Beefjack interview (Morocco hinted?)

[Muzzway]

Because Berber as an ethnic designation can be used to refer to any of the following:

The people of the Moroccon Kingdoms to modern day Morocco.

The Taureg people.

The ancient Garamantes.

The ancient Libu/Meshwesh.

None of which are exactly the same thing as with the examples of India and China. (Although there is probably a direct line from the Libu to Garamantes to the Taureg, Morocco holds a huge debt to Arabian influence and starts with Idris' Kingdom of Fez).

It would similar to including the Celts as a civilization, though. It's also a much more specific designation than, god forbid this be repeated, the "Native American" civilization of Civ 4.

 

[Veras]

While I suspect the Moors are almost confirmed, to play devil's advocate this doesn't confirm it. There's also a Motte & Bailey (from the 1066 scenario), and most scenario civs include new animations and graphics for UUs or UIs specific to the scenario. So it could merely support the notion that Morocco is part of the Scramble for Africa, without confirming it as a main-game civ.

Will the arqueology system be present in Scramble for Africa? Doesn't make much sense for me, and it was at a description of it that Marocco slipped, so I strongly believe that they still a good possibiliy.

 

[turingmachine]

It would similar to including the Celts as a civilization, though. It's also a much more specific designation than, god forbid this be repeated, the "Native American" civilization of Civ 4.

It wouldnt be the same as the Celts because Morrocco represents a very specific development in the Berbers though the influx of Arabic influences. Morroco is deserving to be in on its own even separate from a larger Berber classification.

 

[blackcatatonic]

If true, this will be the most exciting announcement so far!

A Kasbah or Souk UI/UB would be very very cool.

As for the unique luxury, I think I suggested Dates in another thread. Saffron and Camels are also plausible suggestions.

Crossing my fingers this will be confirmed soon!

 

[Muzzway]

It wouldnt be the same as the Celts because Morrocco represents a very specific development in the Berbers though the influx of Arabic influences. Morroco is deserving to be in on its own even separate from a larger Berber classification.

I agree with you there, but Firaxis does have a tendency to go more general over specific whenever possible. Including Denmark instead of the Vikings is one reversal of that trend in Civ 5, but then we also got Polynesia and the Celts.

 

[steveg700]

So, unique units...Black Guard?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I wouldn't say confirmed, but there is a very good case for Morroco now. And as the Kasbahs are trade route structures, it lends itself to the idea of Morocco being a land-based trade route civ, and that would weaken the theories for a Silk Road civ.

 

[bite]

I wouldn't say confirmed, but there is a very good case for Morroco now. And as the Kasbahs are trade route structures, it lends itself to the idea of Morocco being a land-based trade route civ, and that would weaken the theories for a Silk Road civ.

I would agree but the fact the slip came from Dennis Shirk rather than the interviewer makes me think that it is now a very strong possibility

 

[cybrxkhan]

I think for all intents and purposes we are certain Morocco is in. However, due to the fact that it was referred to in an offhand manner in one random answer of a random interview and was thus not a big reveal with civ fanfare, there's always the possibility it's not actually in. It's quite possible it's just a Scramble for Africa civ, for instance, although I think one of the devs said the buildings in the lower corner are an important clue. Ultimately, I think most of us are just assuming it's in.

 

[Stove]

I think it's in because if it was a Scramble for Africa civ, warriors wouldn't be fighting spear men, which is the example given in the article. Also, they need a second African civ especially since Kongo is only a city-state

 

[PhilBowles]

It would similar to including the Celts as a civilization, though. It's also a much more specific designation than, god forbid this be repeated, the "Native American" civilization of Civ 4.

The way the Celts are done is atrocious, in Civ V even more than in Civ IV, and their case for being in the game (other than Civ veterancy) highly questionable - anything that is less like the way the Celts were done is to be welcomed.

I agree with you there, but Firaxis does have a tendency to go more general over specific whenever possible. Including Denmark instead of the Vikings is one reversal of that trend in Civ 5, but then we also got Polynesia and the Celts.

The Celts have become less specific as the series has gone on - in Civs II and III they were essentially Gauls, who had a more discrete identity (although it's still something of an agglomeration). Boudicca as a leader option in Civ II doesn't really alter that; a lot of the female leaders in Civ II were a stretch, not all were associated with the civ (Germany had Maria Theresa), and two were complete inventions. Civ IV's conglomerate British Celts were in line with what Civ IV did with Vikings and Native Americans, but for the series as a whole that is an aberration. Civ V really should have gone back to the Civ III Celts if they insisted on including them at all; again, they contrast with the trend seen with the Danes and Iroquois vs. their Civ IV counterparts rather than being typical.

Polynesia I grant them because it's an area worth representing in the game, but none of the individual kingdoms makes a lot of sense in isolation because they're very minor powers in a global context. People would raise eyebrows if New Zealand was included as a civ, and rightly so, and the Maori are no more deserving of a place.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The Celts and Polynesians both fall under this category, but they all share a common culture to a degree. If anything, Civ5 is narrower because it focuses on the British Islands. It's not the same as Native Americans, which dealt with diverse cultures, languages, etc. across an entire continent and united them when their only real similarity Europeans didn't really make enough effort to distinguish them.

 

[alpha2117]

Glad if they are in - historically they are too important to keep being left out (much like Portugal). Leader wise there are a slew of choices and if the Berbers are included at least one female that would work.

If they are in I'm 3 for 3 for the recent civs which means Australia, a Native American Civ and Majapahit are either in (if I'm a genius) or doomed if theres no way an idiot like me gets more than 50% right.

To be honest balance wise it's hard to argue with the choices so far

Eastern Europe - check (Poland)
Western Europe - check (Portugal)
Historic cradle of the world - check (Assyria)
Southern Africa - check (Zulu)
New World colonial - check (Brazil)

North Africa - probable (Moors/Berber/Morrocco)

I'd be stunned if we done see at least one Asian civ and one native tribal civ

The last wild card is the most mysterious with another civ from any of the previous categories also making it in. My choice is Australia as it's a tourism, trade, new world expansion (edging Gran Columbia & Argentina) others want say Italy, others want 2 Asian civs or a 3rd African civ but they could throw some wild card like the Confederacy as a playable civ. Lets face it they often throw in something really left field (The Huns in G&K), HRE in previous games so something like the Confederate States of America is not that ridiculous.

I'm starting to get excited now.

 

[AriochIV]

North Africa - probable (Moors/Berber/Morocco)

I don't get this Moors/Berber talk. Dennis was quoted as saying "Moroccan warrior." If we don't believe that quote is accurate, then what are we even talking about?

 

[Cyanfunk]

Moors and Berbers under a general Moroccan Civ, I suppose.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't get this Moors/Berber talk. Dennis was quoted as saying "Moroccan warrior." If we don't believe that quote is accurate, then what are we even talking about?

I suspect they'll be called Morocco, but I could see references to their influence under previous names as a Berber people (for example, as the Almoravids).

 

[Gucumatz]

The Kabash that looks to be the UI for Morocco is a UI characterized with the Berber elements of Morocco. Its clearly going to be an aggregate civ if its in

 

[spacedinosaur]

I wouldn't say confirmed, but there is a very good case for Morroco now. And as the Kasbahs are trade route structures, it lends itself to the idea of Morocco being a land-based trade route civ, and that would weaken the theories for a Silk Road civ.

Consider them the alternative to Portugal's sea trade system with feitorias. I think Morocco is an appropriate term for the empire, and I think kasbahs are a great way of doing something special with land trade routes.

I must also imagine that Shirk did this "slip up" purposefully. He did tell us to look on the poster for the next clue after all. I imagine they're more tactful releasing information than you may give them credit for.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Here's a question - does anyone think the Moroccans will get the Ottomans' Barbary Corsairs UA? Or will they not? The Barbary Corsairs weren't usually from Morocco, being mainly from the other north African states, but I think it might be possible they get the Ottomans' UA (and then the Ottomans would get a new UA sort of like France).

 

[PerceeP927]

shows how much this interviewer knew, If he said Morocco in front of me I would yell "MOROCCO CONFIRMED?!?!?!"