|
Byzantine posted:Justinian/Theodora (as in, both of them) would be awesome. Irene's just a low rent Wu Zeitan. For real though if Rome gets classical rome and the eastern roman empire there's no reason they can't finally throw China a bone and have separate Civilizations for say the Han and the Tang.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Well, they've also had famously benevolent leaders like Mao and Qin Shi Huang
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Justinian/Theodora (as in, both of them) would be awesome. Baldwin I  Byazntine and I have managed about 45 turns of our Venice-Byzantium GMR game, and so far it's shaping up to be very interesting. The game spawned us both on the same continent so naturally we're already at war with each other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
:popcorn:
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Irene's just a low rent Wu Zeitan. For real though if Rome gets classical rome and the eastern roman empire there's no reason they can't finally throw China a bone and have separate Civilizations for say the Han and the Tang. Germany's had the HRE and Germany too. Yet Italy has never been in the game. I guess italians don't buy Civ? I always think their choices of civilizations are absolutely bizzare. And I really don't like Victoria ruling England instead of the United Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Taear posted:Germany's had the HRE and Germany too. Yet Italy has never been in the game. I guess italians don't buy Civ? I am pretty sure Venice is in Italy. Is your objection that they didn't name the civ "Italy", or that they didn't pick Mussolini? Victoria is probably "England" for the same reason Roosevelt is "America" (neither being the actual name of the country they headed). On top of that, should they add another leader to "England" (i.e. Elizabeth), that person would not necessarily be a historical leader of the U.K.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
homullus posted:I am pretty sure Venice is in Italy. Is your objection that they didn't name the civ "Italy", or that they didn't pick Mussolini? Rome is in Italy too
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Taear posted:Germany's had the HRE and Germany too. Yet Italy has never been in the game. I guess italians don't buy Civ? Still doesn't hold a candle to combining a dozen very powerful and significant Muslim empires into a made up "arab" empire and giving them a Kurdish warlord for a leader. And seriously no Mongols but you've got Australia. And two leaders for Greece and a Macedon civilization. I don't even know what the gently caress they're doing. I also hope they ban leaders from the last game from appearing in the next. So many good leaders are being excluded. Where's my game with Alfred the great leading an Anglo saxon flavored English civ. Elias_Maluco posted:Rome is in Italy too homullus posted:I am pretty sure Venice is in Italy. Is your objection that they didn't name the civ "Italy", or that they didn't pick Mussolini? Gaius Marius fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
The funniest thing I learnt today was that Ashurbanipal, who from playing Civ V I assumed was a super-important Assyrian leader, actually oversaw the downfall and destruction of the empire and wrote a bunch of "woe is me" letters about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Italy has been in every civ game, becauseElias_Maluco posted:Rome is in Italy too
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Civilizations are not points on a map. "Rome" is often shorthand for "the Roman empire", which is significantly larger than a point on most maps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
I just wish the game was good. Who cares what you call your team? The only aspects of the civs that matter are the mechanics. If the mechanics are trash, like they were in civ5 and 6, and the game isn't even fun to play, why even bother with "Italy" or whatever. It's like complaining your shitheap of a car is the wrong color.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
homullus posted:I am pretty sure Venice is in Italy. Is your objection that they didn't name the civ "Italy", or that they didn't pick Mussolini? My objection is that they didn't name the Civ Italy. Although there's Prussia in Civ3 I think? It's strange that they've got Australia but only Venice as a representative of Italy. And if Rome is Italy then what's going on with the Celts? Are they England/France/Austria/Spain? And Roosevelt being America is totally different from Victoria being England. America is a shorthand for the United States of America. England is a historical nation that became the United Kingdom after a union with Scotland and Ireland. Victoria ruled all three kingdoms, Elizabeth only ruled England. It does matter to me because Civs aren't just mechanics to me. They're personalities and roleplay. That's what's fun for me. Not +2 production. I'm not saying "Well I won't play because [Aragon] aren't in the game" either, just that the civs they pick to use are really strange at times (like the aforementioned three Greeces)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Taear posted:Elizabeth only ruled England. She ruled Wales and Ireland, too, dood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:She ruled Wales and Ireland, too, dood. When was the last time anybody cared about Wales? They seem to be super-overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:She ruled Wales and Ireland, too, dood. She was Queen of England and Ireland but Wales has never been an offical part of the United Kingdom nor part of the titles of any of the Monarchs. It doesn't change the fact that them calling Victoria "Queen of England" is Americans making out England and the UK are the same thing!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Are you the guy who wanted Poland in 4 and ranted about it for years .
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Are you the guy who wanted Poland in 4 and ranted about it for years . Yep. But again it was down to a "isn't it weird that they've got [somewhere] and not Poland" way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Taear posted:She was Queen of England and Ireland but Wales has never been an offical part of the United Kingdom nor part of the titles of any of the Monarchs. What about the Prince of Wales?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
prefect posted:What about the Prince of Wales? You can learn about that in the wiki article, it's a lot like just being the duke of Cornwall and etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
I'd like to see more Native American civilizations, personally. Probably because I'm from Florida, but I keep thinking the Seminole would be an easy one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Florida Man conquers Rome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
republic of texas when
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
I think there should be more leaders for different civs before adding new ones. This is probably wishful thinking though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:republic of texas when Bear republic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:I think there should be more leaders for different civs before adding new ones. This is probably wishful thinking though. I think that is exactly what will happen. Only one civ has more than one leader, and there are many that are good candidates for second and third leaders (as in Civ IV). It is likely that the additional leaders will take advantage of whatever new mechanics are introduced in further expansions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
homullus posted:I think that is exactly what will happen. Only one civ has more than one leader, and there are many that are good candidates for second and third leaders (as in Civ IV). It is likely that the additional leaders will take advantage of whatever new mechanics are introduced in further expansions. I could also see a Classic Leaders DLC. Abraham Lincoln, Elizabeth, Isabella, Catherine, Bismarck, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
homullus posted:I think that is exactly what will happen. Only one civ has more than one leader, and there are many that are good candidates for second and third leaders (as in Civ IV). It is likely that the additional leaders will take advantage of whatever new mechanics are introduced in further expansions. I hope so. Part of it is that I want to see how you could take civs in other directions with different leaders, like Japan or China. Some of the modded civs have been really cool in this regard, although I can't speak for their balance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Yes more leaders is just the thing that will convince me to buy this lovely bug-ridden game
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
who even uses the built-in leaders instead of the anime mods
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
prefect posted:"Rome" is often shorthand for "the Roman empire", which is significantly larger than a point on most maps. The point is that the Roman empire was a vast territory that encompassed thousands of miles and millions of people and whose center of power only remained in Rome for a short period compared to the vast length of time it existed. Every game with Rome has the civ representing the classical empire of Augustus and Trajan. Saying it's a representative of a separate polity that existed a thousand years later after Mass migrations and annexations on the peninsula is ridiculous. It's like saying the US shouldn't be in since there's already Cherokee in the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I wonder if we'll see more leaders for DLC civs. Persia stands out to me as a civ that would work especially well with a second leader, because so much of how Persia plays is dictated by Cyrus and Fall of Babylon. All of the civ's bonuses are to culture and gold and stuff, but Cyrus turns them into a very effective military civ where you'll probably do culture stuff second to crushing your enemies, at least early on. Put Darius or someone else in charge, and you could completely change how the civ plays, more than most civs would change. But that'd be DLC that requires you to have DLC, so, not sure how keen they'd be on making that. Either way, I'm hoping to see more leaders sometime too. There's a lot of candidates they have, and it could make things a lot more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Baldwin I Baldwin and co never claimed to be Roman Emperors (because to Catholics, the Roman Empire was the state based in Germany - it wasn't even called the Holy Roman Empire until 1254). The Latins instead called themselves "Emperors of Romania".  And despite the best efforts of Perfidious Venezia, Sinai has been claimed for the empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Gluing leader chat and historical accuracy chat together, Charlemagne would be under Germany here, right? It's pretty explicitly based on the HRE, and Charlemagne with U-Boats is a funny mental image, but would he bring anything to the table that Frederick doesn't already?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Baldwin and co never claimed to be Roman Emperors (because to Catholics, the Roman Empire was the state based in Germany - it wasn't even called the Holy Roman Empire until 1254). The Latins instead called themselves "Emperors of Romania".  quote:And despite the best efforts of Perfidious Venezia, Sinai has been claimed for the empire. Venezia forgot how annoying barbs can get when you only have one city for them to attack. The Deleter posted:Gluing leader chat and historical accuracy chat together, Charlemagne would be under Germany here, right? It's pretty explicitly based on the HRE, and Charlemagne with U-Boats is a funny mental image, but would he bring anything to the table that Frederick doesn't already? Wouldn't Charlemagne be more appropriate under the French, or "Franks" if you want to get super accurate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
He's a French leader imho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:
Wherever you put Charlemagne , people going to complain to show how smart they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Catherine de Medici as France's leader was worth it just for the bitching. Some of the alternate rulers in Civ2 could be good for a laugh to bring back. Every civ had a default male and female name, even if that civ had no known historical female rulers. Got things like Eleanor Roosevelt leading America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Catherine de Medici as France's leader was worth it just for the bitching. Didn't they use a Japanese goddess as the leader for Japan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Amaterasu, yes. I think Scheherazade led something too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:36
|
|