Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Sikandar]

Hungary and Bulgaria were great powers during the Middle Ages.

 

[ldvhl]

You realize the number of tribes which exist, right ?

Hundreds of North American tribes, yes.

What I'm trying to say is that most of them were nomads, disparate groups, or tribes.

Irrelevant to being included as a Civ, as has already been established by Firaxis.

Among these, how many built cities, formed a complexed centralized state (on the large sense) ?

Again, irrelevant per Firaxis.

For me, 2 north amerindians is enough.

That's different than:

We have the Iroquois and the Shoshone, and it's pretty enough.

One is an opinion that you're welcome to have, the other is a universal statement.

Maybe there were more deserving amerindians than the Iroquois or the Shoshone, I don't know since I'm not a specialist on them.

You don't need to be a specialist. Just take some time to be educated. Arguments from ignorance don't really help your case.

 

[JFD]

Any favour for the Goths?

 

[Liufeng]

You don't need to be a specialist. Just take some time to be educated. Arguments from ignorance don't really help your case.

Perhaps I might an "ignorant about amerindians", but I'm still not ignorant enough to know that yes, most of them were nomads, tribes and so on, as I said earlier, and that there are ton of most deserving civs which I'm not so ignorant. The khmer did found cities and created a huge complex civilization, and influenced the entire south-estearn asian zone. Same for sumerian, kongo or Viet Nam.

Please be careful with your choice of words. I'm trying to remain as objective as possible, and thing is, civilization (the game) is not about filling places, otherwise the civ ratio would a bit more balaced between places.

The amerindians did have interesting and unique cultures, and I highly respect them. Does it mean they're relevant as a civilization in the game, it depends from people. Does it mean they're relevant as an historical civilisation ? No, they're not.

 

[Gucumatz]

Dozens of South American and Mesoamerican empires beckon...

The day we get more non-US focus would be nice

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Dozens of South American and Mesoamerican empires beckon...

The day we get more non-US focus would be nice

Then have someone other than a company in the US make it. Biases are intractable in every culture.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Dozens of South American and Mesoamerican empires beckon...

The day we get more non-US focus would be nice

And even within the US we have the urban settlements of the Mississipian and Pueblo peoples.


Most of the native Americans who became nomads only became nomads because when the Europeans came, disease went way ahead of them, so by the time Europeans came into contact with some of them, so many of them were wiped out. The Europeans who first came to the US east coast, for instance, were astonished at how much perfect farmland there was just lying around with nobody to tend it - they thought it was like a miracle of sorts. But not really. It was basically like a post-apocalypse for the native Americans who no longer could support such agricultural systems.

 

[otaman1]

In CiV right now, we have 3 tribal civilizations; Celts, Iroquois, and Shoshone, 2 kingdoms that some people consider tribal; Polynesia aka Hawai'i and Zulu, and 2 nomadic empires; Huns and Mongols. More wouldn't hurt. Maybe add the Tupi, Timurids, or Sioux.

 

[Vandal Thorne]

Perhaps I might an "ignorant about amerindians", but I'm still not ignorant enough to know that yes, most of them were nomads, tribes and so on, as I said earlier, and that there are ton of most deserving civs which I'm not so ignorant. The khmer did found cities and created a huge complex civilization, and influenced the entire south-estearn asian zone. Same for sumerian, kongo or Viet Nam.

Please be careful with your choice of words. I'm trying to remain as objective as possible, and thing is, civilization (the game) is not about filling places, otherwise the civ ratio would a bit more balaced between places.

The amerindians did have interesting and unique cultures, and I highly respect them. Does it mean they're relevant as a civilization in the game, it depends from people. Does it mean they're relevant as an historical civilisation ? No, they're not.

Actually only the Plains Indians were truly Nomadic. Indian tribes everywhere else tended to build settlements.

I'd also argue that North American Indians are a highly relevant group of civilizations as the U.S. was directly shaped and influenced by its interactions with them.

 

[turingmachine]

Timurids

Except the Timurids weren't tribal or nomadic in the least. In fact, they sparked an architectural revolution which became the basis of later Indian and Persian architecture.

 

[cybrxkhan]

In CiV right now, we have 3 tribal civilizations; Celts, Iroquois, and Shoshone, 2 kingdoms that some people consider tribal; Polynesia aka Hawai'i and Zulu, and 2 nomadic empires; Huns and Mongols. More wouldn't hurt. Maybe add the Tupi, Timurids, or Sioux.

The Timurids weren't nomadic or tribal though, Timur's power was based on Samarkhand, and they loooooved building awesome gigantic monuments and other stuff typical of large urbanized societies. Timurids would be more like... i dunno... Assyrians?

 

[Gucumatz]

And even within the US we have the urban settlements of the Mississipian and Pueblo peoples.


Most of the native Americans who became nomads only became nomads because when the Europeans came, disease went way ahead of them, so by the time Europeans came into contact with some of them, so many of them were wiped out. The Europeans who first came to the US east coast, for instance, were astonished at how much perfect farmland there was just lying around with nobody to tend it - they thought it was like a miracle of sorts. But not really. It was basically like a post-apocalypse for the native Americans who no longer could support such agricultural systems.

Certainly. Europeans were carriers of all sorts of diseases, probably the most unclean people to ever live . The Spaniards marveled how even the peasants used soap regularly in the Maya and Aztec world, whereas they rarely bathed ever. No wonder we never stood a chance, our hygiene was our downfall

 

[Art Grin]

Any favour for the Goths?

Yes.
I think the Goths, Vandals, Franks or even the later Normans could offer some funny possibilities at gameplay.

 

[Gucumatz]

Frankly vandalizing normans land, is simply Gothic

 

[Zipa_DH]

Gran Colombia would be TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, it lasted little more than 10 years! How can anyone seriously think this would be good CIVILIZATION is beyond me.

oh, come on, not again with that...you know we are still a country?...I mean, we didn't disappear when Gran Colombia fell...also, their provinces and territories were the same since the viceroyalty of New Granada, and we still existing in 2013, so, it was more than 10 years...

 

[Viregel]

Yes.
I think the Goths, Vandals, Franks or even the later Normans could offer some funny possibilities at gameplay.

The Normans would make an amazing civ.

 

[Louis XXIV]

What I'm trying to say is that most of them were nomads, disparate groups, or tribes. Among these, how many built cities, formed a complexed centralized state (on the large sense) ?

That's why I suggested the Mississippians, who clearly fit your criteria. Just because some are nomads doesn't mean all are or you can dismiss them simply as nomads. In fact, I'd say the majority were not nomadic.

Dozens of South American and Mesoamerican empires beckon...

The day we get more non-US focus would be nice

Well, I suggested a Canadian one

Also, the only actual records we have of Mississippians (besides oral histories of successor peoples) are Spanish.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the Pueblo are associated with New Spain more than the United States. It's a shame that one fell through, but I don't think it's fair to say that Firaxis is deliberately focusing on the United States there.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Certainly. Europeans were carriers of all sorts of diseases, probably the most unclean people to ever live . The Spaniards marveled how even the peasants used soap regularly in the Maya and Aztec world, whereas they rarely bathed ever. No wonder we never stood a chance, our hygiene was our downfall

By that logic, contact with Europe would have doomed the Japanese as well. Peoples in the Old World had thousands of years of contact with livestock, allowing a long period of cross-contamination between species and a buildup of resistance to a variety of diseases. The New World peoples lacked that advantage and so died from diseases they had never been exposed to before. It wasn't about soap so much as it was about antibodies.

 

[Zipa_DH]

1 Israel, I don't see how ancient Israel could be polemic...
2 Mexico, too stereotypical, also they're the first thing people think when someone says "latin America"
3 Vietnam, because we need more SE Asia
4 Kongo, another african civ will be pleasant
5 Mapuche, the only victorious native nation recognized by Spain...
6 Muiscas, a golden Muiscan chief with all his stuff would put in shame Pacal's outfit
7 Mississippians (since we haven't Pueblo)
8 Colombia (or Gran Colombia, doesn't matter, both are the same state) because their relevance in south american independence wars

 

[The QC]

For people who want to know more about the state of the Americas before the arrival of Europeans, I highly recommend the book 1491 by Charles C. Mann. It's really thorough and dispels many myths about their supposed primitivism. It's also well written and generally filled with interesting stuff. It changed my mind on the topic, at least.

I think there are also diminishing returns when selecting civs based on "worth", even leaving aside how subjective that is. There is a lot to be said about diversity too. Personally, I've just about had my fill of European nations.