All about the Inuit.

[Polar Bear]

Hate to bump an old thread, but I have a reason.

I'm going back and updating my older mods. Would anyone here have a suggestion for an icon to use to represent Inuit religious beliefs?

That is easy. An Inuit shaman mask. The masks were an important part in Inuit religion, representing things like animal totems, or the sun or moon.


I read that there is a new expansion being made. Maybe we will see nine or ten new civilizations in this one. A good chance for the Inuit.
This is a good time to show your support for the Inuit as a new civilization.

 

[AbsintheRed]

A good chance for the Inuit.

IMO there is not
So many way more worthy candidates

 

[Polar Bear]

IMO there is not
So many way more worthy candidates

As you say, that is your opinion. There is not a great deal of civilizations left that would be considered by Firaxis. Can you list more than ten civilizations that you think have a good chance?

 

[Drawmeus]

As you say, that is your opinion. There is not a great deal of civilizations left that would be considered by Firaxis. Can you list more than ten civilizations that you think have a good chance?

Poland
Apaches
Zulu
Kongo
Portugal
Israel
Hittites
Sumeria

We are hitting the bottom of the barrel... there are a LOT of Civs in Civ 5 at this point. And that might get us an Inuit civ if they do another major expansion... but it's still highly unlikely.

Which is a shame, because my favorite civs are invariably the ones that play very differently from the rest, and having a civ that rewarded me for settling tundra and ice tiles would be pretty awesome.

 

[Polar Bear]

There is another expansion on the way called 'One world'. This is why I think there is a good chance.

Poland, maybe. Apaches and Kongo are not more likely than the Inuit. The Zulu and Portugal, yes. Israel I do not think so. Hittites and Sumer are already in the game. If we get ten more civilizations they there is a good chance for the Inuit.

 

[Drawmeus]

If the Inuit had the same historical significance, except on some remote tropical island, I'd say they had absolutely no chance of getting in, because their historical significance on the world stage is essentially zero*. As it is, they're so different culturally from just about every other culture that I could see it happening because of the gameplay opportunities.

(Also, in case you missed it, I'd fully support their inclusion. They're very interesting, and the gameplay opportunities are really cool)

* I know that I'm walking onto a landmine on this one because it's evident how much you care about the Inuit. My only defense will be the acknowledgement that historical significance from the standpoint of a 6000 year game about the rise and fall of empires says essentially nothing about the value of a culture. There are a lot of fairly damning critiques that can be leveled at this view of history, but you do have to adopt something like this view of history to make a compelling Civilization game.

 

[AbsintheRed]

As you say, that is your opinion.

They will probably finish that american civil war scenario which was planned for Gods and Kings, so there is very good chance for a native american native civ connected to that.
I would say Sioux and Comanche has the best chance for that place.

In my opinion there won't be 2 north american native civs in the expansion, so this further decreases the chance for thte Inuits.

There is not a great deal of civilizations left that would be considered by Firaxis. Can you list more than ten civilizations that you think have a good chance?

Let's get back to the civ poll:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460009

Current vote number: 289 (+116):

1. Portugal: 139 (+65)
2. Zulu: 135 (+59)
3. Indonesia: 118 (+36)
4. Brazil: 103 (+53)
5. Sumer: 100 (+38)
6. Poland: 98 (+38)
7. Kongo: 94 (+28)
8. Hittites: 88 (+36)

9. Sioux: 81 (+27)
10. Tibet: 74 (+24)
11. Khmer: 69 (+24)
12. Assyria: ~65 (+27)
13. Phoenicia: 63 (+26)
14. Hungary: 62 (+29)
15. Hebrews: ~60 (+24)
15. Morocco/Moors: 60 (+18)

17. Armenia: ~50 (+18)
17. Zimbabwe: 50 (+13)
19. Mali: 49 (+18)
20. Vietnam: ~46 (+15)
21. Khazars: 45 (+11)
21. Nubia: ~45 (+15)
21. Swahili/Kilwa: ~45 (+15)
With at least 3-4 North American Native civs going in this list somewhere between 45-70 votes
Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Mississippian are among the most likely candidates that made it over 45.

Portugal, Zulu, Sioux, Sumer, Hittite, Khmer, Mali were already full civs in previous titles. All of those have a decent chance IMO, with the possible expection of Mali
If not the Sioux, then the Comanche instead because of their role in the civil war, as I mentioned earlier
So that's at least 6 good candidates already

From the first 16 civs on the list:
Some kind of representation of Indonesia is very likely. Interesting history, huge territory, huge population, and it's very popular as a civ possibility
Poland also has a decent chance, another very popular civ

Hungary, Tibet and the Hebrews are also very popular as civ choices, adding unique gameplay possibilities with interesting historical background
In spite that they are somewhat unlikely to make it in, the latter two because of religious controversies, Hungary because they included Austria this way

Assyria also has a good chance, I see no reason against them
If the Hittite won't be in, Assyria will likely take it's place
Mali and Phoenicia still has a chance, even though the Songhai and Carthage are in

Both Kongo and Morocco are very deserving civs historically, and the African continent still lacks civs.
As those two are popular enough, I would say they have a very good chance

I'm against modern civs, but Brazil is very popular
Hopefullly Firaxis will follow the trend of not putting in modern civs, but it still has a chance

All in all:
Very good chance: Portugal, Poland, Zulu, Sioux or Comanche (not both), Khmer, Sumer, Hittite, Assyria, Indonesia, Morocco, Kongo
Less chance, but still an opportunity: Hungary, Tibet, Hebrews, Mali, Phoenicia, Brazil

 

[Polar Bear]

Very good chance: Portugal, Poland, Zulu, Sioux or Comanche (not both), Khmer, Sumer, Hittite, Assyria, Indonesia, Morocco, Kongo
Less chance, but still an opportunity: Hungary, Tibet, Hebrews, Mali, Phoenicia, Brazil

There is a chance for each of those civilizations, but there is not a good chance for Sumer and the Hittites. Also there might not be a good chance for Morocco and Kongo. The list of civilizations that have a good chance is under ten. Given that Gods and Kings added nine civilizations as well as Spain for those who did not get the DLC for Spain and the Incas, there is a good chance we will see another ten civilizations. Certainly the Inuit have a chance. They are very popular and bring something entirely new to the game.

 

[Drawmeus]

Well, since this is totally speculative for the time being, I'll just leave you with a, "Let's hope so." My ideal list would be something like Israel, Kongo, Zulu, Inuit, Sioux (or Comanche or Apache), Brazil, Anasazi, Poland, Morocco.

 

[AbsintheRed]

There is a chance for each of those civilizations, but there is not a good chance for Sumer and the Hittites. Also there might not be a good chance for Morocco and Kongo. The list of civilizations that have a good chance is under ten. Given that Gods and Kings added nine civilizations as well as Spain for those who did not get the DLC for Spain and the Incas, there is a good chance we will see another ten civilizations. Certainly the Inuit have a chance. They are very popular and bring something entirely new to the game.

IMO Sumer and Hittite has more chance because they were in a previous DLC scenario, not less
It means that those civs already has a lot of things premade, less work to inculde them as full civs
Also, actually that DLC was probably meant to be a double civ pack, similarly to the previously released Spain+Inca
Not sure why they changed their minds, maybe the previous double DLC didn't sell well enough

Also, all civs I mentioned in my last post has way better chance then Inuit
My main reason for that, is that either the Sioux or the Comanche will almost surely get in, because of the half-ready civil war scenario
If that's true, there is no chance for a second native american civ
So almost zero chance for the Inuit - without even getting into popularity questions, or the debated issue that they qualify as a civilization or not (in the sense Civ V handles it)

 

[Tomatekh]

Also, actually that DLC was probably meant to be a double civ pack, similarly to the previously released Spain+Inca
Not sure why they changed their minds, maybe the previous double DLC didn't sell well enough

I've actually always been certain of this. Those two scenario civs have more work done on them than most fake scenario civs: civ icon, UU and UB icons, 3D unit art, map finished, plus the only constant error in the database logs is that the game can't find the paths for the Hittite and Sumer units, meaning at one point they were planned for the base game and the code was never cleaned up.

I have no idea why they abandoned the idea as well, though, I can't really say if it makes them more or less likely for the expansion (you can argue either way). However, the Hittites and Sumer both deserve to be in the game much more than a lot of suggestions that get thrown around.

 

[Drawmeus]

The thing about the Hittite/Sumer/Phoenicia civs is that, while they might be more historically significant, they're not distinctive. I'm sure if they add them, they'll find ways to make them distinct from each other in gameplay, but conceptually they're pretty similar. Phoenicia is the most distinct of the 3 because of the maritime trade angle, but Carthage already has that angle covered for early Mediterranean (granted, a significantly different era) maritime powers.

 

[turingmachine]

The thing about the Hittite/Sumer/Phoenicia civs is that, while they might be more historically significant, they're not distinctive. I'm sure if they add them, they'll find ways to make them distinct from each other in gameplay, but conceptually they're pretty similar. Phoenicia is the most distinct of the 3 because of the maritime trade angle, but Carthage already has that angle covered for early Mediterranean (granted, a significantly different era) maritime powers.

Oh please, that's like arguing why add Portugal because Spain is in. Plus, saying they're not distinctive only shows your lack of historical knowledge nothing more.

Sumer could easily be turned into an agricultural focused civ, which hey, no current in-game civ really has such a focus.

The Hittites are historically unlike any civ in the game and were one of the first civs to heavily use diplomacy, iron, and chariots. All of which can be turned into unique gameplay elements. Heck, they were also the only Indo-European cultural power of the era, meaning they had a completely different culture/cutoms/language/religion/everything than all of the surrounding civs.

You just seem to lump together ancient civs in your mind. Instead, yes, let's argue for Poland and Hungary because the game needs more European civs. Those are really so distinct from one another.

 

[Drawmeus]

Oh please, that's like arguing why add Portugal because Spain is in. Plus, saying they're not distinctive only shows your lack of historical knowledge nothing more.

Sumer could easily be turned into an agricultural focused civ, which hey, no current in-game civ really has such a focus.

The Hittites are historically unlike any civ in the game and were one of the first civs to heavily use diplomacy, iron, and chariots. All of which can be turned into unique gameplay elements. Heck, they were also the only Indo-European cultural power of the era, meaning they had a completely different culture/cutoms/language/religion/everything than all of the surrounding civs.

You just seem to lump together ancient civs in your mind. Instead, yes, let's argue for Poland and Hungary because the game needs more European civs. Those are really so distinct from one another.

I didn't argue for Hungary, and I do think Portugal and Poland are problematic because they're so close to existing civs; Portugal is on my list because a second exploration-oriented civ would change the game (when you're not playing Portugal) by quite a bit, and Poland just seems to be in such high demand, even if I don't necessarily think they're that attractive.

The point is that the Inuit are much more different from what we already have than the Hittites are, in terms of gameplay potential, and to my mind, that's a large enough advantage to merit the Inuit over the Hittites. I'm not ignorant of the Hittites, it's that the things that made them powerful (organization, early iron and chariot use, and aggressive diplomacy) were eventually adopted by a large number of civilizations that are already in the game. If you gave them benefits that reflect the uniqueness of their culture, they'll have only minor gameplay considerations different from many other Civs.

A big part of the problem, of course, is that the things that set them apart from other ancient empires (like most of the ancient empires) eventually incorporate into all of civilization. You can say they were among the first to use iron, but pretty much everyone, everywhere eventually learned to use iron. So you can give them an ironworking-related bonus, but it's not something totally new.

The Inuit would ask you to evaluate the whole map differently. The Hittites might have some unique elements and priorities might be a bit different, but playing them wouldn't be all that dramatically different from playing another moderately aggressive early game civs* with some expansion bonuses. They might achieve this in totally different ways from other civs, and that would be cool, but they don't achieve the differences that the Inuit would bring.

Sumer has the same problem as Mali. It's a distinct entity from Babylon, but they encompass the same region and often the same cities. It's a long shot simply because a lot of that empire is already in the game.

* if the next expansion focus dramatically on diplomacy with new/updated systems, the Hittites might be a perfect fit as an aggressive/diplomatic entity, but I'm not projecting that.


You probably ought to be a bit less... hostile in tone. I know my ancient civilizations passably well, as well as any ordinary well-educated American with a mild interest in history. I know the differences between these ancient civilizations; the differences are noticeable but they won't make for dramatically different gameplay, emphasizing tech or expansion or aggression or protectionism, but these are all options on the table for most civs. And that's the axis I'm prioritizing along - uniqueness of gameplay.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Oh please, that's like arguing why add Portugal because Spain is in. Plus, saying they're not distinctive only shows your lack of historical knowledge nothing more.

Sumer could easily be turned into an agricultural focused civ, which hey, no current in-game civ really has such a focus.

The Hittites are historically unlike any civ in the game and were one of the first civs to heavily use diplomacy, iron, and chariots. All of which can be turned into unique gameplay elements. Heck, they were also the only Indo-European cultural power of the era, meaning they had a completely different culture/cutoms/language/religion/everything than all of the surrounding civs.

You just seem to lump together ancient civs in your mind. Instead, yes, let's argue for Poland and Hungary because the game needs more European civs. Those are really so distinct from one another.

I agree with your thoughts, expect the last part
If you are saying Poland and Hungary are not absolutely distinct from each other, or from most of the other European civs, then you are also showing some lack of historical knowledge.
Hungarian ancestry and culture for example is absolutely unique in Europe, and very few European countries have such a colorful history
Poland would also be a very worthy addition, both civs were among the top medieval powers.

I see your point about more or less enough European civs, and also routing for the inclusion of Sumer and the Hittite. In fact, I'm a huge fan of the inclusion of Phoenicia too
Still, what you are saying about Hungary/Poland is a huge exaggaration

 

[turingmachine]

If you are saying Poland and Hungary are not absolutely distinct from each other, or

I wasn't really saying that and I apologize for how I came off. I was comparing the argument to the argument that there's no difference between Sumer and the Hittites because they happened to share similar geographic regions and time period, and was pointing out if you don't want to accept the differences between one group you can't really argue for differences between the other, i.e. it's absurd to make these general distinctions that one group is more different than another group.

 

[Drawmeus]

I wasn't really saying that and I apologize for how I came off. I was comparing the argument to the argument that there's no difference between Sumer and the Hittites because they happened to share similar geographic regions and time period, and was pointing out if you don't want to accept the differences between one group you can't really argue for differences between the other, i.e. it's absurd to make these general distinctions that one group is more different than another group.

I mostly agree.

When I say the Inuit are more different from other cultures, I'm talking potential gameplay. I'm NOT judging these civs culturally or lumping them together in terms of their history or cultures.

Look at most of the civ bonuses - say, France and China. The cultures are very different, indisputably. Their bonuses are quite different as well, with France getting a strong incentive to expand and some strong military bonuses in the later portions of the game. China gets bonuses that make them effective early/mid-game warmongers and reward them for expansion.

These bonuses are quite different, you approach the game differently between the two civs. But you're still playing fundamentally the same game. You're looking to aggressively build new cities while teching to an era of warfare later on.

Compare that to Polynesia, Spain, or a hypothetical Inuit civilization with bonuses on snow/tundra/ocean resources. As Polynesia, you look to get a unit across the oceans to meet as many allies as possible - a gambit that is literally unavailable to any other civ - and you may treat some city sites differently because of potential for Moai (though that's not a huge deal in most games). As Spain, you aggressively send out explorers early, look to annex and defend NWs, and in the ~Renaissance era, if you have a lead, you may go annex a few CSes that have NWs in their territory halfway around the world. As the Inuit, you'd be looking for Tundra and Snow city locations - something that no other civ would do.

China and France play differently from each other, but Polynesia and a hypothetical Inuit civ would play much more differently from them than, say, the Hittites likely would (projecting them based on their history as an aggressively expansionist empire into a very early game expansion and warfare empire).

I'm not reducing them all to the same thing. I don't think the Hittites are pretty much the same as the Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Sumerians, Phoenicians, etc. They're distinctive people with major differences. It's just that the Hittites would fit within the same basic gameplay box that many other Civs fit into, while the Inuit would fall well outside that box, and I view that as more added value to the game.