The Huns Make me Sad

[labrynianrebel]

They won't have names like Tokyo and New York because they're suppose to take names from the bottom parts of the name lists... right?

 

[ptoss1]

Is anybody else annoyed when they get settled in the beginning right next to Atilla? Kind of sucks being a landlocked Korea vs a super rampaging settling civ in the beginning.

 

[EulerMcE]

They won't have names like Tokyo and New York because they're suppose to take names from the bottom parts of the name lists... right?

I think they use a loose definition of bottom. I was playing as the Huns and ended up settling the city of Glasgow which is 7th on the Celts list (which has nearly 40 cities).

 

[Flying Mathias]

I think they use a loose definition of bottom. I was playing as the Huns and ended up settling the city of Glasgow which is 7th on the Celts list (which has nearly 40 cities).

Glasgow isn't a small city either, it's the biggest city in Scotland! I'd assume most people (at least in Europe) know what Glasgow is. I don't mind too much when they take the name from say, the Aztec cities, they all sound the same, but Glasgow? Get it together Firaxis,

 

[YouMust]

The Huns weren't Asian, they were indo-european. People know that because they killed their old people. They came from the area that is now Georgia and Azerbijahn. Another civ I thought could be added were the Scythians, another horse archer type civ.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Actually, just from the player perspective; I like the ability. When I'm playing the Huns, I'll want to found cities as quickly as possible so that I know who's on the map without having to go out and meet them. It'll let me adjust my strategy for potential roadblocks.

I'm no more upset about the Huns being included than I am about, say, every single other Civ in the game. Most of them don't exist any more in the state that made them famous; at best they've degenerated into small nations that like to remember their glory days and live off of past successes.

 

[LightStruck]

I think it's just not realistic at all for the Huns to be founding cities with Aztec, Japanese, French, Ottoman, names.

I'm the kind of guy who renames the city I build Oxford University in as "Oxford" (only if I'm Britain) or I rename the planned city where I plan to build that building.

It's just a pet peeve of mine, The Hunnic Cities of Tampa Bay, Itzapam and Liaoning? Really?

No.

 

[cccv]

Bothers me too, completely immersion-breaking, and when I get the game I intend to edit them right out after a few plays. I assume this will mean I'll be done getting achievements, right? I'm not sure. So, that sucks if so.

 

[HarryLime]

Here's what I like about stealing city names.

I just played my first G&K game and the Huns were on another continent. When I rolled up in my caravels, I met them first and saw that they had New York and Glasgow. I thought "holy crap, the huns are the runaways over here. I'd better start trading with them, start befriending them before they come after me." And when I explored more I remembered about their city names and saw that they'd only built a couple cities. But they had me there for a moment. It felt like they were posturing.

Of course, this is a one time scenario, but my first experience with their stolen city names was a good one and actually made me feel more immersed in the game.

 

[Morningcalm]

I was annoyed at the inclusion of the Huns until I saw the Attila leader video. God, that voice actor rocks. As good a choice as the choice of the voice actor for Ramesses II.

In-game, they are sufficiently different from the Mongols to be interesting, though they really are just interesting in the early game. In the late game, the only unique trait they have is the ability to raze cities twice as quickly, which would save you some unhappiness I guess...but that's about it.

I do think the music is a good reason to play the Huns though.

But yes, there are many worthier civs out there they could have chosen:
-ESPECIALLY THE KHAZARS (they fit in really well with the "gods and kings" theme, unlike the Renaissance leaders who don't quite fit that theme).

-Kongo
-Assyrians
-Sioux
-Gran Colombia
-Poland
-Swiss? Maybe...
-Majahapit
-Zulus
-Sumeria
-Hittites
-Portugal

 

[Flying Mathias]

I was annoyed at the inclusion of the Huns until I saw the Attila leader video. God, that voice actor rocks. As good a choice as the choice of the voice actor for Ramesses II.

All of the GaK leaders have great voice acting (Except Maria), but I find William's voice hilarious.

 

[Morningcalm]

What's hilarious about William? And for Maria, I heard her tone is actually pretty good Austrian German. She does sound like a simpering woman, but that's how they're choosing to present her in the expack. XD

 

[Wolle68]

I was annoyed at the inclusion of the Huns until I saw the Attila leader video. God, that voice actor rocks.

It does get a bit weird if he's friendly when you meet him the first time. Dude, I'm your friend; stop shouting at me.

 

[Infiltrator]

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.

I don't think any non-siege unit can get indirect fire in GoK.. that said, yea I do feel like the Huns are like Mongols in a lot of ways. Their battering ram is great for taking CS's early, and Mongolia has a bonus against them as well.

Still tho, I find them weaker. The Huns only have a short timeframe where they are at peak effectiveness, if you got a start far off from other civs or in a rough area you pretty much wasted the entire point of your civ.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: This is NOT a thread to discuss which civs or leaders should have been included instead. For civ and leader discussions we have other threads!

 

[blac]

what pisses me off about the Huns is they seem to raze every single city they capture. I realize this is their UA but still. In my first game they could have had at least 4-5 plus puppet cities that they burned down. There few cities were surrounded by ruins of Dutch and other cities.

Why don't they at least keep some to expand their empires size? I never found them a major threat because they never really expanded past a couple of their own cities. they could have easily over run the southern half of the contient.

 

[bonafide11]

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

Yeah, and European colonialism in Africa -- with the Kongo being a significant colonized territory -- played a significant role in causing both World Wars, along with numerous other conflicts. Your theory is flawed.

I don't see why people care about the Hun cities names enough to keep them from playing in their games. I'm glad they didn't use regional cities that didn't belong to the Huns, that would be lame to represent them as Hun cities. So I have no problem with them taking city names from civs not in the game. It really doesn't affect the game experience that much.

 

[PhilBowles]

I like the Huns just for the sense of "damn, I'm next to Attila" or, as in my current game, watching the Attila vs. Genghis Khan deathmatch. Although the fear factor is limited by the AI's complete inability to play the Huns effectively - it's simply not aggressive enough early enough and, aside from the Battering Ram, the Huns are basically just another Egypt - a civ that likes to spam a unique chariot archer, itself (still) a rather weak unit supported by random assortments of other units. That's not a great recipe for success as a warmonger, and the HA and BR don't have enough natural synergy (one's a fast ranged unit, the other a slow melee unit) for the AI to use them together effectively.

As for the city issue, do they necessarily take the names from civs not in the game? I understood that they took the names from the end of other civs' city lists, and that these could be from civs that are or are not in the game. It's not as though it's the only way to find out what the unnamed civs are if you don't already know - you can run across city-states allied with people you've never met that will say "Allied with America", the Victory Progress screen even used to give the civ icons for every civ still holding its capital, even ones you haven't met.

 

[smallfish]

I deliberately hemmed in the Huns into my recent game as Netherlands, and it was lackluster; there was a small ocean between our lands, and the only way he could get to my lands proper was through China to the north.

China with the Great Wall.

ie. I see he also likes denouncing his targets before he declares war. Turn 13 and he already denounced Wu, for instance.

e: he isn't a forgiving type for all his flavor text might suggest - he promised to let me off the hook for stealing his techs, AND THE VERY NEXT TURN, he denounced me.

 

[Bad Wolf]

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's a really interesting idea; it would basically force them to always be early-game warmongers, which makes sense. Give them a bit of a buff to replace their inability to found cities and it would be the perfect civ for RPers, as opposed to the somewhat awkward (but by no means game-breaking) situation that exists now.