OzzyKP
Deity
My guess is Indonesia with the resource tie in.
New civ linked to new resource
- Thread starter Nujabes
- Start date
DeutschDachs
Emperor
Khmer have only been in one civilization game... though they're certainly plausible
Ethiopia are already in the game... Also, Panama City has been shown in BNW demos, which makes Gran Colombia unlikely.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
That contradicts other articles, which say resource singular. There's nothing in the Q&A that suggested coffee.
Moraiwe
Warlord
Has anyone suggested the manufactured good chocolate, perhaps requiring access to cocoa, tied to the Belgium civ? So far it's the only luxury I can think of that makes me imediately suggest one particular civ.
So?
He's retired if that even matters
It is by virtue of being more well known. The average man is not going to connect glass with Venice, dates with Morroco or batik with Indonesia.
Cigars on the other hand instantly spring to mind the country of Cuba.
They would be relevant to the new ideology system and any potential scenario that comes with it (there are more scenarios then the two we know)
Cuba is an influential part of the Cold War and beyond that Castro is too an influential part of the Cold War, a symbol of modern communist leaders (for better or worse) and an all around recognisable figure.
Based on this level of neccessity neither does the majority of the civilizations in the game.
I realize you're just trying to counter every point made against Cuba as a matter of exercise, but if you're going to say that they're going to break precedent for basically every civ game ever for Cuba, you should come up with a more convincing response to this.
What is a potential Cuban civ that incorporates ideology? I'm honestly curious, I don't know of any interpretations of them for this game.
Clever man. Truth be told I don't expect them to be included however I see no good reason for them not to.
Besides, however likely it is the "hints" point to them certainly being a reasonable possibility.
Just because it's a trend that doesn't necessarily mean it's a conscious one. I don't recall the devs ever actively stating they won't include a leader because they're alive so I see no reason to assume that they won't include a country's most influential leader if they are indeed alive.
Of course there are other (dead) leaders that could be used. Calixto García, Máximo Gómez, Demetrio Castillo Duany (prominent figures in the Cuban war for independence) or José Martí; not a leader but a political activist and a national hero.
Strangely worded question. What I meant was that the new ideology system is likely to have its own scenario and Cuba being a well known Communist country would fit well with it.
LoneRebel
Emperor
I like how you dismissed most of the civs on this list as being "virtually unknown" and not as influential as Cuba. I doubt most users of this forum would agree with you.
Honestly, pushing so strenuously for the inclusion of Cuba is a little odd. Cuba is a post-colonial state. Only two postcolonial states have ever been added in a Civ game - the USA, and now, Brazil. Both of which are large countries with large populations and large economies. Cuba has none of the above.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Add to the fact that this is an American game... Including Cuba here in the US is sure to bring more bad publicity than probably even including Israel in game here
Cuba isn't going to get in and I (and seems like most others) don't want it in either
Cuba isn't going to get in and I (and seems like most others) don't want it in either
Haven't you been reading the posts, it's been an ally to an important state!!! That's worthy of inclusion in and of itself, hence why we have a civ list over a hundred long...
LoneRebel
Emperor
To the average player I guarantee most of them would be quite obscure.
As for not being as influential I only refer to them not being a recognisable part of modern culture's knowledge of the world. Today's Cuba is far more identifiable and well known than the Mauretania of antiquity.
Unimportant.
I've been "pushing" for a few (Haiti, Chile, Vietnam). Cuba just happens to have gained a little more potential and happens to be a Civ that sparks discussion.
The only way a postcolonial civilization can be included is if they have large populations and a large ecnonomy? Was this announced some where?
Call of Duty: Black Ops had a mode where you could play as Castro, JFK or Nixon and run around together fighting zombies. I really doubt America cares.
And here is what I find strange. Civilization has inlcuded plenty of civilizations with far less history and I don't see them receiving nearly as much opposition or contempt. Why the hate for Cuba and not say the Huns or the Zulu?
Eru Ilúvatar
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 99
Why not Cuba. The only good reason pointed here is that the game is american. Another one, I suppose, is the aversion of the developers to be involved in a polemic matter. The reason, I guess, they didn't include Israel as a playable civ. And, as with Cuba, I'd love to see they joining in, adding new flavours to the game.
In my opinion, there's still another native american tribe (Tupi, Guarani, Sioux, Cherokee), another asian ancient regional power and a new civ from the post-industrial-revolution world.
In my opinion, there's still another native american tribe (Tupi, Guarani, Sioux, Cherokee), another asian ancient regional power and a new civ from the post-industrial-revolution world.
LoneRebel
Emperor
As Nujabes pointed out, you seem to be trying to counter every point made against Cuba as a matter of exercise.
Even if that were true, perhaps the "average player's" knowledge of civilizations is not the only basis for their inclusion.
I think you may be overestimating Cuba's influence. What are they known for, really? The Cuban missile crisis? That was Cuba essentially being a proxy in a conflict between two superpowers. Cuba is mainly known for being an ally of the USSR. Do you think they would have been nearly as "influential" without the Soviets backing them?
I think it is important, unless you're saying that only your opinion matters.
In fact, I agree that Vietnam should be included. Vietnam should be in Civ before we even consider including Cuba.
Vietnam is not a postcolonial state in the same way that Cuba (or the US for that matter) are. True, it was colonized by the French, but culturally, ethnically, and linguistically, the present-day nation-state of Vietnam is a clear successor to the Vietnamese dynasties that ruled the area in the past. The present-day nation-state of Cuba, on the other hand, is a product of colonialism; it bears little resemblance to the society the indigenous natives of that island had when the Spaniards arrived, who were almost completely wiped out within a century of the Spanish arrival. Therefore, Vietnam has a far longer history than Cuba does (the pre-colonial native population of Cuba doesn't count here because the modern nation-state has nothing to do with them.)
I don't recall ever saying that was the only way a postcolonial nation could get in. But the two postcolonial nations we currently have fit the bill.
Cuba has more history than the Huns or the Zulu? News to me.
I actually don't have any opposition to Cuba being included on ideological grounds, nor do I "hate" them. I'm not even American. But there are plenty of civs that should get in before they do. Simple as that.
PS: Havana should definitely be a city-state at least; I thought it already was.
Even if that were true, perhaps the "average player's" knowledge of civilizations is not the only basis for their inclusion.
I think you may be overestimating Cuba's influence. What are they known for, really? The Cuban missile crisis? That was Cuba essentially being a proxy in a conflict between two superpowers. Cuba is mainly known for being an ally of the USSR. Do you think they would have been nearly as "influential" without the Soviets backing them?
I think it is important, unless you're saying that only your opinion matters.
In fact, I agree that Vietnam should be included. Vietnam should be in Civ before we even consider including Cuba.
Vietnam is not a postcolonial state in the same way that Cuba (or the US for that matter) are. True, it was colonized by the French, but culturally, ethnically, and linguistically, the present-day nation-state of Vietnam is a clear successor to the Vietnamese dynasties that ruled the area in the past. The present-day nation-state of Cuba, on the other hand, is a product of colonialism; it bears little resemblance to the society the indigenous natives of that island had when the Spaniards arrived, who were almost completely wiped out within a century of the Spanish arrival. Therefore, Vietnam has a far longer history than Cuba does (the pre-colonial native population of Cuba doesn't count here because the modern nation-state has nothing to do with them.)
I don't recall ever saying that was the only way a postcolonial nation could get in. But the two postcolonial nations we currently have fit the bill.
Cuba has more history than the Huns or the Zulu? News to me.
I actually don't have any opposition to Cuba being included on ideological grounds, nor do I "hate" them. I'm not even American. But there are plenty of civs that should get in before they do. Simple as that.
PS: Havana should definitely be a city-state at least; I thought it already was.
Eru Ilúvatar;12379459 said:
Why not Cuba? Because there's nothing overly significant about them, and there are countless considerably better options. Why not Australia or even Canada? That's right, because there are huge numbers of better options. The funny part though is that Australia and Canada are both better options than Cuba.
Only because the reasons for it not being included have been debatable, poor and contradict previous civilization choices.
But is an important one. People are more likely to be excited for a civilization they know rather than some obscure one they never heard of.
We have the luxury of looking back at these events. At the time the Cuban Missile Crisis could have literally brought the end of the world, and Cuba was a key part of it.
There's also the Bay of Pigs Invasion where a world super-power was driven out by a small independent force showing the falliability of American Imperialism. Plus there's the 10 years war, the Little War, the Cuban War for Independence and Cuba's vital role in the Spanish-American War.
The expression that majority's opinion would conflict with my opinion is in fact, your opinion. If the majority do in fact disagree that the majority on Menzies list are not as well known as Cuba than I would respectfully disagree until we got a proper sample size of opinions from the average Civ playing population. Since that is unlikely to happen we can only discuss our own subject experiences on who is likely to have been exposed to what and they are really not worth discussing.
And? Again you are concocting contrived reasons to keep Cuba out.
There's a history outside the modern Cuban conflict you know. Its history since European colonisation is more than 500 years.
Why? You have yet to actually expand on this.
Australia and Canada despite being fairly young (as is Cuba, particularly the Cuba as you are speaking about) have a huge amount of both regional and Global influence. Australia is at the current time not only one of the best nations in the World in terms of living standard and geographically one of the largest, but also one of the largest economies in the World, despite a small population. Much of this can also be said of Canada, who are another relatively large player in the modern World, particularly in comparison to Cuba.
Australia and Canada are also very interesting culturally and would both tie in well to the features in the current expansion. Australia in particular tie in well with the idea of tourism as well as global events such as a so called 'World Games', Australia having a fantastic history not only of hosting major sporting events, but also performing well in them.
What exactly is going in Cuba's favour? The living standards, whilst decent in comparison to other similar states, are still not exemplary (particularly in comparison to Australia and Canada). Cuba's economy also doesn't stand out, nor does it relevance on the World state. One swallow doesn't make a summer and Cuba have had little to no global impact beyond acting as a proxy for a larger power.
In any case, none of these nations deserve to be civilizations in the, particularly with better options still missing.
As for this exapansion, Cuba will not be in it. The last 4 are most likely:
6. Morocco
7. Italy
8. Sioux or another Native American Civ
9. Indonesia
Even if there were another expansion (or more DLC), I would prefer to see a list like:
1. Hungary
2. Khmer
3. Mali
4. Kongo
5. Serbia
6. Phoenicia
7. Timurids
8. Khazars
9. Gran Colombia or Argentina
Australia and Canada are also very interesting culturally and would both tie in well to the features in the current expansion. Australia in particular tie in well with the idea of tourism as well as global events such as a so called 'World Games', Australia having a fantastic history not only of hosting major sporting events, but also performing well in them.
What exactly is going in Cuba's favour? The living standards, whilst decent in comparison to other similar states, are still not exemplary (particularly in comparison to Australia and Canada). Cuba's economy also doesn't stand out, nor does it relevance on the World state. One swallow doesn't make a summer and Cuba have had little to no global impact beyond acting as a proxy for a larger power.
In any case, none of these nations deserve to be civilizations in the, particularly with better options still missing.
As for this exapansion, Cuba will not be in it. The last 4 are most likely:
6. Morocco
7. Italy
8. Sioux or another Native American Civ
9. Indonesia
Even if there were another expansion (or more DLC), I would prefer to see a list like:
1. Hungary
2. Khmer
3. Mali
4. Kongo
5. Serbia
6. Phoenicia
7. Timurids
8. Khazars
9. Gran Colombia or Argentina
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
This argument strikes me as a bit odd. People are excited for an expansion pack. Precisely the point of an expansion pack (as opposed to DLC) is all the Civs are sold together. You don't have to be excited for every single one because you aren't buying them individually. This is precisely the time to include lesser known peoples who were more important because you don't have to worry about someone saying "who's that?" and not buying it.
Similar threads
- Locked
