Betting and Speculation - The "Entirely Separate Hypercube" Civ!

Leugi

Supreme Libertador
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
1,675
Location
Bolivia
So yeah... Today's Q&A left us a truly interesting hint:

What is your favorite currently unrevealed Civ, and why.

It’s a Civ with such a unique play style that no civ ever before has ever been designed this way. It’s not just outside the box, it’s in an entirely separate hypercube.

So... In order not to fill the Questions thread with our wild speculation, I've made another thread...

Which civ could fit into that description? If you can, please say how would that happen, this time the idea is to get creative and actually propose the UA or U? that would make the civ such an odd thing...

Again, it's also important to take into account two things. First, the civ must fit alphabetically between these:

  • Assyria
  • Brazil
  • Indonesia
  • Morocco
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • EMPTY
  • EMPTY
  • Zulu

And we also know that one of the two civs (but not necessarily the Odd-civ) has a Purple and Cream color scheme...

So, place your bets and get a cookie!

(This time, no poll, as the description could really generate odd options, but I'll check all the posts that manage to say things specifically once we know the odd-civ)
But, if there was a poll, these could be the options:
- Venice
- San Marino
- Sioux
- The Pueblo
- Shawnee
- Powhatan
- Other European
- Other Native American
- Other Modern American / Post-colonial
- Other Asian
- Other African - Middle East
- Other Mystical / Sci-fi
 
It's really just between Venice and an American Indian civ. It could be something else entirely but until we get a hint otherwise we have to limit ourselves to these two options
 
From the Q&A thread:

If they do city changes they better make it so that Huns can't build cities aside from their capital.

Huns would be a good OCC civ as a conquerer, but again, it's a glorified barbarian horde tribe if that's the case. Maybe it got a rework, but I don't think it will happen. I agree they shouldn't be building cities.

Back on point, it seems likey the Tomahawk unit is associated with the new civ. But why the barbarian color schematic? If it is a UU then okay, but why wouldn't they still get a separate color scheme? Maybe the UU is a Religious Chief (settler replacement) that converts camps into producers of this new unit (replacing warriors or spearmen). Then they would control all those barbarian units to conquer other cities. Could they capture or raze these cities? Do they even start with a city, as they cannot built a settler? Maybe the Tomahawk unit replaces the scout?
 
They must have been talking about linearly separable hypercubes. Euclidean Civilization confirmed.
 
As I already stated. The Powhatan.

"Powhatan Paramount Chiefdom"

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powatan#Complex_chiefdom

Translated to gameplay:

A Civ that only can build an initial central city and when attacking a barb camp it "converts it". This allow the player to control the barbs that emerge from that camp. After a fixed number of turns the barb camp evolves into a full-fledged city.

Other players may still see the controlled barbs as normal barbs and attack them, so the player that control the Powhatan must make a direct effort to protect his barb enclaves. During the "Barb" period of the enclaves, the player may attack other Civs or City-states without declaring war.

Pros:

- Fulfills the alphabethical theory.
- Replaces Pueblo as the NA Civ.
- Is truly "out of the box"
- Give us a chance for another female leader.
- Explains the Axeman Barb (a UU for this Civ that only pops from camps).

Cons:

- Powhatan not as widely known as Sioux or other tribes. (then again, with a few modifications this can be used for any NA Civ).
- It may be too tricky to find good locations for your cities this way.
 
I second HemlockMartinis guess. Native American Civ where you don't build cities, but play as a nomadic tribe. Move from place to place and consume resources for output (new units, research, gold, etc.) It would be very different in how you play the game. There are many things that can happen because of this mechanic (if it was used).
 
I think it's either Venice that only expands through some sort of new mechanic (city flipping via trade or something).

-or-

Whatever the NA civ is; it has something to do with barbarians. It's outside the box, but it's a bad idea to do anything to link NA cultures to barbarians IMO.
 
At this point, the actual identity of the civ is almost irrelevant. It's trying to think of what kind of attributes they could give a civ which would make it so out there. Here's some ideas from the old thread:

  • No UA at all
  • No UA, and at the beginning of each game it gets a random civ's UA
  • Can't found cities, can only turn barb camps into cities
 
My guess is a Native American civ that doesn't build cities or gets them in an unorthodox manner.

Instead of cities it has "camps", of which you can buy more with gold you obtain if you pillage improvements, raze cities or steal civilian units... you can also use to gold to buy more units. Your tech level is equal to "slowest" civ.
Goal is to raze all capitals... :crazyeye:
 
Given its more conventional nature within the currently existing civs, I don't believe Venice is what he is talking about. Then again, the GameSpot interview seemed to hint that Venice might be something wholly unexpected. It's hard to imagine given that the wild things I can think of for Venice are already included, like Austria's ability to peacefully take over city-states.

A completely barbarian civilization wouldn't fit alphabetically and I think they've already made that a scenario in the past. Controlling barbarians could be interesting, especially early in the game. But the same problem exists in that everyone would know who is controlling them. I guess if they set up a system where barbarians didn't become vassals until after the civ did something, such that you wouldn't know if the barbarian was independent or not, would be something really out there. But what civ would make sense with that ability? The Seminole? They were formed out of a mixture of many different people, including runaway slaves. I suppose the Sioux or Shawnee could make that work, also.

Could there be a civ that founds cities with the option of immediately making them colonies/puppet cities (although I'm not sure if the benefit of doing that will be as great without tying policies to culture victory)? But who then? Greece, Rome, Carthage, England, Spain, France, Portugal or Phoenicia would have been the best options for that. Could they refer to it as the Punic civilization? Unlikely.
 
Instead of cities it has "camps", of which you can buy more with gold you obtain if you pillage improvements, raze cities or steal civilian units... you can also use to gold to buy more units. Your tech level is equal to "slowest" civ.
Goal is to raze all capitals... :crazyeye:

Maybe they are going to flat out steal from At The Gates and give a civ the ability to move its cities.
 
I'm going to guess a Native America nomadic plains civilization (Sioux?) that is based on an economy of moving/migrating buffalo resources. This might also imply portable cities/communities or "tribes", although how that would play out would be interesting. It could be that at a certain level of invention, like construction, or upon entry into the Classical Era, the "tribes" will have to set down permanent roots and become a conventional city wherever they happen to be at. If they could pull off something like that, it would be an amazing civ to play.
 
Could there be a civ that founds cities with the option of immediately making them colonies/puppet cities (although I'm not sure if the benefit of doing that will be as great without tying policies to culture victory)? But who then? Greece, Rome, Carthage, England, Spain, France, Portugal or Phoenicia would have been the best options for that. Could they refer to it as the Punic civilization? Unlikely.

This doesn't seem radical enough to really warrant the hype. If a civ had this UA I wouldn't think it was anything insane.
 
What's the actual evidence at this point that one of the civs is native American? I get the Venice speculation (purple-white colors seem right, we know it's European, "most serene" comment), but I've seen nothing specific to suggest native American besides a barbarian unit. But that isn't evidence... barbarians have never used any other civ's unique unit before (I guess the comment in the title of this thread makes it a little more likely, but still), and barbarians have their own unique units, which is the best explanation for this one. Is there some piece I'm missing that makes everyone so sure?
 
Instead of cities it has "camps", of which you can buy more with gold you obtain if you pillage improvements, raze cities or steal civilian units... you can also use to gold to buy more units. Your tech level is equal to "slowest" civ.
Goal is to raze all capitals... :crazyeye:

I don't see them making a civ that is locked out of most victory conditions. If it is something unique about cities, they would still need an initial capital, if only just to satisfy the domination victory.
 
Top Bottom