New civ linked to new resource

ferretbacon · Apr 11, 2013

Nujabes said:
It's not, though. They are significantly different entities.

For the purposes of the game, Kongo and Congo are the same. You can have the Kingdom of the Kongo and the Republic of the Congo combined in one civilization. Almost every civilization in the game does something similar.

Of course theyre historically different. So are the Vikings and Denmark, HRE and Germany, and the Kingdom of England and British Empire, but all cohabitate under the roof of one civilization.

Cyanfunk · Apr 11, 2013

Leopold II as rule of the Congo.

The new resource is "human suffering"

PhilBowles · Apr 11, 2013

seancolorado said:
I agree, just throwing out ideas. But I would say that Indonesia is equally associated with rice AND spice islands in terms of reasons for why they thrived historically. It's just the Western world that knows the stories about the Spice Islands a lot more.

The difference is that everyone has rice; we're looking for a resource that's intrinsically associated with one civ, not a civ that's intrinsically associated with one of several resources. Even when sourced from India by Europeans, most spices used in mainland Asia were themselves imports from Indonesia.

Plus, rice was in older incarnations of Civ and Indonesia wasn't, so bringing rice back wouldn't lead to any expectation at all that it's associated with a specific civ.

Arkangelus · Apr 11, 2013

I'm fairly sure when asked about resources in general he replied very narrowly saying there was one specific new luxury resource, but it was tied to a civ, which very much made me think it would be a produced one. With the likes of bison - how could that possibly work? Do you give them a start bias to a specific resource/add a line in the script that their start location spawns x number nearby? If someone beats you to settling their second city spot can they not improve/use the bison? Or even more so - if you conquer them before they're improved, are you just out of luck?

The only 'environmental' thing I could possibly see work would be putting seals onto ice floes, as they're the only terrain which can't contain a resource as it is. Then can submarines pillage them? Its pretty messy and inelegant.

Arkangelus · Apr 11, 2013

steveg700 said:
I suggested a few times in the past that a snow-based civ would become feasible if it had the ability to utilize more food resources in the snow and tundra, possibly inaccessible to others. Seal, walrus, and moose, for instance.

Uranium and oil can spawn up there, meaning adding a resource via an Inuit UI wouldnt work. A basic UI that just added :c5food:

/

/

to tiles would though - like the Moai, Terrace Farm and Polder, if it turns out later there's Uranium under there you can just replace it with a mine.

Loaf Warden · Apr 11, 2013

If manna is the new resource, we know the Israelites are in. :mischief:

JFD · Apr 11, 2013

I expect the new resource would be something produced, not something occuring naturally. Otherwise, I don't see how it would be "tied" to the civ in-game. With that in mind, I think it bumps up the chances of Venice a little more.

PhilBowles · Apr 11, 2013

For the purposes of the game, Kongo and Congo are the same. You can have the Kingdom of the Kongo and the Republic of the Congo combined in one civilization. Almost every civilization in the game does something similar

But those civilisations follow specific cultures through time. The modern Republic of Congo is not a derivative of the Kingdom of Congo; it's a post-colonial entity that happens to share a similar name because it's named after a geographical feature in the same region. Congo was named for the river, not the then-extinct Kingdom of Kongo (I can't identify whether Kongo was also named after the river - it may take its name from the Bantu word for mountains)

You may as well argue that Niger and Nigeria are the same because they're both named after the same river, or that the Huns are related to the Hungarians because the names resemble one another in English (but not in Magyar).

Nujabes · Apr 11, 2013

ferretbacon said:
For the purposes of the game, Kongo and Congo are the same. You can have the Kingdom of the Kongo and the Republic of the Congo combined in one civilization. Almost every civilization in the game does something similar.

Of course theyre historically different. So are the Vikings and Denmark, HRE and Germany, and the Kingdom of England and British Empire, but all cohabitate under the roof of one civilization.

I think they're also more geographically different than you're letting on - rubber seems an unlikely choice given all of the complexities here - it wasn't even the Republic of Congo that had rubber, it was the DRC, which is less associated with the Kingdom of Kongo than the RoC or Angola. Anyways, I think the point about rubber not being so exclusive to Kongo is valid. If they are included, it'll be interesting to see how they try to portray them in terms of the scenario and then on their own, but it's awkward because the naming is confusing.

ferretbacon · Apr 11, 2013

PhilBowles said:
But those civilisations follow specific cultures through time. The modern Republic of Congo is not a derivative of the Kingdom of Congo; it's a post-colonial entity that happens to share a similar name because it's named after a geographical feature in the same region (actually I can't identify whether Kongo was also named after the river - it may take its name from the Bantu word for mountains).

You may as well argue that Niger and Nigeria are the same because they're both named after the same river, or that the Huns are related to the Hungarians because the names resemble one another in English (but not in Magyar).

If two political entities occupy the same geographical area and the people who occupy the area are largely genetic descendants of the earlier political entity, then I think it's fair game to compare / associate the two, and to even combine them, at least for the purposes of this game.

In any case, a more serious contender than Kangaroos and Australia.

Nujabes · Apr 11, 2013

JFD said:
I expect the new resource would be something produced, not something occuring naturally. Otherwise, I don't see how it would be "tied" to the civ in-game. With that in mind, I think it bumps up the chances of Venice a little more.

Buffalo is the perfect example of this. They naturally occurred, but they were integral to the Sioux's way of life. Keep in mind that he didn't say it was a luxury resource.

Loaf Warden · Apr 11, 2013

There's nothing about rubber that would make us say, "If they've added that, then they must have added Kongo!" For one thing, rubber has been in Civ before without Kongo. For another, there are other places that are associated with rubber. Rubber makes me think of South America before it makes me think of Africa.

JFD · Apr 11, 2013

Nujabes said:
Buffalo is the perfect example of this. They naturally occurred, but they were integral to the Sioux's way of life. Keep in mind that he didn't say it was a luxury resource.

But how would this be exclusive to the Sioux in game terms? They couldn't have a building which produced buffalo and I can't see them getting a Unique Resource to replace Cattle. I suppose this could be a resource which is added to the game, but the Sioux get a special bonus when using that resource, but I inferred that the resource was exclusive based upon what Shirk said.

PerceeP927 · Apr 11, 2013

kongo confirmed as far as I can tell. rubber-kongo is a given. The belgian congo existed solely for the rubber industry

ferretbacon · Apr 11, 2013

JFD said:
But how would this be exclusive to the Sioux in game terms? They couldn't have a building which produced buffalo and I can't see them getting a Unique Resource to replace Cattle.

It doesn't have to be exclusive, necessarily. It just has to be tied enough to a certain civilization that their inclusion is almost required.

Art Grin · Apr 11, 2013

JFD said:
But how would this be exclusive to the Sioux in game terms? They couldn't have a building which produced buffalo and I can't see them getting a Unique Resource to replace Cattle.

Maybe not cattle replacement, but simply a unique resource.
For example: As soon as the Sioux discover animal husbandry or trapping, buffalo resources appear on the map. Those resources are only improvable/visible by Sioux.

Loaf Warden · Apr 11, 2013

PerceeP927 said:
kongo confirmed as far as I can tell. rubber-kongo is a given. The belgian congo existed solely for the rubber industry

There's that word again. It's not remotely confirmed. Unlike Shaka, it's barely been hinted at. I'll go out on a limb and say Dennis was not alluding to rubber and Kongo, for the reasons I just stated. A) Rubber has been in Civ before when Kongo has not, and B) there are other places associated with rubber than just central Africa. You're on exceedingly shaky ground to say it's "confirmed" that he was talking about rubber and Kongo.

PhilBowles · Apr 11, 2013

PerceeP927 said:
kongo confirmed as far as I can tell. rubber-kongo is a given. The belgian congo existed solely for the rubber industry

That's more likely to support Belgium than Kongo, which was not the Belgian Congo (most of Kongo was ceded to Portugal). Brazil also largely existed for the rubber industry, certainly that was the motivation for Portuguese expansion into Amazonia.

ferretbacon · Apr 11, 2013

Kongo is within the realm of possibility, but it is no where near confirmed. Certainly not just because of a Kongo/rubber connection.

I was just putting forth a civilization/resource link that I thought was a possibility (judging from the vehement opposition, I suppose I was wrong and am a dunce :cry:

).

aarondhknight · Apr 11, 2013

Since the resource is supposed to be a dead give-away, you can bank on it being one of these:

Buffalo / Bison - Sioux
Kangaroo - Australia
Seals / Walrus - Inuit
Komodo Dragon - Indonesia / Majaphahit
Moose - Canada

I think Buffalo or Kangaroo get the nod.

New civ linked to new resource

Obsessor

The Lion

Deity

Prince

Prince

(no party affiliation)

Kathigitarkh

Deity

Prince

Obsessor

Prince

(no party affiliation)

Kathigitarkh

Warlord

Obsessor

Emperor

(no party affiliation)

Deity

Obsessor

Chieftain

Similar threads