One possibility, as I've mentioned before, is that they started by replacing some city states with known one (which would turn up as a known city state as a new colour, ie. Budapest and Lhasa in Gods & Kings), in such a case they could add in new ones to replace them that way. I doubt it, and I'd think they're just adding new city states, but who knows.
Not Ragusa, Venice
- Thread starter Menzies
- Start date
One possibility, as I've mentioned before, is that they started by replacing some city states with known one (which would turn up as a known city state as a new colour, ie. Budapest and Lhasa in Gods & Kings), in such a case they could add in new ones to replace them that way. I doubt it, and I'd think they're just adding new city states, but who knows.
Moderator Action: Please ensure your posts are friendly and conducive to civil and productive discussion. At the same time, please don't take it upon yourself to tell someone else that you think they're being rude. Often that will only produce an even more negative reaction, although thankfully, it didn't here.
poom3619
Ping Pang Poom!
I think the dev would hardly foresee anyone who are very active about small things. Menzies. You are keeping the discussion about civ to be added alive. Even you aren't Archangel or any kind of supernatural thing. You get my vote.
Although I for one prefer Italy out to make room for Majapahit/Vietnam. I wouldn't stand against it. By the way, Menzies or any forumer. Is there any list compare G&K + DLC citystate with revealed BNW citystate?
Although I for one prefer Italy out to make room for Majapahit/Vietnam. I wouldn't stand against it. By the way, Menzies or any forumer. Is there any list compare G&K + DLC citystate with revealed BNW citystate?
This thread, written a couple of days back now, goes into detail about what we've seen with city states. There were a couple of errors though with the colours of Ur and Riga. Ur is MINOR_LIGHT_PURPLE, not MINOR_PURPLE as the original post in that thread says, and as such, Ur is not a direct replacement for Lisbon (we are yet to see Lisbon's replacement in this case). Riga was also misidentified as MINOR_MIDDLE_CYAN rather than MINOR_CYAN. If it were MINOR_MIDDLE_CYAN, than based on that it was a replacement for Ragusa, however, being MINOR_CYAN, it appears to be a replacement for Venice.
That thread goes into detail of what we saw previously and various things that have been observed. The key to note however is that whenever a city state has appeared with a known colour-type combination, it has only been a replacement.
I'd also add that I dislike the idea of Italy or Venice being civs in the game. However, I do hope that this doesn't mean anything about Indonesia yet, and my guess from here for the remaining 4 would be:
6. Morocco
7. Italy / Venice
8. Indonesia / Vietnam
9. Sioux / Another Native American civilization
We of course cant be certain of anything from such a small sample of previous changes. It could be an internal rule within the development team or it could be random chance. I think Menzies point is sound IF it is an internal rule and at this point we have no evidence either way that it is or isn't but from what we can observe it could be. As a physicist Menzies would understand the basic scientific concept that the standard answer to most questions is - We don't know. Many rules of physics were later proved to be incorrect once more knowledge was gained. Often that knowledge can only be gained with technology unavailable to the people making the original rules. Until people knew what it was like outside Earths atmosphere many things were assumed and some assumptions were incorrect etc etc. In this case we can assume that it's an internal rule and we can infer from that assumption that Venice has been replaced but since we aren't in the Firaxis development team we cant know for sure if the assumption is correct or not (given the small sample of data).
Menzies list of the last 4 is virtually the same as mine based on similar logic. I looked at the things we know about the new expansion and previous behaviour design wise and it said to me - Africa, Nth America, Asia & wildcard. From that I know the Moors was the most logical currently excluded Civ from Africa, I think Sioux is the most iconic of the Nth American tribes and therefore the most likely replacement to Peublo, that Majapahit fits the trade/tourism aspects of the game and that modern Indonesia is extremely populous meaning it is the most likely from Asia. The last Civ is a pure wild card as it could fit any of the criteria and be a justified inclusion. Italy or Venice would fit as a wild card here because in general people didn't expect it given Romes inclusion so it is a bit like the Huns, Polynesia etc and the devs like throwing something like that out there, it works for trade/tourism/ideology and especially for things like Great Works. It fits the Scramble scenario etc etc. Much like Menzies it's probably not what I would have chosen but I can understand why it has if it is in. Those last 4 civs could just as easily be Berber, Comanche, Vietnam & Australia or Benin, CSA, Timurid & the West Indies etc etc. It's fun to speculate and it's fun to try to use some sort of logic to figure things out but without knowing the development teams internal logic and rules in the end we really cant be certain until we get more data to analyse.
Menzies list of the last 4 is virtually the same as mine based on similar logic. I looked at the things we know about the new expansion and previous behaviour design wise and it said to me - Africa, Nth America, Asia & wildcard. From that I know the Moors was the most logical currently excluded Civ from Africa, I think Sioux is the most iconic of the Nth American tribes and therefore the most likely replacement to Peublo, that Majapahit fits the trade/tourism aspects of the game and that modern Indonesia is extremely populous meaning it is the most likely from Asia. The last Civ is a pure wild card as it could fit any of the criteria and be a justified inclusion. Italy or Venice would fit as a wild card here because in general people didn't expect it given Romes inclusion so it is a bit like the Huns, Polynesia etc and the devs like throwing something like that out there, it works for trade/tourism/ideology and especially for things like Great Works. It fits the Scramble scenario etc etc. Much like Menzies it's probably not what I would have chosen but I can understand why it has if it is in. Those last 4 civs could just as easily be Berber, Comanche, Vietnam & Australia or Benin, CSA, Timurid & the West Indies etc etc. It's fun to speculate and it's fun to try to use some sort of logic to figure things out but without knowing the development teams internal logic and rules in the end we really cant be certain until we get more data to analyse.
Similar threads
- Locked
