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

[spacedinosaur]

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.

I guess you didn't get GNK then, considering it had Spain. Albeit not so treasonous, they were way beyond any global power in terms of killing natives and expanding the slave trade.

edit: upon research, Britain was the largest trader of slaves during the height of the slave trade in the 18th century, so I guess your aversion to the slave trade should impede on your support for the franchise in general. Portugal had the longest history involved in the Maafa.

 

[Merciorum]

...Yeah, there isn't going to be a Confederacy. It contributed nothing but a four-year existence, unpleasant social policies, and a lost war. It would be unappealing to Americans because of the slavery associations, to non-Americans because of its total irrelevancy to anything else, and, well, would just be silly when you could have the Cherokee and the other Natives, as well as Oman, Vietnam and all the rest...

 

[Arachnofiend]

I think the difference is that Spain did not come into being solely for the purpose of keeping the slave trade in action. Spain also had, y'know, actual successes and accomplishments. The Confederacy fought well for a while but buckled when the Union finally got some generals to lead their army that weren't completely incompetent.

 

[m15a]

sorry if this has been repeated a lot in this thread already, but remember that the "hypercube" comment is from a BNW developer talking about the uniqueness of the civ's play style, not about the civ itself being off-the-wall and controversial.

the revolution and civil war idea is an interesting one, although it has game-wide effects. it has been explored with civ IV mods (dunno about civ V) and more simplistically in earlier versions of the game (just the original civ, i think?).

 

[The Almighty dF]

I guess you didn't get GNK then, considering it had Spain. Albeit not so treasonous, they were way beyond any global power in terms of killing natives and expanding the slave trade.

edit: upon research, Britain was the largest trader of slaves during the height of the slave trade in the 18th century, so I guess your aversion to the slave trade should impede on your support for the franchise in general. Portugal had the longest history involved in the Maafa.

There's a difference between a civilization that has existed for centuries that participated in trade... and a pseudo-country that existed for four years that only existed in order to keep slaves. That's pretty much all the confederacy was. Grumpy southerners who didn't want their lifestyle to change and vastly underestimated the power of the north while vastly overestimating the demand for cotton.

Adding a civ that only existed for four years, and only served to lead to a horrible, bloody war, and stood only to oppress other Americans, is not something most people would stand by.

I'm fine with it in a mod, like, if you've got some mod that adds a huge amount of civs, but the amount of anger most of the civ community would have if the Confederacy took a spot more deserving of a -real- nation would be far greater than you're expecting.

 

[spacedinosaur]

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

I'm not defending the CSA (see previous post above). I may live in the former Confederacy but my ancestors would have been slaves themselves.

 

[alpha2117]

I'm not defending the CSA at all but people who say it' an impossibility are deluding themselves. People would have said the Huns were a impossibility or Polynesia or the Celts and yet we got them. If someone in Development comes up with an interesting set of design ideas most any civ is viable. I dislike Venice but I am sure the devs feel they have come up with an interesting design that improves the game.

The option of playing an alternate and some would say evil version of the US has it's attractions in a theoretical world builder like the CIV games. I wouldn't choose them myself but they are a remote possibility. Given the alphabet on the achievement list it doesn't look like they are in and if they were ever coming in it would be now with the scenario so I'd say they aren't in (which is somehwhat of a relief).

One thing to remember with the CSA is significant work was done on them for the scenario so they wouldn't even really be taking the spot of another civ in that the effort needed to make
them a viable full civ would be minimal.

Not saying that effort should be made but I dont see it as a problem if they ever did.

Frankly my big issue with CIV5 is the animated leaders. If we didn't have those then I think that we could have

- alternate leaders for the civs
- rebellions using the unused leaders
- more civs in general

That isn't going to happen and I cant see them going backwards in the future but perhaps by civ6 they will have the animations down in time so much that it wont be an issue. If thats the case I'd be happy to have a CSA option as a alternate to the US.

 

[Crodface]

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

Ha. It is the best icon. I mean, what's not to love about a boat on the ocean at sunset?

And multiple leaders and rebellions would be cool as hell. Maybe if that sort of mechanic is in Civ VI then we could see off-the-wall civs like the CSA and leaders like Jefferson Davis, but it just does not belong in Civ V, in my opinion.

 

[PerceeP927]

I don't know about settling a city in the ancient era as the Confederacy. That's a little ridiculous, I don't know it is pretty strange

 

[Trias]

I don't know about settling a city in the ancient era as the Confederacy. That's a little ridiculous, I don't know it is pretty strange

How is that any stranger than settling a city in the ancient era as the USA?

 

[ollethegreat]

How is that an stranger than settling in the ancient era as the USA?

i know you didnt ask me but the confederacy didnt even last 10 years. USA in the ancient era is weird but the confederacy is much weirder. are they seriusly peoples who want them as a civ?

 

[Trias]

i know you didnt ask me but the confederacy didnt even last 10 years. USA in the ancient era is weird but the confederacy is much weirder. are they seriusly peoples who want them as a civ?

I agree that the confederacy is a bad candidate for a civ. But of all the reasons one could name not to included them, I find it puzzling however that someone would bring up it being weird to have them in the ancient era. On the time scale of civ, they appeared as late as some of the modern civs that ARE in the game. (e.g. USA, Brazil, etc.)

 

[alpha2117]

i know you didnt ask me but the confederacy didnt even last 10 years. USA in the ancient era is weird but the confederacy is much weirder. are they seriusly peoples who want them as a civ?

People need to remember that Civilization is essentially a world building game which uses mythical representations of real world societies as it's basis. Pretty much every civ is not representative of reality.

In that context any society can be designed as a Civ based on the design criteria they offer. The CSA was short lived but they offer Units, cities, a noted leader and other well documented elements. They are by no means a particularly good candidate but they offer more than enough to allow for a civ to be designed.

As I said in a earlier post if not for the animated leaders we would probably have the option of rebellions and alternate leaders. Int hat situation they would be very viable as a alternate USA faction. Perhaps in civ6 - but I dont think they are a viable choice here in civ 5.

The honest truth is anything from the CSA to the Inuit to any of the native American tribes to any of the small Euro countries is viable if they offer enough design elements.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree that the confederacy is a bad candidate for a civ. But of all the reasons one could name not to included them, I find it puzzling however that someone would bring up it being weird to have them in the ancient era. On the time scale of civ, they appeared as late as some of the modern civs that ARE in the game. (e.g. USA, Brazil, etc.)

The main reason not to include them is - there are several hundreds candidates, which are much better. On the territory of Modern Russia or China you could find dozens of historical countries or tribes who lasted longer and had more impact on the world history. And if you look at Middle East... well, you could fill several Civilization games using civs from it and all of them will be more important than Confederacy.

 

[Dragonflow]

The so called "Hypercube" Civ could be the Visigoths.

They are going to combine the aspects of migrating civs and playable barbarian in one civ.
A part of the Visigothic UA would revolve around the fact that if the Visigoth lose their last city a so called "horde" spawn some hexes away from the city. The horde will be a group of units and maybe some settlers whose objective it is to go find a new homeland. If the player gets to play as the horde all other civs will treat him as barbarians, while barbarians will ignore him. When the player finally captures another civ's city it'll become his new capitol, with most buildings being preserved and a courthouse build in it, and he'll become a normal civ again. The player could also choose to ransom the city back to the AI for a lump sum of gold. If the Visigoth take an AI's capitol they get the option to sell back the capitol to the AI for a lump sum of gold and three AI owned cities of their choice.
Another option would also be to simply found a new city, with some essential building like a monument or granary instantly build in it.

 

[Shadow717]

The so called "Hypercube" Civ could be the Visigoths.

They are going to combine the aspects of migrating civs and playable barbarian in one civ.
A part of the Visigothic UA would revolve around the fact that if the Visigoth lose their last city a so called "horde" spawn some hexes away from the city. The horde will be a group of units and maybe some settlers whose objective it is to go find a new homeland. If the player gets to play as the horde all other civs will treat him as barbarians, while barbarians will ignore him. When the player finally captures another civ's city it'll become his new capitol, with most buildings being preserved and a courthouse build in it, and he'll become a normal civ again. The player could also choose to ransom the city back to the AI for a lump sum of gold. If the Visigoth take an AI's capitol they get the option to sell back the capitol to the AI for a lump sum of gold and three AI owned cities of their choice.
Another option would also be to simply found a new city, with some essential building like a monument or granary instantly build in it.

Reminds me of Rome TW: Barbarian invasion haha, please tell me that's where you got the idea? As for the idea/suggestion itself I'm not really in favor of it. I have nothing against seeing the Visigoths in game, but a UA that functions like that is essentially making the civ better (less bad?) at losing. It would be very strange to have a UA that revolved around you playing poorly enough to lose all your cities.

 

[Dragonflow]

Reminds me of Rome TW: Barbarian invasion haha, please tell me that's where you got the idea?

To a large degree yes.
I agree that their UA should be more then just a barbarian horde, but I though this could be an interesting addition to their UA.

 

[JurGor]

Bombshell Hypercube: Rebels.

Barbarians with an ideology that other camps can be converted to, but not just other barbarian camps, or a city state or even an unhappy puppet city? However no other civ's cities, that's done by militairy force only. But they can steal civilians from other civ's cities and convert them to militairy units.

Calling them rebels makes them viable throughout the ages and removes the converversial Indigenous People tag while still gets them to walk around with tomahawks.

Unique unit is the guerilla. Obviously.

The downsides to being rebellion is that you don't get to actually be in the UN - you still get to influence votes though, just no own representative. You're not an official state but you're still a diplomatic entity that other leaders will deal with.

Gaining influence in another civ's city will provoke war.

And you won't have settlers.

Something like that.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I wish people used a little bit of basic logic when speculating, they won't include a civ that has an actual handicap while playing, yes ,building on nothing but coast sounds fun but it is a horrible handicap, I mean, what if you play on Great Plains where there is no coast? Then that civ is eliminated immediately (or gets stuck with 1 civ)

I do think that the bombshell civ might be Pueblo whose workers can built an improvement on Mountains, that has NEVER been done before, (in Civ 3 we could move over mountains but that's it). It needs to be something that is advantageous but doesn't cripple a civilization.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

I do think that the bombshell civ might be Pueblo whose workers can built an improvement on Mountains, that has NEVER been done before, (in Civ 3 we could move over mountains but that's it). It needs to be something that is advantageous but doesn't cripple a civilization.

Aren't the Pueblo out already? And besides, I think the hypercube civ might be Venice. They could build cities on land AND on the coast. Probably their UU would be a replacement for the knight or the caravel and their UB would be a special harbor or something