Culture (Unit + Quarter) Speculation Thread

[j51]

Norse could conceivably be Expansionist rather than Militarist - they went everywhere. Who knows.

Yeah, that's what I'd think. I wonder then who gonna be the 2nd medieval militarist: Aztecs or Teutons?

 

[Krajzen]

Yeah, that's what I'd think. I wonder then who gonna be the 2nd medieval militarist: Aztecs or Teutons?

Aztecs are probably going to be militarist, because that fits their flavour. Besides, they were relying more on tributaries, "allies" etc rather than on direct expansion. To be honest, they would actually be a good culture for agrarian focus, given their lake agriculture and massive size of Tenochtitlan, but that'd be too strange.

Vikings... I think they are going to be militarist. I mean, expansionist? They weren't exactly good at conquering, stabilizing, holding and assimilating huge areas. They were good at raiding, exploring, trading over huge areas, and fighting but in either limited timespan or area (British Isles, Paris, Volga).
And raiding and pure warfare are covered under Militarist imo. You could give them Merchant or Aestethe but that would feel weird.

Teutons are probably going to be expansionist. Teutonic Order managed to very efficiently conquer and completely germanize Old Prussia. It also somewhat fits Holy Roman Empire, its famous structure, and its success in combating pagan Saxons and Polabian Slavs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Aztecs are probably going to be militarist, because that fits their flavour. Besides, they were relying more on tributaries, "allies" etc rather than on direct expansion. To be honest, they would actually be a good culture for agrarian focus, given their lake agriculture and massive size of Tenochtitlan, but that'd be too strange.

Vikings... I think they are going to be militarist. I mean, expansionist? They weren't exactly good at conquering, stabilizing, holding and assimilating huge areas. They were good at raiding, exploring, trading over huge areas, and fighting but in either limited timespan or area (British Isles, Paris, Volga).
And raiding and pure warfare are covered under Militarist imo. You could give them Merchant or Aestethe but that would feel weird.

Teutons are probably going to be expansionist. Teutonic Order managed to very efficiently conquer and completely germanize Old Prussia. It also somewhat fits Holy Roman Empire, its famous structure, and its success in combating pagan Saxons and Polabian Slavs.

Agree with your conclusions but given the wide-ranging trade networks the Vikings established and exploited (Caspian Sea to Ireland) I could see them as a Mercantile Faction. Especially since both of the early 'sea' factions, Phoenicia and Carthage, are Mercantile. Would be a completely different view of the Norse than the typical Thieving Tourists in Longboats, but for that reason alone would be worth playing . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

Seems like the OpenDev scenarios already confirmed Aztecs for Medieval, so the arab representative must be Umayyad as hinted.
Also Koreans and Japanese for Early Modern, this last make my question about the Ming. If Ming is going to be in they would be Early Modern also, so three East Asia cultures for Early Modern?!

I think that Far East deserve it, and to be honest that period is really interesting, we must not forget the Manchuns/Qing! But I feel hard to belive this after Classical and Medieval lack of Far East cultures (Mongols kind of count but it dont feel the same).

With Medieval era technically complete, I wonder who would be Early Modern ones:
1- Spaniards
2- Portuguese
3- Dutch
4- Polish
5- Russians
6- Ottomans
7- Mughals
8- Ming
9- Koreans
10- Japanese

So not american or african cultures? Maybe devs pulled back Ming? Or Russia would be for Industrial? Is Portugal redundant with Spain and Dutchland? No place for Austria or Venice?

Like you can see there are too much to add on Early Modern to belive Ming gonna make it if Koreans and Japanese are Early Modern.

 

[mitsho]

You can push Russia and Mughals to Industrial as well as Austria, if you want to.

The only proof for Venice is "the Galleas" unit, right? I always thought that really thin.

And aren't Sweden supposed to show up here as well?

And you are missing the Inca, becuase: come on, amplitude.

Khmer count as a far east asian culture as well, but yes, clear gaps are showing up to be filled in expansions.

(I know expect aztecs to be agrarian)

 

[Jcturmer]

Japanese and Koreans instead of Tokugawa and Joseon could mean they won't appear in other eras

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1- Spaniards
2- Portuguese
3- Dutch
4- Polish
5- Russians
6- Ottomans
7- Mughals
8- Ming
9- Koreans
10- Japanese

We've seen the Dutch Fluyt so they are probably in.
Also the Edo period Samurai and the Hwacha from Korea.
The Ming will have to be here too which would make it three cultures from the Far East.
I'd be surprised if the Spanish and the Portuguese wouldn't be in it.
Ottomans and Mughals make sense also

I can see Russia being pushed back and the Polish not being in it. Would they just completely ignore the Americas at this point because I guess the Inca or the Iroquois could be put in it, though Inca would have made more sense in Medieval. And also no Italian city-states? I guess this is why they put England in Medieval.

 

[Krajzen]

4
With Medieval era technically complete, I wonder who would be Early Modern ones:
1- Spaniards
2- Portuguese
3- Dutch
4- Polish
5- Russians
6- Ottomans
7- Mughals
8- Ming
9- Koreans
10- Japanese

I think Portuguese are not in the game at all (you can't have all important cultures at once) and Russians are moved to industrial era (18th century is when Russia started being global superpower instead of regional). So we get some African civilization (no idea which one) and I vaguely recall Iroquis - looking unit was spotted by somebody somewhere.
To be honest, I wouldn't myself put Poland in this era (or in the game, at 1.0 release) despite being Polish myself, it wasn't THAT important, but I guess it is here as a general representation of Eastern Europe besides Russia (also it perfectly fits the Agrarian archetype in this era), and also because Polish people love being in video games

So it would be (also trying to guess their focus)

1. Spain - expansionist
2. Dutch - merchant
3. Poland - agrarian
4. Ottomans - expansionist
5. Mughals - builder
6. Ming - whatever
7. Korea - scientist (sigh)
8. Japan - militarist
9. Iroquis? - merchant
10. African civ, for example Kongo - aestethe

I'd really like if scientist civ in this era was European one (you know, era when European tech domination begins), so I am really tempted to give Dutch scientific focus as they had scientific golden age in this age, but I am afraid those tired cliches will once again give them merchant and Korea will get disproportionate scientific powers.
It is even more tiring by the fact if we won't get Portugal now, then we'll get it later, and it would certainly get merchant focus.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. Spain - expansionist
2. Dutch - merchant
3. Poland - agrarian
4. Ottomans - expansionist
5. Mughals - builder
6. Ming - whatever
7. Korea - scientist (sigh)
8. Japan - militarist
9. Iroquis? - merchant
10. African civ, for example Kongo - aestethe

I'd really like if scientist civ in this era was European one (you know, era when European tech domination begins), so I am really tempted to give Dutch scientific focus as they had scientific golden age in this age, but I am afraid those tired cliches will once again give them merchant and Korea will get disproportionate scientific powers.
It is even more tiring by the fact if we won't get Portugal now, then we'll get it later, and it would certainly get merchant focus.

If Portugal does get in they could possibly be scientist too based off of their cartography skills that set off the Age of Discovery, but that might be a stretch.

Korea will most likely be scientific, though it does make sense if they are basing it off of the Joseon period.

Also I think the Iroquois could possible be Agrarian too based off of their Three Sisters farming techniques. Or even expansionist, since they were the most effective NA group to use firearm's and expanded their territory.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Also I think the Iroquois could possible be Agrarian too based off of their Three Sisters farming techniques. Or even expansionist, since they were the most effective NA group to use firearm's and expanded their territory.

Actually, a case can be made, and has been in the book Lakota America, that the Lakota/Sioux made the best use of the combination of gunpowder weapons and horses to expand - it was when they got their hands on both of those 'imports' that they spread out all over the northern plains within less than two generations.
The Haudenosenee (get used to the real Iroquois - based on some of their other choices, I'd bet that Humankind will use it) could be Mercantile, because they acted as the preeminent Middlemen for furs flowing to the Dutch and later English colonies and Europe, or, as stated, Agrarian based on the Three Sisters (and including the 'Native American Agricultural Trinity' in a 4X Historical Game is long, long overdue, IMHO).
Expansionist is much less likely: they defended their own territory ferociously, and fought 'external' wars to get captives to increase their population after European diseases caused the usual disastrous population loss, but rarely went out to take in more territory. Even when they practically annihilated the Susquehanna tribes to their south, they didn't actually move into the central Pennsylvania Susquehanna territory: just established that nobody else better try moving in: made it a 'buffer zone', so to speak. IF Humankind has some kind of mechanism for establishing a sort of "Suzereignity" over Minor Factions that could be used to 'expand' the Major Faction's territory, I'd see Expansionist for the Haudenosenee, but otherwise it just doesn't match their historical behavior.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Actually, a case can be made, and has been in the book Lakota America, that the Lakota/Sioux made the best use of the combination of gunpowder weapons and horses to expand - it was when they got their hands on both of those 'imports' that they spread out all over the northern plains within less than two generations.

I do know the Iroquois were the first to successfully use gunpowder weapons to expand, but I do agree the Sioux did use the combination of those weapons and horses.

Expansionist is much less likely: they defended their own territory ferociously, and fought 'external' wars to get captives to increase their population after European diseases caused the usual disastrous population loss, but rarely went out to take in more territory. Even when they practically annihilated the Susquehanna tribes to their south, they didn't actually move into the central Pennsylvania Susquehanna territory: just established that nobody else better try moving in: made it a 'buffer zone', so to speak. IF Humankind has some kind of mechanism for establishing a sort of "Suzereignity" over Minor Factions that could be used to 'expand' the Major Faction's territory, I'd see Expansionist for the Haudenosenee, but otherwise it just doesn't match their historical behavior.

I do think mercantile or agrarian is more likely, but I wouldn't rule expansionist as a possibility as they did take considerable land during their participation on the winning side of the Beaver Wars.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I do think mercantile or agrarian is more likely, but I wouldn't rule expansionist as a possibility as they did take considerable land during their participation on the winning side of the Beaver Wars.

I think we are the victims of different definitions. The Iroquois certainly extended their territorial influence during the wars collectively known as the 'Beaver Wars', but they didn't actually settle much of them. For instance, they maintained the right to use the Susquehanna territory as hunting grounds, but they didn't settle in central or southern Pennsylvania territory. I suppose 'having primary use of' territory could count as Expansionist, but it is not the same as the usual 'civilized' definition of Complete Control and Administration, Fill with Your Own People" . As said, if the game includes a mechanism similar to Civ VI's Suzereignity in which you get free passage, vision, and other benefits exclusively from a Minor Faction, it would fit the Haudenosenee nearly perfectly. Especially if the mechanism includes free access to any Resources the Minor Faction controls, which would match perfectly with using the country as 'hunting grounds' - the huntable animals were a major Resource to the tribes!

 

[j51]

I'm thinking the Lakota, or another plains group is going to be in the Industrial era. There looked to be a Horde-type unit on the time-line in the development video in the Industrial.

 

[Guandao]

So it looks like Umayyads will be Scientist and Aztecs Aesthete....Regardless of what they are called, one will be Scientist and the other Aesthete. I noticed there aren't more than two factions with the same trait per era.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm thinking the Lakota, or another plains group is going to be in the Industrial era. There looked to be a Horde-type unit on the time-line in the development video in the Industrial.

Yes honestly I could see this for Native America, if they went this route:
Early Modern- Haudenosenee/Iroquois EU Mohawk Musketman, EQ Longhouse (Agrarian)
Industrial- Lakota/Sioux- EU Lakota Band, EQ Council Fire
Modern- Navajo- EU Code Talker, EQ Ceremonial Hogan

So it looks like Umayyads will be Scientist and Aztecs Aesthete....Regardless of what they are called, one will be Scientist and the other Aesthete. I noticed there aren't more than two factions with the same trait per era.

Could Aztecs also be Builder, (Tenochtitlan was built on a lake) or Agrarian (Chinampas)?
Unless human sacrifice is considered very Aesthete.

Edit: I see you already said that on the Teuton thread.

 

[Siptah]

Out of the chosen cultures, the Umayyads seem to make the most sense for scientist, even though they could easily have every other trait. I can't see the Aztecs bing the medieval scientists. The only other option I could see from these civ to be scientific would be England if you look 12th century onwards with Grosseteste, Bacon, and Ockham.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes honestly I could see this for Native America, if they went this route:
Early Modern- Haudenosenee/Iroquois EU Mohawk Musketman, EQ Longhouse (Agrarian)
Industrial- Lakota/Sioux- EU Lakota Band, EQ Council Fire
Modern- Navajo- EU Code Talker, EQ Ceremonial Hogan

Souix is better than Lakota - although they were the first to move onto the prairie and adopt the complete horse-nomad culture, the Lakota were only one of seven of the original "Seven Council Fires" of the Souix. The defining characteristic of the entire group seems to have been Extreme Flexibility" between the late 1600s and 1800s they went from being settled rice-growing/hunters to being gun-toting hunters and infantry that dominated their territory to being completely mounted hunters and nomads that controlled almost the entire northern plains, all the time being traders, middlemen/traders between other groups, and shrewd negotiators with everyone from French to British to Americans to other native groups.

"Lakota Band' is too general. The specific 'military/semi-military' groups of the Lakota/Souix were the Okholakichiye - usually translated as "Warrior Societies", or the Akichita, which were a combination of internal police and elite military/Guard troops. I'd prefer the Akichita myself, because that would leave the 'pure' warrior societies niche open for the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers in the future (you know, the future where we have near-infinite Factions in each Era . . .)

The Navajo 'Code Talker' I've always thought was problematic as a Uniuq/Emblematic Unit. After all, they didn't do anything for Navajo society, they were organized to benefit the US military that had crushed the independent Navajo nation in the first place.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

"Lakota Band' is too general. The specific 'military/semi-military' groups of the Lakota/Souix were the Okholakichiye - usually translated as "Warrior Societies", or the Akichita, which were a combination of internal police and elite military/Guard troops. I'd prefer the Akichita myself, because that would leave the 'pure' warrior societies niche open for the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers in the future (you know, the future where we have near-infinite Factions in each Era . . .)

True but Hunnic Horde and Mongol Horde are also generic. I'm sure if they acted like a horde unit like the Huns and Mongols seem to do I could see that name.

The Navajo 'Code Talker' I've always thought was problematic as a Uniuq/Emblematic Unit. After all, they didn't do anything for Navajo society, they were organized to benefit the US military that had crushed the independent Navajo nation in the first place.

That's the only reason I put the Navajo as a possible Modern Era faction, if we get one.

 

[Krajzen]

Love the art on these one!
So Umayyad are scientist and Aztec aesthete?

So it looks like Umayyads will be Scientist and Aztecs Aesthete....Regardless of what they are called, one will be Scientist and the other Aesthete. I noticed there aren't more than two factions with the same trait per era.

Oh my God. I have somehow missed the lack of medieval aestethe culture.
And typical take on Aztecs would be miliarist - and we already have two mil cultures in medieval. It seems impossible to make 3 mil cultures, and it seems very strange to make them aestethe (not impossible but so far HK doesn't do THAT unorthodox designs). If I didn't make Aztecs militarist or expansionist, then I'd make them agrarian, but aestethe?...

So here is my hot take.

We get Zapotecs, not Aztecs. Hell, they were even mentioned somewhere! Zapotecs get aestethe focus.
'Wait so who is postponed alphabetical civ then'.
Arabs.
'Umayyads' was just a codename or whatever. It always seemed strange for me to a) Name them after dynasty, b) Specifically introduce *Umayyads* of all possibilites, not other much longer, cooler options c) Make this dynasty have scientific focus, while it ruled 100% before islamic scientific miracle happened (it was very specificially heavily Iranized Abbasids and their take on Islam which began scientific explosion).

We don't get third militarist Aztec civ, or weirdness of Aztec aestethe, or awkwardness of specifically selecting Umayyad dynasty and giving it completely ahistorical focus.
We get aestethe Zapotecs and postponed scientific Arabs.


"Wait but Arabs is such a general name, we could have many separate Arabic dynasties..."
1) We do have 'Persians' already, not 'Achaemenids'.
2) Literally all great Arab empires fall under medieval era so multiple are unlikely anyway
3) Even if you want multiple medieval islamic civs you may drop Moors, Morocco, Mali, Mamluks, Seljuks, Turks, Yemen, Timurids, Samanids, Ghaznavids... Many options without collision with "Arabs"
4) I think modern islam would be rather represented by Iran, Turkey, Pakistan or Indonesia.

 

[Gwydden]

'Umayyads' was just a codename or whatever. It always seemed strange for me to a) Name them after dynasty, b) Specifically introduce *Umayyads* of all possibilites, not other much longer, cooler options c) Make this dynasty have scientific focus, while it ruled 100% before islamic scientific miracle happened (it was very specificially heavily Iranized Abbasids and their take on Islam which began scientific explosion).

I can't be the only one who first thinks of the Caliphate of Cordoba when I hear Umayyads.

EDIT: Also, one of the advertised Open Dev scenarios has the English defending from an Aztec-Khmer alliance, so the Aztecs are all but confirmed for Medieval (yay).