (horse culture!) and fitted tunics. Mesopotamians sometimes did and sometimes did not wear fitted robes under their drape-like tunics, and of course the big identifying part of Mesopotamian clothing--tassels! (Hopefully our Mesopotamian ruler will also have the carefully coiffed curls in their hair and beard, too, that Xerxes is lacking.) Personally I would have given Xerxes saffron robes if they wanted a distinctive color. The Scheele's green looks as beautiful as it does ahistorical and toxic.

I've seen one comment on Reddit claiming he looks more "Arab" than Iranian. Do they want him to look like a pale European man?

Iranians can be quite fair. They can also be quite dark. It doesn't seem like something worth complaining about.

 

[Siptah]

So this is Xerxes I, who was assassinated in a plot by Artabanus? I guess he has some Pop-Culture presence due to appearing in 300 and the Assassin's Creed games (where he got assassinated by Darius instead of Artabanus). There's barely any pop-culture presence for the Sassanids or even the Parthians.

And the use of Green for his Achaemenid clothing might be a conscious choice to differentiate him from a later (added later to the game, I mean) Mesopotamian leader who would have blue in their attire.

I've seen one comment on Reddit claiming he looks more "Arab" than Iranian. Do they want him to look like a pale European man?

Most Iranians I know definitely have a lighter skin that civ 7‘s Xerxes. But I think the spectrum is to be found and I have no clue about his exact origins.

 

[Zaarin]

Most Iranians I know definitely have a lighter skin that civ 7‘s Xerxes. But I think the spectrum is to be found and I have no clue about his exact origins.

There's some speculation that the Achaemenid kings were of Elamite descent, though that's far from certain.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Firaxis just confirmed it's Avestan on the reddit thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1gbf0v8/comment/ltoquzl

no way i got it right

isn’t that not totally historically accurate?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

There's some speculation that the Achaemenid kings were of Elamite descent, though that's far from certain.

i’d also assume that even if it wasn’t true, they’d generally have a skin color similar to xerxes in this since it’s only 1000 or so years after the indo-iranic split. would imagine the ancient persians looked a lot more like ancient indo-aryans than modern persians for that reason.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There's some speculation that the Achaemenid kings were of Elamite descent, though that's far from certain.

There was definitely major Elamite influence on the early Persian (and Median before them) Empires - the majority of early inscriptions from the Persian court are in Elamite, and it is listed as one of the three 'official' languages of the court. Susa, a major Elamite city, was one of the Persian capitals. Achaemenes, the eponymous ancestor of the Achaemenid Dynasty, supposedly led troops from Anshan (another Elamite city) as a vassal of the Medes in their war against the remnants of Assyria.

But whether the influence had anything to do with blood relationship or was simply Political - another example of the Persians' shrewd inclusiveness in regard to major elements of their subject peoples - is another question. I tend to regard the impressive influence of the Elamites as being similar to the later importance of Aramaic and the Babylonian Satrapy to the later Persian Empire: they produced a lot of gold/taxes. controlled a lot of trade, provided a lot of skilled and literate clerks and administrators to help run things, but that does not mean the Aristocratic Persian families were going to marry them very much: Mazaeus remains an exception among Persian nobility in having a Babylonian wife (which was remarked on in most of the few fragments of script we have about him and the Greek histories that mention him).

It does make an interesting Speculation, though. Elam had early contacts with the Indus Valley Civilization, and trade with India along the coast and possibly overland. If they could also be tied to the later Persian Empire, it makes them a possible Antiquity alternate ancestor to an Exploration Age Persia OR India, OR even one of the Asian Trade Civs like Kushans and Sogdians - which in turn could be in a progression to Mongols.

I think (and Hope) that eventually more and more of these kinds of Alternative Progressions will be included and possible as Civs and Leaders are added to the game in future DLCs - let alone Mods. The more branches on our tree of choices between Eras the better for the long-term popularity of the game, IMHO.

 

[Zaarin]

no way i got it right

isn’t that not totally historically accurate?

Yes, we know next to nothing about the people who spoke Avestan except that they were probably from Afghanistan. As I mentioned in another thread, though, Avestan is much better attested than Old Persian. Old Persian has a few rock inscriptions; Avestan has an entire scripture.

i’d also assume that even if it wasn’t true, they’d generally have a skin color similar to xerxes in this since it’s only 1000 or so years after the indo-iranic split. would imagine the ancient persians looked a lot more like ancient indo-aryans than modern persians for that reason.

Hard to say. Other Iranian peoples are also fairly light-skinned. Either way, though, I don't have a problem with Xerxes' depiction. He's on the darker end of the spectrum for an Iranian, but I don't think that really matters.

 

[IPERSIAN]

Abbasids and Mongols both conquered Persia so either way is an evolution by conquest; could also argue Abbasids are geographic.

REEEEEEEEEE I DISAGREEEEEEEEEEEE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SASANIAN EMPIRE

 

[IPERSIAN]

I would have preferred Seleucid over abbassid. At least they had the decency to preserve our relics, cultural identity and historical sites

abbasid = delete from game.

 

[Zaarin]

REEEEEEEEEE I DISAGREEEEEEEEEEEE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SASANIAN EMPIRE

Not sure why you're yelling at me; I've been proposing Achaemenid to Sassanid to Safavid for months.

I would have preferred Seleucid over abbassid. At least they had the decency to preserve our relics, cultural identity and historical sites

abbasid = delete from game.

Sassanids are already pushing the timeframe for Exploration Age; Seleucids would be the strangest fit in the game. They didn't even survive to the Common Era.

 

[IPERSIAN]

Not sure why you're yelling at me; I've been proposing Achaemenid to Sassanid to Safavid for months.


Sassanids are already pushing the timeframe for Exploration Age; Seleucids would be the strangest fit in the game. They didn't even survive to the Common Era.

Yeah sorry, I'm just expressing my hatred for abbasid. Thanks for fighting the good fight though...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah sorry, I'm just expressing my hatred for abbasid. Thanks for fighting the good fight though...

Abbasids will be in the game regardless of potential pathways considering the Abbasids=Arabia from past civ games.

I would also love to see Sassanid Persia and Safavid Persia as well, but I'm not surprised that it won't happen for the base game.

 

[IPERSIAN]

Abbasids will be in the game regardless of potential pathways considering the Abbasids=Arabia from past civ games.

I would also love to see Sassanid Persia and Safavid Persia as well, but I'm not surprised that it won't happen for the base game.

I guess... But I wouldn't have mind if they fleshed the game out first before releasing Persia so that we can avoid being associated with abbasid all together... If only we had some representation in the staff to express the Persian sentiment towards islam and how today it has set us back centuries in terms of science, culture, and human rights...

 

[Krajzen]

I am sooo disappointed we once AGAIN got Achaemenid-based ancient Persia instead of Sasanians or Arsacids (Parthia) -_-

Especially the former had historical impact arguably comparable to Achaemenids, despite having conquered less territory (but lasted twice as long on the other hand)

I am also disappointed in general of this game's tendency to pick kinda "orthodox" leaders, who have already visited the series. Ashoka, Xerxes, Hatshepsut - we have seen them in civ3 and 4; and Augustus was even in civ5.
What's next, Prussia-based militarist Germany, 18th century expansionist Russia and Elizabeth leading England?

At least this time civs are limited to one of three eras, so we may get another incarnations of Persia (I hope), late civ6 has added non-Achaemenid leader for the first time ever...

 

[IPERSIAN]

I am sooo disappointed we once AGAIN got Achaemenid-based ancient Persia instead of Sasanians or Arsacids (Parthia) -_-

Especially the former had historical impact arguably comparable to Achaemenids, despite having conquered less territory (but lasted twice as long on the other hand)

@firaxis PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS MISTAKE AND REPLACE ABBASID WITH SASANIANS OR PARTHIANS!!!!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

@firaxis PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS MISTAKE AND REPLACE ABBASID WITH SASANIANS OR PARTHIANS!!!!

That's not a realistic request within the timeframe of release. It's been too late for that for months, if not longer.

 

[IPERSIAN]

That's not a realistic request within the timeframe of release. It's been too late for that for months, if not longer.

I should have been advocating!