Nice. Throw in Inca, Mali, Ethipia, Carthage/Morocco and the Ottomans/Byzantine, and that's looking like a very solid, very full map with few large holes.
On that map, West Africa and Eastern Europe stand out as the most jarringly unrepresented regions. (although it's not 100% accurate since there's plenty of overlap between the nations in the game). Hopefully the next Xpac focuses on adding a few Slavic or African nations to amend this.
Guesses at the upcoming marketing timeline? Here's what I'm thinking:
This week:
Monday - teaser for Mapuche
Tuesday - Mapuche First Look (the rabble on YouTube goes crazy - two no-name civs in a row? What's my Inca?)
Wednesday - alliance deep dive livestream with Mapuche
Friday: Temple of Artemis video and supply convoy stats
Late in the week: NDA lifts on YouTube let's plays
Next week:
Monday - Scotland teaser
Tuesday - Scotland First Look
Wednesday - Zulu teaser
Thursday - Zulu First Look
Friday - South Pole Station video
Week of release:
Tuesday - livestream with Scotland and Zulu
Thursday - It's here!
I've just thought of something... We've all been thinking that Firaxis could "mistakenly" make William Wallace the Leader of Scotland, whilst hoping that he would be a great general instead and for Robert the Bruce or someone else to lead Scotland. ...But what if the leader of Scotland turned out to be King James VII?
That would be like the Macedon and Greece issue all over again (just without a third leader)
Still a massive gap in Western Africa... And perhaps in the case of "True Start Location" it would be best just to pinpoint their capitals for better TSL representation as the Civs are not guaranteed to fill out their modern boarders.
Still a massive gap in Western Africa... And perhaps in the case of "True Start Location" it would be best just to pinpoint their capitals for better TSL representation as the Civs are not guaranteed to fill out their modern boarders.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in TSL Arabia starts on the Arabian Peninsula even though Cairo is in Egypt, that might be the only Civ right now that won't truly start where the capital would actually be located.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in TSL Arabia starts on the Arabian Peninsula even though Cairo is in Egypt, that might be the only Civ right now that won't truly start where the capital would actually be located.
I think in the YNAMP mod they've always placed Arabia on Mecca, which I find annoying as I would prefer them to actually start in Cairo; but then it would struggle to fit next to Ra-Kadet...
I think in the YNAMP mod they've always placed Arabia on Mecca, which I find annoying as I would prefer them to actually start in Cairo; but then it would struggle to fit next to Ra-Kadet...
I think in the YNAMP mod they've always placed Arabia on Mecca, which I find annoying as I would prefer them to actually start in Cairo; but then it would struggle to fit next to Ra-Kadet...
I've just thought of something... We've all been thinking that Firaxis could "mistakenly" make William Wallace the Leader of Scotland, whilst hoping that he would be a great general instead and for Robert the Bruce or someone else to lead Scotland. ...But what if the leader of Scotland turned out to be King James VII?
That would be like the Macedon and Greece issue all over again (just without a third leader)
I'd love that. James VII/James I is certainly the most palatable of the Stuarts, and I think the Stuarts are underappreciated in terms of "big personalities" compared to the Tudors.
I'd love that. James VII/James I is certainly the most palatable of the Stuarts, and I think the Stuarts are underappreciated in terms of "big personalities" compared to the Tudors.
But in having King James VII lead Scotland it would suggest that Scotland is more "British" then Scottish; as King James VII became King James I of England and united the two Kingdoms to make the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
That would mean both England and Scotland are both directed towards being British rather then English and Scottish. (not that I'm complaining; just pointing out before someone else complains about it)
Although; King James would be pretty cool if you can have him lead either Scotland or England each game.
But in having King James VII lead Scotland it would suggest that Scotland is more "British" then Scottish; as King James VII became King James I of England and united the two Kingdoms to make the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
That would mean both England and Scotland are both directed towards being British rather then English and Scottish. (not that I'm complaining; just pointing out before someone else complains about it)
Although; King James would be pretty cool if you can have him lead either Scotland or England each game.
Very fair points. However, I will take James VII/I over blue-faced kilted William Wallace or Merida of DunBroch or Boudicca or whatever stereotype they might dredge up.
Very fair points. However, I will take James VII/I over blue-faced kilted William Wallace or Merida of DunBroch or Boudicca or whatever stereotype they might dredge up.
...or Nicola Sturgeon. I'll take anything over Nicola Sturgeon - but thankfully they won't add leaders still alive today; I think the most recent leader we've ever had is Queen Wilhelmina? But she does come strong after John Curtain who was most recent. These leaders are getting more and more recent...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
