Next Sneak Peak

Status
Not open for further replies.
A funky looking cat, a blacksmith forging an arrow, and an archer with a recurve bow.

It's the Mongols.

Genghis Khan was buried with 6 cats.

His given name Timujin means blacksmith.

Mongols used recurve bows.

Whoop whoop!! :woohoo:


That is freaken adorable :mischief:

So the one sour point in all of this is that this will be the last FL for several weeks, given the holidays. :(

I suspect they'll continue to post first looks throughout the holidays. Maybe just a wonder movie or something Christmas week; but in 2017 it isn't that much work to keep premade content coming out on Youtube.

I see nobody in flames. But hey, we can always ask the Hound...

I see Russia, n China, n the Middle East in flames :devil:

...and over mountains.

Just not over Everest...
 
I have long been a fan of the awesome Pallas cat, but did not know until now that they had anything to do with Mongolia. Whoever said Civ wasn't educational? ;)
 
Their bows weren't the only brilliant thing that Temujin brought in, though. His military tactics were highly advanced, & they used silk under their armour, as it would wrap around an arrowhead as it entered the body, making it easier to remove the arrow without killing the victim.

100%
 
Again, it would be pretty straightforward: include Persia (and some second leader), but not Cyrus, with the expansion. Persia is subsequently available to either owners of the DLC or owners of the expansion; owners of the expansion get the new leader only, owners of the DLC get Cyrus only, and owners of both get both. In this scenario, it's not an expansion bonus only for people with the DLC, nor does it leave people who bought the DLC completely screwed over since they still have a unique leader.

It's not a good situation for them to be in, especially since IIRC it was paired with Macedon of all things, and as a result I wouldn't expect it to happen if they intend to sell more DLC -- however, it's still a 'fairer' solution than simply including a DLC civ with an expansion, which I believe they have outright done before.

There's precedent, given that they treated Spain the same way (and made it difficult to get the Inca as a result) in a Civ V expansion - but that wasn't well-received at least here so I'd be surprised if they took that approach again without adding Macedon as a 'free' additional civ. We also have the Apadana highlighted as a 'new' Wonder for the expansion in the stream.

The latter may mean nothing - we also saw Angkor Wat in the stream if I recall correctly, but they could easily have been using a version of the game that included DLC content, and they didn't specifically call out Angkor.
 
Not many ethnicities have an archery technique named after them.
Well, it's typically just called a "thumb draw," because the Mongolians weren't the only ones to use it--some groups in the Americas, with no prior contact with Genghis' horde, also used it, for example. :p Also, I can think of at least one other that's probably more widely known: the Parthian shot. (I still think that if the devs wanted Iranian horse raiders, they should have gone with Parthia/Arsacids rather than Scythia.)
 
Well, it's typically just called a "thumb draw," because the Mongolians weren't the only ones to use it--some groups in the Americas, with no prior contact with Genghis' horde, also used it, for example. :p Also, I can think of at least one other that's probably more widely known: the Parthian shot. (I still think that if the devs wanted Iranian horse raiders, they should have gone with Parthia/Arsacids rather than Scythia.)
Well, the thumb draw is endemic to central Asia so it's not a stretch to think it was brought to the Americas from Asia. The most convenient answer is that tomorrow will be the Mongols of course, mostly because of a cat of all things.
 
Well, the thumb draw is endemic to central Asia so it's not a stretch to think it was brought to the Americas from Asia. The most convenient answer is that tomorrow will be the Mongols of course, mostly because of a cat of all things.
It is a stretch because the bow wasn't invented yet when the Native Americans arrived in North America--it was independently invented in the Americas (quite late in some regions, like the PNW, where even into historic times spears and clubs were still preferred over bows).
 
It is a stretch because the bow wasn't invented yet when the Native Americans arrived in North America--it was independently invented in the Americas (quite late in some regions, like the PNW, where even into historic times spears and clubs were still preferred over bows).
When you think about it, it is really cool and interesting that many civilisations developed very similar technology, even when those civilisations are oceans apart.
 
It is a stretch because the bow wasn't invented yet when the Native Americans arrived in North America--it was independently invented in the Americas (quite late in some regions, like the PNW, where even into historic times spears and clubs were still preferred over bows).
As I understand, the mainstream theory is - bows came to America through Alaska and thus they are of asian origins. Although we don't have info about the actual draw used.
 
When you think about it, it is really cool and interesting that many civilisations developed very similar technology, even when those civilisations are oceans apart.

Physics being physics, there are a finite number of ways to propel a lethal projectile at a safe range accurately. Given an extended period of time, all the disparate groups on earth should be able to discover them without copying.
 
As I understand, the mainstream theory is - bows came to America through Alaska and thus they are of asian origins. Although we don't have info about the actual draw used.
Who would have brought them, though? Because archaeological evidence suggests the Paleoindians didn't have bows when they first arrived, which means that it would have had to be either the Na-Dene or the Eskimo-Aleuts. The problem with that theory, though, is that there were certainly bows in the New World before the Eskimo-Aleuts or the Na-Dene arrived. Occam's razor is certainly in favor of the independent invention of the bow by Paleoindians in the New World, who later introduced the invention to the Na-Dene. (The Eskimo-Aleuts probably did indeed bring the bow with them from Siberia.)
 
Who would have brought them, though? Because archaeological evidence suggests the Paleoindians didn't have bows when they first arrived, which means that it would have had to be either the Na-Dene or the Eskimo-Aleuts. The problem with that theory, though, is that there were certainly bows in the New World before the Eskimo-Aleuts or the Na-Dene arrived. Occam's razor is certainly in favor of the independent invention of the bow by Paleoindians in the New World, who later introduced the invention to the Na-Dene. (The Eskimo-Aleuts probably did indeed bring the bow with them from Siberia.)

Earliest known arrows in America are found in Alaska with dates around 10000-8000BC. That's just around time of first Aleuts coming to NA.
 
Last edited:
Now... If the leader is really Genghis Khan, I wonder what his agenda could be. We still lack a leader that likes, when you conquer cities.

Maybe something like, "Respects leaders who have upgraded the Castellan governor many times and obtained many great generals. Dislikes leaders who have not recruited the Castellan governor or obtained any great generals."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom