Culture (Unit + Quarter) Speculation Thread
- Thread starter Matthias Corvinus
- Start date
j51
Blue Star Cadet
I think it's pure speculation. I don't know anything about combat in old Ghana. I'm hoping for Mali, but the misplaced Akan symbol has me thinking a misunderstanding of the two Ghanas. Unless they're including the Akan in the middle ages with a camel unit, which would be bonkers!
Medieval Ghana is way worse documented than Mali and Songhai, or many other Subsaharan civilizations really (it boggles my mind how is it infinitely more known than Yoruba people, culture and civilizations, who imho are among top 5 Subsaharan civilizations). It couldn't appear in civ series because it has no discernible leaders at all IIRC (even mythological ones). In Humankind it could appear, but I see no reason why, if Mali and Songhai represent the same cultural area are much better known, and having more "story" to tell than "well there was this sort of desert trade kingdom described by Moroccans as a nice place".
Also, medieval Ghana has the unique problem of having very confusing name, being completely and utterly unrelated to the modern Ghana in both geographical and cultural terms. The reason modern Ghana took this name is literally only because its leaders were inspired by Ghana as a "first West African civilization". IMHO ridiculous reasoning for countless reasons (couldn't you guys reference your own and much much cooler Ashanti civilization?) but let's not go offtopic. Now, this is especially problematic because modern Ghana is actually one of the most important countries in African postcolonial history, to the point it would be totally legit as a modern African culture in Humankind, so I would rather have this Ghana than quite boring and insignificant medieval one! And they have no alternate names at all, so you either take one or another. Modern Ghana >>>>> medieval Ghana.
So, medieval Ghana would be very far on my dev list of new civilizations.
Adding Ghana to the game is like adding Iberia to the game. By "Iberia" I mean, obviously, the classical era kingdom of Caucasian Iberia, prelude to medieval Georgia (and no this name is not an exonym, just completely random coincidence, to the point medieval Georgians were wondering if Spanish are their faraway cousins because of that
). Sure, you can add very badly documented medieval Ghana or classical Iberia, and generate bonus points of confusion among players, but why do that if you can add medieval Mali, classical Armenia, medieval Georgia or even classical "Iberians but those Spanish", all of whom are much, much better documented and just plain cooler?
Also, medieval Ghana has the unique problem of having very confusing name, being completely and utterly unrelated to the modern Ghana in both geographical and cultural terms. The reason modern Ghana took this name is literally only because its leaders were inspired by Ghana as a "first West African civilization". IMHO ridiculous reasoning for countless reasons (couldn't you guys reference your own and much much cooler Ashanti civilization?) but let's not go offtopic. Now, this is especially problematic because modern Ghana is actually one of the most important countries in African postcolonial history, to the point it would be totally legit as a modern African culture in Humankind, so I would rather have this Ghana than quite boring and insignificant medieval one! And they have no alternate names at all, so you either take one or another. Modern Ghana >>>>> medieval Ghana.
So, medieval Ghana would be very far on my dev list of new civilizations.
Adding Ghana to the game is like adding Iberia to the game. By "Iberia" I mean, obviously, the classical era kingdom of Caucasian Iberia, prelude to medieval Georgia (and no this name is not an exonym, just completely random coincidence, to the point medieval Georgians were wondering if Spanish are their faraway cousins because of that
). Sure, you can add very badly documented medieval Ghana or classical Iberia, and generate bonus points of confusion among players, but why do that if you can add medieval Mali, classical Armenia, medieval Georgia or even classical "Iberians but those Spanish", all of whom are much, much better documented and just plain cooler?
Last edited:
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
We need more archaeological excavations in Koumbi Saleh.....
How about Colchis?
Jason and the Argonauts! Wasn't it located in ancient Georgia?
How about Colchis?
Jason and the Argonauts! Wasn't it located in ancient Georgia?
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
. . . How about Colchis?
Specifically, the Black Sea coast of Georgia, or western Georgia rom about 13th to 1st centuries BCE. It's considered "an early Georgian" culture, because the Colchian people spoke a variation of Kartvelian, and are considered ancestral to the western Georgians.
They were not only part of Greek mythology as a source of gold, honey, and timber, but the Scythians traded with them later, acting as Middle Men to trade their gold to the Greek cities of the Black Sea/Crimea coast in exchange for Greek manufactured goods like jewelry, grain, pottery, etc.
Later still, I believe Mithradates of Pontus made the area part of his little Empire before Rome crushed him, so the area could be the basis for a Classical Era 'early Georgian' Faction with Persian overtones.
j51
Blue Star Cadet
Now that the Franks are confirmed as an expansionist culture it has me wondering who the aesthetes for the Medieval era will be. Maybe the Umayyads? Maybe Japan is in this era as Heian? Maybe the Khmer and then the Inca could be the builders? Which would mean that maybe the Teutons were removed? (although they seem to have already made such a nice city center that looked like Nuremberg Castle.) Maybe the Aztecs are early Modern, and they changed the Umayyads to the Abbasids (or even the Arabs for wider recognition) to have a scientist?
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
Not sure who will be Aesthete or Scientist in this era....
I would be surprised if the Teutons were removed though. It wouldn't surprise me if the Aztecs were pushed to Early Modern (despite their early demise in that era in real life), just so the Aztec warriors can face the Spanish conquistadors....
I'm not confident the Inca will be in vanilla, though perhaps they are in Early Modern as well. The Khmer definitely have to be in Medieval, same goes for the Umayyads/Abbasids or Arabs. The Mongols, "Ghana", and the Vikings are also seemingly confirmed by artwork/poster in the background of Amplitude's video. The Mongols don't make sense for Early Modern, same with the Ghana Empire (or Mali). Also the Vikings.
So if the Arabs/Abbasids are in the first spot instead of Aztecs, that leaves one slot left for maybe an East Asian or South Asian faction?
I would be surprised if the Teutons were removed though. It wouldn't surprise me if the Aztecs were pushed to Early Modern (despite their early demise in that era in real life), just so the Aztec warriors can face the Spanish conquistadors....
I'm not confident the Inca will be in vanilla, though perhaps they are in Early Modern as well. The Khmer definitely have to be in Medieval, same goes for the Umayyads/Abbasids or Arabs. The Mongols, "Ghana", and the Vikings are also seemingly confirmed by artwork/poster in the background of Amplitude's video. The Mongols don't make sense for Early Modern, same with the Ghana Empire (or Mali). Also the Vikings.
So if the Arabs/Abbasids are in the first spot instead of Aztecs, that leaves one slot left for maybe an East Asian or South Asian faction?
Next ones are probably going to be Khmer, alphabetically, so once again we'll get "basically confirmed/certain civ", so that's a long buildup before those questions shall be answered
My prediciton back on page 17 was
Arabs - scientist
Aztecs - militarist
Byzantium - aestethe -> merchant
England - builder -> agrarian
Franks - expansionist
Khmer - agrarian
Mali - merchant
Mongols - militarist
Vikings - militarist
Teutons - expansionist
I think next week we'll get Khmer with Builder trait.
Afterwards, we'll land in the truly unknown territory.
I think the most probable solution is that "moved civ" is Aztecs and Arabs are called Umayyads instead.
My prediciton back on page 17 was
Arabs - scientist
Aztecs - militarist
Byzantium - aestethe -> merchant
England - builder -> agrarian
Franks - expansionist
Khmer - agrarian
Mali - merchant
Mongols - militarist
Vikings - militarist
Teutons - expansionist
I think next week we'll get Khmer with Builder trait.
Afterwards, we'll land in the truly unknown territory.
I think the most probable solution is that "moved civ" is Aztecs and Arabs are called Umayyads instead.
Well, Ghana would be revealed before Khmer, so it’s not necessarily a confirmed culture next week.Next ones are probably going to be Khmer, alphabetically, so once again we'll get "basically confirmed/certain civ", so that's a long buildup before those questions shall be answered
My prediciton back on page 17 was
Arabs - scientist
Aztecs - militarist
Byzantium - aestethe -> merchant
England - builder -> agrarian
Franks - expansionist
Khmer - agrarian
Mali - merchant
Mongols - militarist
Vikings - militarist
Teutons - expansionist
I think next week we'll get Khmer with Builder trait.
Afterwards, we'll land in the truly unknown territory.
I think the most probable solution is that "moved civ" is Aztecs and Arabs are called Umayyads instead.
conorbebe
King
God I hope it isn't Ghana.
I have written in another thread why I think Ghana is incredibly unlikely
So personally for me Khmer are by far the most likely
Since they seem to be mixing up the focus of cultures a bit, would be interesting if Mali was aesthete. Obviously merchant is most obvious, but with the focus on multiculturalism, focusing on how their conversion to Islam helped secure trade routes north and the Haj of Mansa Musa helped increase their prestige would allow for an aesthete focus that leverages trade and wealth to generate influence. Plus it lets them put emphasis on the Jeli. Not to mention if Mali/ Ghana are merchant focused, they would be the third African culture with that focus, which shouldn't be a determining factor but could influence the choice in focus.
Also, in Civ 6 Mali got benefits to mines, but they likely did not actually exert direct control over the gold mines of West Africa. Instead they acted as an intermediary between the mines and trans-Saharan traders, and accrued their wealth through the monopolization of salt and gold routes across the Sahel rather than actually owning the sources of resources themselves.
And as far as picking Ghana over Mali, that would definitely be an odd choice, like including the Etruscans but not the Romans or the Medians but not the Persians. Not to say I wouldn't want Ghana, but I wouldn't want Ghana over Mali.
Also, in Civ 6 Mali got benefits to mines, but they likely did not actually exert direct control over the gold mines of West Africa. Instead they acted as an intermediary between the mines and trans-Saharan traders, and accrued their wealth through the monopolization of salt and gold routes across the Sahel rather than actually owning the sources of resources themselves.
And as far as picking Ghana over Mali, that would definitely be an odd choice, like including the Etruscans but not the Romans or the Medians but not the Persians. Not to say I wouldn't want Ghana, but I wouldn't want Ghana over Mali.
Mali being aestethe would feel very far-fetched, to be honest.
You know, I have just realized, they may be simply expansionist. After all, Mali and Songhai were two biggest empires in Subsaharan history, and not just that, each of them managed to survive IIRC at least century in such enormous size (for Africa, with its nightmarish geographic consitions and extreme multiculturalism). The legendary total chronicle of Mali (Sundiata Keita) was a story of conquest.
It is just hard for me to believe they'd give Africa three merchant cultures in a row (and that's even without including Swahilli and Somali, two very prominent civilizations, which simply require merchant focus).
Not enough known works of art and architecture (yes I know of Djenne) to really deserve aestethe or builder focus, one Timbuktu is not nearly enough for scientist focus, merchant would mean at least 3 African civs in a row being merchant, militarist - just no, agrarian - in Sahel you cant be super agrarian. But it was like 1st or 2nd largest empire in the history of Africa.
The problem with expansionist is, however, there are too mamy candidates for expansionist in this era... So the mystery remains.
I am afraid they can give them scientist focus instead of "Arabs". I'd dislike that because that'd be like having Classical Greek civ and Greco-Bactrian civ (Bactria), and choosing which one gets scientific focus, and giving it to the latter. Eh, yes these guys were going fine in science, they were doing something (they actually spawned a hybrid of Hellenism and Buddhism), its just weird for second league periphery to take the job of legendary father the world cup master.
You know, I have just realized, they may be simply expansionist. After all, Mali and Songhai were two biggest empires in Subsaharan history, and not just that, each of them managed to survive IIRC at least century in such enormous size (for Africa, with its nightmarish geographic consitions and extreme multiculturalism). The legendary total chronicle of Mali (Sundiata Keita) was a story of conquest.
It is just hard for me to believe they'd give Africa three merchant cultures in a row (and that's even without including Swahilli and Somali, two very prominent civilizations, which simply require merchant focus).
Not enough known works of art and architecture (yes I know of Djenne) to really deserve aestethe or builder focus, one Timbuktu is not nearly enough for scientist focus, merchant would mean at least 3 African civs in a row being merchant, militarist - just no, agrarian - in Sahel you cant be super agrarian. But it was like 1st or 2nd largest empire in the history of Africa.
The problem with expansionist is, however, there are too mamy candidates for expansionist in this era... So the mystery remains.
I am afraid they can give them scientist focus instead of "Arabs". I'd dislike that because that'd be like having Classical Greek civ and Greco-Bactrian civ (Bactria), and choosing which one gets scientific focus, and giving it to the latter. Eh, yes these guys were going fine in science, they were doing something (they actually spawned a hybrid of Hellenism and Buddhism), its just weird for second league periphery to take the job of legendary father the world cup master.
Last edited:
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
But what about the Mongols? Which trait should they get instead of Expansionist? I don’t expect to see more than two of the same trait in the same era, judging by the two previous ones.
I was going to say Militarist, which continues the problem as that's what I wouls give to Aztec and Vikings as well
Mongols achieved incredible refinemenr in warfare itself, that's why I would give them M not E. Even Rome expanded hugely via brilliant diplomacy, assimilation and so on, step by step (especially in the East but their "conquest" of Gaul was also hugely "a ***** ton of individual treaties"). Mongols? Screw all that, let's just take down on the whole world in the total warfare worthy of 20th century blitzkrieg. So Mongols would be the culture I'd argue most to actually be M. Vikings probably as well, they loved warfare itself (plunder and glory) more than actually managing huge lands for decades, notice how their territorial expansion isn't that large regarding stable administrative control. But what about Aztecs, shouldnt they be militarist as well? Sigh.
Unless Vikings got or merchant focus and Aztecs got, idk, agrarian (Tenochtitlan city size) or whatever
Last edited:
Gwydden
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 105
I could maybe see Vikings as Expansionist not in the empire-building sense, but because they settled everywhere they could, including some relatively inhospitable places like Iceland and Greenland. I would disagree that they "loved warfare itself;" they weren't a warrior society in the way Spartans or even Romans were. And their successes had less to do with them being especially good at warfare and more with their technological superiority—I mean longships, of course. So honestly, there's a good case for Militarist, Merchant, or Expansionist depending which aspect of the Viking Age you wish to emphasize.
Aztecs also make some sense as Agrarian. Chinampas would be a solid pick for their emblematic quarter either way. And if I recall correctly, even their infamous human sacrifices were supposed to feed the sun. Pretty grim stuff, but I could see how people who believed the sun might go off/an eldritch abomination would swallow everything in existence unless fed with fresh blood would be trigger happy with the obsidian knife. Jokes aside, I recall coming across an argument that the more down-to-earth purpose of said sacrifices might have been the prevention of a local Malthusian explosion. I'm not convinced, but it's been argued.
Aztecs also make some sense as Agrarian. Chinampas would be a solid pick for their emblematic quarter either way. And if I recall correctly, even their infamous human sacrifices were supposed to feed the sun. Pretty grim stuff, but I could see how people who believed the sun might go off/an eldritch abomination would swallow everything in existence unless fed with fresh blood would be trigger happy with the obsidian knife. Jokes aside, I recall coming across an argument that the more down-to-earth purpose of said sacrifices might have been the prevention of a local Malthusian explosion. I'm not convinced, but it's been argued.
mitsho
Deity
Yeah, the trait optionsnare just too limited. We need more. I do agree, Vikings may be merchants or expansionists, Aztecs agrarian or even aesthetes as well. Anyone can be anything after all. And we could use other traits as well, organizational (being good at managing lots of people) would be a natural fit for Mongols or Byzantines for example. Unless expansionist fits that, but that fits a lot of things.
We do need more gameplay information! And soon! Otherwise, our discussions turn around minuscule things forever here. As i think, the details of the emblematic boni will be more interesting than the general trait itself. More info, please!
We do need more gameplay information! And soon! Otherwise, our discussions turn around minuscule things forever here.
As i think, the details of the emblematic boni will be more interesting than the general trait itself. More info, please!
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
Looks like it was the Ghana (or Ghanaians) that was revealed today. And they are Merchant, making it the third African culture to have that trait. I'm expecting the Khmer to be revealed next week.
Also, it's looking more likely the Umayyads or Abbasids/Arabs will be the lone Scientific Medieval culture.
Also, it's looking more likely the Umayyads or Abbasids/Arabs will be the lone Scientific Medieval culture.
Trait-wise maybe, but the scriptorium makes the Franks likely a good choice for generating science.
I wonder how the expansionist trait is balanced over the eras - I think it could easily getting worse as the eras advance to be expansionist.
Gwydden
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 105
I think expansionist might have less to do with taking lots of land than with maintaining it. In Endless Legend, for instance, having a lot of regions can tank your approval and therefore result in significant penalties to resource production. Even worse, it would make empire plans prohibitively expensive, which could potentially put you behind smaller empires. If Humankind has similar balancing between tall and wide play, I could see the Expansionist trait helping empires overcome the short-term disadvantages of rapid expansion.
