Leathaface
Emperor
Cool, cultural victory is probably my favourite victory to go for. Would be nice if Georgia is geared towards it.
[R&F] Sneak Peak 9/01
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
- Status
Cool, cultural victory is probably my favourite victory to go for. Would be nice if Georgia is geared towards it.
luigilime
Prince
it could be an extremely defensive civ, since actual georgia it's lke a fortress in the middel of the mountains
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
Don't forget about the complete paucity of videos of Path to Nirvana scenario on YouTube. It shows that scenarios aren't popular.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 862
only a few seconds when we post here before it's closed due to the first look video! great thread guys! I'll miss you!
You know, having actual cities might be one of the hard rules for including a civ. I mean, if you were going to try and list a set of standards for what civs should be/could be included, is having cities one of them? I know there is quite a bit of disagreement about who/what/why a civ should be included, and I don't know that there has ever been general agreement on even a single factor. Is having cities one of them? Obviously being a grouped people with a known name is a must. Probably having cultural uniqueness that can be linked to their identity is up there as well. And I guess having a territorial boundary, some historical records, certain amount of information about them.
There is certainly a camp that feels that as long as the culture/history is rich and/or interesting, that is enough. Another camp says, no, that is not enough, there must be X amount of impact on world history, or it must have lasted for at least X number of years, or had X amount of territory.
Is actually having cities on most people's list?
One of my personal standards is if the country is a nuclear power. Have nukes? Have a civ. Obviously that's not the case here. But with 40-50 civs in a game, any protest about Georgia is coming down to personal preference. And, as its personal preference, why shake your rattle at it? Did you really expect that Firaxis would have every single civ that you yourself wanted, and none of the ones you didn't?
Excuse me if this is ranty. This silly Poundmaker nonsense is getting to me. The world is becoming more and more, everyday, like that colony of kids from Lord of the Flies. The impact of social media I guess. I just thought it interesting that perhaps cities were a concrete identifier for a civ being worthy of inclusion (worthy, not necessarily deserving).
There is certainly a camp that feels that as long as the culture/history is rich and/or interesting, that is enough. Another camp says, no, that is not enough, there must be X amount of impact on world history, or it must have lasted for at least X number of years, or had X amount of territory.
Is actually having cities on most people's list?
One of my personal standards is if the country is a nuclear power. Have nukes? Have a civ. Obviously that's not the case here. But with 40-50 civs in a game, any protest about Georgia is coming down to personal preference. And, as its personal preference, why shake your rattle at it? Did you really expect that Firaxis would have every single civ that you yourself wanted, and none of the ones you didn't?
Excuse me if this is ranty. This silly Poundmaker nonsense is getting to me. The world is becoming more and more, everyday, like that colony of kids from Lord of the Flies. The impact of social media I guess. I just thought it interesting that perhaps cities were a concrete identifier for a civ being worthy of inclusion (worthy, not necessarily deserving).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
