Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

[Zaarin]

@The Kingmaker That would be preferable to me as well, but if the only way we get Assyria is as an alternate leader of Babylon, I'll take it. Unfortunately, this round of devs seems less interested in the Ancient Near East than Civ5's devs.

 

[Phrozen]

We are fortunate enough to have sufficient information to make separate, well-rounded versions of both Babylon and Assyria.

We have separate Greece and Macedon in this game (despite Greece already having both Athens and Sparta).

We have England, Scotland, USA and Australia (maybe even Canada, ultimately).

We may ultimately have both Germany and Austria.

They can afford to devote enough energy to the Cradle of Civilization to do it sufficient justice in light of the precedents that have already been set for this installment.

We basically have protestant Northern Germany. No Bavarian cities on Germany's list.

 

[Zaarin]

We basically have protestant Northern Germany. No Bavarian cities on Germany's list.

That's because we have to have Maria Theresa back to lead Catholic Germany.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Indeed, methinks they are saving the southern ones for Österreich's city list.

Though IIRC, Barbarossa is predisposed to choose Catholicism. Perhaps they've set themselves up for Bismarck as a second (Protestant) leader?

 

[The Kingmaker]

@The Kingmaker That would be preferable to me as well, but if the only way we get Assyria is as an alternate leader of Babylon, I'll take it. Unfortunately, this round of devs seems less interested in the Ancient Near East than Civ5's devs.

Can you imagine the backlash if they made say, Sennacherib, a Babylonian leader? Or Nebuchadnezzar an Assyrian?

There's only a small number of acceptable options for Mesopotamia in this game.

1) Sumer + Babylon (adequate)
2) Sumer + Babylon + Assyria (good)
3) Sumer + Babylon + Assyria + Hatti (better)
4) Sumer + Babylon + Assyria + Hatti + Syria/Palmyra (are you seeing a pattern here?)

More is more. That is all.

 

[Zaarin]

Syria's not really Mesopotamia. But yes, I'm dying to see Elam added, and I'd be ecstatic over Urartu, too. There cannot possibly be too many Ancient Near Eastern civs to please me.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Aram-Naharaim is considered Mesopotamia. Syria being a classical construct, the territory it represented was essentially half in Canaan, half in Mesopotamia.

 

[Zaarin]

I guess chiefly I meant Palmyra isn't Mesopotamia, and that's Syria's best shot for inclusion...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

We are fortunate enough to have sufficient information to make separate, well-rounded versions of both Babylon and Assyria.

We have separate Greece and Macedon in this game (despite Greece already having both Athens and Sparta).

We have England, Scotland, USA and Australia (maybe even Canada, ultimately).

We may ultimately have both Germany and Austria.

They can afford to devote enough energy to the Cradle of Civilization to do it sufficient justice in light of the precedents that have already been set for this installment.

But...there are five cradles of civilization. And I don't want Austria and I never wanted Macedon. I don't know why Firaxis needs to make Babylon and Assyria, on top of Sumer, when frankly one is enough and modders can make their own damn Palmyra/Lydia/Media/Whatever civ. Unless Firaxis has the wherewithal to make Olmec, Norte Chico, Xia, Harappa, Zapotec, Chimu, Jhukar, Shang, Poverty Point, Mississippian, Pueblo, and Anasazi, I just have no interest in the relatively minor distinctions between one ancient era Akkadian civ and the other three or four. It's pedantic. It's useless. And it saps fun out of a game that could be far more diverse in its roster, art styles, and mechanics.

 

[Zaarin]

But...there are five cradles of civilization. And I don't want Austria and I never wanted Macedon. I don't know why Firaxis needs to make Babylon and Assyria, on top of Sumer, when frankly one is enough and modders can make their own damn Palmyra/Lydia/Media/Whatever civ. Unless Firaxis has the wherewithal to make Olmec, Norte Chico, Xia, Harappa, Zapotec, Chimu, Jhukar, Shang, Poverty Point, Mississippian, Pueblo, and Anasazi, I just have no interest in the relatively minor distinctions between one ancient era Akkadian civ and the other three or four. It's pedantic. It's useless. And it saps fun out of a game that could be far more diverse in its roster, art styles, and mechanics.

Gilgabro erroneously speaking Akkadian in game notwithstanding, the Sumerians didn't speak Akkadian and weren't even related to the Akkadians. Every civilization in the West is built on the foundations of Babylon; if they're going to leave out Babylon, they might as well leave out Rome (which wouldn't bother me in the slightest to be perfectly honest) and China.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

We basically have protestant Northern Germany. No Bavarian cities on Germany's list.

This does make me suspect that Austria may still be under consideration. Which I'm not sure why, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire didn't last very long, and both Switzerland and Hungary are far more interesting.

 

[Zaarin]

This does make me suspect that Austria may still be under consideration. Which I'm not sure why, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire didn't last very long, and both Switzerland and Hungary are far more interesting.

 

[Phrozen]

This does make me suspect that Austria may still be under consideration. Which I'm not sure why, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire didn't last very long, and both Switzerland and Hungary are far more interesting.

Bavaria wouldn't be in Austria either though culturally Bavaria is somewhat closer to Austria than say Saxony.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Gilgabro erroneously speaking Akkadian in game notwithstanding, the Sumerians didn't speak Akkadian and weren't even related to the Akkadians. Every civilization in the West is built on the foundations of Babylon; if they're going to leave out Babylon, they might as well leave out Rome (which wouldn't bother me in the slightest to be perfectly honest) and China.

Yes, he should have been speaking Albanian.

I don't disagree with you. Babylon is more important than Sumer. I think the inclusion of Sumer was influenced partly by a desire to hit more "root" civilizations like they kind of did with Nubia and Scythia, and partly because Sumer was one of the most popular V mods. I don't like it. I wish they could take it back and just put Babylon in. But they can't, and if we're looking at a very limited number of development slots left, I'd rather they just make Hammurabi a Sumer leader and try to repair a crappy civ than make an already crowded part of the map even denser.

I've given up on Babylon. And the moment they make a Babylon, Byzantium, or Austria civ for VI will be the day I'm convinced they're out of ideas.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I know, I know. They should save her for the "all the cool leaders with boring civs" pack. The one they release last.

Bavaria wouldn't be in Austria either though culturally Bavaria is somewhat closer to Austria than say Saxony.

This is true. And I did consider the possibility that Bavaria might be made into its own civ on the same merits as Scotland, given that it has roughly the same historical relevance and current political ambitions. But...then I'm left asking why I can't have my Tibet civ?

 

[The Kingmaker]

But...there are five cradles of civilization. And I don't want Austria and I never wanted Macedon. I don't know why Firaxis needs to make Babylon and Assyria, on top of Sumer, when frankly one is enough and modders can make their own damn Palmyra/Lydia/Media/Whatever civ. Unless Firaxis has the wherewithal to make Olmec, Norte Chico, Xia, Harappa, Zapotec, Chimu, Jhukar, Shang, Poverty Point, Mississippian, Pueblo, and Anasazi, I just have no interest in the relatively minor distinctions between one ancient era Akkadian civ and the other three or four. It's pedantic. It's useless. And it saps fun out of a game that could be far more diverse in its roster, art styles, and mechanics.

Of these you listed, they could maybe do Shang, Mississippian and Zapotec, though they'd have to fudge at least the latter two a little bit. They'd need an extremely late Mississippian leader.

I don't see any reason why they can't otherwise include those civs for which a language, a named leader, and a city list exist.

More is simply more.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, he should have been speaking Albanian.

I don't disagree with you. Babylon is more important than Sumer. I think the inclusion of Sumer was influenced partly by a desire to hit more "root" civilizations like they kind of did with Nubia and Scythia, and partly because Sumer was one of the most popular V mods. I don't like it. I wish they could take it back and just put Babylon in. But they can't, and if we're looking at a very limited number of development slots left, I'd rather they just make Hammurabi a Sumer leader and try to repair a crappy civ than make an already crowded part of the map even denser.

I've given up on Babylon. And the moment they make a Babylon, Byzantium, or Austria civ for VI will be the day I'm convinced they're out of ideas.

I'm a huge fan of Sumer (real life Sumer). They were immaculate record keepers, and we know more about them than any other ancient civilization with the possible exception of Egypt--except the Sumerians were less prone to exaggeration and embellishment. On top of that, the Sumerian language is very well attested (leaving me baffled that Gilgy speaks Akkadian), and they have many leaders whose deeds are well recorded (Gudea or Ur-Nammu would have been perfect choices). The problem with Civ6's Sumeria isn't that it shouldn't have been there--it's that it was completely based on a Babylonian epic. Sumer was the first (on record) to do a lot of important things, so they absolutely ought to be included alongside Babylon; that the Civ6 version of their civ is horrible is the fault of lazy developing, not a lack of significance or information on the part of the Sumerians.

I was extremely excited when Sumer was announced; I was utterly devastated when the actual civ design was revealed.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Should've had Ur-Nammu, Gudea, Urukagina... Many good choices.

Or at least a version of Gilgamesh not played by the Rock.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Of these you listed, they could maybe do Shang, Mississippian and Zapotec, though they'd have to fudge at least the latter two a little bit. They'd need an extremely late Mississippian leader.

I don't see any reason why they can't otherwise include those civs for which a language, a named leader, and a city list exist.

More is simply more.

But we have no reason to believe that the DLC will continue forever. We must first convince them that VI is worth keeping as a definitive edition and continuous stream of income, and it's still far too early for that.

Until that time when they reach 50+ civs and don't show any sign of stopping, I don't want them to waste energy on Assyria or Akkadia or Palmyra or the Hittites. Not when we are still missing powerhouses like Mali/Songhai, Siam, Denmark/Sweden, Carthage, Oman, Chola, Italic League, Bulgaria, Khazar, Taino, Tonga, etc. etc. etc. I don't want "more" if the only thing I have to look forward to is more Mesopotamia.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm a huge fan of Sumer (real life Sumer). They were immaculate record keepers, and we know more about them than any other ancient civilization with the possible exception of Egypt--except the Sumerians were less prone to exaggeration and embellishment. On top of that, the Sumerian language is very well attested (leaving me baffled that Gilgy speaks Akkadian), and they have many leaders whose deeds are well recorded (Gudea or Ur-Nammu would have been perfect choices). The problem with Civ6's Sumeria isn't that it shouldn't have been there--it's that it was completely based on a Babylonian epic. Sumer was the first (on record) to do a lot of important things, so they absolutely ought to be included alongside Babylon; that the Civ6 version of their civ is horrible is the fault of lazy developing, not a lack of significance or information on the part of the Sumerians.

I was extremely excited when Sumer was announced; I was utterly devastated when the actual civ design was revealed.

When you describe it like that, it's already a blob civ. Adding Hammurabi would, if anything, make the blobbiness feel more intentional.