New civ linked to new resource

[SammyKhalifa]

Some of the resources mentioned here are site-specific...I am banking on Rubber, and...Indonesia? Something that the whole world needs, not just a luxury...

I agree with you and think Rubber or Coffee (or tobacco) would be best choices because of the world trade systems they involved, but there's precedence for them instead choosing resources that fill out a certain niche in the gameplay (I'm looking at you, "truffles").

 

[Nujabes]

I do think it's interesting to think about the new ability to ban certain luxuries. I expect to be able to ban things like Whales, Furs, Ivory (Uranium?). Bison doesn't fit into that, but Seals definitely do.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Some of the resources mentioned here are site-specific...I am banking on Rubber, and...Indonesia? Something that the whole world needs, not just a luxury...

The addition of rubber would not give away the inclusion of any particular civ.

Gosh, I feel like I've said that before.

 

[Nujabes]

The addition of rubber would not give away the inclusion of any particular civ.

Gosh, I feel like I've said that before.

Rubber, Congo, and Kongo have come up a million times. I'll just say, if they choose Kingdom of Kongo and give them rubber, it would be really stupid. More generally, it's just really sticky to represent; do you pick the DRC and Mobutu? Cuz damn, if you do, that's a pile of worms.

 

[PhilBowles]

You may have hit something there!

Spoiler :

Notice the vote trading here, specifically for banning the use of whales. Maybe the same could apply for something like seals. It would be an interesting mechanic and would make sense in the context. Would it really scream only Inuits though?

An interesting idea though.

It was revealed at PAX or earlier that the World Congress allows trade in any luxury to be banned; an article today on Rock Paper Shotgun reiterates this (though again with whales as the example). This isn't new.

The Inuits won't be in, I'm sure. Whatever the Native American civ is, it will relate in some way to the tomahawk unit (barbarian or not), and not only did Inuits not use tomahawks, the graphic is plainly of a 'typical' Native American group. I really don't see two Native American civs being added.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The Inuits won't be in, I'm sure. Whatever the Native American civ is, it will relate in some way to the tomahawk unit (barbarian or not), and not only did Inuits not use tomahawks, the graphic is plainly of a 'typical' Native American group. I really don't see two Native American civs being added.

Good point - some of us forgot about that. We have absolutely no concrete basis for the Inuit, other than the fact that they may be related to a resource thingy - but there's nothing that says that that has to be the Inuit other than our wishful thinking. On the other hand, the tomahawk unit is concrete evidence that we may get an eastern native american group.

 

[Snoopaloop]

Good point - some of us forgot about that. We have absolutely no concrete basis for the Inuit, other than the fact that they may be related to a resource thingy - but there's nothing that says that that has to be the Inuit other than our wishful thinking. On the other hand, the tomahawk unit is concrete evidence that we may get an eastern native american group.

The tomahawk is concrete evidence of absolutely nothing. As proven by everyone's bickering here as to what the unit means.

Though I doubt we'd see the Inuit, the tomahawk barbarian does not eliminate them in my speculation.

EDIT: Sorry Cybrxkhan, I meant to quote Phil's text above your post.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The tomahawk is concrete evidence of absolutely nothing. As proven by everyone's bickering here as to what the unit means.

Though I doubt we'd see the Inuit, the tomahawk barbarian does not eliminate them in my speculation.

It's concrete evidence in that it is evidence that exists. Perhaps I worded that badly, my apologies - my abilities in English aren't as good as I hope. Anyhow, "Civ related to resource" is way too vague to pinpoint directly to the Inuit. Tomahawk unit, while not a certain piece of evidence, is clear and direct enough that we may (the important word here being "may", as I used in my post above) get an eastern native american civ.

 

[Bakspatel]

Just because the Inuit have in some countries permission to hunt seals certainly doesn't mean that they are a resource specific for them. World wide there are still a bunch of countries hunting seals, like Namibia culls over 38,000 seals annually and pretty much every country that has seals once hunted them.

More specific would be like walrus, polar bear and the narwhal. But like mentioned before there already has been a barbarian unit presented which depicts a different native American tribe. I honestly doubt that they would add they would prefer the Inuit over another African civ considering the scenario.

 

[spacedinosaur]

We've never had a resource associated with a single civilization either, but that's what has been pointed at here. The fact of it being an animal or otherwise is largely irrelevant, but people have named giveaway animals in a bunch of posts, namely the Bison and Seals. We have no reason to believe that we'll get anything like the animals you named, the only resource that he mentioned was the one that would be a too obvious hint to name.

Read my previous posts and you'll see I think any animal is an odd assumption for a new resource. What you're commenting on is my response to people asking why I think that.

My suggested resources were glass, oils (paints), coffee.. even maple syrup (although I think Canada is a big stretch).

 

[Leugi]

Rubber, Congo, and Kongo have come up a million times. I'll just say, if they choose Kingdom of Kongo and give them rubber, it would be really stupid. More generally, it's just really sticky to represent; do you pick the DRC and Mobutu? Cuz damn, if you do, that's a pile of worms.

And, Kongo won't be in, as a City-State with the name Kongo was seen...

Again, more likeliness of seals!

 

[Pikachao]

I do think it's interesting to think about the new ability to ban certain luxuries. I expect to be able to ban things like Whales, Furs, Ivory (Uranium?). Bison doesn't fit into that, but Seals definitely do.

on the note of banning luxuries, i don't think that them being controversial in real life means they're now important enough for the game. The game will probably let you ban any resource (in the universe of a civ game, they might ban spice for workers rights or something, it doesn't have to be limited to whale or tobacco) so as much as I'd love to see the inuit in the game, I don't think the fact that seals are controversial are enough of a reason for them to be considered (don't get me wrong, I think Gucumatz makes good points and I'd love to see the inuit in, it's just the controversy of seals won't be why)

 

[God of Kings]

Wine can be banned (note: Prohibition, except worldwide).

Truffles can be banned (note: pigs are considered unclean in much of the Middle East).

Gold, silver, and copper can be banned.

Gems can be banned.

Salt and sugar can be banned.

Cotton and silk can be banned.

Citrus can be banned.

 

[Bechhold]

If Buffalo is revealed as a resource....

 

[Leugi]

My point with seals isn't really the whole banning stuff, but rather a way of making snow tiles far more useful, as those are the only tiles that have almost no use... Of course not all snow will have seals, but it will be a way of making more useful an already existant tile...

Buffalos on the other hand won't do that, neither will coffee... And I heavily doubt they'll make a civ based mostly on a manufactured resource, but that's only a guess; it could be a possibility.

 

[turingmachine]

Are we sure it's not Phoenecia with Tyrian Purple? You say what about Carthage, but do internal road/harbor routes even make gold anymore? If not the whole trade aspect of their UA is significantly affected and they could be getting a revamped UA anyway.

 

[Nujabes]

I don't think Phoenicia will be in for the same reason I'm starting to doubt Majapahit. Beach said that Portugal is THE naval trading power in BNW, which seems to crowd out Phoenicia's niche.

 

[Stellarnight]

Are we sure it's not Phoenecia with Tyrian Purple? You say what about Carthage, but do internal road/harbor routes even make gold anymore? If not the whole trade aspect of their UA is significantly affected and they could be getting a revamped UA anyway.

Im pretty sure the roads still make gold because in all the screenshots with internal connecting roads, the city connected symbol still shows up. It is just that if you assign a trade route, they get an additional bonus of food or production.

Now with the advert of overseas trade routes, im pretty sure the harbor would get some kind of revamp which could make Carthage possibly even stronger?

 

[Pikachao]

My point with seals isn't really the whole banning stuff, but rather a way of making snow tiles far more useful, as those are the only tiles that have almost no use... Of course not all snow will have seals, but it will be a way of making more useful an already existant tile...

Buffalos on the other hand won't do that, neither will coffee... And I heavily doubt they'll make a civ based mostly on a manufactured resource, but that's only a guess; it could be a possibility.

oh yeah, definitely. Having seals and Inuits would finally make the most useless (and, sadly, my favorite) tiles actually have some use. I've wanted the Inuit as a civ since gods and kings. the whole banning luxury thing was something I noticed people saying a lot and saw this was a time where it was relevant.

I wouldn't mind buffalo, but I agree that it'd only be applicable in a tile that's too common, it wouldn't open up to more interesting play styles. coffee probably wouldn't work because too many nations are associated with it. I could see a unique luxury, but for some reason, I don't think it will.

 

[spacedinosaur]

I agree with you and think Rubber or Coffee (or tobacco) would be best choices because of the world trade systems they involved, but there's precedence for them instead choosing resources that fill out a certain niche in the gameplay (I'm looking at you, "truffles").

I'm so glad that the truffles has irked someone else!

Expanding on your idea (although sadly doesn't address "truffles").. leather.. a resource that could be used with cattle which already exist.

My issue with seals is that we already have a fur trap.. another resource for fur?