New civ linked to new resource

[MARDUK80]

Turquoise could very well be the new resource. You may not think it is particularly linked to any civilization, but there is huge amounts of it in the American South West.

Additionally, turquoise was a significant part of the long distance trade operated by the ancient pueblo peoples and had ritualistic properties that made it a significant part of their religion.

Turquoise is associated with the pueblo more than any other resource i know, and whilst turquoise itself may not be overtly "puebloan" in the way that venetian glass is venetian, i think its one of the best bets we have for a natural resource.

It also fits mighty conveniently with the mention of the pueblo and how the removal of only Pope was mentioned...

This is probably the best idea I have read from this thread.

The Pueblo Turquoise might indeed be the (unique) luxury resource the devs referred. It surely would fit in perfectly.

"The Ancestral Puebloans (Anasazi) of the Chaco Canyon and surrounding region are believed to have prospered greatly from their production and trading of turquoise objects."

Spoiler :

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

This is probably the best idea I have read from this thread.

The Pueblo Turquoise might indeed be the (unique) luxury resource the devs referred. It surely would fit in perfectly.

"The Ancestral Puebloans (Anasazi) of the Chaco Canyon and surrounding region are believed to have prospered greatly from their production and trading of turquoise objects."

Spoiler :

It's almost TOO convenient

 

[wigwam]

Cool idea, but isn't turquoise already sort of covered by gems? It's found all over the world, not just in the Southwest.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I like the turquoise idea - especially since it hints that we might get the Navajo...

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Cool idea, but isn't turquoise already sort of covered by gems? It's found all over the world, not just in the Southwest.

Turquoise is indeed a gem, and that is perhaps a spanner in the works. However, ivory is an organic gemstone and that hasn't stopped it's inclusion, so who knows?

As for resource diversity of course, but it was very significant to the Pueblo, they are particularly noted for their turquoise trade and production. Far more so than the Navajo I might add.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, Turquoise is a gem. I was trying to remember if it was a precious stone instead, but it's not (I've wanted Lapis Lazuli for a long time and I've been debating whether or not precious stones are sufficiently distinguishable to justify separating them from gems).

 

[Deggial]

But... but... I thought Pueblo was shafted? Turquoise might fit as perfect as it wants - if there is no Pueblo civilization, there is no need for Turquoise. (Unless it was only Pueblo's leader who was altered. I would be glad to learn they are in...)

 

[alpha2117]

Turquoise could very well be the new resource. You may not think it is particularly linked to any civilization, but there is huge amounts of it in the American South West.

Additionally, turquoise was a significant part of the long distance trade operated by the ancient pueblo peoples and had ritualistic properties that made it a significant part of their religion.

Turquoise is associated with the pueblo more than any other resource i know, and whilst turquoise itself may not be overtly "puebloan" in the way that venetian glass is venetian, i think its one of the best bets we have for a natural resource.

It also fits mighty conveniently with the mention of the pueblo and how the removal of only Pope was mentioned...

Hmmm Interesting.

It's certainly more viable to me than glass. I kind of expect Venice /Italy to be in at this point but I really dont see glass as the resource being added that is linked to a civ. I'll try to give a stepped out reasoning behind that.

1) Civ useable Resources have traditionally been plonked down on the map rather than self manufactured. Those resources may be used to manufacture things in real life but in CIV5 it's all been about the raw resource itself.
2) When manufactured goods were brought in it was done to give extra flavor to CS's. To get Jewelry or Porcelain you needed the right relationship with the appropriate CS. It added a layer to diplomacy that wasn't already there.
3) Glass is a manufactured good. That means straight away a significant change to how civs use and get resources.
4) What effect does glass give? Gold, Happiness, Production a mix of any of the former.
5) Is the manufactured good exclusive? Whilst Glass is related to Venice it is by no means exclusive in the real world.
6) Resources fall into three basic groups Basic, Strategic & Luxury. What would glass fall into? If it's a Luxury how does that effect the game mechanics. If it's a Luxury wouldn't that mean Venice could grow a larger empire which is counter to what actually happened. If it's not then is it just a new gold adding building and if so then why would you call it a resource and not just a building. If it was exclusive and a Luxury then it totally changes the way diplomacy would work in relationship to one civ alone.
7) Depending on what choices were made that one resource would alter the way diplomacy, happiness & trade work at a basic level all for one civ. That's a heck of a lot of Beta testing for minimal gain.
8) Why Glass? There are many manufactured goods -Shouldn't Russia & The US get weapons manufacturing resources, should China get porcelain, Japan & Korea Electronics etc. To be honest if manufactured goods were in for civs then each civ should get at least one option to specialise in for trade purposes.
9) When I look at CIV5 diplomacy & trade structures I dont see them set up for that and at this point of the game I dont see them going down that road.
10) Why bother. Venice and Italy both offer plenty of other design aspects to work with. Venice was a major trade & naval power and with the new trade route system surely if they were in UB, UA & UU options abound in relation to things like Canals, Ships, Trade route creation & length etc. Glass was important to them and I could see a UB relating to it that increased trade yields etc but does it need to be a resource.

When I look at it logically I dont see it as the easy way to go to make Glass a resource. I still believe that any new resource that is linked in peoples minds to a specific Leader will be a traditional raw resource that is found on the map. Bison, Seals, Marsupials, Eucalyptus, Turquoise, Opal, Maple etc. Something that we relate to a certain specific area. There are other resources that should possibly be in but are not as specific to one area Hemp, Tobacco, Gas, Rubber, Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Honey, Tin, Corn were all major trade commodities at certain points in time. It's far easier to add a traditional resource to the game than it would be to add extra levels of complexity to things by adding Glass. I could be dead wrong but I just see it as overcomplicated from a design point of view.

 

[wigwam]

Civ IV had a bunch of manufactured resources—movies, records, and musicals.

I actually think glass as a special, tradable luxury for Venice would work pretty well. If it's one unit of glass per city, then yeah, it does sort of encourage Venice to go wide (although, to be fair, Venice had a much bigger empire than you might think), but I don't think it's unbalanced. It'd actually be similar to the Arabian Bazaar, ultimately—good on bigger maps (more trade partners)—although it'd more reliable than the Bazaar; less chance of being underutilized, less chance of being overpowered.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Here is my defense for glass as an exclusive luxury resource:

1) Having a manufactured luxury is not something that has been done for a civ. But past precedent does not indicate future action. If Firaxis wants it so, it will be so. It's not like this is the first time we got excited about an exclusive resource. We thought Tulips were going to be exclusive in G&K. Perhaps Firaxis saw how excited we were about that idea, even though it wan't what happened. And they decided to use it in BNW. And when we thought all Mercantile city-states would get different resources, we thought glass was going to be one of those.

2) I think glass would be a luxury resource produced in a building. It's benefits would be the same as any other luxury: happiness or barter. The thing about luxury resources is that it's of no benefit to have more copies than the number of civs in the game, so it's not like an expansive Venice would be ultra-powerful. Having a monopoly is the extent of the benefits. Every civ will want to barter something for it. But it's not like every other civ HAS TO HAVE GLASS to exist. If you're not getting along with Venice, go get some Truffles or Wine instead.

3) I don't like the idea of an exclusive resource being "on the map". What if the civ that has exclusive use for it isn't even in the game? Then there's just another resource sitting around cluttering up the map and no one is using it.

4) While other parts of the world have made glass, Venice was really, really into their glassmaking. They have been doing it since the 8th century CE. They knew they had the market cornered and they did everything they could to keep it that way. Glassmakers in Venice were treated like celebrities. But if they tried to share their special techniques with outsiders or to leave the city, they were killed. It was a very big deal. We aren't talking about windows and common drinking cups. Venetian glass is true art.

5) Why not anything else? It really is hard to find a product that is as closely tied to a place as glass is to Venice, especially as it was in Medieval Europe, but still today. The best comparable connections are Fine Wine to France and Silk or Porcelain to China. All of those things are already in the game. Luxuries like coffee and chocolate, and strategic resources like rubber originated in one place, but were quickly transplanted throughout the tropics to friendly colonies. Modern products do not compare due to automated manufacturing processes making them accessible. They don't require specialized and heavily guarded skills to make.

This webpage has a fairly detailed history of Venetian glass, it's role in the prosperity of the city, the different types, and why it is so special.

http://www.glassofvenice.com/murano_glass_history.php#11

 

[codepoet]

I like the turquoise idea. Fits perfectly. Only took us 35 pages to come up with it

 

[Gucumatz]

I like the turquoise idea. Fits perfectly. Only took us 35 pages to come up with it

It was mentioned like 10 pages ago . We dismissed it then because it fell under the role of "gems" and that the Pueblo are probably out.

 

[alpha2117]

Civ IV had a bunch of manufactured resources—movies, records, and musicals.

I actually think glass as a special, tradable luxury for Venice would work pretty well. If it's one unit of glass per city, then yeah, it does sort of encourage Venice to go wide (although, to be fair, Venice had a much bigger empire than you might think), but I don't think it's unbalanced. It'd actually be similar to the Arabian Bazaar, ultimately—good on bigger maps (more trade partners)—although it'd more reliable than the Bazaar; less chance of being underutilized, less chance of being overpowered.

Care to explain how you think they overcome the current game mechanics?

I'm not against Glass per-se - I just dont see how it can be implemented simply as a Resource. It just seems like a lot of extra complications and play testing involves for something that effects one Civ. I can see a UB replacing Workshops that gives Gold as well as increases production or makes trade routes more productive but I dont see it as a resource. Looking at the new mechanics it really doesn't seem to be the way they are heading. I'd be all for trade in manufactured goods but if you implement that I'd be saying it needs to be done fully rather than for one resource for one civ and nothing I've seen indicates they are going down that road. To me one manufactured good for one civ is akin to bringing in Religion but only allowing the Byzantines to develop it. It just doesn't seem to fit with the way they have made design decisions up till now where they bring in new features and give some civs advantages using that feature but dont exclude other civs from ever doing it. In Religion everyone could form one it was just that the Byzantines were a little better at doing so. The existing trade elements with resources dont use exclusivity they are all about either obtaining more or keeping the value of them when you trade them. I can definitly see Glass being involved in Venice but I dont see it as a exclusive resource the way the mechanics have been set up.

In a way I am using the same logic as people are using to suggest they are probably coming in. Venice appears to have been replaced because Riga is using it's Color Scheme and is a Maratime CS therfore Venice or Italy are likely to be in based on the fact that in the past when that has happened it has indicated a civ being created using the old CS. My argument is that whenever UA's have been granted to Civs using a game mechanic it has never been to make that mechanic exclusive to themselves merely to enhance their ability to use that mechanic to their advantage. I can definitely seeing enhanced trade abilities given to Venice but I cant see them getting a exclusive resource because it doesn't fit with the way the game has previously been designed to work nor does it actually gel with the real world where Venitian Glass was prized Glass but Glass in no way exclusive to them alone. If it's not exclusive then I'm unsure how it would work as a resource either. It all just seems unnecessarily complex for it to be a resource when that can be represented much more simply using UA or UB.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Coffee is hard to link to a single civ, Tea would be easily linked to Sri Lanka/Ceylon/Tamils.

Tea would be more likely to be linked with China, Japan, or possibly India. Heck, tea could be linked to a British East India Company civ more easily than "the Tamils", and the British East India Company is less likely to be made an actual civ than even the Tamils are.

I still think that if we can argue about which civ would be most closely linked to a given resource, that's pretty good evidence that it's not the resource in question. I also think that if we could easily imagine a resource being added without any new civs coming with it, it's probably not that resource, either. I am willing to bet that all the people who are still saying things like coffee, tea, rubber, chocolate, and rice are wrong. Rubber and rice have been in Civ games before without the civs that people are insisting would be attached to them, and even coffee, chocolate, and tea could all be added without even implying a new civ, let alone giving that new civ away.

To me, tin would suggest the British Isles before it would suggest Indonesia, since it was the primary source of tin for the classical Mediterranean world. And even Britain is not so indelibly linked to tin that it would be a giveaway even if England and Boudicca's Celts weren't already in. It could just be a new resource without being linked to anybody. So it certainly wouldn't be a giveaway for Indonesia.

Murex (or Tyrian purple, if one prefers) would be a giveaway, inasmuch as it is historically associated almost exclusively with the Phoenicians and is what they themselves are primarily known for. Bison might not necessarily be a giveaway--there's been some debate about which Native American group it would be linked to, and it is possible, though unlikely, that they would add it without adding any new Native American civs--but the link is still strong enough that it would heavily imply "a Great Plains tribe", and the only question left would be which one.

I just don't think "x resource could conceivably be linked to y civ" would be strong enough to justify what Dennis Shirk said. I still think it's going to be something as inevitable as Phoenicians/murex or [Great Plains tribe]/bison, rather than a tenuous yeah-it-kinda-works link like Indonesia/rice or Tamils/tea.

But we'll see, I guess. Whenever they next announce a new civ, I hope it's this one. It will be fascinating to see whether any of us are even close.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't see why one civ having exclusive production of a luxury is so hard to fathom. Imagine a game by the current rules where Arabia settles all of the Incense tiles in the game. They have a monopoly. It's not possible to get it anywhere else. It's something that they can use to barter with that all the other civs will trade something for. If you want it, you have to treat with them. If you don't get along with Arabia, you don't get Incense. Sure, it may be a little less happiness for you if you already have all other resources and you won't be able to fulfill some city-state quests. But that's not going to ruin a game for you. It's not like there aren't alternatives to getting that happiness.

So it's the same for Venice and Glass. It's simply a built-in monopoly. You can already get a luxury monopoly in the game like I described above and it's not terribly imbalanced. Having 20 copies of glass does Venice no good if there are only 11 civ trade partners (huge map). So it's not like it's a bonus that scales infinitely.

Sure, they get one additional luxury worth of happiness at whatever point it becomes available, but the AI has tons of happiness anyway, and the human player eventually gets to the point where there is more than enough of it. And if it comes from a building, Venice has to pay maintenance for each copy.

And the effect of Glass on a trade route would only be as much of a benefit as any other luxury. It would be a little more lucrative, but not nearly as powerful as Portugal's UA that doubles the benefit of all resources on a trade route. It's unlikely that you will have a trade route for each city, so it wouldn't be enough to fully offset the building maintenance.

 

[codepoet]

It was mentioned like 10 pages ago . We dismissed it then because it fell under the role of "gems" and that the Pueblo are probably out.

Oh heh - only 25 pages then. I missed it obviously.
Pottery is really the first thing I think of when I think on Southwest Native goods and/or art. Turquoise is definitely common obviously.

Anyway.. we dismiss Pueblo because the council objected reportedly objected. Maybe it was Pope' specifically? Perhaps they were okay with another leader? There are a bunch of different Pueblo Tribe factions all related to eachother but independent... Pope' would be related to one of them. Perhaps it was left to the individuals of the council for that specific tribe. Pope's objected but another may not? Jiconella, Paliwahtiwa, Elk Mountain, Mountain Lake, and Santiago Naranjo are all mentioned in the brief history I have here, all from different tribes than Pope'.

I'd welcome it. Each of the Native American Tribes are fascinating choices. I wonder if we end up with a conglomeration civ though, like Polynesia.
Another that has not been brought up is the Chinook People of the Pacific Northwest. (Or I've missed that too).

 

[Gucumatz]

Pope re-unified the Pueblo tribes though [During his lifetime the Pueblo were reunified, although you are right prior to him they hadn't been unified since Pre-Colombian times under the empire of Chaco Canyon aka the Anasazi]

I have mentioned this before too, its possible they chose a modern Cacique [A non-religious leader of a Pueblo] instead of Pope, but the problem is that Pope is such an interesting character that its possible the Pueblo were dumped altogether

Perhaps we get the Navajo, but it wouldn't be the same...

 

[codepoet]

I don't see why one civ having exclusive production of a luxury is so hard to fathom. Imagine a game by the current rules where Arabia settles all of the Incense tiles in the game. They have a monopoly. It's not possible to get it anywhere else. It's something that they can use to barter with that all the other civs will trade something for. If you want it, you have to treat with them. If you don't get along with Arabia, you don't get Incense. Sure, it may be a little less happiness for you if you already have all other resources and you won't be able to fulfill some city-state quests. But that's not going to ruin a game for you. It's not like there aren't alternatives to getting that happiness.<snip>

True - just one missed point - in this scenario I have the option also of conquering lands and taking said luxury.
That option does not exist if it's one built in as exclusive to a civ.
I recognize that difference, but also don't see it as a bad thing. I treat a city-state differently that provides me resources and different still yet if I cannot retain that resource even if I take their city. So it'd definitely be an advantage for a civ. Sounds fun.

 

[alpha2117]

Here is my defense for glass as an exclusive luxury resource:

1) Having a manufactured luxury is not something that has been done for a civ. But past precedent does not indicate future action. If Firaxis wants it so, it will be so. It's not like this is the first time we got excited about an exclusive resource. We thought Tulips were going to be exclusive in G&K. Perhaps Firaxis saw how excited we were about that idea, even though it wan't what happened. And they decided to use it in BNW. And when we thought all Mercantile city-states would get different resources, we thought glass was going to be one of those.

2) I think glass would be a luxury resource produced in a building. It's benefits would be the same as any other luxury: happiness or barter. The thing about luxury resources is that it's of no benefit to have more copies than the number of civs in the game, so it's not like an expansive Venice would be ultra-powerful. Having a monopoly is the extent of the benefits. Every civ will want to barter something for it. But it's not like every other civ HAS TO HAVE GLASS to exist. If you're not getting along with Venice, go get some Truffles or Wine instead.

3) I don't like the idea of an exclusive resource being "on the map". What if the civ that has exclusive use for it isn't even in the game? Then there's just another resource sitting around cluttering up the map and no one is using it.

4) While other parts of the world have made glass, Venice was really, really into their glassmaking. They have been doing it since the 8th century CE. They knew they had the market cornered and they did everything they could to keep it that way. Glassmakers in Venice were treated like celebrities. But if they tried to share their special techniques with outsiders or to leave the city, they were killed. It was a very big deal. We aren't talking about windows and common drinking cups. Venetian glass is true art.

5) Why not anything else? It really is hard to find a product that is as closely tied to a place as glass is to Venice, especially as it was in Medieval Europe, but still today. The best comparable connections are Fine Wine to France and Silk or Porcelain to China. All of those things are already in the game. Luxuries like coffee and chocolate, and strategic resources like rubber originated in one place, but were quickly transplanted throughout the tropics to friendly colonies. Modern products do not compare due to automated manufacturing processes making them accessible. They don't require specialized and heavily guarded skills to make.

This webpage has a fairly detailed history of Venetian glass, it's role in the prosperity of the city, the different types, and why it is so special.

http://www.glassofvenice.com/murano_glass_history.php#11

A fair and reasoned argument and to paraphrase Sheldon Cooper - I reject it outright.

1) Have you considered that the inherent reason exclusive manufactured resource trading is not in is it's inherent complexity. The existing trade is simple I give you X & Y you give me Z and 100 gold. Everybody has potential access to X, Y & Z if it's near their cities if not they trade for it. Giving one civ access to resource Z and nobody else having it changes the mechanics of trade radically. They are instituting Trade Routes in this expansion and we can see some of the new mechanics being added - none have indicated a new desire for exclusivity.

2) In what other game mechanic does another Civ have a Monopoly. Some have abilities in how they deal with science or City States or Religion or War or Culture but none have been given exclusive access to it. Glass as an exclusive resource doesn't fir the way decisions have traditionally been made.

3) I dont like the idea of a Exclusive resource outright it makes no logical sense. Historically there are no exclusive manufactured resources in real life.

4) You say it yourself - other parts of the world made glass. The Romans had glass, the Egyptians had glass, Bohemia is famous for glass, India had glass etc etc. Exclusivity just doesn't make sense. Hence my point about UA or UB being used to give advantages to venice involving Glass rather than it being a exclusive resource.

5) You are making my argument for me here. In all these cases it's not exclusivity it's being better at doing something than others. Everyone could make glass it's just that Venice was a bit better at it. That fits with how all the civ specific abilities & buildings work they are better at doing something than others or get benefits from doing something. They dont exclude others from the mechanics. Design wise they dont make things exclusive to any one civ they just make some civs better at doing things than others. So Venice could get a UB Glassworks replacing Workshops that gives additional gold or adds additional value to trade routes simply and easily and that doesn't change game mechanics in the way a exclusive resource would.

I simply dont see how a manufactured exclusive luxury resource can successfully be incorporated into the game mechanics as they are currently designed. If there were multiple manufactured resources and a deeper trade system I could see it for sure but with the way civ5 is set up and the way the AI would need to be tweeked to make it work I just dont see it being worthwhile programming wise when you can just do it simply through UA's and UB's.

 

[ferretbacon]

It's amazing how much this thread has warped and twisted both the content of what Dennis Shirk said and the context in which he said it.

You have to remember, Dennis Shirk wasn't responding with a pre-canned statement to a pre-determined question. When asked about new resources, he seemed caught a bit off-guard.

In his mind, in the spur of the moment he had to formulate and issue a response before the interview had a lull and got awkward, he merely said, in essence, that there is a new resource that he could not discuss at that time because of how a new civ, which he was not at liberty to reveal, used or interacted with it in some manner to such a degree that knowing the resource might hint at or strongly suggest that particular civilization.

It must additionally be considered that Dennis Shirk, working with the game, the team making the game, and the team marketing the game, is probably sleeping, eating, and breathing Brave New World at this time. What in his mind might be an inextricable link between a resource and civ (knowing the identities of both the resource and civ, as he does), might not be so apparent to the general population.

In essence, Dennis Shirk was giving an impromptu response to an at least partially unexpected question about a resource he is not at liberty to discuss because of an unspecified connection of unknown strength to a civ that Firaxis had not scheduled to be discussed that day. Add to this the close work Dennis is doing on Brave New World, his ability to look at the resource and civ in question under an objective, distanced perspective is questionable.

In my mind, we have no clue if the resource is going to be something as specific as Murex or as general as Rice, as natural as Bison or as manufactured as Glass. Not to say any of those are more or less likely - I'm just illustrating the spectrum here.