pre-release info New First Look: Xerxes

[The Fanatical]

I think I found from where Xerxes's battle helmet is based from. I believe it's from a Greek vase depicting Darius III, I could be wrong, though.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

He clearly has a pangolin on his head.

 

[Atlas627]

Bias to start near camels is interesting to me for 2 reasons:

1. It might imply that camels are needed for camel units
2. If camels are usually found in the desert, this also represents a desert bias start

Edit:

3. If you evolve into this civ, does that mean camels might be generated near you that weren't there before?

1) No, they've said resources are not required to build units, just helpful.
2) Fair, but more specific, so if no camels spawn in the desert then they won't bother either.
3) That is possible!

I think it’s been confirmed already that strategic resources will not be required to produce UU’s.

Not just UUs, all units, afaik.

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?

Given that the Leaders are even more the face of the opponent than ever, and need a strong personality to be memorable in that way, isn't it more important than ever that the leaders be recognizable? And not having seen a leader since Civ4 sounds like plenty of time (20 years) since they've been in the game for it to feel fresh; are you just complaining that the series is very old?

 

[Morningcalm]

Interesting that they brought Xerxes back! I suppose he'll be portrayed as a villain, but I would be excited to see him deliver different lines with different personas (instead of simply delivering the same lines in different clothing). It would really add a burst of dynamism to the different personas.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

It was part of my goal to NOT have Xerxes simply be the version of a tyrant that Herodotus makes him out to be (or, for that matter, Snyder). I wanted a Persian version of Xerxes, not a Greek one.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It was part of my goal to NOT have Xerxes simply be the version of a tyrant that Herodotus makes him out to be (or, for that matter, Snyder). I wanted a Persian version of Xerxes, not a Greek one.

which is always very cool. the “good” persian king archetype is so often tied to cyrus that seeing it attached to xerxes is refreshing

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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

qajars are surely on the table for modern sooner or later

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

qajars are surely on the table for modern sooner or later

I think Safavids might be more likely. They were more contemporary with the Mughals.

 

[Morningcalm]

It was part of my goal to NOT have Xerxes simply be the version of a tyrant that Herodotus makes him out to be (or, for that matter, Snyder). I wanted a Persian version of Xerxes, not a Greek one.

I think it would be cool to see the Persian version of him as an attacking tyrant in personality and lines, dialogue, etc. and the more settled (defeated) version of him calmer, more interesting in economic specifics and wonders, etc. Will there be differences in lines and dialogue delivery between the personas?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

A sample of his speech. It seems to be the same line for both personae

 

[Kimiimaro]

qajars are surely on the table for modern sooner or later

My love for their art and architecture makes me wish culture-oriented modern Qajar Persia to happen... But I'm coming to terms with the Safavids being the more likely option, on the grounds of the Safavids being a considerably greater power in their time.

 

[AriochIV]

I'd be surprised if they had different voice lines for the personas. The whole point is to save money.

 

[j51]

It was part of my goal to NOT have Xerxes simply be the version of a tyrant that Herodotus makes him out to be (or, for that matter, Snyder). I wanted a Persian version of Xerxes, not a Greek one.

In that case thank you!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'd be surprised if they had different voice lines for the personas. The whole point is to save money.

Voice actors aren't paid by the line though, are they? They're paid for their time and I'm guessing there's a minimum fee to get them in the studio. How many lines can there possibly be? I can't image that adding some unique lines for the different personas would be much of a cost. Although I guess, since we're dealing with ancient languages, there's also other people's time involved as well, not just writers, but linguistics specialists.

Anyway, I would expect some lines to be the same between the two personas, but I'd be surprised to find out all the lines are the same. Especially core ones like initial greetings. That would seem like a lost opportunity to distinguish the two personas.

 

[gdr_willter]

Voice actors aren't paid by the line though, are they? They're paid for their time and I'm guessing there's a minimum fee to get them in the studio.

Case by case. It only depends on their exact contract.

 

[The Fanatical]

It was part of my goal to NOT have Xerxes simply be the version of a tyrant that Herodotus makes him out to be (or, for that matter, Snyder). I wanted a Persian version of Xerxes, not a Greek one.

We must not forget that this point of view isn't incorrect to the core. To the eyes of Herodotus and the Greeks (and the Egyptians and the Babylonians) that faced conquest and possible enslavement if their cities rejected submission, Xerxes I was a tyrant. But not to the eyes of the Persians and Medes who probably thought of him as a capable king that kept his empire stable, much like his predecessors. So, showing him through the eyes of his people rather than his enemies is the correct path.

 

[AriochIV]

Voice actors aren't paid by the line though, are they? They're paid for their time and I'm guessing there's a minimum fee to get them in the studio. How many lines can there possibly be? I can't image that adding some unique lines for the different personas would be much of a cost. Although I guess, since we're dealing with ancient languages, there's also other people's time involved as well, not just writers, but linguistics specialists.

If they were simply speaking English, I would agree with you, but in most of these leaders they are speaking an archaic language that has to be researched, and the voice actors have to be taught how to say the lines.

In Civ6 the majority of the leaders' lines aren't even voiced.

 

[Krajzen]

I think Safavids might be more likely. They were more contemporary with the Mughals.

My love for their art and architecture makes me wish culture-oriented modern Qajar Persia to happen... But I'm coming to terms with the Safavids being the more likely option, on the grounds of the Safavids being a considerably greater power in their time.

Safavids are imo much more likely on the grounds of, to be honest, having many achievements besides also displaying excellent art and architecture, such as actually being capable of winning wars

Safavids built widely respected state and are responsible for modern borders and incarnation of the concept of Iran, were capable of fighting like equals with Ottoman and Mughal empires at the peak of their power, and overall were not very badly behind the development level of their era. They were also capable of fighting off Portuguese and one of two Russian attempts at invasion (with the second one being fair fight).

Qajar era meanwhile is frankly fairly miserable for Iran outside artistic matters - almost every war they waged was a disaster, they were relentlessly bullied by colonial empires and lost crucial territories to them, failed all attempts at modernization, and were utterly powerless, non-industrialized paper tiger barely surviving as a buffer state between Russian and British interests. I'd honestly say their era was the most miserable in the Iranian history in terms of its international reputation and relative power. Say what you want about the Islamic Republic but it stubbornly holds out while being massive headache for many global powers and having medium, not terrible level of development.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

If they were simply speaking English, I would agree with you, but in most of these leaders they are speaking an archaic language that has to be researched, and the voice actors have to be taught how to say the lines.

In Civ6 the majority of the leaders' lines aren't even voiced.

I guess, although on the other hand if you've taken the time to teach them the vowel and consonant inflections of an ancient language, that sounds like it would take a long time, while adding a few more lines (except to the extent it introduces new things to learn) would be a smaller incremental cost. Even if its being done phonetically, I feel like there should be some efficiencies the more lines they do.

In any event, I can see why there would be some incremental cost (maybe large, maybe small) and therefore an economic reason for re-using lines between personas. I still hope, though, that there will be some lines that differ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

We must not forget that this point of view isn't incorrect to the core. To the eyes of Herodotus and the Greeks (and the Egyptians and the Babylonians) that faced conquest and possible enslavement if their cities rejected submission, Xerxes I was a tyrant. But not to the eyes of the Persians and Medes who probably thought of him as a capable king that kept his empire stable, much like his predecessors. So, showing him through the eyes of his people rather than his enemies is the correct path.

everyone in the ancient world is a tyrant by these standards