Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by The Kingmaker, Mar 31, 2017.
That would work with the loyalty idea i had for him! I'll edit the post
We don‘t need 20 leaders for Sumeria, a second one is sufficient and easily found. On top of that, Firaxis doesn‘t shy away of legendarization, quite the opposite as I see it.
Sadly its real. Look at Gilgamesh and Tomyris.
A half-man, half-god King only mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh
and a revengeful queen only mentioned by The Father of Lies, Herodotus
Though I think legendary figures do not hurt a lot, as long as they have at least some records of their reign.
While Herodotus often tells things that probably never happened, calling him the father of lies is too harsh (especially since I‘m a long time fan). It‘s like if I would call you a liar now, since you ‚lied‘ in your statement about Tomyris. It‘s probably just oversight or lack of knowledge though in your case. For Herodotus, it‘s about a good story.
And to pretend that other historical sources did not ,lie‘ (for various reasons) seems naive.
No, it was not a title of my creation. Even voltaire called him both father of history and lies.
Look at his records about ancient Egypt, ambiguous vocabulary usage, exaggerations and errors intertwined with partial facts. (e.g. His mention of the possible fictional Nitocris and the different pharaoh list compared to the Egyptian ones)
For a poetic sense, there is nothing to criticize. For a historic sense, its a both a jewelry and a disaster.
And he was the first one to write about Tomyris.
For Cyrus the great lived almost a hundred years earlier than his period and the Scythian lack of writing records, his account of Tomyris is highly doubt-able.
I do not deny his value in history. His records were surprisingly accurate in many accounts. Just truths are as many as lies for Herodotus, and no one can tell.
He is a poet in my opinion, so actually I don't mind him lying, while I still think he is sort of a liar in history.
Not to mean any negative offense, but to give an objective comment. I will say he is father to both lies and history.
Surely, you can call me liar, as long as you can point out my errors and I will humbly correct it. But my opinion of Herodotus has its knowledge basis, not some personal ideas of vanity.
Surely every history records is doubt-able. The point for Herodotus' criticism, lies on the fact that historians found the difference in his version and the Egyptians' version, which makes his reliability in some of his stories much lower.
I don't think Herodotus leaned towards lying, as much as selecting stories and telling them in ways which were exciting to his readers. There's also quite a bit of unintended corruption going on in his work due to mistranslation/misinterpretation. I don't think it's fair to equate that to lying, since stories of all sorts have the ring of truth to them.
Emmm...yeah I agree.
Romance writers all have a leaning towards exaggeration for his work.
Vivid imaginations to fill in the boring facts or "lies", depends on the readers' personal view.
The "Father of Lies" title is not my point to rise any criticism for Herodotus here.
I am just using this to illustrate Herodotus' doubt-able account on Tomyris.
Let's be honest: after Anne. But who wants a leader after Anne?
Uh...Akkadians were Semitic-speaking peoples who lived north of Sumer. Yes, Sargon and his kids make the Sumerian king list, but no historian would consider them Sumerian. Akkadian and Sumerian influenced each other profoundly, both linguistically and culturally, but not so profoundly that we can't tell an Akkadian name from a Sumerian name. As for the Elamites, why are they even on this list? That's like calling the Armenians Chinese. I disagree with your last statement. The Sumerians were meticulous record keepers. The Akkadians were from the north and would eventually become Babylon, Ebla, and Assyria. The Elamites were from far away to the north in Greater Iran; the Sumerians traded with them and (if memory serves) formed a military alliance with them but didn't seem to know much about them. The Gutians were barbarians from the north who would eventually cause the downfall of Sargon's little empire (long after Sargon himself, of course). Likewise the Kassites were steppe raiders who conquered a few Sumerian city-states and set up a short-lived dynasty before fading out of the records. They may have been related to the Hurro-Urartians. (Also, the Amorites weren't really later. The Sumerians considered them the worst of barbarians.) As for Assyria, Sumer was a distant memory by the time they rolled around (though the Babylonians were still performing religious rituals in stilted Sumerian).
For Louis XIV I suggest this:
Ability: Ancien Régime – foreign religions spread 50% slower in cities with a garrisoned unit, after recruiting or patronizing a great general, writer, artist, or musician, 20% of its great person point cost is refunded, palace holds 3 slots for great works
Agenda: The Sun-King – likes civilizations with a weaker culture that can be influenced, dislikes civilizations with a culture stronger or almost as strong as France’s
Louis's ability is based on the Dragonnades and the artists and generals he had at his palace at Versailles. It is like Pedro's ability, only for generals and artists, so I would change Pedro's ability to "after recruiting or patronizing a great admiral, scientist, or engineer, 20% of its great person point cost is refunded".
Maybe I think there'd be great opportunity, desire, and potential in leaders of Britain after Anne. But, obviously by your question, I must be in a tiny and very quixotic minority.
Well, if they are a power behind the throne then they haven't held power...cos then they'd be on the throne, not behind it
Agreed re Liz I. I'm open to all three categories, though sure, figureheads should be the least popular. Obviously great constitutional government with power separated and checks and balances in place does make for a less exciting single leader; as the point is to remove those from existance.
I think Prime Ministers should feature more in game, yet I agree that they are an underwhelming choice. Pretty sure Churchill was the first (and would be the only, had not that monstrosity Australia been added to the game) and he of course is a larger than life personality fully deserving a place in the roster, in measurements of interest as well as power.
Yeah, but you have some interesting tastes my friend
I don't think you're really in the minority. For me personally, by the time prime ministers have power in Britain, history has long since stopped being interesting.
Walpole or either Pitt are not uninteresting choices for a leader of England. Though my pick for power behind the throne, though he was regent, would be William Marshal.
Dissing powers behind the throne as an option are like suggesting that Jofferey is a more appropriate choice over Tywin to represent the might of Westeros
Who gave you the right to call Herodotus, a great scholar, the father of lies?
His name is recognized all over the world to this day, a great person known for his work for centuries.
What in comparison to him have you accomplished?
How many people know of your existence?
How many have heard of you?
Your name will be eventually lost while his will go on.
I cannot excuse such verbal attack on a great historian (even though he did tend to exaggerate and fantasize here and there) by someone who has accomplished a big Zero as compared to Herodotus. Trying to look cool on the net by typing such rubbish posts only proves your ignorance.
Moderator Action: This sort of personal attack on another poster is completely uncalled for, and violates our rules against trolling and flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
You are simply wrong about Macedon.
Ancient Greece was a land of city states, Macedon wasn't a city state, it was a country. It was never considered part of "Greece" by the ancient Greeks, rather a half-barbaric state, until Philip, Alexander's father, conquered lower Greece.
True, it was Hellenized culture/religion-wise through centuries of bordering Greek states, However, it was quite distinct.
Look at it' military aspect: (mostly thanks to Philip's modernizations) the Mcedonian army was very different from Greek and far superior to it!
Greeks rellies on heavy infantry, Hoplites, in one hand they held their spears, which were 2-3 meters in length, and they carried a large, round shield in the other hand. Greeks didn't use archers much, nor cavalry for that matter.
Macedonian heavy infantry wielded spears 4-6 meters in length. Due to their length and weight, these (sarissa) had to be held in both hands to be wielded properly. Do you notice similarities to Medieval Pikemen? Unlike the Pikemen the Macedonians carried shields, but much smaller than the ones used by Greek Hoplites and attached to their arms, not held in hand like the hops did. Also, the Macedonians used cavalry in large numbers and with excellent results, unlike the Greeks.
Philip was imprisoned in Thebes, the most powerful Greek city state (after defeating Sparta) of Philip's time. Later on his (Macedon) armies would crush the Thebans ( by the way, the Real city of Thebes was located in ancient Greece, not Egypt! Thebes was the name the Ptolemies called the Egyptian city of Weset during their rule there and the name stuck) and burn Thebes for good.
Macedonian armies under Alexander would later conquer the Farsa (Persian) Empire. It wasn't the Greek Hoplites who conquered It, (perhaps because Greeks thought it impossible a feat to acomplish) but Macedonian armies who did this. There were numerous Greek mercenary Hoplites serving in the Persian army at the time of Alexander's conquest (fighting against the Macedonians).
Macedonians had their own capitals: Pella and Aegae before it, perhaps Phillipi too later on, not sure.
Macedon was formed out of Illyrian lands. Its society was a mixture of Greeks, Illyrian, Thracians and other Balkan tribes, although it was Hellenized by the influential culture of their southern neighbors.
Hope I proved my point. Although I know that some people will never attest to this being the way it was.
Therefore, I not only applaud Firaxis for adding Macedon to the list of playable civilizations in Civ6, I truly admire them for it... Great job you guys!!!
(Don't forget about papa Phil!- as the 2nd leader, I know, won't happen)
Sorry to be pedantic, but Thebes wasn't burned down for GOOD, per se. There is a city in the modern Hellenic Republic (Greece's current official name) called Thebes that is very close to the Ancient city's ruins that was rebuilt, I believe during the later and waning Ottoman days, SPECIFICALLY with the idea it was a formal rebuilding of the Ancient city.
Lol you sound like a defeated leader talking his last lines.
"Who gave you the right to call him father of lies" should be a question directed to Voltaire, and many other historians before going to me. I just direct their objectives here.
Everyone can rise a criticism to any "great" person, as long as he has a point, this is the virtue of academic spirit. This is not a feudalist society or some totalitarian nation right? Or are you living in one?
Taking your logic, I can assume another question:
Who are you to criticize Donald Trump then? Are you a president or at least politician?
I hope you can use factual proof and logic to convince me, instead of giving "you are no one", and "he is so great" such meaningless insults. And you even can't give any context-related objection when you are denying my post. Don't act like a 12 yr old girl trying to defend his big idol...( and omg you are 28!)
I expect some quality of debates and rationale if you are trying to defend for him. Instead, it seems that I have expected too much.
I think at this point, Henry VIII would draw a very nice contrast with Victoria.
He's iconic, infamous, and I can just see him waving around a big drumstick for emphasis, maybe taking a satisfied bite on the approval animations.
Except that creating an entire custom civilization potentially takes a lot more work than adding one leader. That sort of defeats the point of the alternative leader system as well. And yes, Macedon was split off, seemingly contradicting the system that was set up in the vanilla game. But, that was clearly for gameplay reasons- to allow Alexander to be far more conquest oriented. The difference between Macedon and Athens is much starker than between say Wessex and Mercia- whilst Wessex and Mercia could easily share most of the same uniques, you would expect Macedon's gameplay to be very different from that of Pericles. The leader unique ability would allow various Anglo-Saxon kings to have distinct playstyles, but there isn't really the need for each Anglo-Saxon kingdom to be a separate civ, no more than there is a need for each of the 18th century German states to be its own civ.
I wouldn't be concerned, the chance of either Wessex or Anglo-Saxons is basically nil. As for changing civs to reflect their entire history, I think that civs would need more uniques for that to be possible. And I'd say that each civ already has enough uniques as it is.
Separate names with a comma.