The Huns Make me Sad

[Flying Mathias]

Anybody else a bit angry at the inclusion of the Huns? Specifically, I'm talking about their cities. It's pretty silly when my forces have to capture the Hunnic city of New York or Tokyo, even when America and Japan aren't in my game.

Ever since Gods and Kings came out, I always predetermine the Civs, just so I don't have to go up against Atilla, which ruins the surprise of discovering a Civ when I already know that I'll be fighting England or India. I know the Huns didn't have real cities, but they could've just named them after modern cities in their region. They even could've just made the names up and I'd still prefer it.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Yea I was so p. o.ed that I'm not even gonna play it

 

[BobDole]

I think getting so upset about the names of Hunnic cities that you won't play against them is a bit much. I mean, really, how much impact does it have on the game? Zero.

 

[Flying Mathias]

I think getting so upset about the names of Hunnic cities that you won't play against them is a bit much. I mean, really, how much impact does it have on the game? Zero.

Eh. Some people just favour immersion more than others.

 

[Hunter7500]

Eh. Some people just favour immersion more than others.

If you wanted real immersion, you'd find that the Huns would be unable to found cities at all, relying on conquest only. That actually might be a good idea, with the Huns OP city-taking.

 

[Flying Mathias]

If you wanted real immersion, you'd find that the Huns would be unable to found cities at all, relying on conquest only. That actually might be a good idea, with the Huns OP city-taking.

That'd be a bit difficult to implement though. To be honest, I'm in favour of just having no Hunnic Civ at all, and putting in something else.

 

[aceflamingo23]

That'd be a bit difficult to implement though. To be honest, I'm in favour of just having no Hunnic Civ at all, and putting in something else.

hell yeah holmes i agree i mean they include some europeans but they don include missippi or tensee. thats cheap yo

 

[Flying Mathias]

hell yeah holmes i agree i mean they include some europeans but they don include missippi or tensee. thats cheap yo

Personally I'd like to see some more African civs, like the Kongo.

 

[aceflamingo23]

Personally I'd like to see some more African civs, like the Kongo.

i agree with that too man i mean there aint enough black people in this game there needs to be more.

 

[blackcatatonic]

If you wanted real immersion, you'd find that the Huns would be unable to found cities at all, relying on conquest only. That actually might be a good idea, with the Huns OP city-taking.

I remember this being suggested when it transpired they were included in the XP. I thought it was a really nifty idea and I didn't - and still don't - see how it wouldn't work. Implementing it is the easy part - just prevent the Huns from building Settlers. True, it would force the player to adopt a very specific playstyle, but I think it could have been great.

The stealing city names thing is something that I'm yet to be convinced by. When I get to play the XP I'll have more of an idea of how it works in practice, but my understanding was that the city names would get taken from the bottom of other Civs' lists, so you wouldn't end up with something so prominent as New York or Tokyo, for example.

 

[Hunter7500]

They could have used unused names of cities that the Huns actually conquered.

 

[DemonMaster]

They could have used unused names of cities that the Huns actually conquered.

In a way that's what they did. They got city names from the bottom of the lists of those civs that are in the actual game and since we don't (at least I don't) play against Rome (and some other Europeans) all the time, this will be fairly accurate.

 

[Drawmeus]

The flavor on it is super weird. The Huns CAN make friends, and what happens when you're friends with the Americans when you own Los Angeles and San Francisco? The flavor is supposed to be that you conquered them, so... why are you friends?

This will probably never, ever bother me in game, but it's pretty strange.

 

[Ajuga]

The only thing I dislike is how the names get mixed up, if they just picked a random civ not in the game and used only their names (starting at the bottom) I'd like it a lot more.
Now we just have a mix of names that don't fit together.

(When I annex I even go as far as looking up city names for that civilization and changing the name to something that fits, it ticks me off that much.)

 

[fuzzatron717]

Why don't you just change the city names.

 

[firstconsul]

Alot of immersion sentimentalists have reared their heads on this forum lately. As for the Europe vs rest of the world argument, European civs have had a much larger impact on history than other continents civs thats why there are more of them. I.E. I feel like Poland would be implemented before Kongo simply because the 4th Partitioning of Poland directly instigated the second World War. Amongst the other rich aspects of Polish history, such as the other three partitions

 

[Upthrust]

You can always try deleting the Huns from the game files. Plenty of people have talked about doing the same to Austria, so it's certainly possible.

 

[Buccaneer]

People that favor immersion are simply losing out. The rest of us can enjoy the new elements, including the fantastic new civs.

 

[Andulias]

I still think the Huns were a pretty stupid idea in the first place. Out of the dozens of civilizations that deserve a spot in a Civ game, they go with the one that was never into empire building in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense.

Don't mind it too much though, big deal. But it's still silly.

 

[GlobularFoody]

I still think the Huns were a pretty stupid idea in the first place. Out of the dozens of civilizations that deserve a spot in a Civ game, they go with the one that was never into empire building in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense.

Don't mind it too much though, big deal. But it's still silly.

I have to agree. They should have just let us play as the barbarians and left out the Hunns. I think there was scenario for Civ 4 that let you do that, it was great too.

Another thing that bothers me about the Hunns, they just aren't different enough from the Civ 5 implementation of Mongolia. They both are asian, horse archering, pillaging and plundering type of dudes so why have both. Once you get double shot on the Hunn horse archer, they are indistinguishable from Keshiks, except they have 1 less movement point and can't get indirect fire for some reason.

I think another African Civ like the Zulu would have been perfect.