Next DLC is a double civ pack, details 'in weeks to come'

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,207
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Now, I know I may seem a bit oversensitive or angry over this matter, especially when there's just a tiny proof of the presence of Macedonia in the game (as much as the "genoan" civ that has yet to appear), but I feel the urge to express my mind on the matter.
I'll be very very happy to see Persia, no doubt it, if it's true. About Macedonia, on the other hand ... I have the Deluxe version, so it's not like I had the choice to buy it or not, because if I had, I would only buy it if it was mandatory to have the persian civ.
For me, if one of the civs is really Macedonia, then I'll be angry, sad, furious, depressive, and so on. Macedonia is Greece-2. I know certainly many people will come at me stating that no, there's a nowadays country called Macedonia, that ancient Macedonia had Nothing to do with greeks, that Alexander should not be ruling greek civ because he was macedonian, ...
For me, that's either denial or over-nationalism. Ancient Macedonia was greek. And I'll develop my statement over five ways that show it : territorial, ethnological, linguistic, religious, and cultural.

What is nowadays Macedonia was occupied by the Kingdom of Paeonia, which happened to be a greek culture kingdom, before it was conquered by Philip II of Macedonia, that called it Paeonia Macedonia, and later was called by the romans as Upper Macedonia. However, while the former kingdom of Macedonia remained mostly of greek culture, being a thema of the Byzantine Empire, the "other" Macedonia was "slaved" when conquered by bulgarians, until both fell to Ottoman rule. So, both are different territorialy, despite being neighbours, but the Kingdom of Macedonia is clearly situated in nowadays Greece.

However, if the territory remains a "poor" argument to settle the debate, ethnology is another question. Today macedonians are Slav people that originally came from the north, more exactly in the 5th or 6th century, from the Danube, especially with the bulgars invasions and raids, while ancient macedonians were, as I previously said, greek. Which means that ethnology shows us that both people are completly different ethnologically different
What about the language then ? Well, as it was mentioned earlier, nowadays macedonians came from north, especially with the bulgar raids. Well, today's macedonian language is an indo-european language, and more exactly a meridional slavic language, a group which countains macedonian and bulgarian languages. Ancient macedonian was seen as either Greek division, a greek dialect, a different indo-european language with greek proximities, and even an illyrian or thracian language. Which means there's no continuity between the 2 languages at all. Also, the ruling macedonian elite spoke greek, as well as the Kings, and used the greek alphabet, which clearly shows their hellenophilia.

Now, of course we can not compare nowadays macedonian religion, which is a orthodox christianism, with the macedonian polytheism. However, we can compare religious practices from Ancient Macedonia and the "main" Greece to see if there were proximities, which in fact, there were. They prayed the same gods, while having, at some exceptions (but there were also religious différences between the greek city-states themselves ...). Which shows that ancient Macedonia was religiously close, to not to say the same, as the greeks.

Finally, culturally, ancient Macedonians identified themselves as greeks (as stated by Polybus). Herodotus and Thucydidus also viewed them as greeks. As said earlier, the elite spoke greek, and their armies fought in the greek way : with phalanxes (despite Philipp II improvements made later). They participated in the greek political affairs, such the Peloponese War, were part of the League of Corinth (which was made of Greeks states), and so on.

Basically, all that I have written was made for a single purpose : show that ancient Macedonia was greek, and has absolutly nothing to do with nowadays Macedonia. The only link between the 2 is the name, and that's it. If the choice of Macedonia really happens to be true, then, as I said earlier, I'll be terribly frustrated. I can handle more or less eurocentrism to an extent. But having Greece-2 may just be too much for me to bear ...

I agree with your general position that Macedonia in Alexanders day was Greek enough that there should not be any controversy over him ever being leader of the Greek Civilization. I'm sure we all know that technically Hitler wasn't German, Napoleon wasn't French, and Stalin wasn't Russian (well in the last case Georgians no doubt would utterly reject being Russian at all, unlike the first two ;) ). Yet Stalin has lead Russia and Napoleon has lead France, in more than one version of Civ.

Then it doesn't bother me if they did add Macedonia as a separate Civ with Alexander in charge either. Now that they're doing Brazil and Australia, who can complain too seriously? As long as the real heavy weights of world history do still get added in good time (by the first full expansion at the latest would be nice lol).
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
834
Location
Los Angeles
Alexander certainly spoke Greek, was culturally Greek (e.g., reading Homer, participating in Greek-style athletics, etc), and thought of himself as Greek. The effort to make a sharp divide between Macedonians and Greeks is modern nationalistic nonsense.

With that said, I don't mind having one Civ representing the city-states of Classical Greece under Pericles and Gorgo, and a separate Civ representing imperial, Hellenistic Greece under Alexander. It's fine with me to call this latter Civ Macedonia (as long as you are aware that Macedonians are Greeks). Alexander will obviously need a unique cavalry unit to represent his companions. A unit infantry unit for his Macedonian phalanx (quite different from the classical Greek hoplite) wouldn't be a bad idea either. Since Alexander himself was personally interested in the sciences (bringing along many scientists on his campaign), and since the Hellenistic Period that he ushered in saw a flourishing of science and philosophy, some sort of science based LUA might make sense. Maybe a science boost every time you found or conquer a city.

A DLC with Alexander and the Persians (under whom? Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes are all strong options) obviously makes sense. A Sassanian Persian leader like Sharpur or Khosrau would be fun.
 

nzcamel

Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,207
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Since Alexander himself was personally interested in the sciences (bringing along many scientists on his campaign), and since the Hellenistic Period that he ushered in saw a flourishing of science and philosophy, some sort of science based LUA might make sense. Maybe a science boost every time you found or conquer a city.

But only if you name them all Alexandria :lol:
 

Flak153

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
5
Hoplites wouldn't make sense for Alexander and nor would Plato's republic considering Alexander was a king, but then again Plato's republic doesn't make sense for Gorgo either
 

Eagle Pursuit

Scir-Gerefa
Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
16,505
Alexander certainly spoke Greek, was culturally Greek (e.g., reading Homer, participating in Greek-style athletics, etc), and thought of himself as Greek. The effort to make a sharp divide between Macedonians and Greeks is modern nationalistic nonsense.

With that said, I don't mind having one Civ representing the city-states of Classical Greece under Pericles and Gorgo, and a separate Civ representing imperial, Hellenistic Greece under Alexander. It's fine with me to call this latter Civ Macedonia (as long as you are aware that Macedonians are Greeks). Alexander will obviously need a unique cavalry unit to represent his companions. A unit infantry unit for his Macedonian phalanx (quite different from the classical Greek hoplite) wouldn't be a bad idea either. Since Alexander himself was personally interested in the sciences (bringing along many scientists on his campaign), and since the Hellenistic Period that he ushered in saw a flourishing of science and philosophy, some sort of science based LUA might make sense. Maybe a science boost every time you found or conquer a city.

A DLC with Alexander and the Persians (under whom? Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes are all strong options) obviously makes sense. A Sassanian Persian leader like Sharpur or Khosrau would be fun.

Yes. I had been fiddling around with how Macedonia would look. So far I've gotten this:
Macedonia
Leader: Alexander
UA: ???
LUA: Wise Counsel: +X% Great Generals and Great Scientists points, plus Companion Cavalry unit: Horseback Riding tech, Heavy Cavalry class, Great Generals have greater effect on them
UU: Phalanx: anti-cavalry class, Ironworking tech, extra strength on defense
UI: Olive Press: replaces Granary, awards amenities for each 2 bonus resources
AI Agenda: Conqueror of the Known World: hates civs near him and wants sole possession of his landmass
 

UkrNixon

Warlord
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
184
Location
Ukraine
I just can't understand their reasoning for adding Macedonia as a separate civ from Greece. I mean, they already de-blobbed Greece by adding multiple leaders to it, and making those leaders have their own capitals and colors. Why not make Alexander a third Greek leader instead of wasting another civ slot for Greece 2.0? Why, Firaxis?
Well, at least we are finally getting Persia :crazyeye:
 

Arent11

King
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
996
I like how everybody has basically already moved on from Australia before its even released and is now focusing on the actual balance patch and this DLC.

To be honest, I am waiting for a pure science civ. And I also don't like these weird 'conditional' advantages that force a certain play style on you.
 

Leyrann

Deity
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
4,371
Location
Netherlands
I just can't understand their reasoning for adding Macedonia as a separate civ from Greece. I mean, they already de-blobbed Greece by adding multiple leaders to it, and making those leaders have their own capitals and colors. Why not make Alexander a third Greek leader instead of wasting another civ slot for Greece 2.0? Why, Firaxis?
Well, at least we are finally getting Persia :crazyeye:

Have to agree that I feel like Greece is really over-represented in the game if they add in Alexander too.

That said, it would allow for an awesome Alexander-themed scenario.
 

altayrneto

Prince
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
329
Location
Terra Brasilis
I already have accepted Macedonia and Alexander (Even being too early for him to appear in the game and unnecessary to have a Macedonian civ...). Anyway, and about Persia? I know it's already one of the most claimed civs, but what do you expect from Persia? Another Achaemenid leader, like Cyrus or Xerxes, a Sassanid one, like Shapur I, or a muslin one, like Nader Shah? I just hope that isn't Darius III...
 

Leyrann

Deity
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
4,371
Location
Netherlands
I would expect it to be a Persian leader from classical times. As far as I'm aware, that was when Persia was at it's mightiest. there's several big names out there, like Darius, Cyrus and Xerxes, as you mentioned. That said, Civ 6 leaders have been full of surprises, so who knows?
 

MadDjinn

Deity
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
4,554
Alexander certainly spoke Greek, was culturally Greek (e.g., reading Homer, participating in Greek-style athletics, etc), and thought of himself as Greek. The effort to make a sharp divide between Macedonians and Greeks is modern nationalistic nonsense.

Well, not really on the 'modern' side of things.

The Greeks in the League didn't believe he was 'Greek' and basically had to be told to be quiet as someone made up a backstory about his relation to the Greek Pantheon. He got 'hellenized' because they got beat down and couldn't bear to write (later) that they got conquered by non-hellens. If you weren't hellenic, you were a barbarian.

:mischief:
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
834
Location
Los Angeles
Well, not really on the 'modern' side of things.

The Greeks in the League didn't believe he was 'Greek' and basically had to be told to be quiet as someone made up a backstory about his relation to the Greek Pantheon. He got 'hellenized' because they got beat down and couldn't bear to write (later) that they got conquered by non-hellens. If you weren't hellenic, you were a barbarian.

:mischief:

No, Alexander was not retrospectively hellenized. We have a great deal of information about his life and the life of the Macedonian aristocracy during this time. They spoke Greek, participated in panhellenic athletic competitions and religious events, and worshiped Greek gods in a Greek way. They were Greek. Among professional classicists this is not really a dispute any longer.

You can find Greek authors describing the Macedonians as Greeks as far back as Hesiod and Herodotus--centuries before Alexander. Also, the linguistic evidence is incontrovertible that the Macedonians spoke a Hellenistic language. The Macedonians were indeed regarded by southern Greeks as rustic and primitive, but that does not mean they were not Greek (consider here that the Epirotes and Aitolians, universally agreed to be Greeks, had similar reputations.)
 

Futumch

Calm as a Coma
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Messages
782
Location
142 E 42 S
@Eagle Pursuit :

There's references to "Golden Horde Scenario" in the GameEffects.xml file:
Code:
        -->
        <Row Type="REQUIREMENT_PLAYER_HAS_MOST_PROMOTION_CLASS" Kind="KIND_REQUIREMENT"/>
        <!-- Golden Horde Scenario Victory requirement
            Triggers if the player has the highest number of Victory Points. Ties are resolved based on civilization score.
            1 Victory Point for every barbarian killed.
            3 Victory Points for every barbarian camp cleared.
            5 Victory Points for every unpillaged improvement in your territory.
        -->

There is also a localisation file in the text/en_US folder (where all the translations of game terms live). Relevant quote is here:

Survive overwhelming waves of barbarians in this combat-focused scenario set in the Classic Era. Lasts 30 Turns.
Victory Conditions
At the turn limit, victory is awarded to the player with the most Victory Points. Ties are resolved based on civilization score.

  • 1 Victory Point for every barbarian killed.
  • 3 Victory Points for every barbarian camp cleared.
  • 5 Victory Points for every unpillaged improvement in your territory.
Gameplay Changes

  • Barbarians are more plentiful.
  • Barbarians are more aggressive.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
987
Location
You know that place by the other place...
I think we are finally going to get Hitler. What? It could happen. Sid Meier has called Beach and said he's cool with it... he's decided that being a Canadian, he should endorse good 'ol Dolf since we respect all leaders no matter how deplorable, hey Justin even shook Trump's hand.
 

Futumch

Calm as a Coma
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Messages
782
Location
142 E 42 S
I think we are finally going to get Hitler. What? It could happen. Sid Meier has called Beach and said he's cool with it... he's decided that being a Canadian, he should endorse good 'ol Dolf since we respect all leaders no matter how deplorable, hey Justin even shook Trump's hand.
Well their civilisation icon should be pretty easy to work out, although it would have to be modified for release in Germany.
Considering Stalin was used for Russia in the first Civ, it's not a stretch to have another mass-murdering looney at the helm of a civ. When you think about it, a good number of the leaders have blood on their hands.

Come to think about it, Israel as a civ would be feasable, surely? They were pretty potent back in the BC days, although they were the punching bag for the Egyptians and the Babylonians at various times.
 

CivLuvah

Deity
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
2,136
Location
From Philippines, now Canada
@Eagle Pursuit :

There's references to "Golden Horde Scenario" in the GameEffects.xml file:
Code:
        -->
        <Row Type="REQUIREMENT_PLAYER_HAS_MOST_PROMOTION_CLASS" Kind="KIND_REQUIREMENT"/>
        <!-- Golden Horde Scenario Victory requirement
            Triggers if the player has the highest number of Victory Points. Ties are resolved based on civilization score.
            1 Victory Point for every barbarian killed.
            3 Victory Points for every barbarian camp cleared.
            5 Victory Points for every unpillaged improvement in your territory.
        -->

There is also a localisation file in the text/en_US folder (where all the translations of game terms live). Relevant quote is here:

Survive overwhelming waves of barbarians in this combat-focused scenario set in the Classic Era. Lasts 30 Turns.
Victory Conditions
At the turn limit, victory is awarded to the player with the most Victory Points. Ties are resolved based on civilization score.

  • 1 Victory Point for every barbarian killed.
  • 3 Victory Points for every barbarian camp cleared.
  • 5 Victory Points for every unpillaged improvement in your territory.
Gameplay Changes

  • Barbarians are more plentiful.
  • Barbarians are more aggressive.

Mongols?
 

Eagle Pursuit

Scir-Gerefa
Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
16,505
@Eagle Pursuit :

There's references to "Golden Horde Scenario" in the GameEffects.xml file:
Code:
        -->
        <Row Type="REQUIREMENT_PLAYER_HAS_MOST_PROMOTION_CLASS" Kind="KIND_REQUIREMENT"/>
        <!-- Golden Horde Scenario Victory requirement
            Triggers if the player has the highest number of Victory Points. Ties are resolved based on civilization score.
            1 Victory Point for every barbarian killed.
            3 Victory Points for every barbarian camp cleared.
            5 Victory Points for every unpillaged improvement in your territory.
        -->

There is also a localisation file in the text/en_US folder (where all the translations of game terms live). Relevant quote is here:

Survive overwhelming waves of barbarians in this combat-focused scenario set in the Classic Era. Lasts 30 Turns.
Victory Conditions
At the turn limit, victory is awarded to the player with the most Victory Points. Ties are resolved based on civilization score.

  • 1 Victory Point for every barbarian killed.
  • 3 Victory Points for every barbarian camp cleared.
  • 5 Victory Points for every unpillaged improvement in your territory.
Gameplay Changes

  • Barbarians are more plentiful.
  • Barbarians are more aggressive.

It doesn't really indicate Mongols like the title implies. It sounds like it revolves around surviving a generic barbarian onslaught.
 

CivLuvah

Deity
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
2,136
Location
From Philippines, now Canada
It doesn't really indicate Mongols like the title implies. It sounds like it revolves around surviving a generic barbarian onslaught.

But a scenario implies that there would be a civilization that would complement with the circumstances of said scenario. The Outback Tycoon scenario, for instance, needed Australia to be introduced into the game if it's going to work. So I assumed that a new civilization needed to be introduced that would come with the scenario.
 
Top Bottom