The Greek Thread

[pokiehl]

I have different priorities when it comes to who and where should get representation, and greece getting 2 fully fleshed-out factions in a roster of 50 was,

You're using the same logical fallacy that fighting game players use when complaining about so-and-so "wasting a character slot." There's no evidence to suggest that Macedon blocked another faction from being made--that is, there's no reason to believe that in lieu of Macedon we could have gotten something else added to the game. The choice could very well have been "Macedon or nothing extra".

Alexander got added with Macedon because they wanted to Alexander with Macedon.

Even if there were some silly internal rule limiting how many factions can be represented for a given region, Alexander is as worthy of breaking such a rule as anyone could be.

 

[Henri Christophe]

There's no way that Greece should be relegated to being a minor faction.

I don't want to relegate Greece to being a minor faction, I just think there is too much Greek overrepresentation
I think one leader to Greece is enouth, and since every game had Alexander the Great, it should be THE leader of Greece.
Someone pop up the idea of represent Athens and Sparta as city state, what make very sense historical.
Maybe other civs of the same kind, as the Mayas, could be represented just by cities states also.

 

[pineappledan]

The fact that they stopped at a nice round number like five-zero suggests that they did, in fact, opt to stop making factions after they reached a certain threshold. If I recall they had looked at adding an Italian and a PNW civ and those had both reached enough of a level of development that they were found in the game data. So at some point they determined not to continue developing new civs because they had enough.

No, I think the weight of the evidence falls on disproving that they chose to spend developer resources and a self-imposed slot limit on Macedon. I don’t think they would have stopped at 49 if Macedon was not in the game, but would have opted to reach 50 civs with some other faction.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think having Alexander as an alternate leader would have been like fitting a square peg in a circle. The unique components of Macedon just suit that style of gameplay so much better.

By splitting up Greece and Macedon into separate factions, instead of having one Hellenic civ having to be everything to everyone, we can give both designs their due focus.

I agree that this was the best-case scenario for Civ 6.

Considering we have no idea on how civ designs will be in Civ 7, I think the case could be made that Alexander could fit in with a hypothetical Greece design. For example, if they decide to go with a Gymnasium as a unique infrastructure, it could represent both the intellectual education and physical education that the young men of Greece would achieve (similar to Macedon's Basilikoi Paides). Obviously, Alexander would focus more on the physical part, while another leader would focus on the intellectual part.

I do like the introduction of Macedon, at least as a one-off inclusion, if not for the fun of settling so many cities with the name Alexandria in it. But I'm not so sure it should be a recurring staple.

I don't want to relegate Greece to being a minor faction, I just think there is too much Greek overrepresentation
I think one leader to Greece is enouth, and since every game had Alexander the Great, it should be THE leader of Greece.
Someone pop up the idea of represent Athens and Sparta as city state, what make very sense historical.
Maybe other civs of the same kind, as the Mayas, could be represented just by cities states also.

You do realize that city-states in the game are meant to depict minor non-playable factions? So yes, by wanting them as city-states you are making them non-playable.

The fact that they stopped at a nice round number like five-zero suggests that they did, in fact, opt to stop making factions after they reached a certain threshold. If I recall they had looked at adding an Italian and a PNW civ and those had both reached enough of a level of development that they were found in the game data. So at some point they determined not to continue developing new civs because they had enough.

If I remember, originally, they were going to stop after GS, so that would have been 42 civs. Through fan requests and feedback, we did get 8 more through the NFP, so 50 wasn't even the original stopping point.

As for the undeveloped civs, Genoa was found in the base game files and the Haida were found in the R&F files.
I don't understand what Macedon's inclusion had to do with those? If anything, the Haida were left out probably because they decided to go with the Cree as the representative of native North America.

As for Genoa, I have a theory that they initially wanted to include a playable city-state in the base game but couldn't figure how to make it work considering the whole new district mechanic and wonders being placed outside of the city. Because of that, I believe they scrapped that idea and decided to add in Norway to the base game, which was originally going to be in the Vikings DLC. Then they had to supplement that DLC with 6 extra city-states.

 

[Patine]

I don't want to relegate Greece to being a minor faction, I just think there is too much Greek overrepresentation

Says the one who insists on six or seven minor tribes or bands of rebels to be full Civ's, not city-states or Great This-and-That's, in the New World along with Haiti because they're Black, or can have a leader conjured for them who is, and a very minor sidenote of a Deccan Sultanate ruled by a Black monarch (but not ruling Black subjects) and certainly won't see that as remotely, "overrepresentative."

 

[pineappledan]

I don't understand what Macedon's inclusion had to do with those? If anything, the Haida were left out probably because they decided to go with the Cree as the representative of native North America.

Yes, a single faction of indigenous North Americans north of Mexico, which was saved for an expansion. Civ 5 did 2 factions of American Indians with 7 fewer slots, and the Haudenosaunee were in the base game.

I’m not going to pretend that my ideal civ 7 roster makes good marketing sense. I’m sure it was determined that a 2nd Greek civ and 2 separate Roman civ would both move more DLC than a 2nd Native American civ. Obviously I’m in a minority that would rather more energy be spent on filling the whole map than just filling the balkans.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Says the one who insists on six or seven minor tribes or bands of rebels to be full Civ's, not city-states or Great This-and-That's, in the New World along with Haiti because they're Black, or can have a leader conjured for them who is, and a very minor sidenote of a Deccan Sultanate ruled by a Black monarch (but not ruling Black subjects) and certainly won't see that as remotely, "overrepresentative."

That is all of my point. I think this overrepresentation of Eurasiatic civs are stolen room of more interesting civs for me.
Nothing against Greece, at all! But, I would have more join playing with Haiti or Palmares then they.
Acctually I played once with Gorgo (mostly because I joy her ability of gain culture per kill) but I'm pretty sure this ability can come with other civ as it come to Aztec civ in Civ5.
And Greece was already well represented in Civ6, it could have new ways to represent it

You do realize that city-states in the game are meant to depict minor non-playable factions? So yes, by wanting them as city-states you are making them non-playable.

Okay, fair point.
City state are un-playable, but still make more sense to represent the greek poles as city states (more then one, to be fair)
Maybe the city state can be more complete in civ7, as having Unique Units. That will gave a layer more to the city state.
And if other major civs become city states, as Mayas, it will be because a re-understand what should be a civ and what should be a city-state.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, a single faction of indigenous North Americans north of Mexico, which was saved for an expansion. Civ 5 did 2 factions of American Indians with 7 fewer slots, and the Haudenosaunee were in the base game.

I’m not going to pretend that my ideal civ 7 roster makes good marketing sense. I’m sure it was determined that a 2nd Greek civ and 2 separate Roman civ would both move more DLC than a 2nd Native American civ. Obviously I’m in a minority that would rather more energy be spent on filling the whole map than just filling the balkans.

I would have loved another tribe in North America too. In fact, I was hoping we'd get one in the NFP. I don't think you are in the minority on that one, as I've seen many wanting one.

Wanting another indigenous tribe and wanting Byzantium, aren't mutually exclusive. You can want both, like I did.

 

[pineappledan]

Unless you expect the developers to greatly increase their quota of factions in the next one, then you will see the same traffic jam in Europe and the same vacuum in the Americas.

50 is a sticky number, and they risk making a lot of poorly-done homogenous civs if they try to make more than that. The solution is not simply more, but better, more deliberate choices of what to add in.

 

[pokiehl]

The fact that they stopped at a nice round number like five-zero suggests that they did, in fact, opt to stop making factions after they reached a certain threshold. If I recall they had looked at adding an Italian and a PNW civ and those had both reached enough of a level of development that they were found in the game data. So at some point they determined not to continue developing new civs because they had enough.

That is very speculative, and there is zero evidence of any of that, especially for the claim that Genoa and Haida were stopped "because they had enough civs."

In fact, I think the speculation resting on the "nice round number like 50" is outright wrong. They've previously said that they had considered the game complete after Gathering Storm, leaving us at 42 civs. New Frontier Pass was not part of their initial plan.

I think the weight of the evidence falls on disproving that they chose to spend developer resources and a self-imposed slot limit on Macedon.

It is impossible to prove a negative with nonexistence.

 

[pineappledan]

But of course, effort, and design space, and budget are all finite things, so there always is a limit.

It is impossible to prove a negative with nonexistence.

you're the one who brought up the idea that Macedon edged someone out, my dude. I just said they had 2 separate Greek factions (3 depending how you count Byzantium), and made no mention of a limit to the roster. You're just shadowboxing, and claiming that your baseless conjecture is superior to mine.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That is very speculative, and there is zero evidence of any of that, especially for the claim that Genoa and Haida were stopped "because they had enough civs."

In fact, I think the speculation resting on the "nice round number like 50" is outright wrong. They've previously said that they had considered the game complete after Gathering Storm, leaving us at 42 civs. New Frontier Pass was not part of their initial plan.

As I said above, I believe Genoa was stopped because they couldn't find a good way to make a single city civ in Civ 6 work. This was of course the base game, so it had nothing to do with reaching a "limit", when one didn't exist yet.

But of course, effort, and design space, and budget are all finite things, so there always is a limit.
you're the one who brought up the idea that Macedon edged someone out, my dud

Yes, there is always going to be a limit. But I'm pretty sure they didn't know what the limit was originally. This is of course assuming that Civ 6 development is over. I'd argue that if any region was shafted however, it was North Africa (Maghreb region). But I'm not necessarily going to blame a certain civilization for that. If I would it would be Scotland, though.

 

[Patine]

That is all of my point. I think this overrepresentation of Eurasiatic civs are stolen room of more interesting civs for me.
Nothing against Greece, at all! But, I would have more join playing with Haiti or Palmares then they.

The, "stolen room," accusation is unfounded and ridiculous on so many levels. And, as I've said many times, Artificial Continental quotas and caps will only hurt the game, and alienate the majority of the fanbase.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Artificial Continental quotas and caps will only hurt the game, and alienate the majority of the fanbase.

I don't agree artifical quotas will hurt Civilization fan base, I guess they can made however they want and will still have a huge fan base.
Because for me Civ 6 was worst then Civ5 and I don't become less fan
But okay, if continental quota isn't the best solution, at least it should have more equitity.
We need to have a decolonial mind set.

For example in Civ 5, where I have all the leaders, I can't play a game with just black leaders. I don't even can with just Africans because is needed at least 8 civs to set a game.
So, if continental quota isn't good enouth, I would ask to at least have 8 black civs to be possible to set a game as that.
By the way, civ 5 had just 6 African civs: Ethiopia, Zulu, Songhai, Egypt, Marrocos, and Carthagen. And of theses 6, just half are black.

 

[Patine]

I don't agree artifical quotas will hurt Civilization fan base, I guess they can made however they want and will still have a huge fan base.
Because for me Civ 6 was worst then Civ5 and I don't become less fan
But okay, if continental quota isn't the best solution, at least it should have more equitity.
We need to have a decolonial mind set.

For example in Civ 5, where I have all the leaders, I can't play a game with just black leaders. I don't even can with just Africans because is needed at least 8 civs to set a game.
So, if continental quota isn't good enouth, I would ask to at least have 8 black civs to be possible to set a game as that.
By the way, civ 5 had just 6 African civs: Ethiopia, Zulu, Songhai, Egypt, Marrocos, and Carthagen. And of theses 6, just half are black.

I won't go ito detail on the flawed and revisionist - and inherently and grossly inaccurately - thinking of, "decolonialism," here, especially with the toxic habit of, "filling in the blanks with fictional nonsense and political conceit to recover from colonial revisionism," because facts are absent, but I think a wholistic viewpoint is what's needed, as I've been saying.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ What's your choice? Between Draco (Is he the origin of the word 'Dragon' that means mythical firebreathing reptiles that some can fly), Cleisthenes, and Solon ?

UU Choice. if Trireme is to be generic naval unit of Classical Era.

"Dragon" in (archaic) Greek (δράκων) means 'sharp-sighted', so there is no relation to any flying beast. Draco (sometimes transliterated Drakon or Drako) may, therefvore, have been a Title rather than a proper name. For this argument is the fact that there is no patronym associated with his name ("Draco, son of X") in any text, nor is there any biographical information about him except a much, much later tale that he died in exile in Aegina. Against this is that as early as Aristotle he is referred to as a singular human being, not a mythical character, but until some new fragment of information surfaces, the archeological/historical Jury is still Out.

What is interesting is that aside from producing the first written Law Code for Athens (previous 'laws' were strictly oral and subject to interpretation in every case) he also set up the Council of 400, a decision-making body drawn from all the citizens who could afford a Hoplite panoply (shield, cuirass, helmet, spear). Therefore, although he may have merely codified and put in writing an existing social contract, the Hoplite System of self-armed militia Heavy Infantry can be attributed to him - meaning the Hoplite as UU could be a Leader Unique to Draco, if we want to go that way (I don't think we should: the Hoplite phalanx was too universal among the Greek city states to narrow it down to any single leader or city)

Much as I love the sheer variety and uniqueness of the Mediterranean polyremes, from Bireme to Decareme, they are Unique to the Mediterranean and peculiar to that sea, and primarily the eastern half of that sea plus Carthage. If we were being Realistic (Aaaaargh, he said That Word!!!) they would be disastrously fragile if committed to the North Atlantic or Indian Oceans: one of the first things the Romans commented on about the Venetii, the sea-going Gauls of the Frisian coast, was that their coastal galleys were built completely differently from the ships/boats the Romans were used to, with a strong keel and ribs and overlapping ("clinker-built" to use the later term) hull planking, and therefore far more sea-worthy in the North Sea and Channel coasts than any Mediterranean vessel of the time.

For military Uniques, there are plenty of Greek originals or adaptations to choose from:
1. Hoplite heavy spearmen
2. Peltasts, lighter and with more flexibility in rough terrain
3. The Katapelta, or "Shield-Piercer", the torsion catapult invented in Syracuse which spawned a whole variety of bolt and stone-throwers, siege and naval 'heavy weapons'
4. Phillip and Alexander's Pezhetairoi, phalanx of pikemen
5. Same duo's Hetairoi, or Companion Cavalry of heavy lancers

Of this short list, Pezhetairoi and/or Hetairoi could be Leader Unique(s) for Phillip or Alexander or a Macedonian Civ. The other three could be more general to almost any of the Greek city states or Leagues, especially the Peltast for groups like the Aetolian or Arcadian Leagues, both of which were based in rougher country than the Athenian Attic plains.
BUT for all the potential for variety, you have to come back in the end to the fact that Classical Greece is associated with the Hoplite as a Unique military system and unit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Much as I love the sheer variety and uniqueness of the Mediterranean polyremes, from Bireme to Decareme, they are Unique to the Mediterranean and peculiar to that sea, and primarily the eastern half of that sea plus Carthage. If we were being Realistic (Aaaaargh, he said That Word!!!) they would be disastrously fragile if committed to the North Atlantic or Indian Oceans: one of the first things the Romans commented on about the Venetii, the sea-going Gauls of the Frisian coast, was that their coastal galleys were built completely differently from the ships/boats the Romans were used to, with a strong keel and ribs and overlapping ("clinker-built" to use the later term) hull planking, and therefore far more sea-worthy in the North Sea and Channel coasts than any Mediterranean vessel of the time.

For military Uniques, there are plenty of Greek originals or adaptations to choose from:
1. Hoplite heavy spearmen
2. Peltasts, lighter and with more flexibility in rough terrain
3. The Katapelta, or "Shield-Piercer", the torsion catapult invented in Syracuse which spawned a whole variety of bolt and stone-throwers, siege and naval 'heavy weapons'
4. Phillip and Alexander's Pezhetairoi, phalanx of pikemen
5. Same duo's Hetairoi, or Companion Cavalry of heavy lancers

Of this short list, Pezhetairoi and/or Hetairoi could be Leader Unique(s) for Phillip or Alexander or a Macedonian Civ. The other three could be more general to almost any of the Greek city states or Leagues, especially the Peltast for groups like the Aetolian or Arcadian Leagues, both of which were based in rougher country than the Athenian Attic plains.
BUT for all the potential for variety, you have to come back in the end to the fact that Classical Greece is associated with the Hoplite as a Unique military system and unit.

I agree with the fact that the Hoplite is probably the most iconic unit for Greece. As for the others that you mentioned they could easily be a unit for any particular leader.
I mentioned above that the Trireme could possibly be Leader UU for any Athenian leader, Cleisthenes or Pericles, if they wanted to.
On the off chance that we get Dionysus I of Syracuse, he could get the Katapelta.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree with the fact that the Hoplite is probably the most iconic unit for Greece. As for the others that you mentioned they could easily be a unit for any particular leader.
I mentioned above that the Trireme could possibly be Leader UU for any Athenian leader, Cleisthenes or Pericles, if they wanted to.
On the off chance that we get Dionysus I of Syracuse, he could get the Katapelta.

Since Cleisthenes extended the voting franchise to all adult male Athenians regardless of financial status because the rowers in the triremes didn't have provide any arms or armor, he would be a good possibility for the Trireme - warship as political agent, so to speak.
Because he set up the Workshop on Ortygia, the world's first Military Research Project, and there developed the Quinquereme warship, the katapelta, and the gastrophetes ("Belly bow, because it had to be braced against your stomach to cock the bow) or crossbow, any of those could be a Dionysian UU. However, since the quinquereme was developed into the primary warship of both Carthage and Rome, and the catapult first used as field 'artillery by Phillip and Alexander, I'd prefer Dionysius get the Ortygian Workshop as a special Science District or Building.

 

[BuchiTaton]

There is an element that could (yes an assumption) be also related to Alexander not being the Greek leader in CIV6, Gorgo.
Talking about "quotas" the pursuit for female leader gave us figures like Wihelmina that were clearly not an exponent of the Dutch golden age. Gorgo pretty much cover the militaristic part of Greece plus add to the options of female leaders.
For CIV7 other female leaders like Catherine II could come back an let Alexander to be the militaristic leader of Greece again.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There is an element that could (yes an assumption) be also related to Alexander not being the Greek leader in CIV6, Gorgo.
Talking about "quotas" the pursuit for female leader gave us figures like Wihelmina that were clearly not an exponent of the Dutch golden age. Gorgo pretty much cover the militaristic part of Greece plus add to the options of female leaders.
For CIV7 other female leaders like Catherine II could come back an let Alexander to be the militaristic leader of Greece again.

Kleopatra of Epirus, whom I have posted on before: a legitimate (i.e., Legal under the contemporary Laws of Epirus) female leader for Greece, with potentially serious Religious as well as Diplomatic basis for Unique attributes. Probably have to spell her name as above to keep 99.99% of gamers from confusing her with Cleopatra VII of Ptolemaic Egypt, but IMHO Cleo of the Rug should be retired in favor of Hetshepsut anyway.