...But Armenia is neither in Mesopotamia nor the Levant; the Caucasus is adjacent to Anatolia (which Armenia formerly spilled into, but don't tell the Turks ) and the Iranian Plateau.
Well Armenia is still a Caucasus civ, but at its height it encompassed much of the territory players are expecting to be filled by Assyria.
To be sure, I still expect Assyria more, but of the options on this list I think Armenia makes a more compelling case than most of the civs on the European continent proper.
Xenophon describes 'Gedrosian tribesmen' using longbows in his Anabasis. Now, he doesn't give us precise latitude and longitude locations for 'Gedrosia' (since neither had been invented yet) but it was in the Zagros Mountains, and apparently just south of the area called Armenia only a little later.
So, an Armenian Civ with Classical Era Longbowmen?
That should generate a few Threads along the lines of WTH?!
To be sure, I still expect Assyria more, but of the options on this list I think Armenia makes a more compelling case than most of the civs on the European continent proper.
I'd love to see Armenia, but I think Georgia makes it more unlikely than Turkey does. I'd still like to see Bohemia, but I admit it's an area of personal interest. I'm doing research on a paper on Bohemia and the Hussites right now actually.
I'd love to see Armenia, but I think Georgia makes it more unlikely than Turkey does. I'd still like to see Bohemia, but I admit it's an area of personal interest. I'm doing research on a paper on Bohemia and the Hussites right now actually.
At minimum we need a Prague CS that isn't just a copy-paste in a Poland scenario.
I too think Georgia all-but eliminated Armenia from consideration. But given that I really don't want anything more in Europe beyond Bulgaria and maybe something Italian, it kind of won my vote by default. I personally just don't need any more European or Middle Eastern civs in the game, especially when we are very likely to get Portugal, Byzantium, and probably Assyria.
I personally just don't need any more European or Middle Eastern civs in the game, especially when we are very likely to get Portugal, Byzantium, and probably Assyria.
As is well known, they could not possibly make the Middle East--particularly the Ancient Near East--too crowded for my tastes, but I'd be surprised to see anything more from the region other than Babylon or Assyria.
As is well known, they could not possibly make the Middle East--particularly the Ancient Near East--too crowded for my tastes, but I'd be surprised to see anything more from the region other than Babylon or Assyria.
Could make for a fun "ancient era" spinoff mode you could develop with some modders though. I think the distinctions between those civs could become a lot stronger and more meaningful if developed against a narrower backdrop that didn't have them all feeling generally obsolete and samey by the medieval era.
Could make for a fun "ancient era" spinoff mode you could develop with some modders though. I think the distinctions between those civs could become a lot stronger and more meaningful if developed against a narrower backdrop that didn't have them all feeling generally obsolete and samey by the medieval era.
I agree, and I think one of Civ6's weaknesses is that the Ancient and Classical eras feel very brief, even playing on Epic. (If they made a Beyond Earth-style ancient era spinoff, I think that would catch quite a few people's interests.)
I agree, and I think one of Civ6's weaknesses is that the Ancient and Classical eras feel very brief, even playing on Epic. (If they made a Beyond Earth-style ancient era spinoff, I think that would catch quite a few people's interests.)
The problem with that seems to be the very nature of civ. Instead of focusing on a particular era like AoE or Crusader Kings or EU, appealing mostly to particular period enthusiasts and otherwise relying on sales being buffed by general historical pedants, Civ has always tried to go wide and cherry pick only the most popular concepts from history, which makes it great as a blockbuster tentpole to maximize appeal to laypersons. But the "it's got something for everyone" formula often leaves specialists and sophisticates generally unsatisfied because it caters to them only a fraction of the time and is otherwise tainted with committee- and crowd-driven appeals to every other target demographic.
I picked Austria, the *cough* eastern romans, and the Armenians. I think Armenia could encompass Georgia and serve as a coptic pick since it is not represented well in Civilization if at all. It grew to a considerable size, but the only problem seems to be that there are not many no brainer picks. The khachkar could be a unique monument that grants additional culture, faith, and production. Andranik Ozanian would be an interesting leader who could use Fedayi, which are recruitable in the ancient era and gain strength equal to the strongest unit, but can only attack in your borders.
I read somewhere that Firaxis wasn’t going to include Austria because they had Australia and it would confuse Americans. Germany is already in a weird spot since it seems to comprise both the HRE and modern Germany, yet only has one leader whose abilities are very plain. Maybe Austria would be able to buy city state borders and acquire envoys faster along with bonuses for how many suzeranities you have. Ski resorts getting a tourism bonus are also mandatory
Alexios is my pick for Rome, and I think a bonus towards production during emergencies would be fitting. It is very general and creates a unique play style. The civilization bonus could grant extra housing, district cap, and an amenity to the capital city along with larger yields. The Hippodrome could provide amenities to cities within 8 tiles and would replace a government building. Perhaps it would also grant a special project as well
The problem with that seems to be the very nature of civ. Instead of focusing on a particular era like AoE or Crusader Kings or EU, appealing mostly to particular period enthusiasts and otherwise relying on sales being buffed by general historical pedants, Civ has always tried to go wide and cherry pick only the most popular concepts from history, which makes it great as a blockbuster tentpole to maximize appeal to laypersons. But the "it's got something for everyone" formula often leaves specialists and sophisticates generally unsatisfied because it caters to them only a fraction of the time and is otherwise tainted with committee- and crowd-driven appeals to every other target demographic.
There has been for quite some time a faction of players, though, interested in an expanded Ancient and Classical era, and we're talking about a spinoff, not Civ7--just like Beyond Earth was catering to something other than Civ's usual target audience.
Both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church are Oriental Orthodox, but the Armenians aren't Copts. Their acknowledged head (over their autocephalic head, the Catholicos of All Armenians) is the Patriarch of Antioch--the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church--not the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Ethiopians are also Oriental Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church being an autocephalic division of the Coptic Orthodox Church. I'm all for additional representation of Oriental Orthodoxy, and it's one of the reasons I'd love to see Armenia, but the Copts specifically would be very difficult to include simply because the only time Egypt was predominantly Coptic was when it was a Roman (or Byzantine) province. Same with Syriac Orthodoxy. That leaves the Ethiopians and Armenians.
I think the obvious choice for Armenia is Tiridates III, who first sanctioned Christianity in Armenia. Modern Armenia has been a very minor player on the world stage, but Classical and Medieval Armenia was a major regional power.
I read somewhere that Firaxis wasn’t going to include Austria because they had Australia and it would confuse Americans. Germany is already in a weird spot since it seems to comprise both the HRE and modern Germany, yet only has one leader whose abilities are very plain. Maybe Austria would be able to buy city state borders and acquire envoys faster along with bonuses for how many suzeranities you have. Ski resorts getting a tourism bonus are also mandatory
As much as I would like Austria, I did vote for it, I agree it is in a weird spot between HRE inspired Germany and the inclusion of Hungary. Since you also mentioned the Ski Resort I would have initially liked it to be there unique improvement unfortunately.
Speaking as an American, I don't think Australia in the game has anything to do with not including them, at least I hope. I think both the design of Germany and Hungary woud more likely be the reason.
There has been for quite some time a faction of players, though, interested in an expanded Ancient and Classical era, and we're talking about a spinoff, not Civ7--just like Beyond Earth was catering to something other than Civ's usual target audience.
But I guess where my point lies on that is: what about the players who subscribe to the Stalin and Mussolini and Castro civs who want a modern era spinoff? Or players like me who would probably prefer a medieval era spinoff? The devs are cutting their profits by just giving a fraction of their fanbase what they want. Not to mention they probably figure that if you wanted a game that focused specifically on the ancient and classical era you could just play Age of Empires I.
I would just be very surprised if the devs went that direction for a spinoff, given that a) it would be a substantial risk without playing to more broad geographic/time period/cultural/genre appeal, and b) as far as the developers' have expressed any interest, I really don't get the impression from the paltry offerings of Gilgamesh, Dido, and....Cleopatra...that their hearts would be in it. I suspect what you are asking for won't come from Firaxis.
But that's not even the same genre of game, not to mention it's over 20 years old at this point. (I mean, it's an excellent game and the recent Definitive Edition no doubt brought new players to it, but that's kind of like recommending The Sims--the original one--to someone requesting a modern city builder. )
I wish Paradox would tackle that era. I found CK2 and EU4 inaccessible, but I'm greatly enjoying CK3. (Again, different genre, I know, but I'd say grand strategy is more closely related to 4X than real time strategy is...)
Chiefly I think it's less Firaxis and more Ed Beach, though. It's well known that he's a Medieval/Renaissance person, which is why the lion's share of Civ6 leaders are Medieval/Renaissance. I don't have a problem with that: I also love the Medieval period and the Medieval period is probably where Civ6 shines the most. I think the best way to market an Ancient/Classical spinoff would be to make it mythological. While the real history of the Ancient World is fascinating and in no need of embellishment, there's no question that Minotaurs, Lamassu, and gods and heroes will be an easier sell to the general market.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) and the Iranian Plateau.
