New DLC: Polynesia

[Zyxpsilon]

Or expansion outwards from South America in parallel to that of the Polynesians... But there isn't any evidence for that that I'm aware of.

The Dresden Codex proved that some tribes were the immediate ancestors of Mayans through generations worth of successive coastal encounters with the Polynesians.
But not only this, where's that mask... ... ..

Okay, have a quick look. (Yep, i've used a cyan version In Z-Advisors!)
There's an inscription in an EXTREMELY rare but similar medallion made of Jade stone that leads directly to both their early language and Venus trajectory.
That's not the stuff of Smithsonian, University, Museums or Indiana Jones stories.
It's beyond public Knowledge.... but now it is!
I know of only four other people on Earth which are aware of that artifact. There may be more of us.

 

[Snoopaloop]

3-4$ ..not worth it

 

[markulous]

3-4$ ..not worth it

What's $3 though? I think it's worth it. It allows me to get some extra achievements too.

 

[need my speed]

$3 is way too much, seeing as you've paid $50 (?) for the whole game. One could argue that $3 would actually be cheap, since you get a working thing, while the $50 you spend got you a pile of bugs, but oh well...

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

All civ introductions close with: "Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time". I take that as the criteria.

My interpretation:
1) Currently exists, strong and globally dominent: America, Arabia, England, France, Germany, Spain
2) Currently exists, weak but regionally significant: China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, Siam
3) Lost as nation-states but remains alive beneath the surface of dominent cultures: Aztec, Iroquois, Ottoman, Songhai
4) Extinct but left a lasting legacy that still affects our daily lives: Persia, Rome

Ones that did not stand the test of time (correct me if I am wrong):
Babylon - well known for their code of laws and mathematics but other civs developed these concurrently and independently. I don't see anything about them that is unique and still affecting us today. To me, they do not stand the test of time.
Egypt - well known for their religious culture but the nation-state Egypt today speaks Arabic and practices Islam. I don't see traces of ancient Egyptian culture existing in an Egyptian's daily life distinct from the rest of the Middle East. Buildings and artifacts in museums tell us what they once were, but again, did not stand the test of time.
Inca - after the Spanish occupation, the ethnic peoples that were once Incans are in scattered villages and their old culture is lost. Even the Mayans are distinct and still have resistance movements for independence, unaware of anything similar for Incans. I am actually undecided for this one.

With Polynesia, I put it in category 2). Clearly deserving a place: that little triangle diagram missed Taiwan and Okinawa.

Unique Unit: Maori Warrior

Unique units should be judged by how well they did against other civs. I am not aware that the Maori were very successful against the English, even relative to other "indigenous" populations, but I could be wrong.

Also, I think a category 2) Central Asian culture is missing. Not the nomadic ones covered by Mongolia, but around Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia. I am not sure what the country or leader will be though.

 

[Drill IV]

All civ introductions close with: "Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time". I take that as the criteria.

My interpretation:
1) Currently exists, strong and globally dominent: America, Arabia, England, France, Germany, Spain
2) Currently exists, weak but regionally significant: China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, Siam
3) Lost as nation-states but remains alive beneath the surface of dominent cultures: Aztec, Iroquois, Ottoman, Songhai
4) Extinct but left a lasting legacy that still affects our daily lives: Persia, Rome

I would count China among 1).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-38wsWDlg6gksgnaXzkrOZQ0tGA

 

[Thormodr]

All civ introductions close with: "Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time". I take that as the criteria.

My interpretation:
1) Currently exists, strong and globally dominent: America, Arabia, England, France, Germany, Spain
2) Currently exists, weak but regionally significant: China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, Siam
3) Lost as nation-states but remains alive beneath the surface of dominent cultures: Aztec, Iroquois, Ottoman, Songhai
4) Extinct but left a lasting legacy that still affects our daily lives: Persia, Rome

Ones that did not stand the test of time (correct me if I am wrong):
Babylon - well known for their code of laws and mathematics but other civs developed these concurrently and independently. I don't see anything about them that is unique and still affecting us today. To me, they do not stand the test of time.
Egypt - well known for their religious culture but the nation-state Egypt today speaks Arabic and practices Islam. I don't see traces of ancient Egyptian culture existing in an Egyptian's daily life distinct from the rest of the Middle East. Buildings and artifacts in museums tell us what they once were, but again, did not stand the test of time.
Inca - after the Spanish occupation, the ethnic peoples that were once Incans are in scattered villages and their old culture is lost. Even the Mayans are distinct and still have resistance movements for independence, unaware of anything similar for Incans. I am actually undecided for this one.

With Polynesia, I put it in category 2). Clearly deserving a place: that little triangle diagram missed Taiwan and Okinawa.



Unique units should be judged by how well they did against other civs. I am not aware that the Maori were very successful against the English, even relative to other "indigenous" populations, but I could be wrong.

Also, I think a category 2) Central Asian culture is missing. Not the nomadic ones covered by Mongolia, but around Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia. I am not sure what the country or leader will be though.

Considering that the entire Arab world has roughly the GDP of Spain, I'd hardly call "Arabia" a dominant global power.

 

[sav]

Polynesia includes hundreds of differing peoples that spanned the Pacific Ocean, east Asia, Australia and New Zealand - and were largely still independent as of the late 1700s.

Why the hell aren't they in the original game? I think I'm annoyed by the naysayers, and the fact it's a DLC 99% of players won't even shell out for.

Probably biased 'cause I'm a Kiwi.

 

[de Maistre]

I don't consider it a "worthy" civilization, especially because it was never a single empire, but at least it's unique and the special ability is cool.

 

[Xenobenignitas]

All that matters is the abilities and units of a civ. Its actual history doesn't matter considering you carve out a new and vacuous one in Civ.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I would count China among 1).

Considering that the entire Arab world has roughly the GDP of Spain, I'd hardly call "Arabia" a dominant global power.

Minor details, doesn't matter. Just explaining to the whiners why Polynesia is such a good choice.

Of course, if we want to start a pillow fight, then ...

...I strongly disagree with these quotes.

 

[spider1]

3-4$ ..not worth it

Are you kidding me? You can barely buy a bag full of crap at McDonalds for 3-4$. If I play the new DLC civ twice, it was worth it. 3 to 4 bucks is nothing in today's world.

 

[noncognosco]

1) Currently exists, strong and globally dominent: America, Arabia, England, France, Germany, Spain
2) Currently exists, weak but regionally significant: China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, Siam
3) Lost as nation-states but remains alive beneath the surface of dominent cultures: Aztec, Iroquois, Ottoman, Songhai
4) Extinct but left a lasting legacy that still affects our daily lives: Persia, Rome

Oh man. I am not trying to start a fight, but...how do France and Spain belong in 1? China, Japan and even India have more global influence than France or Spain unless you count the influence that the EU as a bloc wields. If we are willing to say that Siam still exists as Thailand than we should also say Persia still exists as Iran or the Ottomans still exist as Turkey.

As for your comment about Central Asia, I agree. I wouldn't mind seeing Tamurlane in the game. His empire only lasted as long as he did, but the same is true of Alexander. I also think there is a decent argument to be made for putting Georgia in at least a scenario.

 

[Bibor]

My interpretation:
2) Currently exists, weak but regionally significant: China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Russia, Siam

Dude, China alone makes one quarter of Earth population. In size it's like like US, UK, France, Germany and Spain combined. Japan's economic power is now 2nd (was 1st) in the World. Russia and India are in the big three (with China) as well. It won't be long until Brazil picks up the pace as well.

Spain belong into the Same category as Ottomans: "once a great maritime empire".

 

[awesome]

tamerlane's already kind of covered by russia, mongolia, turkey and arguably persia

 

[SammyKhalifa]

tamerlane's already kind of covered by russia, mongolia, turkey and arguably persia

Yeah, Timur was from the Mongol tradition. Still a very interesting character in history, though. Not sure I'd say that if I were alive during that time, though.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Minor details, doesn't matter. Just explaining to the whiners why Polynesia is such a good choice.

Of course, if we want to start a pillow fight, then ...

...I strongly disagree with these quotes.

Wel China A) Exerts a great deal of political influence, B) is running toe to toe with USA and Japan in science, B) Is nuclear armed with a decent arsenal, and C) Is in the process of creating a blue water navy that would allow them to project power throughout the Pacific.

As for Arabia, there is no longer such a country, and even the combined power of the Arab states is pretty laughable as world powers go, they cannot even hope to project power over seas, there is no way they could defeat any 1st world navy, Syria and Iran are suspected as having nuclear weapons programs but not actual warheads, as an above poster mentioned their combined GDP is in the neighborhood of Spain, and their armed forces are using outdated Russian equipment and the troops are not very professional or effective.

 

[Valkrionn]

Wel China A) Exerts a great deal of political influence, B) is running toe to toe with USA and Japan in science, B) Is nuclear armed with a decent arsenal, and C) Is in the process of creating a blue water navy that would allow them to project power throughout the Pacific.

As for Arabia, there is no longer such a country, and even the combined power of the Arab states is pretty laughable as world powers go, they cannot even hope to project power over seas, there is no way they could defeat any 1st world navy, Syria and Iran are suspected as having nuclear weapons programs but not actual warheads, as an above poster mentioned their combined GDP is in the neighborhood of Spain, and their armed forces are using outdated Russian equipment and the troops are not very professional or effective.

I'm not sure I'd say they're running "toe to toe in science"; A large number of their "new" technologies are actually ripped off from other countries.

Case in point: Their new fighter is based off of American tech.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I'm not sure I'd say they're running "toe to toe in science"; A large number of their "new" technologies are actually ripped off from other countries.

Case in point: Their new fighter is based off of American tech.

Granted, but have you heard about that particle they teleported TEN MILES we only got as far as the length of a table.

 

[Valkrionn]

That's only a case of scaled up science, not better science; They have more money being poured into it, at the cost of their people.

Eventually, yes, it will put them ahead of us unless something changes (Damn politicians need to start investing MORE into space! Only government program to have ever paid for itself in spinoffs, several times over!), but as of now, they are still imitating the work of others.

Not just the USA btw; Japan and Europe as well. IIRC their older fighters were based on Russian designs.