As long as said Ancien Regime leader is NOT Philippe IV. I just can't get behind a king who charges a whole order of knights on trumped up charges of heresy, blasphemy, and Devil-worship, with the full support of his cousin, Pope Clement III, and has them burnt at the stake and their assets liquidated to the Knights Hospitaler, ALL to avoid paying off the monumental debt he'd racked up to them.
I'm hoping for any one of Philippe Augustus, Francis I, Louis IX, or Louis XIV, personally. Louis XIV and Philippe Augustus probably have the best "big personality" things going for them (plus Philippe Augustus was contemporary with Barbarossa and Saladin, which Firaxis seems to like), but Louis IX would be our first male saint leader after having Jadwiga and Tomyris. Francis I probably has against him that he was too close in time to CdM, since she was his daughter-in-law.
Philippe II would go well with Barbarossa, Saladin and Tamar in a 3rd Crusade scenario. No idea how to shove Francophone Richard I in there though. He'd have to speak French and Occitan, with a few heavily accented words of broken Middle English.
Francis I (and Henry VIII of England) would go great with that double leader Italy pack and Renaissance scenario.
Philippe II would go well with Barbarossa, Saladin and Tamar in a 3rd Crusade scenario. No idea how to shove Francophone Richard I in there though. He'd have to speak French and Occitan, with a few heavily accented words of broken Middle English.
Wow, it hadn't even occurred to me that Tamar was also in that time period. Genghis and Jayavarman VII, too, and Hojo's just half a century later, then Robert the Bruce about a generation after Hojo. Has Civ ever had this many contemporary or near-contemporary leaders before? I mean, that's five contemporaries, plus two more just a generation or two later.
Wow, it hadn't even occurred to me that Tamar was also in that time period. Genghis and Jayavarman VII, too, and Hojo's just half a century later, then Robert the Bruce about a generation after Hojo. Has Civ ever had this many contemporary or near-contemporary leaders before? I mean, that's five contemporaries, plus two more just a generation or two later.
Wow, it hadn't even occurred to me that Tamar was also in that time period. Genghis and Jayavarman VII, too, and Hojo's just half a century later, then Robert the Bruce about a generation after Hojo. Has Civ ever had this many contemporary or near-contemporary leaders before? I mean, that's five contemporaries, plus two more just a generation or two later.
We have too many medieval leaders, that's one of the reasons why i didn't like Scotland's inclusion, because another classical civ was scrapped and it doesn't look they will add the Gauls next to Scotland?
We have too many medieval leaders, that's one of the reasons why i didn't like Scotland's inclusion, because another classical civ was scrapped and it doesn't look they will add the Gauls next to Scotland?
Problem with the Gauls as a civ is that all the information we have on them is from a geography by Ptolemy with coined the term "Keltoi" as a general term for Celts (the latter term never term a self-referential until all the Insular Celtic cultures except the Bretons were more or less under the British Crown in some form or another), and very biased, downright hostile records by the Romans - even the most notable Gaulic and other Celtic leaders of late antiquity; Brennis, Vercingetorix, Boadicea, etc., are only remembered by Latin names the Romans gave them - the Cornish/Breton saint and king of the 4th or 5th Centuries Conan Merriadoc is one of the earliest verified Celtic monarchs on record whose name is at least a good attempt at his actual Celtic name in the records. Also, unlike the Insular Celtic Languages, whose modern forms are still spoken today by a quite a few people, the Gaulic language, and all the other Continental Celtic languages have EXTREMELY limited attestation, to the point of what's known being almost useless to a game like this.
Yes, we need Gaul to represent the classical Celtic peoples.
I don't object to Scotland's inclusion, but they're just yet another medieval/modern European civ.
We hardly have any ancient or classical civs in this game at all beyond the basics. Sumer, Egypt, Greece, Macedon, Persia, Rome, Scythia, and the recent addition of Nubia.
India and China technically count as ancient, but they're also modern nations as well.
Yes, we need Gaul to represent the classical Celtic peoples.
I don't object to Scotland's inclusion, but they're just yet another medieval/modern European civ.
We hardly have any ancient or classical civs in this game at all beyond the basics. Sumer, Egypt, Greece, Macedon, Persia, Rome, Scythia, and the recent addition of Nubia.
India and China technically count as ancient, but they're also modern nations as well.
There was no Ancient or Medieval nation of "India." There were only many, many different kingdoms, empires, principalities, and dynasties overlaid by different religions, languages, and cultures, many foreign. The British created the concept of a single polity of "India," and Gandhi, Nehru, and the INC carried on with it, and Jinnah and his AIML wanted out of it.
There was no Ancient or Medieval nation of "India." There were only many, many different kingdoms, empires, principalities, and dynasties overlaid by different religions, languages, and cultures, many foreign. The British created the concept of a single polity of "India," and Gandhi, Nehru, and the INC carried on with it, and Jinnah and his AIML wanted out of it.
I'm not asserting that modern nation-states existed anciently. However, the various ancient civilizations that existed in India and China are intended to be represented by those two civs.
I'm not asserting that modern nation-states existed anciently. However, the various ancient civilizations that existed in India and China are intended to be represented by those two civs.
The difference is, China's historical concept of a "Mandate of Heaven," even if arbitrary, tenuous, and historiographical at times, provides a clear historical succession as a nation-state, of sorts. No such pre-colonial continuity of traceable "nationhood" really exists for India.
Yes, we need Gaul to represent the classical Celtic peoples.
I don't object to Scotland's inclusion, but they're just yet another medieval/modern European civ.
We hardly have any ancient or classical civs in this game at all beyond the basics. Sumer, Egypt, Greece, Macedon, Persia, Rome, Scythia, and the recent addition of Nubia.
India and China technically count as ancient, but they're also modern nations as well.
Well, some of those civ's belong to antiquity, so the "classical" designation is a little late for them. Then again, Civ's tech tree doesn't reflect these distinctions well.
Surprising the short shrift that Assyria has always gotten in this franchise. Maybe I was just too fascinated with it as a kid.
Would like to see if Firaxis can come up with any interesting takes on presidents for America.
Lincoln's a traditional president, but actually kind of hard to do justice in Civ VI since his administration was all about the civil war. Presidents like Teddy who had a strong foreign policy lend themselves more readily. Probably Lincoln should some get some kind of bonus relating to dark ages, maybe some bonus to recapturing free cities.
Maybe James Monroe, with the Monroe Doctrine being some kind of counter to the colonial civ's by dampening the loyalty of cities settled on his continent by civ's from other continents. Or maybe improved military alliances with civilizations on his continent.
Could do JFK as a president with a slant toward the space race (yeah, I know, his administration didn't actually have many legit accomplishments).
Also, unlike the Insular Celtic Languages, whose modern forms are still spoken today by a quite a few people, the Gaulic language, and all the other Continental Celtic languages have EXTREMELY limited attestation, to the point of what's known being almost useless to a game like this.
True of Celtiberian, not true of Gaulish. There are a couple hundred inscriptions in Gaulish, and you can add a few dozen more if you include Lepontic, which most linguists agree was a dialect of Gaulish. True, most are short, but given how many of them were infixios or blessing tablets, we certainly have enough to write five lines of dialogue. Hearing Gilgamesh speak in Akkadian when Sumerian is so well attested, however, doesn't give me a lot of hope for Firaxis being willing to do the work to find a specialist, especially since most experts in Gaulish are either French or German.
Of those, we might have a snowball's chance of the Sabaeans and the Goths.
Being from Yemen, the Sabaeans represent an area that hasn't ever been featured before.
And of course the Goths are quite well-known. They'd be easier to do than the Huns, certainly.
The Minoan language is unfortunately not yet deciphered, so they're out. I don't foresee Mycenae coming because we already have three playable Greeces.
The Etruscans would be hard because we only sort of understand their language, and we need to differentiate them sufficiently from the later Romans.
As for Lydia, good luck. It's been an uphill battle just to get Firaxis to consider the more well-known Hittites from the same region.
I'd count my lucky stars and jump for joy if we even got 2/3 of the civs on my list.
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.
I mean, that's five contemporaries, plus two more just a generation or two later.
