New DLC: Polynesia

Valkrionn · Feb 28, 2011

People, it's a game, first and foremost. If bringing in a "historically unimportant" civilization (IE, non-European, generally) allows for more interesting gameplay, then do it.

Polynesia is consistently one of the most requested civs on the 2K forums, and comes from a region that has NEVER been represented in a Civilization game. I think celebration of all the unique cultures of the world should be the goal of the series.

noncognosco · Feb 28, 2011

MkLh said:
Historically this must be one of the weirdest civilizations in Civilization ever, even beating the Vikings. There isn't such thing as "Polynesian civilization". Kamehameha was a king of Hawaiji. It's thousands of kilometers from Easter Island where the Moai Statues are. The societies were completely isolated from each other and had little in common.

Although Hawaii and Easter Island (Rapa Nui is the Polynesian term) are distant in location, they are actually quite similar in culture. There is a distinct and very similar Polynesian culture that is common to much of the Pacific. The distance between islands just makes it all the more astonishing.

SammyKhalifa · Feb 28, 2011

Valkrionn said:
People, it's a game, first and foremost. If bringing in a "historically unimportant" civilization (IE, non-European, generally) allows for more interesting gameplay, then do it.

Polynesia is consistently one of the most requested civs on the 2K forums, and comes from a region that has NEVER been represented in a Civilization game. I think celebration of all the unique cultures of the world should be the goal of the series.

The choice of music alone could make them interesting.

Solo4114 · Feb 28, 2011

Valkrionn said:
People, it's a game, first and foremost. If bringing in a "historically unimportant" civilization (IE, non-European, generally) allows for more interesting gameplay, then do it.

Polynesia is consistently one of the most requested civs on the 2K forums, and comes from a region that has NEVER been represented in a Civilization game. I think celebration of all the unique cultures of the world should be the goal of the series.

Minor point here, but I think the goal of the series is makin' a buck.

That said, including a civ that's totally new to the game and has never been included in ANY prior release, and which plays dramatically differently is interesting. That said, I'm not sure how sanguine I am on the way they design civs such that you kind of HAVE to pick advantageous map styles to really benefit from them. I mean, Polynesia on a pangaea map...yeah....not so much. One thing I appreciated about the way Civ 4 generally handled civs was that there was usually just enough balance among the civs to make them genuinely useful across a variety of scenarios, not just "These guys are only really worth playing on this kind of map....and then it's kind of cheating to do so."

Valkrionn · Feb 28, 2011

Eh... Polynesia looks useful on a pangea map, just not as much as on, say, an archipelago map. I wouldn't worry overly about it.

Fabiano1979 · Feb 28, 2011

I could understant if it was a market decision, like if they choose Korea or Australia.

"Lets put korea to sell some more in Asia".

Polynesia for me only means that they want to try new manjo-jambo magic stuff in civ.

I really think tahiti is a beautiful place with beautiful plp, but no way should be on civ before all the others major powers theres still left out.

SlightlyMad · Feb 28, 2011

Solo4114 said:
"These guys are only really worth playing on this kind of map....and then it's kind of cheating to do so."

While I agree that these sorts of civs aren't that much fun to play yourself, they make incredibly effective AI opponents. Polynesia could be especially interesting to play against, as you go through the earlier eras of the game seeing them with only a couple cities, but somehow topping out the power graphs and with a huge surplus of luxuries that nobody else has access to.

SammyKhalifa · Feb 28, 2011

Fabiano1979 said:
I could understant if it was a market decision, like if
Polynesia for me only means that they want to try new manjo-jambo magic stuff in civ.

Wow . . . insulting in so many ways . . .

Alexastor · Feb 28, 2011

Valkrionn said:
People, it's a game, first and foremost. If bringing in a "historically unimportant" civilization (IE, non-European, generally) allows for more interesting gameplay, then do it.

Polynesia is consistently one of the most requested civs on the 2K forums, and comes from a region that has NEVER been represented in a Civilization game. I think celebration of all the unique cultures of the world should be the goal of the series.

I don't think Polynesians were unimportant (and neither were Carthaginians, Portuguese, or Vikings).

It's just that there never was something like a Polynesian civ, and as already stated the Moai statues, Maori warriors and the Hawaiian king in one civ seems a bit strange... that's why I went WTH. But I'm fine with it, especially (as I already said) it was chosen because the it was very high on the fans' wishlist and 'cause the gameplay seems cool.

Fabiano1979 · Feb 28, 2011

SammyKhalifa said:
Wow . . . insulting in so many ways . . .

Let me explain then...maybe you didnt see my earlier posts.

What I see, is that they will come with more "Fountain of youth" kind of stuff.

Polynesia is a region, not a civ. It was never a political power in any time, never united under the same governament.

Its like make a civ "Latin America". Makes no sense.

Theres Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, the same way theres Thaiti, Hawaii...

noncognosco · Feb 28, 2011

Fabiano1979 said:
Polynesia is a region, not a civ. It was never a political power in any time, never united under the same governament.

You mean like the united polity that was the Iroquois? Or the way that Greece was united under one government in the classical period?

SammyKhalifa · Feb 28, 2011

Fabiano1979 said:
Let me explain then...maybe you didnt see my earlier posts.

What I see, is that they will come with more "Fountain of youth" kind of stuff.

Polynesia is a region, not a civ. It was never a political power in any time, never united under the same governament.

Its like make a civ "Latin America". Makes no sense.

Theres Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, the same way theres Thaiti, Hawaii...

Thank you for explaining.

They weren't politically united, true, they share many common cultural traits. Many of the current civs in the game weren't one "Nation" or whatever you want to call it. It comes down again to the question of what a "civilization" is . . .

Zyxpsilon · Feb 28, 2011

RABicle said:
Polynesian territory. That makes Russia look small.

Now, i'll finally put my Nukkkklleaarrr Subs to good use! Lizzy, here i come.
Sold.

Hustapha Thool · Feb 28, 2011

SammyKhalifa said:
The choice of music alone could make them interesting.

Yes, in many ways... just as a side, Hawaiian music greatly influenced Western Swing (steel and jazz guitar) which then was a great influence upon the "creation" of rock and roll.

Valkrionn · Feb 28, 2011

Alexastor said:
I don't think Polynesians were unimportant (and neither were Carthaginians, Portuguese, or Vikings).

It's just that there never was something like a Polynesian civ, and as already stated the Moai statues, Maori warriors and the Hawaiian king in one civ seems a bit strange... that's why I went WTH. But I'm fine with it, especially (as I already said) it was chosen because the it was very high on the fans' wishlist and 'cause the gameplay seems cool.

There wasn't a Celtic civilization either but people are always okay with them...

But yeah, I can understand the WTH there. :lol:

Seems like a desire to include the major aspects of Polynesian culture (which is generally very close across the region, but some areas are better known for a few specific things).

Fabiano1979 said:
Let me explain then...maybe you didnt see my earlier posts.

What I see, is that they will come with more "Fountain of youth" kind of stuff.

Polynesia is a region, not a civ. It was never a political power in any time, never united under the same governament.

Its like make a civ "Latin America". Makes no sense.

Theres Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, the same way theres Thaiti, Hawaii...

Actually, it's a Cultural Region, which is pretty much what the Celtic civ has always covered as well (most of Europe at one point was "celtic", including one of the earliest known Iberian civilizations).

Hawaii or New Zealand might have had enough settlements to be chosen as a civilization of their own. Maybe.

LAnkou · Feb 28, 2011

No i think he meant it like all arab califates were under only one rule, unless he talks about how japanese were all under the rule of oda nobunaga

Fabiano1979 · Feb 28, 2011

noncognosco said:
You mean like the united polity that was the Iroquois? Or the way that Greece was united under one government in the classical period?

You understand what I said..

I dont know about the iroquais, but Greece many times was under the same dictator, like Philip or Alexander. but thats doesnt matter.

Lets call Europe a civ then or North America.

Or if you prefer, lets group together plp with the same ethinicity, go Latinos x Asians...

If you look this way, creating a "Polynesia civ" is vry offensive...because you are ignoring all the diversity that exists between the countries there.

I, being a brazilian, would hate being part of "Latin America Civ"

Tapewormlondon · Feb 28, 2011

So if the UA is indeed that you can embark and cross ocean immediatly. On a Terra map, would it be benificial to get your first settler and sail off to the new world straight away?

Ok so you will lose quite a few turns at first, but could settle a whole continent to your self without having any opposition....... pretty powerful stuff

Alexastor · Feb 28, 2011

noncognosco has a point: Iroquois and Greecs are/were defined as a culture.

Also I don't think they're a fantasy civ, they share a similar (not the same) culture and the way they live.

I don't think it's wrong to put the Polynesians ingame. It's still better to put Polynesians as a whole in the game instead of a tiny, unimportant part of it (Maori, Hawaiians or Rapa Nui). But it's okay to say WTH and ask why they did it (they did it because fans demanded it).

KrikkitTwo · Feb 28, 2011

noncognosco said:
You mean like the united polity that was the Iroquois? Or the way that Greece was united under one government in the classical period?

Both of those Were united polities at certain points though...

However I agree that being politically united is not necessary for a civ... but Polynesia provides the necessary geographic distinction and recognizability for being a reasonable DLC civ. (especially after Babylon)

As for other civs, I'm sure they will come out with Portugal and the Dutch in an Age of Exploration/Imperialism Scenario.

Celts, Carthage in a Roman Empire Scenario

Byzantine, Vikings, (possibly HRE and Poland) in a Mideval Europe Scenario

Korea in an Asian Scenario

Zulus and Ethiopia in an African Scenario

Texas, Mexico, California, Canada, and the Confederacy in a Civil War Scenario

Hebrews, Hittites, Phonecians, and Sumerians in an Ancient Middle East Scenario

Brazil and EU in a Future Scenario

New DLC: Polynesia

The Hamster King

Warlord

Deity

Prince

The Hamster King

Chieftain

Prince

Deity

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

Deity

Running Spider

Warlord

The Hamster King

Breizh A Tao

Chieftain

Warlord

Warlord

Immortal

Similar threads