New civ linked to new resource

The new resource can be water (fresh water).
It's basic and "bleh" but it makes a little bit sense.
 
They said "natural resources" and just "resources", albeit the girl was probably talking about luxury resources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nCJQRL1AuMo#t=1084s

Is this the only reference to the resource tip? If so then I don't think we can deduce that the mystery resource has to be so unique that it would give away the civ. He says that he can't mention the new resource but he never says that mentioning it would give away the civ - just that he can't talk about things related to the new civ
 
Is this the only reference to the resource tip? If so then I don't think we can deduce that the mystery resource has to be so unique that it would give away the civ. He says that he can't mention the new resource but he never says that mentioning it would give away the civ - just that he can't talk about things related to the new civ

Indeed. "Directly related to a civ" and "gives away a civ" are two different things. :king:
 
"There are [Natural Resources], but only as it relates to another specific civilization in game that we are also not talking about."

Dennis Shirk ^ After he thought that his first statement didn't get through. This seems to cut into the theory against Venice
 
"Nestlé CEO explains that water is a foodstuff that should be privatised, not a human right."

Reddit front page today :crazyeye:

Ugh, never thought I'd hear someone from Nestlé say that. My childhood is now ruined. :sad:



Back on topic, regarding rice being a new unique resource...seriously? What about the civilizations already in the game (India, China, Korea, Japan, Siam) that eat rice too? I could just as easily say that if rice is the new resource then that means the Philippines (where I'm from) is in. :p This is absurd, and not just because we all know that the Philippines is never going to be in a Civ game. :lol:
 
Back on topic, regarding rice being a new unique resource...seriously? What about the civilizations already in the game (India, China, Korea, Japan, Siam) that eat rice too? I could just as easily say that if rice is the new resource then that means the Philippines (where I'm from) is in. :p This is absurd, and not just because we all know that the Philippines is never going to be in a Civ game. :lol:

Rice was the backbone for so many Asian nations so I'm surprised it's not in civ. It quite literally built great empires & nations. A lot of the times I wonder why things aren't in civ but this seems like such a fundamental thing that I really wonder why it's not in
 
Rice was the backbone for so many Asian nations so I'm surprised it's not in civ. It quite literally built great empires & nations. A lot of the times I wonder why things aren't in civ but this seems like such a fundamental thing that I really wonder why it's not in

Not to mention Corn and Potatoes - two extremely important crops for world history.
 
Oh, I'm all for the inclusion of rice (and perhaps other cereals as well). But it shouldn't be a resource unique to one civ, right?
 
A resource that indicates a civilization without doubt. This concerns me a little if it actually BELONGS to that Civ.
Why? Because, how many Civs can say such a resource would have been theirs if they were located elsewhere on the Earth? For example, if the Zulu or the English were actually in North America they would have made extensive use of Bison too. While the Sioux could have made fantastic glass if they were in the Venetian area.

If it is a worldwide resource, but one that is strongly associated with a Civ then I'm happy. So Bison, meaning the Sioux = great. But everyone can use the Bison. Let's be honest, if it's a representation of basically a big ass, wild cow then they are featured heavily in African areas too.


If you follow the path that one Civ get one resource, simply due to historically having it near them... then by that logic the American based nations shouldn't get to have Elephants spawn near them and so on. The whole point of Civ is a changing history game.
 
"Nestlé CEO explains that water is a foodstuff that should be privatised, not a human right."

Reddit front page today :crazyeye:

don't want to get off topic, but I don't think that's what he was saying. In a way though, water really is privatized. Many people pay water bills, which really is used to pay for sewage, and distribution of clean water, etc, but it's not like you can go with out paying it and every thing is okay. You don't pay your water bill, you can't get water to your home.

It's a hard concept though; obviously water should be a basic human right, we all need water to survive. At the same time though, before the introduction of clean safe drinking water most illnesses and most deaths were caused by water born illnesses, and I feel safer knowing that the water we drink is treated and guaranteed to be safe for consumption. If that means we have to pay for it - that we have to privatize it, so be it.

At the same time, like I said, it should be a basic human right we should all have access to, and this causes a contradiction, one which I don't think we can really possibly develop a reasonable resolution for, and so we're forced to take a lesser of evils. Clean water we have to pay for, versus potentially non-treated disease filled water that's free.
 
Rice was the backbone for so many Asian nations so I'm surprised it's not in civ. It quite literally built great empires & nations. A lot of the times I wonder why things aren't in civ but this seems like such a fundamental thing that I really wonder why it's not in

Rice isn't just the backbone of Asian nations, but many Western nations as well. Since it could be grown in such high yields, and was a sort of "stuffing" for foods, it was distributed really easily to the west. In Europe it was often used and eaten by the poor, simply because it could be filling on such little amounts and be procured for cheap.

While in the Americas in the South, places like Louisiana relied extremely heavily on rice. In fact, if it weren't for rice the distribution and livability of Louisiana probably would have had never been until much later.

I'd be in favor of removing Bananas for Rice; while rice isn't known to grow in Jungle climates, it's primarily based within tropical areas (or at least that's where it grows best).

I'd also like to see potatoes in the Tundra, maybe giving us a greater incentive to go to Tundra areas.


Also still really in favor of Opium being the new resource.
 
A resource that indicates a civilization without doubt. This concerns me a little if it actually BELONGS to that Civ.
Why? Because, how many Civs can say such a resource would have been theirs if they were located elsewhere on the Earth? For example, if the Zulu or the English were actually in North America they would have made extensive use of Bison too. While the Sioux could have made fantastic glass if they were in the Venetian area.

If it is a worldwide resource, but one that is strongly associated with a Civ then I'm happy. So Bison, meaning the Sioux = great. But everyone can use the Bison. Let's be honest, if it's a representation of basically a big ass, wild cow then they are featured heavily in African areas too.


If you follow the path that one Civ get one resource, simply due to historically having it near them... then by that logic the American based nations shouldn't get to have Elephants spawn near them and so on. The whole point of Civ is a changing history game.

It is almost certain it has to be a manufactured good. A good only that civilization/nation/state made, it must have been successfull on the international market, and the producers of it must have been good at guarding the Secrets of how its made. That's why Venetian Glass has come up as a candidate.
 
mhm i just hope they add things like coffee, sugar-cane and tobacco... those are some of the most important luxury resources of the modern world and they arent in :confused:

but we got truffels yay! :rolleyes:

Sugar has been in since vanilla.

Mmm... vanilla sugar. Now I'm hungry.
 
Maybe I'm just a genius :lol:

On a serious note, Morocco isn't anywhere close to being the world's leading producer of dates... although, if we're talking more about a generic Moorish/North African Civ under the flag of 'Morocco' (the leak strongly suggests that's what this Civ will be called), I do think it's a possibility.

Then again, Venice and Glass are looking increasingly likely too.
 
Because dates are very common in the Mediterranean. My first thought wouldn't have been Morocco in any case. I'd rather see Dates as a common Plantation ressource. Morrocco would remind me more of some spice mixtures.

There's a real probability that they took the debate at the last expansion on Tulips for the Dutch by the word and that is why they chose to include such a effect.

I can see seals as a naval ressource as well (just put the animation on a rock). It would be really strange to see them on inland snow/tundra? That allows them also to spawn on more 'southern' tiles (i.e. San Francisco).
 
Not to mention Corn and Potatoes - two extremely important crops for world history.

I think of systems which 3 or more type of food crop spawned in moderate areas over the world which will be spread by building farm near the resource and each other and trade route. Each type have different yield so long it isn't food, and will merged the yield what they "clashed" each other. But this is what could only be in Civ6 or new game. :)

Regarding Morocco-Date. There's number of clue pointing toward the Moroccan Civ. So it is pretty plausible. Good guess, blackcat.

I don't want to think about resource-civ much while this thread was talking about kangaroo :mischief:.

Regarding the privatize of fresh water. World would be far easier for everyone, especially castaway and ship's crew if the ocean made of fresh water. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom