Sioux are a mighty fine fit for the scenario..... They probably wanted to change things up and go with the Pueblo because the Sioux have always been in it. However when the Pueblo were taken away I would assume it would be plan B.
Brave New World's 9 new Civs
- Thread starter Dragonflow
- Start date
- Status
Sioux are a mighty fine fit for the scenario..... They probably wanted to change things up and go with the Pueblo because the Sioux have always been in it. However when the Pueblo were taken away I would assume it would be plan B.
Cicero63
Warlord
Ha Herodotus's description of this is the best: he describes a statue of Cronus with hands tilted towards a burning pit of fire in which infants would slide into once placed in his hands.
What scenario do the Sioux fit? I also think it's possible we don't see any Native American civ. The presumptions that led to that belief (subtraction of Pueblo) seem sketchy to me.
None.
And people are referring them to the American Civil War (not saying it's you Nujabes), though the American Civil War only concentrate on the Eastern Theatre
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
I don't think Wu and Theodora should be lumped together. Wu was a leader, and from what little I've read, a capable one or at the very least one who presided over a period of growth in China. Theodora wasn't a leader and wasn't characteristic of one of Byzantium's finest moments.
The only issue I see with Wu is that - in a country like China with an extremely long history and a large number of capable and high-profile leaders - there are a number of better options. That in itself doesn't make her a bad option.
As for Dido, I'm with the apparent majority who don't want mythical leaders in Civ. Hamilcar is a fully capable choice. I doubt many people would be happy if Firaxis decided that they needed a female leader for Greece, and decided that Civ VI's Greek leader would therefore be Athena.
Come on man, at least site some sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War
Sioux are mentioned 9 times.
Plus on a map like that it'd include more than 2 civs.
I mean seriously.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I don't think the Sioux are as likely as some would think. There's nothing to suggest they'd be the native AMerican civ (if we are getting one) other than the fact that they're probably the most well-known native American group in the US. There are other options too that could still fit the alphabet hints we have, such as the Shawnee or Seminole.
Yeah, this is the thing that I don't like about Wu. She was a leader, I don't deny that, and she may even been a good leader, but I dunno why she would get ahead of the many other good and even great and iconic leaders that China has had.
Yeah, this is the thing that I don't like about Wu. She was a leader, I don't deny that, and she may even been a good leader, but I dunno why she would get ahead of the many other good and even great and iconic leaders that China has had.
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
And each time, it was in connection with Minnesota. They've explicitly said the scenario focuses on the eastern theater.
The Civil War scenario is between Washington, DC and Richmond, VA.
SnowKomodo
Deity
That's the thing. The reason I feel so strongly is because Indonesia/Majapahit is the only current civ with claim to having the largest empire to a global region - Southeast Asia - who has never seen the light of day throughout the entire civ series.
I've said this before but the reason I thought they were in the cards is because in G&K the Dutch UA owes an overwhelming amount of its fame and fortune thanks to Indonesia. It's like a big middle finger to history by having point B without having point A, even for a video game
DonStamos
Mobster Inc©
Very little. The Carolingians tried but couldn't conquer it and ended up "conceding" it to the Byzantine sphere of influence.
But quite a few other Italian cities would fit.
Personally, the more I think about it, I'd like to see the Franks in. Franks, Italy/Venice, Morocco, Indonesia/Srivijaya would be my top choices at this point. (Several of my others - Israel, Kongo and Gran Colombia come to mind - won't be happening anywhere near anytime soon)
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
I don't have problems with most, and some are either the only options (Attila) or inspired (Gustavus Adolphus, Haille Selassie, Harald Bluetooth. Sejong). Most of the returning civs have leaders with past Civ precedent. The only civs I think have been particularly badly-served because far superior options exist are Portugal and Byzantium. I think there are better options for a few others, such as the Ottomans and China, but not to a degree that makes me think the leaders selected are bad decisions.
Totally agreed. After all, everyone knows Cleopatra didn't speak a word of Arabic.
I'm puzzled by Hatshepsut's absence from Civ in all its incarnations. Her name is probably the most recognisable associated with any Egyptian artefact after the tomb of Tutenkhamun (who most certainly doesn't deserve to be a leader), and unlike Cleopatra she doesn't just have publicity to go on, she was a capable leader to boot (although it's been argued that Cleopatra did the best she probably could given Egypt's circumstances at the time).
Tomatekh
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,439
She was a leader in Civ IV.
DonStamos
Mobster Inc©
Let's not forget Rammesses. He's got huge sculptures.
WChrisMullen
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 142
If BNW does amazing and we get a third expansion, would it be information- and future-era focused? That would let several Asian civs a day in the limelight due to the economic expansion of Asia. We could also get post-Colonial civs like Argentina and Australia.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
In the absence of other information that can't apply equally to Venice or Italy, it's impossible to say. It's rather unlikely that they'd make an "Italy" civ which excludes Venice, and even more unlikely that they'd make a Venetian civ which excludes Venice.
He is a Great General (as Gustavus Adolphus still is despite now also being a civ leader...)
The Pueblo are irrelevant. We don't know whether they were the only civ planned that didn't make it in (the wording that introduced the Pueblo story at PAX suggested they weren't) and we don't know whether Firaxis tends to replace "like with like" when circumstances force it to reject civs. Despite popular opinion, the Pueblo don't have anything to say about whether or not there will be a Native American civ.
Much more compelling is the fact that a tomahawk-wielding unit with a mohawk exists in the code, and has been seen in the main game rather than a scenario. This is better evidence for a Native American civ of some kind - particularly eastern Native American - that exists for Italy or Venice, for which we have a very plausible scenario that a city-state has been replaced with one or the other civ, but no sightings of any uniques that might give away that unit.
Of the available options, the Sioux have been in the game before and likely meet the requirement for being one of the 'fan favourite' civs to a degree other options don't, and the likely leading alternative - Cherokee - is technically possible but is ruled out in generally favoured interpretations of the achievement list order (which posits either Italy or Indonesia as the 'missing' slot between Brazil and Morocco).
This may actually be a consideration - if they add all the favoured civs to Civ V, what new can they add that will sell Civ VI? In fairness Civ V hasn't been short of new 'fan fave' civs - Brazil, Poland, Assyria, Iroquois, and quite possibly Venice - and Polynesia was purportedly based on suggestions here. Getting rid of unrealistic and undeserving fan options like Inuit or Israel, politically contentious ones like Tibet, fan-contentious ones like Italy (if not in BNW) or simply unlikely ones like Australia or Canada (really, do you expect anyone could take a game seriously if, close to the top of its civ list, you have something like "William Bligh of the Australian Empire"? Particularly since Australia's other leader options would be either forgettable or silly - heaven forbid they go with Ned Kelly. A civ led by Slim Dusty would make as much sense...), the pool of civs that large numbers of fans really want is probably rather small. They have enough to lure people with Kongo and recently-popular Hungary, I suspect, but they may want to hold Indonesia back for similar reasons.
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
I know he is. And that's exactly what he deserves to be. Believe me, he's happier this way.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
He reformed the government, rooted out corruption, and made Carthage so efficient that it was able to repay its debts to Rome decades before they had to. It was only that the corrupt politicians who opposed getting money from this waste that basically betrayed him and forced him to flee Carthage. Honestly, I think he was an extremely underrated Suffette.
On top of that, the Barcid holdings in Spain were virtually autonomous so he was a ruler of Barcid Spain. From that position, he was able to send silver back to Carthage and had the backing of the majority of the Carthaginian government. That's also an argument for him as a leader if you don't want to count the time he ruled. I suppose I could say he's more of a ruler than Gandhi, but I think he stands on his own merits either way.
- Status
Similar threads
