obligatory BNW screenshot thread
- Thread starter fuzzatron717
- Start date
Dragonflow
Emperor
Maybe they decided to add the Cherokee instead of the Pueblo.
If I'm not mistaken the Cherokee build cities unlike the Apache or Comanche, which would make them a more logical choice for a civ.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
People are denying the hint because it's completely out of place, it's like hinting about a new cola in pasta.. completely out of place.
For all we know, it could all just be an Axeman.
I doubt the Native American UU would be given a "raider" ability because of the fact that we have the unit icons above it, everybody WILL know it's the Native American and it will become just aggrevating (you'll see them spamming the units towards your capital over and over and you'll be forced to ahve to kill them over and over).
The "Raider" ability won't work for a UU like that.
For all we know, it could all just be an Axeman.
I doubt the Native American UU would be given a "raider" ability because of the fact that we have the unit icons above it, everybody WILL know it's the Native American and it will become just aggrevating (you'll see them spamming the units towards your capital over and over and you'll be forced to ahve to kill them over and over).
The "Raider" ability won't work for a UU like that.
Dragonflow
Emperor
Axeman is very unlikely, mainly because most units in civ5 look European and this unit is clearly Native American.
Attila's Court was also completely out of place when we first saw it as a Carthaginian city and people were furiously denying the Hunnic civ back then as well.
Right, but I'm saying this is assuming the axe is a tomahawk and not just... an axe. The unit model does give off vibes of Iroquois Mohawk's.
Good ol' Wikipedia tells me the "mohawk" hairstyle actually resembles the Pawnee more than the Iroquois mohawks. My knowledge of native history is limited so perhaps one of the more knowledgeable folk around here can chime in. Is something like Pawnee a possibility in a game like Civ?
ferretbacon
Obsessor
Under my theory, there's no reason why you'd see the unit icon. You wouldn't know for sure.
Think of it this way. You're getting attacked by the Native American Raider UU and getting irritated, so you DoW him. All other Civs will see you as a warmonger, because as far as they know it is unprovoked. I can see the advantage in that sort of ability.
In multiplayer, on the other hand, I can see how this would be less effective.
kingchris20
Wisdom Seeker
This has given me hope! Maybe a civ will have a unit with hidden nationality ability
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I am now officially confused about what the Native American Civ supporters actually want.
You people write long post and have serious discussions about how there needs to be another Native civ in the new civs thread.
Then Firaxis drops an obvious hint at a new Native civ and the same people proceed to deny it being a new civ with all their might.
Shouldn't you be happy about the possibility of a new Native civ?
I'd be happy if there is one, but I'm not going to twist the evidence if I don't see it just to wish it into existence. If it weren't barbarian colors, I might agree, but that's not a small detail.
ferretbacon
Obsessor
I suggested that these units would be able to target trade caravans.
But you've got me thinking that it would be more likely for this hypothetical Native American civ to have a hidden raider UU if a general raider UU was added to the game. Perhaps this NA civ just gets a unique version of that?
That would assuage the doubts of those of you who would dismiss the concept because it would be obvious who is raiding and capturing your units. If every civilization had the potential for this, you'd have no idea.
And it does make sense. With the addition of a new trade mechanic, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a new mechanic to counteract/hinder your ability to trade. Not only are you able to defend your own trade routes, but you can disrupt the trade routes of others.
Right... the UU theory requires two assumptions (1. there is a new Native American civ, 2. it has an unseen-before-in-Civ-V ability to appear as a barbarian), whereas the other requires only one (it's just a new barbarian unit). The principles of logic tell us that if there are competing theories, the one that makes the fewest assumptions tends to be the correct one.
Dragonflow
Emperor
Arioch said:
Or the devs just placed the UU as a barb in order to not reveal the forth civ right away.
ferretbacon
Obsessor
There's more than just one assumption on the competing theory as well.
Really, you can simplify either to just one assumption.
New UU: there's a new UU
New Barbarian: there's a new barbarian
Two assumptions would look like this:
New UU: there's a new UU that can act like a 'privateer'
New Barbarian: there's a new barbarian that replaces the spearman/replaces the archer/replaces something
Three assumptions would look like this:
New UU: there's a new UU that can act like a 'privateer' as part of a new raider mechanic
New Barbarian: there's a new barbarian that replaces the spearman/replaces the archer/replaces something, because Firaxis wanted there to be more variety for barbarians
You can complicate either in equal measure. Additional considerations/assumptions you have to deal with on the barbarian side of the argument:
1. Why would Firaxis add a new barbarian unit? What's the point?
2. Why does it appear to be aesthetically divergent from the single, other barbarian unique unit, the Brute? While the Brute is a vaguely Germanic barbarian, this one is a vaguely Native American tribesman.
We know that new units are being added in and that each new civilization is getting at least one new unit each. Doesn't it make more sense, isn't it simpler, to consider that this might be a new UU rather than a new barbarian unit? Just don't see what the point of a new barbarian would be, especially one that doesn't 'match' the current one.
There coule be a new, underlying mechanic at work here that Firaxis hasn't divulged. In G&K they added the concept of a melee ship, after all. There could be a new raider class of units used to hinder enemy expansion and disrupt trade routes.
kingchris20
Wisdom Seeker
Smart guy right here!
But might I also add, there is a 3rd possibility in which it is a new UU that has simply been spawned on the map as a barbarian, just to throw us off (as others have stated before) just to garner speculation of the sorts of 7+ plus pages of discussion on the civfanatics forums....
Dragonflow
Emperor
This seems like the most likely possibility to me.
They basically did the same as with Attila's Court last time. Show the civ without actually showing it.
It's a Stadium.
That single assumption doesn't explain why the unit appears as a barbarian, since no current UU's are used by barbarians. A second assumption is required. Even if it's just, "Firaxis is messing with us," that's a second assumption.
The second assumption is unnecessary; a new unit doesn't necessarily have to replace anything.
Anything is possible in terms of what the true answer is, but the specific arguments you're making are logically flawed.
ferretbacon
Obsessor
That was just an example. You still have to deal with the fact that a new barbarian unit also requires some other supporting assumption, however small.
Firaxis made a new barbarian unit to replace something else.
Firaxis made a new barbarian unit to add variety.
Firaxis made a new barbarian unit to fulfill some sort of missing role.
They wouldn't just idly add in a new, rather distinct barbarian for no good reason. I don't think there is any gap in logic, especially when dealing with something of such an inherently speculative, subjective nature. The more open the interpretation, the more assumptions, concious or not, there are needed to explain it.
If you're going to invent data points, then you must apply them evenly to both theories: if the reason for the new barbarian unit is a data point, then the reason for the new UU is a data point as well.
Similar threads
