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

[stealth_nsk]

The obvious choice is ATLANTIS.

The difference is that the entire civ is destroyed in the B.C. era, so you have a very limited time to win the game as them.

No, you just share your techs with other civs and continue development underwater.

 

[Arkangelus]

I would be inclined to bet on the most realistic option being a Venetian naval settler unit. Their empire WAS entirely coastal, beyond their famously aquatic capital, it would fit alongside some other trade-focused aspect. I do kind of hope its not TOO off the wall, especially as the vast majority of games would end up against this mystery civ.

 

[Sikandar]

Their empire WAS entirely coastal

That's not true. An entirely coastal civilization would have no cities not located on a coast. The Venetians had cities within the interior (such as within the Peloponnesus for example).

 

[boghog]

That's not true. An entirely coastal civilization would have no cities not located on a coast. The Venetians had cities within the interior (such as within the Peloponnesus for example).

Were they founded or conquered by the Venetians? Having just naval settlers would not preclude them from taking cities further inland of course.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Nothing matters anymore. I don't matter...you don't matter... The owls! I can hear the owls!

Here, for you:

 

[Fosphen]

Hello everyone,

My first post ever! Anyway, I have been thinking about this topic before I even knew this forum existed. It seems a lot of you are a lot more informed than me, but I keep on thinking in my head that a really controversial, but something totally out of the box civ would be the Confederates.

I thought about this because one of the scenarios is the US Civil War. I think at least in the US there are a decent amount of people who have affection for the Confederates even in modern times. It would be totally out of the box (for example, what if having the Confererates causes the US civ to split into a Union faction and Confederate faction).

There would be a clear great leader, a lot of history, information, and knowledge that could be drawn upon to build the unique characteristics of the civ.

Anyway, just a thought and I haven't seen anyone mention it in my admittedly quick review of the previous posts (sorry if I missed a post ... and I would be interested to be pointed in the direction of posts and a discussion about them as a potential Civ).

I like the idea of Venetians, but I do feel there are so many Euro Centric civs in the game while other regions of the world have far fewer to pull from.

 

[Crodface]

Hello everyone,

My first post ever! Anyway, I have been thinking about this topic before I even knew this forum existed. It seems a lot of you are a lot more informed than me, but I keep on thinking in my head that a really controversial, but something totally out of the box civ would be the Confederates.

I thought about this because one of the scenarios is the US Civil War. I think at least in the US there are a decent amount of people who have affection for the Confederates even in modern times. It would be totally out of the box (for example, what if having the Confererates causes the US civ to split into a Union faction and Confederate faction).

There would be a clear great leader, a lot of history, information, and knowledge that could be drawn upon to build the unique characteristics of the civ.

Anyway, just a thought and I haven't seen anyone mention it in my admittedly quick review of the previous posts (sorry if I missed a post ... and I would be interested to be pointed in the direction of posts and a discussion about them as a potential Civ).

I like the idea of Venetians, but I do feel there are so many Euro Centric civs in the game while other regions of the world have far fewer to pull from.

First of all, welcome.

And secondly, I doubt it would be the Confederacy. They were simply a rebel faction and not a significant nation. Yes they were organized and had a President, but they were still only around for four years.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Hello everyone,

My first post ever! Anyway, I have been thinking about this topic before I even knew this forum existed. It seems a lot of you are a lot more informed than me, but I keep on thinking in my head that a really controversial, but something totally out of the box civ would be the Confederates.

I thought about this because one of the scenarios is the US Civil War. I think at least in the US there are a decent amount of people who have affection for the Confederates even in modern times. It would be totally out of the box (for example, what if having the Confererates causes the US civ to split into a Union faction and Confederate faction).

There would be a clear great leader, a lot of history, information, and knowledge that could be drawn upon to build the unique characteristics of the civ.

Anyway, just a thought and I haven't seen anyone mention it in my admittedly quick review of the previous posts (sorry if I missed a post ... and I would be interested to be pointed in the direction of posts and a discussion about them as a potential Civ).

I like the idea of Venetians, but I do feel there are so many Euro Centric civs in the game while other regions of the world have far fewer to pull from.

With all due respect, that would be a slap in the face to actual civilizations that would be omitted in favor of the Confederates

EDIT: And welcome

 

[Seek]

With all due respect, that would be a slap in the face to actual civilizations that would be omitted in favor of the Confederates

Not only that but it would be incredibly controversial and would most likely result in a boycott. The confederates are not unjustly seen as white-supremacist slave owners to everyone not from the south US. Ridiculous to consider, no offense Fosphen.

And of course there's the alphabet theory/law.

 

[Fosphen]

With all due respect, that would be a slap in the face to actual civilizations that would be omitted in favor of the Confederates

EDIT: And welcome

I appreciate the feedback, but that is part of what I meant by being controversial. Just thinking from a business perspective; controversial topics create discussion and buzz, which in theory could help drive sales and open new buyers for the game. If I were Firaxis, I would be thinking how I could grow a stale, but hugely loyal fan base (I am included in this stale but loyal fanbase since I am 35 and have been playing this game since Civ 1 when I was a kid). One way to me would be to create a huge amount of controversy that doesn't effect the base product, but has a chance to catch a current non-fans' eyes to the point that they want to pay for and play the game. Sorry to say adding trade routes and improved social play doesn't make me a buyer if I wasn't a buyer before. Neither does adding Morocco or Assyria (don't get me wrong because as a current fan I love all the tweaks to the game and I am excited about BNW, but I would be excited for anything quite frankly). So with that established as a business person, something truly different and interesting would need to happen to bring me in as a new fan. I am not saying adding Confederates as a civ is the thing, but I do think adding something controversial and/or very different is an informed business decision with little downside. That is why I think they say the "hypercube" thing because they need to do something to create buzz.

On another note, taking the Confederate idea further, what if they add the concept of civil war and breakaway nations?. What if your nation split in half all of the sudden and a new civ rose up in the middle ages? What if you are left with a choice as a leader of the breakaway nation or the remnants of the old nation? How would you deal with it? do you immediately go to war? do you make peace and allow them to survive as an existing independent nation? what if depending on your choices the breakaway nation could become part of your empire again, but now you are much stronger than you were before as technology and social policies get a bonus upon re-unification.

 

[Nujabes]

You know the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? It's really, really wrong.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I understand, but there are plenty of potential leaders that would drive sales to a considerable degree that constitute more of a "Civilization" without the baggage of controversy

(E.g. Kongo, Khmer - but even if those are not Eurocentric/Western enough, you have options like Canada, Australia - but even if those are not "Civ" enough then the likes of Hungary, Romania)

 

[The Almighty dF]

I understand, but there are plenty of potential leaders that would drive sales to a considerable degree that constitute more of a "Civilization" without the baggage of controversy

(E.g. Kongo, Khmer - but even if those are not Eurocentric/Western enough, you have options like Canada, Australia - but even if those are not "Civ" enough then the likes of Hungary, Romania)

Civ is far too eurocentric as it is. Would be really nice to see the Congo thrown in, or maybe Vietnam... but it probably won't happen.

I do agree on not adding the Confederacy, though. Not so much because of the controversy, but because we really don't need more overlapping civs.

 

[HemlockMartinis]

Not only that but it would be incredibly controversial and would most likely result in a boycott. The confederates are not unjustly seen as white-supremacist slave owners to everyone not from the south US. Ridiculous to consider, no offense Fosphen.

And of course there's the alphabet theory/law.

I love the new features but I would flat-out refuse to buy BNW if the devs prioritized a treasonous slaver aristocracy over the Sioux, the Shawnee, Kongo, Hungary, the Mughals, the Khmer, and the multitudinous other genuine civilizations available to choose from.

 

[spacedinosaur]

First of all, welcome.

And secondly, I doubt it would be the Confederacy. They were simply a rebel faction and not a significant nation. Yes they were organized and had a President, but they were still only around for four years.

I keep thinking you are me... I may need to find another icon. A Confederate civ would be a travesty.

 

[Sonereal]

I love the new features but I would flat-out refuse to buy BNW if the devs prioritized a treasonous slaver aristocracy over the Sioux, the Shawnee, Kongo, Hungary, the Mughals, the Khmer, and the multitudinous other genuine civilizations available to choose from.

This is such a non-issue to get angry over.

 

[jye42]

Venice can't build setters and thus cities. Instead they can 'conquer' city states by overcoming their culture with your tourism by way of trade routes

 

[Arachnofiend]

Not only that but it would be incredibly controversial and would most likely result in a boycott. The confederates are not unjustly seen as white-supremacist slave owners to everyone not from the south US. Ridiculous to consider, no offense Fosphen.

And of course there's the alphabet theory/law.

Hey, those of us in the south are quite aware the Confederacy was made for white-supremacist slave owners too.

...It's just that some people unfortunately consider that a positive.

 

[ImperialChaos]

The CSA will never happen.

 

[Sonereal]

The CSA will never happen.

Hence why it is a non-issue that people are getting irked over.