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

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

You mean that they were both part of the Holy Roman Empire? They've even been one country just together, from 1815 to 1830 (1839 if you ask King William I). My point is that they are (or on the case of Macedonia and Greece, were) different people, who also consider themselves different.
 
The scientific name of alcohol is the name chemists use; ethanol. That sentence doesn't say that chemists aren't scientists.

Alcohol is a organic compound that has an -OH bonded to a carbon atom. Ethyl Alcohol is just one type.
 
Alcohol is a organic compound that has an -OH bonded to a carbon atom. Ethyl Alcohol is just one type.

Which is why referring to ethanol as alcohol is really just super unclear. (in any scientific context, at least; if you're talking about beer everyone knows what you mean)
 
And the seasons are still dictated by the earth's position around the sun, and the tilt; and nothing to do with the beginning and ending of months :p nor weather while we are at it!
(Yes, there is certain weather you expect to see more/less of in a given season. But weather does not change the start or finish of a season even if it can feel that way to us.)

Using the month beginning & endings as an easy to follow reference is fine. I do so myself. But I'll never pretend that surplants the real determinents.
 
In terms of fleshing out real world territory, I'd like to see a South American civ, and probably an African civ, as part of this DLC. The Civ itself is pretty meaningless to me, I'm more concerned about the gameplay of each.
 
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

If ever Macedonia would be its own civ with Alexander as its leader, be prepared for a flame war between Macedonians and Greeks over this. :p
 
Wow, i love when a thread about DLCs transforms into historical debate and a "What?" debate about meteorologists
:) And this is why Australia just links seasons to the months. Go simple solutions!

On topic though, assuming it is going to be Macedonia and Persia (and unless they're playing a massive joke I'm pretty convinced that it is) it will certainly make Greece in TSL an absolute bunfight right from turn one. How will Democracy go when Pericles has both Gorgo and Alex bearing down on him…
 
How I interpret this whole situation:

Community: Firaxis why is the Civ VI roster so Eurocentric? Pls give us Ottoman, Persia or Mongols
Firaxis: Moar europ? ok here u go guyz heres Poland
Community: Wtf Firaxis no, no we don't want another Moderator Action: <snip> European country pls just give us anything other than Europe
Firaxis: Okie, we listen to community, we good guyz, we give u Australia
Community: Goddamnit Firaxis thats still a Europan colony, its barely a century old, give us the big boyz from actual Moderator Action: <snip> history. PLEASEEEE
Firaxis: Ok ok, we sorry guyz, ur right, we give u the kool civ, the historical one, the one in most demand, da best, the legend itself.
*Releases Macedonia*
Community: Moderator Action: <snip> Firaxis

Well on the plus side, as least there are signs of Persia getting out soon.

Moderator Action: Please review site rules regarding use of inappropriate language -- Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty sure it is only a small slice of the Civ community that are hung up on "cultural" diversity above all else.
I can't wait to see just how they do release those heavies (Ottomans, Persia, & Mongols) though, as they are putting a tonne of thought into each civ so far :D
 
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 ...
 
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 what you've written.

Let's just hope it's not Alexander who's going to be in the DLC
 
I agree with what you've written.

Let's just hope it's not Alexander who's going to be in the DLC

Well yes, we have sort of taken it for granted that this potential Macedonian civ would have Alexander as its leader. I'm not an expert on the area's history like some here, are there no other notable Macedonians that could take up the mantle?
 
Well, it's not going to be Phillip II. We already have one of those.

Game might crash if we have both. lel

Nope, no other notable ancient Macedonian leaders. Unless they surprise us with a medieval Slavic Macedonian leader, which, from my knowledge is near implausible, since Macedonia didn't exist as an entity during that period.
 
Last edited:
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 ...

The issue of how finely you split a civ is a matter of taste.

You could make Catherine and Isabella different leaders of a "Romanic" civ with Trajan and Roosevelt and Curtin leaders of an "Anglic" civ with Victoria...
Or you could make Victoria lead a British civ, get Henry VIII to lead an English civ, and have Jefferson lead a Virginia Civ, and Lincoln lead an Illinois civ
 
Well, it's not going to be Phillip II. We already have one of those.

But that could be the basis for his fixed agenda - "Does not like Leaders with the same name as him. Will try to make other leaders change their names to be as different as possible" :crazyeye:
 
There was also files with a Golden Horde Scenario. Potential Civ as well, which is awesome. Plus I enjoy eu4 so it definitely will be exciting.
 
Last edited:
I hope they have Philip II lead Macedon and Cyrus the Great lead Persia just to be unexpected (Also I'm going to need a mod that renames Greece and Greece to Athens and Sparta)
 
Top Bottom