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

A Persian War scenario would be pretty sweet. Dare they have Xerxes lead Persia again?

Even if he isn't the leader of Persia in game, he could be in the Scenario regardless.
 
In a Persian Empire scenario you may get different factions of Persians to allow for more players. Given teams in MP have just been announced, that'd fit in quite nicely for Persia.
 
In NZ we also talk about the seasons beginning and ending in line with the months; but I'll bet scientists here still use the proper way that lines up with the solstices etc.

The proper scientific way to talk about the seasons would be the way metereologists talk about them, not the way astronomers talk about them. After all, the seasons are about what happens on earth, not what happens in sapce.
 
The proper scientific way to talk about the seasons would be the way metereologists talk about them, not the way astronomers talk about them. After all, the seasons are about what happens on earth, not what happens in sapce.
Months are based on phases of the moon and seasons are driven by the tilt of the Earth's axis and its revolution around the sun. So everything goes back to astronomy.
 
Macedonia is its own country now. Sparta isnt. There is always a chance that Alex is a 3rd Greece leader and that Madeconia being on the list as its own civ was an oopsie
 
The proper scientific way to talk about the seasons would be the way metereologists talk about them, not the way astronomers talk about them. After all, the seasons are about what happens on earth, not what happens in sapce.

Are you telling me that meteorologists are not scientists? :lol:
 
Good to see that they have their DLC planned out well before their patches.

There is a patch coming at the same time as Australia. I'm good with the idea that they can work on both at the same time.

Can you at least keep sourness like this away from a thread about DLC?? Please...
 
That makes no sense at all. Patches are for the most part balance changes and bugfixes, how you you plan those out? And even if they did, this in no way tells if they not also have patches "planned out" similar to DLCs.

No sense, all snark.
 
The proper scientific way to talk about the seasons would be the way metereologists talk about them, not the way astronomers talk about them. After all, the seasons are about what happens on earth, not what happens in sapce.


How do you figure? The seasons have to do with how long the days are, not what the weather is like. What happens on Earth is directly related to what happens in space.

Starting the "Season" on the beginning of the month is just convenient for the artificial human calendar--which is fine as long as you recognize that that is what you are doing.
 
So, if Macedonia and Persia are most likely to be the 2 civs from the next DLC, when is Isabella coming? Wasn't she leaked too?
 
So, if Macedonia and Persia are most likely to be the 2 civs from the next DLC, when is Isabella coming? Wasn't she leaked too?

Based on the file from whence that info came, Isabella might have been dropped at some point after the poster was made, since Australia is in that file too.
 
Based on the file from whence that info came, Isabella might have been dropped at some point after the poster was made, since Australia is in that file too

Looks like, poor Isabella, i miss her.
 
Months are based on phases of the moon and seasons are driven by the tilt of the Earth's axis and its revolution around the sun. So everything goes back to astronomy.

Months have since been decoupled from moon phases to instead follow the sun year, so they're now based on the duration of a year (365.24 days).
Seasons are driven by the tilt of the Earth's axis, it's revolution around the sun, etc etc etc, and, importantly, they're some one or two months behind the day times because all equilibriums gotta adjust. The visible part about seasons is what weather it actually is and wheter or not the trees have leaves.

So either you base the seasons on their cause, meaning that your sesaons are actually a bit behind on what's normal for the time of the year (are you telling me that early March is on average colder than early December? I don't think so), or you base the seasons on their effect, meaning you now have them in the most obvious way (stuff happens in the seasons that it's supposed to happen). Conveniently, the 1st of the month is also closer to the actual turnings of the seasons than the 21st of the months.

Are you telling me that meteorologists are not scientists? :lol:

The scientific name of alcohol is the name chemists use; ethanol. That sentence doesn't say that chemists aren't scientists.
 
People wouldn't like it if, say, Belgium and the Netherlands would be called the same, either. Kinda the same level of difference, only one is now and the other is 2300 years ago.

Excuse me for my ignorance, but wouldn't that be plausible under the Holy Roman Empire?
 
Top Bottom