Axeman Speculation

The whole screenshot is fabricated. It doesn't matter if the unit is from a specific scenario that this screenshot isn't for. They can bring it in anyway. It doesn't matter if the unit is a UU for a new civ. They can change its allegiance to Barbarian easily. They have all the dev tools at their disposal to make these things. They can twist it any way they want. It doesn't have to be logical to our player perspective. The era of the units doesn't matter. They can bring in whatever they want to show. Remember in the PAX video they had Frigates escorting Cargo Ships on one side of the map and XCOM Squads fighting a GDR on the other.

The two most likely possibilities are a scenario-specific barbarian that's been brought in out of its scenario or it's a UU for a Native American civ that's been converted to a barbarian with dev tools. I'm leaning more towards the second at this time, but both are quite possible.

The real debate should be about why they showed it to us like this.

Maybe a barbarian unit from the Africa scenario?

Eagle Pursuit said:

The real debate should be about why they showed it to us like this.

Click to expand...

Because it creates a debate.
This is basically the same trick they used with Attila's Court back during G&K. They fabricated a screenshot and added a hidden hint at one of the new civs into it, in a way people wouldn't notice right away(an unexpected city belonging to a civ which can't have it on it's city list or a clearly unique unit controlled by barbarians).

You know, there's also a chance it's a unit created specifically for the Civil War scenario (a ton of the scenarios have unique unit art) and they just chose to also recycle it in the main game for barbarian art to get more use out of the asset.

Art Grin said:

Because it creates a debate.
This is basically the same trick they used with Attila's Court back during G&K. They fabricated a screenshot and added a hidden hint at one of the new civs into it, in a way people wouldn't notice right away(an unexpected city belonging to a civ which can't have it on it's city list or a clearly unique unit controlled by barbarians).

Click to expand...

Right. It was a Carthaginian conquest, was it not? That one was a softball because Attila is only associated with one civ. The hard part was accepting that the Huns were actually a civ. This one is a bit harder. We can narrow down the continent, but we can't determine if it's from a scenario or a real game civ or what civ it would be.

Eagle Pursuit said:

Right. It was a Carthaginian conquest, was it not? That one was a softball because Attila is only associated with one civ. The hard part was accepting that the Huns were actually a civ. This one is a bit harder. We can narrow down the continent, but we can't determine if it's from a scenario or a real game civ or what civ it would be.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't think they ever created a scenario specific barbarian unit. It could of course be a scenario specific UU, like the Saxon Huscarle in the 1066 scenario.
But seeing how they talked about the Puelbo and how they had to cut them, I have a feeling that this is a hint at the replacement Native American civ.

I get that feeling as well. It's still a hard guess. It was the Eastern Natives who got the Tomahawks from the European traders. Anything up north is too much in line with the Iroquois for consideration. The Cherokee are possible, but they picked up muskets and other trappings of the European colonists pretty quickly. A Great Lakes tribe would be a contender. They operated waterbourne trade routes. Do you pick just one, or go for the whole Algonquin group? Tecumseh and the Shawnee were mentioned. I don't love the idea, but I do find Tecumseh compelling.

All in all, if it is a new civ's UU, it is unlikely to be a plains tribe or a desert tribe because they would be more likely to have a mounted UU. And there goes my hope for my pet favorite Native American civ idea, the Comanche.

To be frank while there are plenty of other tribes that used Tomahawks, Tecumseh is one of the most charismatic leaders from the East. And if they scrapped the Pueblo solely because of the leader, I am guessing the leader is a huge part in their consideration - Putting the Shawnee as a possible darkhorse.

Eagle Pursuit said:

I get that feeling as well. It's still a hard guess. It was the Eastern Natives who got the Tomahawks from the European traders. Anything up north is too much in line with the Iroquois for consideration. The Cherokee are possible, but they picked up muskets and other trappings of the European colonists pretty quickly. A Great Lakes tribe would be a contender. They operated waterbourne trade routes. Do you pick just one, or go for the whole Algonquin group? Tecumseh and the Shawnee were mentioned. I don't love the idea, but I do find Tecumseh compelling.

All in all, if it is a new civ's UU, it is unlikely to be a plains tribe or a desert tribe because they would be more likely to have a mounted UU. And there goes my hope for my pet favorite Native American civ idea, the Comanche.

Click to expand...

They could always have 2 UUs. A mounted cavalry/lancer/knight/horseman replacement and melee unit, although this seems to be quite stretch.

At this point, IF it is an eastern native american civ, my bets are on either Tecumseh/Shawnee or Cherokee, given that they are somewhat known.

Then again it could the Pocahontas of the Powhatan, which would be 10803850138 times sillier than Wu Zeitian of China (and I believe some of you know here that I really detest the choice of Wu as a leader for China).

cybrxkhan said:

Then again it could the Pocahontas of the Powhatan, which would be 10803850138 times sillier than Wu Zeitian of China (and I believe some of you know here that I really detest the choice of Wu as a leader for China).

Click to expand...

Depends how desperate they are for female leaders. Out of the Civs that are being touted most frequently for inclusion, it seems we have fewer realistic choices for female leaders this time than when G&K was in development. There are still one or two (Tribhuwana of the Majapahit one of the best ones IMO; possibly also Maria II of Portugal if you can get over their having better male leader choices) but not many.

Pocahontas would be hands-down the worst leader choice in the history of Civ 5 - but since these are the guys who brought you Dido... who knows?!

Would be 132432433(cue numberspam)3243000x times worse than Dido [Who while mythological, at least in myth was a leader].

blackcatatonic said:

Depends how desperate they are for female leaders. Out of the Civs that are being touted most frequently for inclusion, it seems we have fewer realistic choices for female leaders this time than when G&K was in development. There are still one or two (Tribhuwana of the Majapahit one of the best ones IMO; possibly also Maria II of Portugal if you can get over their having better male leader choices) but not many.

Pocahontas would be hands-down the worst leader choice in the history of Civ 5 - but since these are the guys who brought you Dido... who knows?!

Click to expand...

The way I see it, we have a Welsh-accented, Welsh-speaking Boudicca leading (from Edinburgh) a civilization based on the modern cities of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. I think after that atrocity, anything will pass muster. Ramesses was more likely to actually speak Arabic than for any logical sense to be made of the Celts.

And is it just me, as a Brit and someone therefore familiar with the Welsh accent, or is it genuinely immersion-breaking to have a game based around major historical civilisations in which one of the leaders greets you in a Welsh accent? Sure there have been many minor powers that have had glorious histories, but Wales is not one of them... Then again, that could just be the ingrained cultural stereotype we have in my country; Welsh accents are generally portrayed as somewhat comic.

PhilBowles said:

And is it just me, as a Brit and someone therefore familiar with the Welsh accent, or is it genuinely immersion-breaking to have a game based around major historical civilisations in which one of the leaders greets you in a Welsh accent? Sure there have been many minor powers that have had glorious histories, but Wales is not one of them... Then again, that could just be the ingrained cultural stereotype we have in my country; Welsh accents are generally portrayed as somewhat comic.

Click to expand...

I think this is just you knowing Welsh. Although I understand what you mean, it would have been horrible if Bismarck started speaking with a Bavarian dialect.

I'd like to see the reaction if Pocahontas gets in.

Actually, the sad part is it might be a positive reaction for some.

PhilBowles said:

The way I see it, we have a Welsh-accented, Welsh-speaking Boudicca leading (from Edinburgh) a civilization based on the modern cities of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. I think after that atrocity, anything will pass muster. Ramesses was more likely to actually speak Arabic than for any logical sense to be made of the Celts.

And is it just me, as a Brit and someone therefore familiar with the Welsh accent, or is it genuinely immersion-breaking to have a game based around major historical civilisations in which one of the leaders greets you in a Welsh accent? Sure there have been many minor powers that have had glorious histories, but Wales is not one of them... Then again, that could just be the ingrained cultural stereotype we have in my country; Welsh accents are generally portrayed as somewhat comic.

Click to expand...

I think the choice of Welsh was because the Welsh are often associated with and more or less descended from the post-Roman Britons, who would then be the closest link to Boadicea. In my opinion that is more logical than Ramses, given that Coptic - directly descended from ancient Egyptian - is still around and they could've gotten someone who knows a bit of Coptic.

cybrxkhan said:

I'd like to see the reaction if Pocahontas gets in.

Actually, the sad part is it might be a positive reaction for some.





I think the choice of Welsh was because the Welsh are often associated with and more or less descended from the post-Roman Britons, who would then be the closest link to Boadicea. In my opinion that is more logical than Ramses, given that Coptic - directly descended from ancient Egyptian - is still around and they could've gotten someone who knows a bit of Coptic.

Click to expand...

Oh, linguistically I think people looked into it here at the time and the conclusion was that Welsh was the most appropriate available approximation of the Iceni language. It's the accent I find problematic, and I think that can be circumvented - Ramesses speaks Arabic but he sounds very different from Harun. Apart from its modern associations for the English, it's not at all likely that Boudicca's accent would bear any resemblance to a modern Welsh accent. Indeed Welsh was dying out as a language by the early 20th Century - the modern Welsh accent is the accent of Welsh-accented English speakers and their own Welsh-speaking descendants speaking the language, it may not be at all authentic.

Art Grin said:

I think this is just you knowing Welsh. Although I understand what you mean, it would have been horrible if Bismarck started speaking with a Bavarian dialect.

Click to expand...

Does Bismarck not bother you then? His speech has always bothered me. It has always sounded too... slow and sing-song.

PhilBowles said:

Oh, linguistically I think people looked into it here at the time and the conclusion was that Welsh was the most appropriate available approximation of the Iceni language. It's the accent I find problematic, and I think that can be circumvented - Ramesses speaks Arabic but he sounds very different from Harun. Apart from its modern associations for the English, it's not at all likely that Boudicca's accent would bear any resemblance to a modern Welsh accent. Indeed Welsh was dying out as a language by the early 20th Century - the modern Welsh accent is the accent of Welsh-accented English speakers and their own Welsh-speaking descendants speaking the language, it may not be at all authentic.

Click to expand...

Ah, the accent. I see. I think it's just difficult to find somehow who has a speaking knowledge of pre-modern Welsh. Contrast that with Ramses, because Egyptian Arabic is pretty much a different language from other varieties of Arabic (pretty much all varieties of Arabic can almost be considered different languages) and its easier to find Egyptian Arabic and standard Arabic speakers.

PhilBowles said:

And is it just me, as a Brit and someone therefore familiar with the Welsh accent, or is it genuinely immersion-breaking to have a game based around major historical civilisations in which one of the leaders greets you in a Welsh accent? Sure there have been many minor powers that have had glorious histories, but Wales is not one of them... Then again, that could just be the ingrained cultural stereotype we have in my country; Welsh accents are generally portrayed as somewhat comic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm British (read: English) too and I get the same thing with Welsh accents generally, although weirdly not with Boudicca: I think it's because she's actually speaking the language (which I don't understand) rather than just speaking English in a Welsh accent - which would indeed be immersion-breaking and pretty hilarious, now that I think of it

Another thing about Boudicca being Welsh - I can remember thinking/having discussions about this before G&K came out and deciding that, since the odds of them recreating whatever it was the Iceni spoke were pretty slim, the next-best option would be a Brythonic language, and out of those Welsh made most sense. Not ideal, but I would have found a Goidelic language (i.e. Scottish or Irish Gaelic) even weirder. Actually what I object to most about Boudicca is her appearance - OK, red hair, so far so historical... but she looks like a cross between Braveheart and Keira Knightley in the King Arthur movie

I don't have a major problem with how the Celts are represented in CiV since the weird pan-Celtic amalgamation Frankenciv is pretty much how they've always been represented in the franchise. It may be a historical atrocity, but at least it's one with some precedent.

*ahem* I digress...

At least Boudicca was an actual leader, despite leading neither the Scottish nor the Welsh nor the Irish... Pocahontas, though? Mrs. John Smith and that's about it...

Matthew. said:

Does Bismarck not bother you then? His speech has always bothered me. It has always sounded too... slow and sing-song.

Click to expand...

I think he sounds fine, a bit slow but fine. Apparently he sounds nothing like the actual Bismarck.