Not Ragusa, Venice

[TheMarshmallowBear]

This is interesting, but I'm still not sure how relevant it is, as whilst the colour-type combination is conserved with replacements, it seems that Mombasa replaced Helsinki, which would mean that a Middle_East style replaced a European Style. This happened in a change of expansion, like now though.

This is still an interesting comparison shot, thank you.

Well that was my initial theory, but if Mombasa replaced Helsinki then that theory is down the drain

 

[Gucumatz]

Ur and Lisbon are different colors too. There is no maritime city state in Civ 5 Gods and Kings that has the same shade of color that Ur has.

 

[Menzies]

Question to Menzies and those who are analyzing here:

So is it true that most if not all the CS replacements are, as you understand it, based also on culture group (i.e. different city styles in the American, Middle Eastern, European, etc. city styles?)? If so this might lend credence to my weak suspicion that Mbanza-Kongo replaced Marrakesh if Morocco is indeed in.

This appears to not be a case. Whilst colour-type combinations seems to be conserved, city style doesn't. Mombasa replaced Helsinki, which is a middle-eastern city style replacing a European one.

 

[Gucumatz]

Ur and Sofia suggest either a color shift occurred or this current color based theorizing has no merit considering they appear to replace nothing [Perhaps a change in ratio as well]

 

[Menzies]

Well that was my initial theory, but if Mombasa replaced Helsinki then that theory is down the drain

It was an interesting thought at the time.

Ur and Lisbon are different colors too. There is no maritime city state in Civ 5 Gods and Kings that has the same shade of color that Ur has.

Yes, we've been over this many times now. Ur does not seem to replace Lisbon after all. Sadly we can't check the colour names with the Brave New World civs as we could with the Gods & Kings civs to others as we don't have the game as of yet. Thankfully we have the DLC and expansion to compare against as a base now though, and how we perceive the colours doesn't affect how we read the names. This is good for me as I feel quite stupid in that regard at this time.

 

[Gucumatz]

Been glossing over it many times. There is simply no merit to the color argument, particularly considering it and past shifts/ratios

Ur and Sofia mean there has to have been a shift/ratio change/etc

 

[Menzies]

Ur and Sofia suggest either a color shift occurred or this current color based theorizing has no merit considering they appear to replace nothing [Perhaps a change in ratio as well]

I'll cover this again as you've edited your post. We've seen colour shift before, and it has only occurred in the case where a city state that is already in the game has replaced a removed city state. In such cases we have also seen a new city state to replace the remove city state. At no time have we seen a city state replaced with one of a known colour-type combination, again, this has only been seen in the case that a city state has been replaced.

Both Ur and Sofia could suggest new city states added for balance reasons, and the statistics surrounding the city states may suggest quite a few city states have been added (see the other thread). They say nothing about the city state replacement method however.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Another, although this is 90% baseless and rather hard to prove.. it could be a simple case that if the Devs found no geographical match they changed both colour AND culture style for each civ (which would fit Ur).

We better have a look out for for a Lisbon coloured City State in any of the screenies though.

 

[Menzies]

Been glossing over it many times. There is simply no merit to the color argument, particularly considering it and past shifts/ratios

Ur and Sofia mean there has to have been a shift/ratio change/etc

Have you read the other posts, or are you just ignoring them. Let's repeat this again:

City states changing colours:
- This has happened only in the case that they've replaced other city states that have been removed (that is, a known, current city state replacing another)
- The only two examples are Lhasa (replacing Vienna) and Budapest (replacing Edinburgh)

Ratios of city states:
- These have change from 10 Cultural - 10 Maritime - 8 Militaristic in Vanilla to 10 Cultural - 10 Maritime - 10 Mercantile - 6 Militaristic - 6 Religious in Gods & Kings, and there is nothing to say that this won't change again in Brave New World

City states taking known colour-type combinations
- This has always meant a city state has been replaced
- This is without exception, every single case of this has been that a city state has been replaced

I realise that you are struggling with this concept, but you've yet to offer any evidence against it. Simply repeating yourself is getting silly, but again, I realise you're struggling with the logic here. Hopefully the dotpoints above will help.

 

[Gucumatz]

If the ratio has not been changed, then think - it means Sofia and Ur have replaced other cses that share their same color. That would suggest either a replacement, a color shift, or a flaw in the idea

If city state ratios remain the same of course, then it throws hell to the wind [We haven't seen either Lhasa, Bucharest, or Manila yet have we or if their colors have changed? Otherwise Sofia would make 4 of the same color, which would be a first]

 

[Menzies]

Another, although this is 90% baseless and rather hard to prove.. it could be a simple case that if the Devs found no geographical match they changed both colour AND culture style for each civ (which would fit Ur).

We better have a look out for for a Lisbon coloured City State in any of the screenies though.

As of yet, I can't find anything to suggest that they try and match colour-type and cultural style, it happened with the ones we talked about before, but that could be coincidental. It's certainly interesting, but it's not conclusive from a couple of city states alone.

I would point out that not only should we look out for a Lisbon coloured city state, but a Lisbon coloured city state that is Maritime and even already in the game, as this is entirely consistent as talked about above.

 

[Gucumatz]

Menzies I understand the logic [Which you are doing is a personal attack by the way and against the spirit of these forums], I just think its flawed. We have examples of shifts, the logic just is based on pure speculation without significant precedent {And yes a somewhat glossing over the events} yet you continue to run on the assumption that its a given. Its the fact that it isn't certain, that is the largest issue of contention which you keep vehemently asserting it is a near certainty

 

[AriochIV]

All of this is still based on the same flawed assumption: that new city-states must replace old ones. We don't know that's true for BNW. All the rest is therefore pure speculation.

 

[Gucumatz]

All of this is still based on the same flawed assumption: that new city-states must replace old ones. We don't know that's true for BNW. All the rest is therefore pure speculation.

And add that to several other layers of speculation, it becomes simple mental gymnastics. It doesn't say anything for certain, of course it doesn't mean the speculation isn't interesting - But it is no given as Menzies is trying to say

 

[Menzies]

If the ratio has not been changed, then think - it means Sofia and Ur have replaced other cses that share their same color. That would suggest either a replacement, a color shift, or a flaw in the idea

If city state ratios remain the same of course, then it throws hell to the wind [We haven't seen either Lhasa, Bucharest, or Manila yet have we or if their colors have changed? Otherwise Sofia would make 4 of the same color, which would be a first]

What are you basing the ratios not being changed on? I see no reason to think they have been, but at the same time, as someone (I think it was you in fact) pointed out, there is no reason to think they haven't been either. Hence why a better method was sought.

As for the attempted logic here, just because every city state that has appeared with a known colour-type combination has replaced another doesn't mean that every new city state has had to have a known colour-type to replace another. Carefully note that they have previously given known colour-types to already in the game city states and then added others. The key is that whenever a used colour-type combination is given out, it is only when replacing another city state.

To put that another way, Ur and Sofia could be replacing city states used for Civs added to the game, but there's nothing to say that they are. I think you should reread what has been written if you feel that this requires a flaw in the idea, and I'm not convinced you understand the mechanism of a "colour-shift" as you call it.

I'd point out that we've seen only 16 of a likely 42+ city states, just because we haven't seen a city state doesn't mean they aren't in.

 

[Gucumatz]

"Could" is the operative word. Your theory "Could" hold up under certain conditions

Frankly your theory is clear to understand. Its just that you can not honestly use the level of certainty you do when you have to flex your theory around both intangibles and theoretical precedent

I was wrong on the Sidon color change, but the fact that we don't know either if a ratio change or color changes have been made means you are running purely on assumption.

 

[Menzies]

Menzies I understand the logic [Which you are doing is a personal attack by the way and against the spirit of these forums], I just think its flawed. We have examples of shifts, the logic just is based on pure speculation without significant precedent {And yes a somewhat glossing over the events} yet you continue to run on the assumption that its a given. Its the fact that it isn't certain, that is the largest issue of contention which you keep vehemently asserting it is a near certainty

Where exactly is the personal attack, I'm just a prick, and I write like a prick a lot of the time, don't take it personally, you see, I'm a prick.

Just because you think something is flawed does mean that it is, unless you can demonstrate it is, then you shouldn't say that it is.

The "shifts" as you call them have been well described and explained already. They in fact have only happened to two city states, Lhasa and Budapest, and, and described over and over again, only in replacing another two city states, Vienna and Edinburgh. It isn't a flaw, it's well defined in the description of what's going on. For a full description, you can read the thread I started what... a day or so ago on the matter, called "City state colour" if I recall.

There is no speculation in this, it is a clearly observed pattern, with precedence and nothing going against it. In all cases that a city state has taken a known colour-type combination, it has replaced a known city state. There is no question of this, there is no exception here, this has happened every single time.

To repeat, I'm not repeating the above based on an assumption, it is something that has been observed and there is nothing going against it, and to claim that there is is to go against the facts and the precedent here. I'm uncertain as to how you've missed this point.

 

[Menzies]

"Could" is the operative word. Your theory "Could" hold up under certain conditions

Frankly your theory is clear to understand. Its just that you can not honestly use the level of certainty you do when you have to flex your theory around both intangibles and theoretical precedent

I was wrong on the Sidon color change, but the fact that we don't know either if a ratio change or color changes have been made means you are running purely on assumption.

This is not a theory, it's an observed pattern. The closest term would be law.

Sidon never changed colour. The ratio is irrelevant. Let me repeat this, in big bold text just for you:

In every case that a city state took a use colour-type combination, it represented a city state being replaced.

 

[Menzies]

All of this is still based on the same flawed assumption: that new city-states must replace old ones. We don't know that's true for BNW. All the rest is therefore pure speculation.

False, the assumption is not that new city states must replace old ones. Please read the thread before posting, as it avoids these problems.

There are no assumptions here, there is an observed pattern, and you can read the bid bold text in the above post by myself to see it.

 

[Option]

So if Venice was the one that was replaced, and not Ragusa, it comes down to see whether Ragusa has been replaced (which could very well mean Venice, but also Italy), or any other Italian city state has been replaced (which would confirm Italy).