Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Feb 6, 2019.
And, in 1456, Mehmed II followed those roads to his new, glorious capital!
Agree about Assyria, seems to be the best option, Babylon is too close to Sumer. I like Hittites but they would be close to Ottoman and Georgia. Judea could be interesting but could bring some polemics.
Bulgarian Orthodox Church have pretty similar chants.
Similar case with Tibet, they could have amazing chanting, maybe Bhutan could remplace them.
I always hate to just shoot options down, but Bhutan really feels deserving of a city state at most. And even then I think Nepal would be the better choice as a Tibet stand in.
A staunchly-Hindu kingdom ruled by one of most fierce and notorious warrior dynasties of the foothills of the Himalayas as a TIBET stand-in?
Okay I admit that was poor wording on my part. I was more saying based on a Himalayan civ rather than a Buddhist civ.
I don't have any particular thoughts because I haven't heard of them. You may have misspelled their name though because I did found an elaborate page on the (Ba)Ganda people of the Buganda kingdom in Uganda?
If Firaxis can distill them into an interesting civ, sure why not? Africa is a grateful continent, like North America, where you have more leniency to make obscure picks. Firaxis made the Shoshone and Songhai work. I'm sure they can do extend the same courtesy to any tribe with a distinct culture.
The Hittites are perfectly feasable on their own. The related Luwians and Hurrians were the first to master Iron Working (which can translate itself in greater resource stockpiles, science from strategic resources, Eureka's or free units each time they hook up a new resource, etc). They can have a unique district that replaces the IZ and comes earlier + a unique chariot in the Mesedi. They can have a warmongering leader such as Suppiluliumas but also have two leaders options (Telepinu and Puduhepa) who can provide a different spin on the already rampant warmonger civs. (By generating fewer grievances or by getting bonus DipFav from signing peace deals). Hattusa can easily be replaced by Washukanni (capital of the Mitanni) in game.
Likewise Babylon can function differently from CIv 6 Sumer because Civ 6 Sumer is a mythological civ, not a historical one.
Sorry, for that. Bantu grammar. In Luganda, their language, they are the Baganda and there kingdom is Buganda. But in Indo-European linguistic grammar, they would be the Ganda. It's just that I first learned about them, and several other Bantu ethnicities in the African Great Lakes Region, in any detail from a friend who was a naturalized citizen from the region and spoke several regional Bantu languages (including one as his mother tongue) fluently.
I've been thinking of making the Babylonians sort of a builder Civ (their capital housed two world wonders (if you count their walls, which were considered a world wonder in the ancient times) and I believe it was the largest city in the world for some time) and have Nebuchadnezzar II as their leader with ability to move the population that would otherwise be lost when you conquer a city transferred to your existing cities. Something he did with the Jews of Jerusalem when he moved them to Babylon. We already have the Ottomans having a mechanic working with the population loss through conquests, so I believe it should be possible to make. I believe that would make them distinct enough from Sumer.
As for the Babylon city-state, I could easily imagine replacing it with Nineveh and even keeping its current suzerain bonus.
I had something similar in mind to make it work where instead of having just an alternate leader it would feel like more like playing a different Civ altogether.
I had in mind of keeping the Legion and Bath but making the alt leader, either Justinian, Constantine, Theodora etc. give a completely new UA as well as part of their own UA. Call it "New Rome" and let that ability add another UU (Dromon) or UB (Basilica, Hippodrome).
On a separate note that would be a nice tie in to the separation of leaders on the gossip screen if multiple leaders of the same Civ are in the game or just call them that in general.
Athenian Greece and Spartan Greece
India and Maurya India
Angevin England and Angevin France as opposed to England and France
Then we could have Rome and Eastern Rome.
Constantine the Great wouldn't be that bad choice for a Roman leader, but the only thing that makes him connected to Byzantium is, in my opinion, the fact that he founded Constantinople (or, well, rebuilt and renamed the already existing town of Byzantion). He was a sole leader of the Roman Empire, and still much more of an Imperial Roman leader than a Byzantine/Eastern Roman one. And Imperial Rome is a period that is already perfectly captured by Trajan, one of the best emperors in Roman history.
Now, Justinian and Theodora have been around for three games already. Justinian may be a very notable Emperor and Theodora a capable co-ruler, but heck, let's not pretend that their era is the only glorious and worthy period in some 1000 years of history that Eastern Rome/Byzantine Empire has to offer. They weren't flawless, either. While I do not deny their reign bringing many things (Hagia Sophia, Corpus iuris civilis, conquests, defeat of Níká riot), but let's not forget that Justinian had full treasury in the beginning, a luxury many of later Byzantine Empire didn't have the luck to begin with, was disliked by his people, his campaigns were mostly succesful thanks to having Belisarius and Narses around and that his famous conquests had a little unfortunate side effect - they managed to make the Empire as rich as Eastern Rome ruined financially. I think emperors who had to fight against great problems during their time and being successful, even leaving the empire stronger and with full treasury would be nice. For this, Basil II Bulgaroktonos (peak of after-Justinian Byzantium) and the first three Komnenoi emperors (Alexios I, Ioannes II and Manuel I) are ideal choices. I wouldn't even mind Michael VIII Palaiologos, who managed to restore Byzantine after it was wiped out of the world map by the Fourth Crusade.
And if we really need an "early" Byzantine/Eastern Roman emperor, we could go with Heraclius this time. Yes, I am aware that during his reign, the Arabian expansion robbed the Byzantines of the riches of Levant and Egypt, but it wasn't his fault that the Muslims came when the Empire was exhausted by twenty six years of war against Sassanid Persia. Thanks to him, the war ended in the first place, with the Byzantine borders surviving the war intact despite the fact that the Sassanids occupied most of Byzantine lands in the East and even reached Constantinople, and unlike the Sassanid Empire, the Byzantine Empire didn't collapse entirely to Arabian expansions, but actually managed to live (and sometimes even thrive) for more some 800 following years.
There are great possibilities Byzantium has to offer, and I feel like they are better to be explored through a standalone Civ rather than through an alternate leader of Rome.
And, as I said, I want Byzantine chants back. Give me them space dromons, Varangoi and kataphraktoi!
I understand the importance, achievements and particular identity of Byzantium beyond Rome. Of course they would be way better represented by their own separated civ.
Also dont want to sound like I dont want to have Byzantines, personally even if they leave out Portuguese or any other civs I would be OK with it. Just want to use Byzantines to point how other "ignored" civs could have the same place.
- Bulgarian Orthodox Church is based on Byzantine one, that is why the similar chant style.
- Dromon like galley could be an Italian UU. There are also unique ships from all around, like the chinese "Treasure Ship" and "Paddle-Wheel" boats.
- Varanginians, there are many "martial races" that works like guards or mercenary of other empires. Even Bulgarians could use Cumans as their equivalent.
- Cataphract, they are an Iranian invention, why not a second persian leader (or new civ) with them? The Jurchen/Manchu had the "Iron Pagodas", pretty similar to Cataphacts. I mean CIV could repeat one time after other that they are Byzantine, but the true is that their equivalent are all around Eurasia.
So, again, I dont want to say that Byzantines are not different or relevant. Even, I could expect many disillusioned people if they dont make on game. But my point is not to make people sad or angry, just to show that are other regions that allways get less that they could have, and that their design could be used on many others.
Similar case the North American natives. North America is a huge place. Sure it is. But also are South America and Siberia. Just Mesoamerica had >3 times and SA 5 times the native population of NA. Also one of the reasons USA is now the superpower was that NA natives were easy prey for them, most NA would be better as "free real estate" to represent USA expansionism. But CIV devs prefer to yield the slot of proper civilizations with cities and armies to make "cowboys vs indians" looks like something relevant. Same with Zulu, they do something great for sure, but why they should be compulsory? There are many more options on Africa.
If they leave out Byzantium (something that I doubt), people should not blame Bulgaria or Manchu, they must look to Cree or Canada.
Good for him that he delayed three years, since when it fell to him in May 1453 it was a little the worse for wear due to the attentions of a Hungarian-sourced Bombard. 'Glorious' had to wait on a little rebuilding . . .
Wouldn't mind a second Persian Leader, but Kataphraktoi are not an Iranian or Persian "invention". The first mention of them is the Scythian Massegetai contingent in Darius' army at Gaugamela, who are described as "men and horses armored head to foot" - the later Sassanids adopted the heavy scale or mail armor and armored horses from their Scythian neighbors. Similar armored lancers were also used by the Sarmatians, Visigoths, Jurchen, Tang Chinese, etc. but none of them predate the Scythians in 332 BCE, as far as I know.
The Persians were famous for the Cataphractii and Clibanarii heavily-armored cavalry, but the Byzantine 'Cataphracts' did not have heavily-armored horses but did have both bows and lances, so posed a multiple threat of ranged fire and Knight-Like charge in a single 'Unit'. It's that multiple-threat capability in a single Unit that is the characteristic of the Byzantine Army at its best. The Tagmatic infantry were similar: spearmen with armor and a heavy shield who also carried a long sword and so, in game terms, combined the aspects of both Spearmen and Melee Swordsmen.
In short, properly designed, the Byzantines could field some very different and interesting military UUs.
This is pretty much all incorrect. The latest estimate for the population of Pre-Columbian North America is 30 - 50,000,000, and eye-witness accounts from the first Europeans to see the New England coast and the length of the Mississippi River describe both of them as virtually solid with villages. The western plains/prairie was relatively lightly populated, because the population was pastoral hunters and not agricultural, but that was also true of the central Eurasian steppes. The natives of the 'eastern woodlands' of North America (basically, everything east of the Mississippi River) had agriculture, a dense village-settled population, and were manipulating and cultivating the forests in ways the Europeans didn't even recognize.
The 'emptiness' of North America occurred because the native population was hugely susceptible to diseases that the Europeans brought. Not only smallpox, but also measles and other epidemic diseases to which they had no immunity and which caused up to 90% mortality. It is now estimated that up to 1/5 of the World's human population died in the Americas as a result of the sudden introduction of new diseases.
See Charles Mann's books 1491 and 1493 for a good discussion of the disease factor in the Americas with references to the scientific/anthropological/medical studies.
Scythians and Sarmatians are Iranian peoples. Nomads from the north, but still Iranians. So since Scythia is already on game the unit would be for one of the many Persian dynasties that used them.
Persian and Manchus (between others) also did use of bows, crossbow, lances, swords and dismount combat. Being the in game combat highly abstractified, I dont see why similar units can not do a similar role. This is not Total War is CIV.
- The first think that Mann did was said that he would not put numbers because was a very difficult topic. He was about the native societies and their impact on the environment.
- You are giving me "high counter" numbers (pretty high ones), and just from NA. I never put the number of people. But, the proportion of NA to CA and SA.
- Of course most native on NA died from disease. Something that the game lack, even being really relevant not just for America/Eurasia relation, but also for Africa/Eurasia one.
- Most of the history we know and the interaction of NA natives with RTW was after their demise by disease. So the simulation of that become irrelevant. USA and Canada interacted with the post disease natives not the pre-disease. So the result is still Americans rolling over them.
- Still, Central and South America had more advanced civilizations, proper cities, recorded history, armies and interaction with RTW when diseases were expanding.
- You can see on Mann maps that SA agriculture regions is way bigger than east USA. So where are the Tupi, Carib, Ge or Arawak civ? Why not Chichimecs who caused so many problems to Spaniards and Mesoamericans?
- Guarani is the official language on Paraguay, even people that dont look native have it as their first language. The proper Guarani had interaction with Inca, Spaniards and Portuguese. Why not them?
It seems to me if we're changing the unique unit, changing the unique district, and renaming the civ ability, what we end up with looks a whole lot more like a different civ than an alt leader.
The vast majority of the Byzantium discussion on here seems to be centered on whether they should be combined as a civ with Rome (which then usually devolves into comparing the relationship between Byzantium and Rome to those between other civs, included in the game or otherwise), or whether it would be possible to create an effective dual Rome/Byzantium civ that would capture the essence of both effectively. Those are both fine questions to debate, and it's very understandable why they'd come up with (likely) only 8 more civs to come and each slot being precious.
However, it seems pretty clear to me that whatever the merits of the idea, the design of Rome in VI isn't intended to reflect the later Eastern empire, which would mean that combining Byzantium and Rome wasn't the original plan when vanilla came out. Plans can always change, but I doubt that the devs lacked an idea of what they were doing with each of the staples when the cycle for VI began.
You are probably right. I think so. Almost sure Byzantines would be their own civ.
That is the saddest part for me. Because devs decided since the beginning that Anglo and Greco centric history should have a higher degree of detail, meanwhile RTW would be generalized.
Although, to be pedantic, modern geographers include what are today Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean Islands as part of the continent of North American geographically, including the old Mesoamerican cultural region, and North and South America properly in the Western Hemisphere. Thus it's impossible for Mesoamerica to have had "3 times as many people as North America," statistically speaking.
They're "Iranic" people, not specifically "Iranians." That's like saying Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, England, the English-speaking, British-colonial-founded United States, Canada, and Australia, are redundant directly with Germany in the same way...
I'm afraid you responded to the least serious part of my last comment here I mentioned space Dromons, Varangoi and Kataphraktoi with connection to music, as people of YouTube usually do in comments under about every atomic theme (space legions, pyramids flying in space, etc.) The main topic I was discussing in my comment was leader selection.
Anyway, for the Kataphraktoi, I once said that I am aware that they were used far and wide, but since there is no Civ using them right now, so I think Byzantines could take them, unless Persia gets a Sassanid alt-leader (Khosrow would be nice, while we're at it. I don't care whether Khosrow I or Khosrow II, both were among the greatest Shahanshahs and were warrior enough for them to get a unique leader unit - one defeating most of his enemies and successfully squeezing money out of Justinian in exchange for peace (and not just once), the other managing to push Byzantines all the way to Constantinople before Heraclius turned the tables. I wouldn't go for Khosrow III though ).
On Australia or Canada, yes, I would blame. On Cree, not so much. Let's not forget that Civ is a game where you can forget what happened in real history while playing because you have immortal leaders, everyone beginning from the same point of history with completely ahistorical neighbours. You can see Brazil charching their Knights deep into rainforests of Kongo while having seen Chandragupta trample the Americans under war elephants and with the game ending with Phoenicia bombarding the snot out of their Inca neighbours before Persia dropping a nuke on them both.
It's about A, filling the geographical gap. I shouldn't complain about Australia or Canada here. But it's also about B, trying to keep some variety when coming to cultures. And three nations directly branching out of British Empire, not one of them having more than 300 years of independent history, then the British Empire itself represented by Victoria, and then Gandhi, who comes from historical era tied to the British Empire, too, is something I fail to see large variety and cultural richness in. The Cree do offer this, and even though I am aware that North American natives weren't as influental as their counterparts in Mexico and South America, they are still rich when it comes to variety in cultures, livestyles and languages, and having one or two of them in game is something I can tolerate, and, to be honest, even support. Having three colonial nations tied to one country, with the home country being in game, too, not so much.
^ This appears like a great argument but there's also a counter argument. While we have a British civ + Off-shoots, we must also be aware that we also already have Athenian Greece, Spartan Greece, Macedonian Greece and Egyptian Greece. Chuking in Roman Greece (although technically it's more like a Hellenized Rome) is fine with me, especially in the Hellenistic viewpoint where everything is Greece (is the Bulgarian half of my DNA triggered by this subject? You bet I am), but it manifests itself on a similar level as USA/Canada/Aus, the only difference being the length of independence and the position in the timeline.
Not saying the Byzzies should be skipped because we've had so many Greeces -I think this is Firaxis's fault for not planning ahead and foolishly adding Macedon to the roster when they easily could've skipped Alexander just like they skipped Catherine and Elizabeth.- but blaming their potential omission on the presence of Canada and Australia is not a flying argument. Blaming the devs otoh...
Greek Egypt would be a better term rather then Egyptian Greece here. And, to be honest, Ancient Egypt with a leader from a Greek dynasty is probably the best one. If anything, her Ptolemaic legacy is almost nonexistent in the game, and we have her speaking Egyptian, making the amount of Greek-speaking leaders three (which, I admit, is still a high number) as opposed to five English speaking ones (counting Gandhi and Laurier).
Macedon was a bit unnecessary though, I'll give you that
Separate names with a comma.