VermelhoRed
Prince
Let me put it this way, why isn't America's palace the same as the Cree then?
[R&F] R&F Cultural Styles Preview in Asset Editor?
- Thread starter thecrazyscot
- Start date
Let me put it this way, why isn't America's palace the same as the Cree then?
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
Cause the game is made by Americans?
I do hope the Brazilian palace style will be changed. Maybe they could use the same one as the Spanish.
Brazil and Buenos Aires using the same palace as the Aztecs is very strange, there is no connection between Brazil and Mesoamerican cultures. A Mesoamerican palace for a modern country would not make sense even if it was Mexico. The Spanish palace is the closest thing to Brazilian architecture, though. Maybe the Portuguese will use the same palace in the future.
Trangly
Chieftain
Last edited:
Meluhhan
Warlord
And also not really an orthodox Hindu, having a great admiration for Jains, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians, which probably ought to put him on Civ6's "non-religious" list.
Mahatma Gandhi was infact a deeply religious person. According to his autobiography, his religious upbringing had a great influence on shaping up his convictions and ideology.
Additionally, 'having a great admiration for Jains, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians' was not in contradiction with his Hindu faith. In his own words, "Hinduism is the most tolerant of all religions. Its creed is all embracing." And his appreciation of other religions also extended to Buddhism, Islam and Christianity.
His views on religion can be read here: http://www.mkgandhi.org/religionmk.htm
Inlex
Warlord
People seem so sure it's Zulu that will be added. But RSA is the 3-letter-ISO code for Rebublic of South-Africa. And the data also said "South Africa" and not Zulu. Am I reading this wrong? Cause it seems to me it might be more like a modern-age RSA civ.
The R of RSA is in all the codes. What's important is the SA. I don't think it points to a country like South Africa, nor to a certain civ like the Zulu. SA clearly stands for South America.
The South Africa reference in the data you mentioned has to seen in contrast to North Africa graphical style (so far used by Egypt, Sumer and Nubia). I bet if you look at Kongo, you'll see South Africa there, too.
Why everybody thinks that this will confirm the Zulu is the Chinese leak of some time ago, when someone claimed Scotland and Shaka will make it to R&F. With Scotland being all but confirmed by the palace style and name, people (including me) think of the leaker as a trustworthy source.
I think that is unlikely. It would have been a possibility for Wallace to replace Genghis. Shaka would not work that well as a medieval great person.
But it would be, like, the ultimate reason not to tell it in that livestream! A staple leader that is the only leader of a certain civ!
Well, or he replaces Ana Nzinga. *hint hint*
He isn't the only possibility, just the best.
It could easily be someone like Attila replacing Genghis and they didn't want to tell - even if no one expected the Huns again.
By the way, we should know who is replacing him. We got FULL DETAILS this week after all.
Inlex
Warlord
Ok, thanks. So it should be read as 'Southern Africa', rather than South. Guess confirmation bias is a b... I have been hoping for Nelson Mandela for a while now ;-)
Well aware. I was making a joke.
Though Hinduism has its own history of intolerance; India wasn't split into India and Pakistan because the Zoroastrians couldn't get along. 
Leyrann
Deity
Even with Nelson Mandela being viewed as one of the greatest politicians (and activists, I suppose) of recent times I very much doubt Firaxis would add such a recent leader.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
And they would make him speak English only, that's boring in my opinion. Mandela/South Africa will be added to Civ after a 100 years has passed, and all of us will have left the mortal plane....
Meluhhan
Warlord
Though Hinduism has its own history of intolerance; India wasn't split into India and Pakistan because the Zoroastrians couldn't get along.
At the risk of verging into a serious discussion not relevant to this thread:
Muslims have been present in India for centuries before the partition and barring occasional instances, have largely coexisted with other communities.
The idea that Muslims of the subcontinent constitute a nation distinct than other Indians and the conception of Pakistan as a separate homeland for them was certainly not of Hindu origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory
The partition itself is a sensitive and complex issue; many factors led to it, machinations of powers that be of that period being primary among them. India today is home to the second largest Muslim population in the world, next only to Indonesia and notably larger than that of Pakistan - the theorised home for Muslims of the subcontinent! (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables74/) . To the contrary, non-Muslim populations in Pakistan, Hindus included, are continuously dwindling. So if the partition of India speaks about anything, it is definitely not about an average Hindu's intolerance of his Muslim neighbour.
Meluhhan
Warlord
So am I. Nelson Mandela along with Simon Bolivar and the Ataturk are few of the more recent leaders I want to be included in the game.
Their influence and the volume of their work is just too great to be ignored in a game about history of Civilization.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
Wait a hundred years for Mandela to join the game.
Maybe Simon Bolivar of Gran Colombia has a chance even though that country didn't last long before getting divided.
About Ataturk, idk (some Malaysian academics seem to hate him, based on my conversations with my cousin), but I honestly wouldn't have him and Turkey instead of the Ottomans...
Maybe Simon Bolivar of Gran Colombia has a chance even though that country didn't last long before getting divided.
About Ataturk, idk (some Malaysian academics seem to hate him, based on my conversations with my cousin), but I honestly wouldn't have him and Turkey instead of the Ottomans...
Meluhhan
Warlord
Wait a hundred years for Mandela to join the game.
Maybe Simon Bolivar of Gran Colombia has a chance even though that country didn't last long before getting divided.
About Ataturk, idk (some Malaysian academics seem to hate him, based on my conversations with my cousin), but I honestly wouldn't have him and Turkey instead of the Ottomans...
Yes, all these additions can be pretty divisive amongst the fans. But this iteration of the game seems to be more focused on off-beat leaders and their interesting personalities. That is why we have Catherine de' Medici leading France or an entire Macedonian civilization being included for Alexander to appear or Georgia being introduced because Tamar is such a cool leader to have. So Civ6 seems to be the best chance for Mandela, Ataturk and Simon Bolivar to appear.
And they can also bring some interesting, late-game focused elements to the game. Like for Ataturk, modernising and secularising what I think would have been a deeply conservative and religious society like Turkey was no mean feat. And when we have so many leaders with faith based abilities, having one with an exactly opposite focus that steers you away from faith and with abilities kicking on in later part of the game will be interesting.
Also, you can always have an Ottoman sultan as an alternate leader for Turkey as a DLC later on.
As to Simon Bolivar, the political entity that he led might not have lasted long after him, but isn't he considered a founding father of sorts in many Latin American nations?
Last edited:
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
Yes, all these additions can be pretty divisive amongst the fans. But this iteration of the game seems to be more focused on off-beat leaders and their interesting personalities. That is why we have Catherine de' Medici leading France or an entire Macedonian civilization being included for Alexander to appear or Georgia being introduced because Tamar is such a cool leader to have. So Civ6 seems to be the best chance for Mandela, Ataturk and Simon Bolivar to appear.
And they can also bring some interesting, late-game focused elements to the game. Like for Ataturk, modernising and secularising what I think would have been a deeply conservative and religious society like Turkey was no mean feat. And when we have so many leaders with faith based abilities, having one with an exactly opposite focus that steers you away from faith and with abilities kicking on in later part of the game will be interesting.
Also, you can always have an Ottoman sultan as an alternate leader for Turkey as a DLC later on.
As to Simon Bolivar, the political entity that he led might not have lasted long after him, but isn't he considered a founding father of sorts in many Latin American nations?
I respectfully disagree. Civ6 isn't the best chance for Mandela to appear. He died not so long ago. What will his relatives think of his in-game appearance?
South Africa just sounds like a bland Civ choice. The name of the country is pretty boring as well (it's like the Central African Republic). Nelson Mandela leads the South African Civilization in Civ6!
Turning the abolishment of Apartheid into a Civ/or Leader ability might be seen as offensive by some people. This is serious moment in history being turned into a game ability.Turkey is not that secular, look closer and it still has a lot of religious conservatism. But I prefer an Ottoman Sultan instead of Ataturk, because I'm not interested in more 20th century leaders.
We can add Simon Bolivar if the fans in the Latin American countries really keep demanding him.
But this discussion is going off topic, we're supposed to talk about the new art assets.
Similar threads
