Axeman Speculation

I think it might be that they made the barbarian brutes look different for each continent. How could they make a Africa scenario without making the barbarians look like Africa natives for instance? The present brute unit got blond hair and is dressed in horned helmets and fur clothing. How silly is that looking in the African jungle?

I would love if they made the continents more distinct from each other, with different resources and barbarians for starters, now its only the terrain that looks different. Then they could add the old option to have the civs start in their "right" continent, so that when you play China you will have Korea or Japan as your neighbor and find, silk, tea and rice close by, while if you play Incas you find gold and potatoes.
 
Tyrvos said:
Isn't that the best kind of speculation?

It's just odd how they made a new marker with a tomahawk, doesn't make sense to just make that a normal barbarian unit. *twitch* it's gotta be a new civ!
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to give a barbarian a new civ's unit.
 
From a distance, they look kinda dark skinned - of course it may just me seeing what I want to see (i would love a Congo/Angolan civ -Nzinga FTW!) but perhaps a congolese warrior of some sort? The axe doesn't look all that dissimilar from examples of their weaponry



That it's a barb unit is just a cunning way to sneak it into a screenshot.
 
The unit's appearance and icon are too culture-specific for it to be a generic unit. So it is either a scenario-specific barbarian or a Unique Unit from a new civ. why it is shown as a barbarian if it is not a barbarian is not really relevent. the ability to build the map and everything on it includes being able to set any unit to any allegiance. How it got into a screenshot is obvious. It was placed there, accidentally or otherwise. I suspect it was done specifically to drive speculation. They know we analyze screenshots in minute detail.
 
Xen said:
From a distance, they look kinda dark skinned - of course it may just me seeing what I want to see (i would love a Congo/Angolan civ -Nzinga FTW!) but perhaps a congolese warrior of some sort? The axe doesn't look all that dissimilar from examples of their weaponry



That it's a barb unit is just a cunning way to sneak it into a screenshot.
Click to expand...

The axe in question has a peen-like projection from the back of the axe head. It does not look like your picture. Tomahawks were European in origin and were trade goods given to Native Americans. They are an original design, but resemble the iconic francescas of the early Franks.
 
Eagle Pursuit said:
The axe in question has a peen-like projection from the back of the axe head. It does not look like your picture. Tomahawks were European in origin and were trade goods given to Native Americans. They are an original design, but resemble the iconic francescas of the early Franks.
Click to expand...

You can spare me the would be lecture - if you dont think it bears a resemblance, your opinion alone is more than sufficient... to state your opinion.
 
Gamling said:
I think it might be that they made the barbarian brutes look different for each continent. How could they make a Africa scenario without making the barbarians look like Africa natives for instance? The present brute unit got blond hair and is dressed in horned helmets and fur clothing. How silly is that looking in the African jungle?

I would love if they made the continents more distinct from each other, with different resources and barbarians for starters, now its only the terrain that looks different. Then they could add the old option to have the civs start in their "right" continent, so that when you play China you will have Korea or Japan as your neighbor and find, silk, tea and rice close by, while if you play Incas you find gold and potatoes.
Click to expand...

They might very well bring the 'Partisans' idea back, with 'rebel' units that spawn as barbarians using units of the civ's tech level. I doubt there was any colour-shifting to hide anything - there's probably a mechanic that allows barbarians to spawn or obtain whatever unit this is.

For all we know it could be a type of unique, tomahawk-wielding worker unit and has been captured by the barbs...

As for the icon, there's no reasonable doubt that it's a tomahawk. Unit icons are designed to either be generically recognisable or highly civ-specific (for example a siege tower unit wouldn't have the Assyrian siege tower glyph if it was a generic unit, but would look like a classic European siege tower profile). They wouldn't make an icon that resembles the classic profile of a tomahawk to represent a vaguely similar-looking weapon from elsewhere. No one would look at the Assyrian icon in isolation and think "ah, siege tower" if they didn't know something about the Assyrians - the fact that this image does have most people instantly thinking "ah, tomahawk" is telling.
 
That would be pretty funny if after all this argument and speculation it turns out it is a UU for a civilization with an unfortunate color scheme that really makes you appreciate Ethiopia's.
 
ferretbacon said:
That would be pretty funny if after all this argument and speculation it turns out it is a UU for a civilization with an unfortunate color scheme that really makes you appreciate Ethiopia's.
Click to expand...

Or possibly more likely they've decided on red-on-black for a civ colour scheme and changed the barbarians' colours.

I still don't see an issue with Ethiopia vs. the Barbarians, as someone who plays Ethiopia quite a lot. Occasionally I'll be caught out by an English ship attacking when it looked at cursory inspection like a Danish ally, or maybe even Babylon vs. the Celts, but I'm not sure I've confused an Ethiopian unit with a barbarian - it's entirely the wrong shade of red, quite apart from the background colour.
 
PhilBowles said:
Or possibly more likely they've decided on red-on-black for a civ colour scheme and changed the barbarians' colours.

I still don't see an issue with Ethiopia vs. the Barbarians, as someone who plays Ethiopia quite a lot. Occasionally I'll be caught out by an English ship attacking when it looked at cursory inspection like a Danish ally, or maybe even Babylon vs. the Celts, but I'm not sure I've confused an Ethiopian unit with a barbarian - it's entirely the wrong shade of red, quite apart from the background colour.
Click to expand...

I'm actually with you on that - I've never had a problem with Ethiopia's color myself... actually one of my favorite color schemes. I just know it's much maligned.

I suppose it might be possible they've changed the barbarian color scheme. Not outside the realm of possibility.
 
Or how about this, maybe it IS a unique unit of a Native American civ, but the reason why it's a Barbarian here, is because Barbarians in Brave New World can now be pseudo-civs that adopt the properties of a civilization that is not in the game, much like how Military City States give units from civs that are not in the game. Given how there will now be 43 civs to choose from in BNW there would be room for a few barbarian civs. Although, I realize that this idea is farfetched, but who knows right :p.
 
Tyrvos said:
The thing I find interesting is that the swordsmen next to the axemen have been damaged but not the axemen. Maybe they are a throwing axeman?
Click to expand...

Couldn't it be a primitive ranged unit as a starting alternative to the warrior? With low strength and maybe low range as well. Would make sence if they give us a new scouting unit that the scout upgrades to, so that this one is the one that upgrades into archers. But maybe that's too far fetched since you already get archers early and the expansion is more focused on late game.
 
Brutes looks like goth UU or any roman period barbaric UU, but they still aint nothing but barbarians in game...dunno
 
Njegos said:
Brutes looks like goth UU or any roman period barbaric UU, but they still aint nothing but barbarians in game...dunno
Click to expand...

You are right,
but in civ games the "european look & feel" was always used as "standard".

However I like the "privateer" speculation :)
 
A UU that becomes a barbarian outside its cultural borders. Hiawatha has gone off the reservation.
 
Zooming in on the screenshot, the individual figures put me in mind of nothing so much as Mister T.
 
If it is indeed a tomahawk, maybe it is a range 1 unit with high melee strength, like a very early Gatling gun?
Not that tomahawk going two hexes is any crazier that arrows, but I think that would be interesting and fresh.
 
I'm stumped. Maybe scenario specific but that game features Assyria. Wouldn't expect a native american civ there, and I don't think they would deliberately throw that in randomly in a scenario only to later edit it out. There isn't even a scenario with Assyria that we know of. More than likely, it is just a unit from the standard game.

It's Barb colors no question. I know Korea's colors threw us off, but that looks red on black to me. I just think it will add some flavor to barb units. Axeman may return in the game. This might be the barbarian brute equivalent. It's classical era. I don't think the Native American UU will be that early, although Iroquois is. I'd expect something more Age of Exploration related should there be another native american civ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
What Barbarian tribes would you like to see in Civ VII?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Henri Christophe
Henri Christophe
M
Simple fix using AI friendly/Existing Game Mechanics to end the World of Axeman and the World of Catapults
Replies
2
Views
1K
MassRiflemen
M
Enginseer
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (5-16) Chariot Archers And Their Replacements Should Receive Skirmisher Doctrine + Hand-Axe Rework
Replies
14
Views
1K
DeAnno
D
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Vahnstad
Vahnstad
King Phaedron
Evolving Civs and Leaders - Aztec to Mexico, Cherokee to America
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
Top Bottom