New civ linked to new resource

[Arachnofiend]

The main argument against Cuba is that it's only really notable in its relation with larger powers (USA and USSR). But then again we already have the Iroquois and I've been campaigning for Vietnam so it's not a very strong argument.

 

[awesome]

False.

The Cuba I have been recommending spans 500 years. I have suggested a modern leader (for obvious reasons) but I have also suggested plenty of non-modern leaders too.

As for the rest; yes Australia is big and yes it is a well off modern country but what else? Its history is not particularly interesting and there's no stand out leader I'd consider particularly great or at least well known. I doubt most Australians would even have an idea of who to pick as the country's leader.

Australia is nothing more than a well off former colony with a very uninteresting history with very uninteresting leaders.

I can not speak for Canada as I know very little of it.

Now again, I can't help but find it particularly bizarre that people (such as yourself) are more than happy to suggest plenty of other obscure civilizations with much shorter histories but the idea of including Cuba is unthinkable.

Cuba's pretty uninteresting and unimportant, as far as civilizations go. Inb4 that's your opinion

 

[alpha2117]

The main argument against Cuba is that it's only really notable in its relation with larger powers (USA and USSR). But then again we already have the Iroquois and I've been campaigning for Vietnam so it's not a very strong argument.

It isn't?

Surely the argument would be that there would be 100's if not 1000's of potential civs which are of the same sort of level as Cuba whilst there are other potential civs that had either genuine sizable civs or more significant achievements. Modern Civs like Australia, Canada, South Africa, Argentina historical civs like Lithuania, Timurids, Kongo etc all have the size to be considered significant and with that size they also have science, trade, tourism etc. The argument on the Iroquois is very different in that they were a multi nation confederation so had some genuine size and in trying to represent Nth American tribal culture you have to accept that they did not build traditional cities like Euro culture but tended to move with the requirements on food. Vietnam at least has more size than Cuba and a longer history to draw on.

I mentioned Cuba as a dark horse myself but I also dont think they deserve to be high on the list of Civs that should be considered. If you are looking at the general region then I'd suggest the West Indies as more viable. They compete in sport asa unified entity often and they have a lot of cross cultural links so they are less tenous than many cobbled together civs. They fit trade & tourism and have a unique cultural identity and they have a lot more cities.

Cuba's major contribution to modern culture is their ability to deplete condom supplies at Olympic Games. If there was a medal count for doing it in the Olympic Village then they would be unbeatable. They are well know mainly for the late 50's early 60's period and their remarkable ability to hold on to their current ideology despite their backers changing radically. If Castro had passed away a few years back though I am guessing they would be in because he's a really iconic leaderhead.

 

[Red Milk]

Cuba's pretty uninteresting and unimportant, as far as civilizations go.

Uninteresting? I'd disagree.

They've had multiple revolutions, civil wars, international wars, corrupt politicking, radical ideology implementation, and that's only the past century or so. I think those are things of note.

As for being unimportant you do seem to ignore the effect the Bay of Pigs invasion had on perceptions of American imperialism and more importantly how potentially destructive the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been.

I'd argue a large chunk of the civilizations currently in the game aren't nearly as impactful, however I'd also say they don't need to be and nor does Cuba.

Inb4 that's your opinion

Well it being your opinion is obvious. The difference between mine and yours is that I backed mine up.

It isn't?

Surely the argument would be that there would be 100's if not 1000's of potential civs which are of the same sort of level as Cuba whilst there are other potential civs that had either genuine sizable civs or more significant achievements. Modern Civs like Australia, Canada, South Africa, Argentina historical civs like Lithuania, Timurids, Kongo etc all have the size to be considered significant and with that size they also have science, trade, tourism etc.

What are you referring to when you say "size"? Is this landmass or something else?

 

[alpha2117]

False.

The Cuba I have been recommending spans 500 years. I have suggested a modern leader (for obvious reasons) but I have also suggested plenty of non-modern leaders too.

As for the rest; yes Australia is big and yes it is a well off modern country but what else? Its history is not particularly interesting and there's no stand out leader I'd consider particularly great or at least well known. I doubt most Australians would even have an idea of who to pick as the country's leader.

Australia is nothing more than a well off former colony with a very uninteresting history with very uninteresting leaders.

I can not speak for Canada as I know very little of it.

Now again, I can't help but find it particularly bizarre that people (such as yourself) are more than happy to suggest plenty of other obscure civilizations with much shorter histories but the idea of including Cuba is unthinkable.

Castro is known mainly because the US hated him. Menzies is fairly well known, Barton, Chifley - Hawke would be the perfect choice for Australia but he's still very much alive. Within western economic circles Hawke/Keating is the yardstick in terms of getting it right. Australia cruised through the recent financial disaster because of the systems Hawke and Keating put in. The economies who followed that model survived well in the recent disaster -those that went the US route didn't. Other than size the four thing s Australia has that make them unique are

1) Unique resources - Opal & Marsupials come to mind but there are others (they also have tons of the traditional resources)
2) Aboriginal culture - if intergrated into the design they offer some unique flavoring
3) Convict culture - Australia started as a series of British penal colonies which no other major country did. That offers some totally unique design choices if devs choose to use them.
4) CSIRO - a government sponsored science org that developed a large number of useful developments -especially in medical sciences but also with things like the wi-fi many of us are probably using now for instance. Miltiary science wise both the Tank and torpedo were designed by Austalians. Australia is not well known as a science powerhouse but when you look at the list of inventions they are similar to the US in that innovations seem to have come out of the ex British colonials at a greater rate than you often know. To me the US's UA shold always have been science based because those guys are churning new stuff out at a amazing rate.

Canada is sometimes in the shadow of the US because of the US's cultural effect on the world. A decent list of science achievements most notably Insulin. It's probably not as unique as Australia in that they share the landmass so the American native parts are not unique to them. I'm sure someone with a better knowledge of them could make a better case for them than I can.

One thing people need to remember when considering Civs is not necessarily their size, relevance or success but rather what elements can be used in a civ development to make the civ interesting and hopefully unique. Cuba is kind of interesting as a place but what is their unique ability, what is their unique building? what is their unique unit? etc etc. Australia is by no means a perfect choice as a civ but they do offer some very clear possibilities design wise. I'm sure they could come up with things for Cuba but they are not as immediately obvious.

I dont think its unthinkable that Cuba could be considered I just think that as long as Castro is alive they dont really have the iconic leader and that he is the major selling point for them as a civ in civ5 terms. Without him they are a small island based culture with minimal obvious design choices. Castro dies and that changes because he's so iconic that the rest can be cobbled together around him. Of course thats what happened with Attila - they had an iconic leader and they cobbled together a civ around his idea.

 

[alpha2117]

What are you referring to when you say "size"? Is this landmass or something else?

Partially landmass. That gives large city lists. Also size tends to also lead to achievements. Large sprawling civs often are forced to create stuff where small island civs like Cuba tend not to be innovative. I look at Cuba and I know some basic stuff Castro, Batista, Guantanemo Bay, Cigars, music, boxing and their ability to deplete condom supplies at Olympic Games. They are a fairly interesting island people. The problem civ wise is that other than Castro I dont see a lot to build a civ out of. I'm sure people could cobble stuff together and that stuff may well end up being fun to play but what I'm saying is that it's not immediately obvious. Australia has a number of unique attributes that allow developers a wide array of choices development wise. Somewhere like Timurid is totally different but again their size gives options. One of the reasons Italy is a realistic possibility is frankly there are so many options design choice wise that everyone knows that done right it could be easily workable as a civ in civ5. Cuba's small island nature means that whilst they are interesting as a culture they may not actually have much meat to work with design wise.

I don't hate the idea of a Cuba civ, I just think that as long as Castro is alive they don't have the core element from which to work and I don't think they are making a civ with a still living leaderhead. No Castro and all you are left with is a island culture and at that point it's behind Haiti, West Indies etc in the region which have similar island design elements but Haiti has unique cultural elements and a potential iconic leader whilst the West Indies has more cities & unique cultural elements. I think after Castro's passing Cuba gets in - so maybe Civ6.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The main argument against Cuba is that it's only really notable in its relation with larger powers (USA and USSR). But then again we already have the Iroquois and I've been campaigning for Vietnam so it's not a very strong argument.

I think the difference there is their role between the powers. The Iroquois, quite often, acted as an independent power broker. At times (well after colonies were established) they were the second most powerful entity in North America above the Rio Grande (after the English were established, it's hard to argue against their power, but they had times where the were stronger than France. They also had times where they worked with the French for their own interests in spite being allied with England).

Vietnam has a long-established history where they were established as a significant regional power. This period was marked by resisting China, but they were still important (at least enough to distinguish it from Cuba). They were not just a product of the Cold War.

 

[alpha2117]

I think the difference there is their role between the powers. The Iroquois, quite often, acted as an independent power broker. At times (well after colonies were established) they were the second most powerful entity in North America above the Rio Grande (after the English were established, it's hard to argue against their power, but they had times where the were stronger than France. They also had times where they worked with the French for their own interests in spite being allied with England).

Vietnam has a long-established history where they were established as a significant regional power. This period was marked by resisting China, but they were still important (at least enough to distinguish it from Cuba). They were not just a product of the Cold War.

Strangely there is somewhat of a parallel for Cuba & Vietnam in their cases for inclusion though. Up until the rise of Communism in the 50's they would have been 0ff the radar but in both cases the events of the 60's see them still on it. Vietnam beat the military powerhouse USA (no small feat) whilst Cuba withstood their pressure. Vietnam's pre 50's history tends to be of them getting a bit of a kicking which would have seen them behind the Timurid & Khmer on the list of likely inclusions but after the Vietnam war I see them only behind Majapahit/Indonesia in the pecking order. I only see Majapahit in front of them because of Indonesia's undisputed size, population and trading and tourism elements which give it an edge over most civs not already included in the game. Cuba though sits behind the various native Nth American options and possibly West Indies and Haiti in terms of the islands of the Caribbean. Castro dies and that changes somewhat however as they then have a iconic leaderhead from which to build a civ around.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The difference is that their post-colonial pushes them over the edge given their pre-colonial history, while Cuba has no pre-colonial history at all. Vietnam also had far more autonomy of action and directly defeated the United States, while Cuba relied on Soviet nuclear protection.

 

[alpha2117]

The difference is that their post-colonial pushes them over the edge given their pre-colonial history, while Cuba has no pre-colonial history at all. Vietnam also had far more autonomy of action and directly defeated the United States, while Cuba relied on Soviet nuclear protection.

Agreed. Also their size doesn't hurt as they have a legit city list. Timurid is close to Vietnam in considerations for mine given their Silk Road and military elements that allow easy development of civ style functionality.

Back on topic though I dont see any of them particularly linked to a specific resource that would give them away as being in if the resource was revealed in the same way as Bison does for Sioux or a similar native american tribe. Australia, Sioux, Inuit still seem to be the only 3 who really seem instant when I think of specific resources. Things like Coffee, Rubber, Tea, Poppy, Tobacco, Rice etc all have multiple possibilities whilst a manufactured good like Glass leans towards towards Venice/Italy but seems a little forced as in a mythical civ world anyone could have developed glass to that level. Seals, Bison & Opals/Marsupials are all very civ specific to me. They could be general goods available to anyone but their addition would scream they are coming in with the civ where they are found in the real world. Topic wise I still see those 3 as the most likely resources and I personally expect Bison.

Slaves as a resource seem unlikely but that of course would indicate CSA as a full civ.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Or it could indicate Ashanti among dozens of others.

 

[LoneRebel]

Only because the reasons for it not being included have been debatable, poor and contradict previous civilization choices.

That's debatable.

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.

Cuba was a major part of it only because of location. The major players were the US and USSR.

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.

I believe the reaction (not just from me but from others) to your suggestion that Cuba be included is fairly indicative, actually.

If Cuba is more well-known than the ancient civs on Menzies' list then it is simply because Cuba is a modern nation-state and many people are not knowledgeable about history. The same argument then applies to other modern nation-states. If you're going to add Cuba then let's also add Indonesia, South Africa, Finland, Hungary, etc. And yes, Canada and Australia. Most, if not all of those countries are more influential than Cuba is anyway.

And? Again you are concocting contrived reasons to keep Cuba out.

No, you're missing the point.

I was pointing out the scarcity of postcolonial civs in the game, indicating that if a postcolonial nation were ever to get in, then they'd better have some pretty damn good mitigating factors that outweigh their being relatively young nations formed as a product of colonialism.

There's a history outside the modern Cuban conflict you know. Its history since European colonisation is more than 500 years.

Hmm. You mean 400 years of being a Spanish colony and 100 years of being independent. Hey, why don't we add my country, the Philippines, as well, while we're at it?

 

[awesome]

Uninteresting? I'd disagree.

They've had multiple revolutions, civil wars, international wars, corrupt politicking, radical ideology implementation, and that's only the past century or so. I think those are things of note.

As for being unimportant you do seem to ignore the effect the Bay of Pigs invasion had on perceptions of American imperialism and more importantly how potentially destructive the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been.

I'd argue a large chunk of the civilizations currently in the game aren't nearly as impactful, however I'd also say they don't need to be and nor does Cuba.Well it being your opinion is obvious. The difference between mine and yours is that I backed mine up.What are you referring to when you say "size"? Is this landmass or something else?

The Cuban missile crisis could've happened anywhere that was near the US. It just so happened to be in Cuba because that was the closest country that would let the USSR use it as a launch pad. That's not importance. That's proximity.
As for being interesting, there are plenty of countries that have gone through all of those things you mention in the past century. Some of them are more interesting, like Vietnam. Some of them are less interesting, like Kosovo.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Glass leans towards towards Venice/Italy but seems a little forced as in a mythical civ world anyone could have developed glass to that level.

I imagine that the resource is probably inspired by what the community was theorizing about the Polder pre-G&K. People thought that the Polders would yield a unique tulip luxury that the Dutch would be able to trade away. That turned out not to be the case but perhaps Firaxis thought it was a pretty cool idea and decided to apply it to another civ (IE Venice).

 

[wigwam]

I kind of doubt that the new resource is natural. If it were it would be for flavor like the new resources in Gods and Kings then we'd be getting multiple new resources. Since we're getting only one resource and it is specifically tied to a civ I would suspect that it's going to be a manufactured luxury connected to that civ's uniques.

Agreed. I don't see any way a resource that appears on the map could be associated with a single civilization; I think it's got to come from the UA or (more likely) from a UB.

If it's Venice, and if the resource is glass, it doesn't have to become available immediately—maybe they get a UB version of the forge or something.

 

[Colmar]

They've had multiple revolutions, civil wars, international wars, corrupt politicking, radical ideology implementation, and that's only the past century or so.

Oh my! What country could possibly match up with that? How about Guatemala? Nicaragua? El Salvador? Panama? Colombia? Bolivia? Argentina? Peru? Chile? Paraguay? Mexico?

Civil wars, corruption, and radical ideology have become the hallmark of Latin America.

I have supported Argentina's inclusion (but I'll say it doesn't deserve to get one of the last four spots.) Argentina has been its own, independent nation, not just a shelf for Soviets to keep their missiles on. Argentina also has a very recognizable leader, large diverse lands, a genuine culture, and inhabits an area that is not addressed often. Argentina had a larger economy than France or Germany before WW1, and Buenos Aires has become a cosmopolitan city.

As a Canadian, I wouldn't mind seeing Canada before Cuba. Canada fits well, having played an important role in peacemaking and the UN (no thanks to Mr. Harper ), as well as having a unique resource: maple. It has a bona fide culture, and an opportunity to use tundra tiles. Canada has hosted 3 olympic games and 3 world fairs. Canada has played an important part by building the Canadarm.

Now speaking honestly, I predict and wouldn't mind seeing Moors, Venice, Indonesia, and a Native American getting in. I acknowledge that these civs are fantastic and make Argentina/Canada/Cuba look like a joke.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Now speaking honestly, I predict and wouldn't mind seeing Moors, Venice, Indonesia, and a Native American getting in. I acknowledge that these civs are fantastic and make Argentina/Canada/Cuba look like a joke.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Of course we all respect the histories of Argentina/Canada/Cuba/etc and in real life every little piece of history is just as important in the grand scheme of things........but in 'Civ terms' the truth is that they just don't hold the weight to some MASSIVE, storied empires that are still without representation

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

We've heard that a third of the new civs are fan favourites and the other 2/3s show off new systems.

So far, we have:

Poland - Doesn't particularly show new systems and has always been popular with the fans: this is a fan favourite

Assyria - Again doesn't particularly show off any new gameplay elements and has proven quite popular in polls etc: this is a fan favourite

Brazil - Tourism civ: showing off new systems (regardless of its reputation with the fans)

Portugal - Trading civ: showing off new systems

Zulu - doesn't show off new systems: fan favourite


I think we already have the 3 civs that firaxis are throwing too us (if we are to take them literally as having given a third of the civs to the fans wants) so that likely means no inuit unless they are incorporated into some of the new systems that are introduced, which i can't particularly see happening

 

[Menzies]

We've heard that a third of the new civs are fan favourites and the other 2/3s show off new systems.

So far, we have:

Poland - Doesn't particularly show new systems and has always been popular with the fans: this is a fan favourite

Assyria - Again doesn't particularly show off any new gameplay elements and has proven quite popular in polls etc: this is a fan favourite

Brazil - Tourism civ: showing off new systems (regardless of its reputation with the fans)

Portugal - Trading civ: showing off new systems

Zulu - doesn't show off new systems: fan favourite


I think we already have the 3 civs that firaxis are throwing too us (if we are to take them literally as having given a third of the civs to the fans wants) so that likely means no inuit unless they are incorporated into some of the new systems that are introduced, which i can't particularly see happening

Do you have any links to polls where Assyria are fan favourites?

 

[wigwam]

I'd interpret "fan favorite" differently; to me, that means civs that've been in previous Civ games. Portugal, the Zulu…the Sioux?