What civ would you want in as the dark horse

[iconocast]

Australian aboriginals would be horrible civ, because they really didnt invent anything and they were extremely primitive. They were still living in the stone age when Europeans got to the Australia. What would their UU, UB and UA be? Im just keeping it 100% real. Im not saying their lifestyle was bad, but it doesnt make much sense to have them in the game, when they really didnt invent any of the techs in the games tech tree. Comparing Aboriginals to Huns is ridiculous. Huns were very advanced militarily. And in fact they had to be, because how else they would have won battles against the Romans?

to say they where liveing in the stone age is pretty offensive. you need to read more about Australian aboriginals. the iroqus and zulu and even the huns have been added, this give no reason ( imho) why they wouldn't be a viable candidate.
there culture was mostly nomadic due to the extremely harsh conditions. even the Europeans had to re invent there farming equipment to survive in australia when they arrived. there culture is based on the spiritual passing there knowledge thru song and art. they would be a awesome cultural civ

"Comparing Aboriginals to Huns is ridiculous. Huns were very advanced militarily. And in fact they had to be, because how else they would have won battles against the Romans?"

compareing them to the huns because the huns built nothing, wandering nomads and raiders that took what other ppl built. there ua reflects this with stealing names for there citys. aus aboriginals where nomads also, not building citys but instead moveing with the seasons, this should not be a issue for there civ candidacy.

 

[steveg700]

Exactly! That's why Eva Peron and Argentina are good dark horse candidates (among other things.) But in all fairness, it did take a lot of guts to stay in Constantinople and she did preserve Byzantine authority and government. (This is Theodora now.)

Preserve authority and government? That's overly generous, to say the least. She acted to preserve her own life of privilege and luxury. The blues and the greens weren't some subversive element working to destroy Byzantium. They were the citizens of Byzantium protesting the ruthless taxes and policies of Justinian and Theodora.


Link to video.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

Other possible dark horse or at least a city-state: Benin Empire (not the country of Benin, which used to be Dahomey).

 

[JanghanHong]

The true dark horse: Equestria

http://mlp.wikia.com/wiki/Equestria


DECLARATION OF FRIENDSHIP IS MAGIC!

 

[Bakspatel]

to say they where liveing in the stone age is pretty offensive. you need to read more about Australian aboriginals. the iroqus and zulu and even the huns have been added, this give no reason ( imho) why they wouldn't be a viable candidate.
there culture was mostly nomadic due to the extremely harsh conditions. even the Europeans had to re invent there farming equipment to survive in australia when they arrived. there culture is based on the spiritual passing there knowledge thru song and art. they would be a awesome cultural civ

"Comparing Aboriginals to Huns is ridiculous. Huns were very advanced militarily. And in fact they had to be, because how else they would have won battles against the Romans?"

compareing them to the huns because the huns built nothing, wandering nomads and raiders that took what other ppl built. there ua reflects this with stealing names for there citys. aus aboriginals where nomads also, not building citys but instead moveing with the seasons, this should not be a issue for there civ candidacy.

Well you can't say that they were a technological well developed people: they managed to survive (sometimes ingeniously) very well with the little that the environment provided. And though they were known to also have wars against one another it is not really the thing they are known to have excelled in.
You however would have the issue of different tribes, you can't really say that all the aboriginals in Australia were the same people so you would have to pick a region, specific type of group and you'll get issues about the language: I can imagine there must be at least a couple dozen of them and then to find someone who is capable of (fluently) speaking it. In the end you might get something similar like India in which a whole bunch of different groups is mixed in one civ.
If worked out well it might turn into a cool civ with gameplay totally different from other civs but I think that might be a bit of a challenge.

 

[Njegos]

Natural monuments could be UB (like Uluru),One with nature UA, and UU is easy, aboriginal boomerang warriors

 

[phaethon16]

Preserve authority and government? That's overly generous, to say the least. She acted to preserve her own life of privilege and luxury. The blues and the greens weren't some subversive element working to destroy Byzantium. They were the citizens of Byzantium protesting the ruthless taxes and policies of Justinian and Theodora.


Link to video.

They were rioting, not harmlessly protesting; and yes she did prserve the goverment. Regardless of what her own interests in the matter were, she kept the emperor in power by persuading him not to flee. If she did run, there would have been an extremely messy squable over who the next emperor was because their opposition wasn't organized really, it was a mob of rioters. So yes, she did preserve government. She might not have done it for the right reasons, but she did it. I like that she was chosen as the Byzantine, but mostly because the people I know think of her as a prostitute, and the designers of civ chose to ignore that part of her history and put her in a game with Bismarck and Washington.

 

[steveg700]

They were rioting, not harmlessly protesting; and yes she did prserve the goverment. Regardless of what her own interests in the matter were, she kept the emperor in power by persuading him not to flee. If she did run, there would have been an extremely messy squable over who the next emperor was because their opposition wasn't organized really, it was a mob of rioters. So yes, she did preserve government. She might not have done it for the right reasons, but she did it. I like that she was chosen as the Byzantine, but mostly because the people I know think of her as a prostitute, and the designers of civ chose to ignore that part of her history and put her in a game with Bismarck and Washington.

Sure, the people were rioting. As were the citizens in Tiananmen Square in 1989 or on King Street in 1770. They were being mistreated, and their pleas and demands had been ignored, so eventually the situation boils over. We call this "revolution" when it succeeds in knocking tyrants from power. Of course, when the government slaughters them, they don't call it a massace, they call it "re-establishing the rule of law", "putting down a riot", and "preserving order".

That Theodora helped keep the emperor in power after the people went into uproar over terrible taxation and oppression is not all that admirable. What's admirable is not engaging in terrible taxaction and oppression in the first place. Or, at the very least, actually engage in conciliation, rather than use it as pretext for betrayal and butchery in the hippodrome.

As for ignoring "that part of history", isn't sidestepping someone's sordid history so that they can be portrayed in a wholly positive light kind of disingenuous?

 

[Inhalaattori]

to say they where liveing in the stone age is pretty offensive. you need to read more about Australian aboriginals. the iroqus and zulu and even the huns have been added, this give no reason ( imho) why they wouldn't be a viable candidate.
there culture was mostly nomadic due to the extremely harsh conditions. even the Europeans had to re invent there farming equipment to survive in australia when they arrived. there culture is based on the spiritual passing there knowledge thru song and art. they would be a awesome cultural civ

You know what stone age means? Aboriginals were living in a stone age, because they were still using stone tools. How is stating a fact "pretty offensive"?

Iroquois, Zulu and Huns are bad Civs, but at least they knew some of the early techs. I dont really care about realism in this game that much, but Aboriginals would just be too much. There is just no possibility to make them viable Civ without making them something they never were. And we already have enough early Civs. I dont mind some "what if" Civs like Iroquois, but like I said Aboriginals were very primitive. Im not saying its good or bad, Im just saying they dont make any sense as a playable Civ in a Civilization series.

 

[phaethon16]

Sure, the people were rioting. As were the citizens in Tiananmen Square in 1989 or on King Street in 1770. They were being mistreated, and their pleas and demands had been ignored, so eventually the situation boils over. We call this "revolution" when it succeeds in knocking tyrants from power. Of course, when the government slaughters them, they don't call it a massace, they call it "re-establishing the rule of law", "putting down a riot", and "preserving order".

That Theodora helped keep the emperor in power after the people went into uproar over terrible taxation and oppression is not all that admirable. What's admirable is not engaging in terrible taxaction and oppression in the first place. Or, at the very least, actually engage in conciliation, rather than use it as pretext for betrayal and butchery in the hippodrome.

As for ignoring "that part of history", isn't sidestepping someone's sordid history so that they can be portrayed in a wholly positive light kind of disingenuous?

It's not disingenuous to judge someone based on their accomplishments and effect on history rather than what/who they did when they were in a desperate situation. Choosing to overlook Theodora's earlier life isn't disingenuous because that's not who she truly was. Admittedly, it's not great that they dealt with the riots as brutally as they did, but she didn't advocate for that, she kept the emperor in Constantinople, that is all. Also, I would question the oppression they were inflicting on the people, and say that it's naive to think that at that point in history an autocracy like theirs could reconcile with a mob. As for dealing with before-hand, they weren't taxing people for the fun of it or to build a new palace, there were wars going on that needed to be paid for. Lastly, I would like to ask that despite some of the things Theodora did, can you deny the influence she had? If her power and influence has not once been disputed in this discussion, doesn't she deserve to be leader, compared to her husband who actually did have the rioters massacred? After all, the agenda Theodora pursued was women's rights. Everything else, she was just an extremely influential adviser on.

 

[Dragonflow]

As for dealing with before-hand, they weren't taxing people for the fun of it or to build a new palace, there were wars going on that needed to be paid for. Lastly, I would like to ask that despite some of the things Theodora did, can you deny the influence she had? If her power and influence has not once been disputed in this discussion, doesn't she deserve to be leader, compared to her husband who actually did have the rioters massacred? After all, the agenda Theodora pursued was women's rights. Everything else, she was just an extremely influential adviser on.

Wars started by Justinian that overextended the Eastern Roman Empire, crippled Italy's economic power for centuries, bankrupted the Empire and then all those new territories were lost in less then a century.
Both Justinian and Theodora were horrible for Byzantium.

 

[IkM]

I want Khazars and Kievan Rus' I hope they add one of them or both.

 

[phaethon16]

Wars started by Justinian that overextended the Eastern Roman Empire, crippled Italy's economic power for centuries, bankrupted the Empire and then all those new territories were lost in less then a century.
Both Justinian and Theodora were horrible for Byzantium.

South Italy remained Byzantine for hundreds of years after, as did much of the Balkan territory won. I'm going to remind people that the Germanic tribes were the ones that put the rest of Italy into a huge economic decline by invading in the first place and that after the Nika rebellion (or revolution) and after the wars were done, Justinian and Theodora launched Byzantine society into its greatest golden age. Also, I want to apologize to the people not involved in this discussion for distracting the topic from dark horse civs, but Theodora must be defended!

 

[steveg700]

It's not disingenuous to judge someone based on their accomplishments and effect on history rather than what/who they did when they were in a desperate situation. Choosing to overlook Theodora's earlier life isn't disingenuous because that's not who she truly was. Admittedly, it's not great that they dealt with the riots as brutally as they did, but she didn't advocate for that, she kept the emperor in Constantinople, that is all. Also, I would question the oppression they were inflicting on the people, and say that it's naive to think that at that point in history an autocracy like theirs could reconcile with a mob. As for dealing with before-hand, they weren't taxing people for the fun of it or to build a new palace, there were wars going on that needed to be paid for. Lastly, I would like to ask that despite some of the things Theodora did, can you deny the influence she had? If her power and influence has not once been disputed in this discussion, doesn't she deserve to be leader, compared to her husband who actually did have the rioters massacred? After all, the agenda Theodora pursued was women's rights. Everything else, she was just an extremely influential adviser on.

How can you know that Theodora's character wasn't manifest in how she lived her early, pre-privileged life? What evidence suggests that at her core beats something other than the heart of shameless, corrupt person?

It seems that you are selectively giving Theodora credit for convincing Justinian to hang on to his power, while absolving her of the actions that were undertaken to do so. It seems unlikely (and convenient) that Justinian heeded her advice to stay, but then made a decision to commit the massacre heedless of Theodora's council.

As for the taxes, they were in fact taxing people to indulge in lavish construction projects.

Regarding her pursuing an agenda of "women's rights". She was a woman and she was interested in advancing her own lot in the world. That's a far cry from being the Susan B. Anthony of yore.

Also, I want to apologize to the people not involved in this discussion for distracting the topic from dark horse civs, but Theodora must be defended!

If you're a horrible person, is that mitigated by being a horrible female person?

 

[phaethon16]

How can you know that Theodora's character wasn't manifest in how she lived her early, pre-privileged life? What evidence suggests that at her core beats something other than the heart of shameless, corrupt person?

It seems that you are selectively giving Theodora credit for convincing Justinian to hang on to his power, while absolving her of the actions that were undertaken to do so. It seems unlikely (and convenient) that Justinian heeded her advice to stay, but then made a decision to commit the massacre heedless of Theodora's council.

As for the taxes, they were in fact taxing people to indulge in lavish construction projects.

Regarding her pursuing an agenda of "women's rights". She was a woman and she was interested in advancing her own lot in the world.
If you're a horrible person, is that mitigated by being a horrible female person?

The evidence is that once she became empress, she stopped sleeping around because she didn't have to in order to make a living. That's a somewhat accepted fact, despite the rumours that were maliciously spread about her in her time. I'm not selectively giving credit for convincing him to stay, that's what happened. She said to him (and this is a quote that's slightly paraphrased) "I'd rather die shrouded in royalty than live as a coward on the outskirts of society." That's more or less her famous line. She didn't counsel him against the massacre, she didn't tell him what to do at all besides stay. Also, you're going to want to get your facts straight about the "lavish construction projects" because they were all built after the rebellion to rebuild the damaged city, during a prosperous time so the taxes weren't as hard to pay/not as high. The damage that was caused by the rebellion. As for her woman's rights activism, she already had as much power as she could want. The things she did didn't affect her because she already had those priviledges. Again though, can you deny her influence, power, and her worthiness to be leader, especially opposed to her husband who did have the rioters massacred? Lastly, I resent your comment about how just because she's a woman I think she's less awful when you're pinning all the blame on her and not Justinian

 

[Xger]

The dark horse of my chosing would be

...dramatic pause...

Spoiler :

Atlantis. It is truly a dark horse in that it's likelihood is very very low. It would still be awesome in my opinion

 

[phaethon16]

Edit: redundant

 

[steveg700]

Lastly, I resent your comment about how just because she's a woman I think she's less awful when you're pinning all the blame on her and not Justinian

Well, that's unfortunate. Thing is, you said you feel the need to defend Theodora. You don't feel the need to defend Justinian. And you're talking about her puruing an agenda for women's rights, which is a bit of a reach. So it does lend the impression that there is some personal politic at work.

Having said that, I don't think much of either of them as far as being leaders of their respective. Clearly neither had any sense of obligation to their subjects. Their reign is a testament to self-indulgence.

On the whole, I don't really lionize many of Civ's leaders. Pretty much the only thing I admire in a leader is his ability to promote infrastructure, and Civ V has a tendency to promote warmongers.. That was the trend back in the day.

 

[phaethon16]

The dark horse of my chosing would be

...dramatic pause...

Spoiler :

Atlantis. It is truly a dark horse in that it's likelihood is very very low. It would still be awesome in my opinion

Their UA could let them build cities in the ocean and turn any tile wothin their borders into a sea tile. THEY COULD BE LED BY POSEIDON!

 

[steveg700]

The dark horse of my chosing would be

...dramatic pause...

Spoiler :

Atlantis. It is truly a dark horse in that it's likelihood is very very low. It would still be awesome in my opinion

How about the Seab Peoples instead?