Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It's funny, I just watched the intro video and though how cool Babylon looks and came here to post about it. You beat me to it though.
Getting a full tech from the eureka seems pretty crazy. Doesn't this seem particularly op in slower speeds such as marathon, where it takes tons of turns to research something?
I guess the penalty to normal research will make up for it. Did they say how big the penalty is?
Super excited about this new civ.
-50% to your science output.
The Alternative leader will be Kublai Khan for China and Mongolia.
It seems a bit silly having Babylon, but not having Egypt in the game, who was an important superpower of the Era.
I was hoping that we at LEAST get Egypt, at this point, EITHER as a Civilaztion or at the very least as a second alterntive leader, maybe of Cleopatra, who leads the Ptolemaic Greek Civilization in the game.
(If it is not possible to have as a 2nd Alterntive leader, as I know Egypt is completly different,
then maybe have an Egypt actual Civilzation by its own right as I understand that Ptolemaic Greek Civilzation is completly different and happened over 1,500 years later).
There's more that could be said on this topic, but I feel that it is too far off the topic of this thread to do here. If you want to argue about whether Cleopatra should be considered to have led Egypt then it would probably be better to start a new thread instead of derailing this one.
I do like Babylon, it looks fun to play, because you will be playing it such a different way.
It is also Historically accurate too, because it will be super-science strong in the early eras, but more challenging to survive in the later eras, (unless your super ruthless playing in the early Era's).
There will be a slowdown because once you're not getting Eurekas, the blanket penalty to Science will hit much harder. The Eureka ability is meant to push you along without building a massive science infrastructure, but if you don't build one you're going to be sitting around for the last half of the game waiting forever for techs.
I'm starting to think you're not meant to go for a Science win with them, and instead use the tech boost to do other things. We'll see.
where did it ever begin that "babylon" is "science based", anyway. i don't get it. they weren't first to much of anything, really. they inherited a lot from the sumerian and akkadian dynasties, like rome inherited a lot from the etruscans. if anything, i'd put the succeeding assyrians more in line with science.
to wit, amoritic babylon was sacked by the arguably technologically dominant hittites (better chariots) in 1595bc, many amorites scattered west and babylon proper would be controlled by the galzu (kassites, foreign ruling dynasty who spoke a language isolate) for five centuries. where, in there, is room for "scientifically advanced society". is this some neo-sitchin thing?