Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[tnick777]

In reality we're reaching a point of really no new diversity in the Civs. If there are 9 new civs to be introduced in an ensuing expansion I would love to see...

1. Romania
2. Inuit
3. Caribbean
4. Tatars (representing the 'stans of the Central Asian Steppes)
5. Aboriginals
6. Powhatan
7. Toltecs
8. South Africa
9. Chinook

Romania Vlad III 1431-1476
Capital: Bucharest
UA: Blood of the Dacians - Horses grant twice the normal quantity. Cities will rebel twice as long when captured by another Civ. When at war with a more powerful civ great generals spawn three times as fast.
UU: Falx (replaces swordsmen) - No penalty for crossing river. Bonus against armored units. Less construction cost than swordsemen
UB: Castel (replaces Castle) - +2 culture and +? Defense

Inuit Akaitcho 1786-1838
Capital: Yellowknife
UA: Aurora Borealis - Units recieve major combat bonus in Tundra and Snow tiles, double movement, may pass through ice tiles.
UU: Canoe (replaces fishing boat) - +food and +culture
UB: Igloo (replaces Monument) - +food when built in tundra or snow

etc.

 

[ajok]

However, a Carib civ culd be really interesting as well, if anything to give more representation to neglected areas.

so...... Cuban civ? Gueatemala?(but guatemala is a part of the mayans) or Honduras? or unified caribbean civs?

 

[PerceeP927]

so...... Cuban civ? Gueatemala?(but guatemala is a part of the mayans) or Honduras? or unified caribbean civs?

the Caribs are the native peoples of the Carribean. he didn't mean any colonial hispanic nations

 

[Zipa_DH]

There's a chance another mesoamerica could feel like Angry Babylon to mesopotamia if not done right. Aztec and Toltec could feel similar to the average Joe, however I think Zapotecs are quite different from both Aztecs and Mayans, they afterall developed their own writen language and outlived the classical Mayans all the way to the Spanish conquest. Purepechans have been called an "anomaly" in mesoamerica, because they were so diferent from their neighboors, culturaly, military, they were famous for rivalizing the Aztecs after all, so I dont think they would be that similar,even more if they ended up going for Erendira for leader, rebel Purepechan princess riding a Spanish war horse? In terms of leaderscreens is as diferent from Monty and Pacal as you can get.

Language for both Zapotec and Purepecha wouldnt be a problem, their culture is alive and kicking to this day.

However, a Carib civ culd be really interesting as well, if anything to give more representation to neglected areas.

I'm almost sure more than 80% people who play civ don't know that, and for marketing reasons they need to put "interesting" or "known" civs, however I wanna see an Anacaona leader screen

 

[ajok]

the Caribs are the native peoples of the Carribean. he didn't mean any colonial hispanic nations

my mistake, i think he would mention that.... i just read wiki that caribbean was the carib kingdom
the toughest things is the names of cities(the AI often to build many cities, when my empire has 3 cities ). CMIIW

 

[Liufeng]

This statement directly contradicts this one:


Because you can't be objective and think some civs are more deserving than others.


All of these are good reasons to include those civilizations, but only speak to reasons for those civs. Having good reason to include one civ doesn't mean anything for the inclusion of another.


I never said the game was about filling places, but it is hard to deny that CiV's development has leaned toward filling areas that have traditionally been neglected in prior iterations.


The historicity of a group of people is up to the observer. You may not believe they're historically relevant, but I (and others, including the peoples in question) do. And in any case, interpretations of historical relevance are irrelevant. That's not the criteria Firaxis uses in selecting civs to be included.

I'm really trying, but you really want to camp to yuour positions, are you ?

First, in the your statement before this one, I did not made an opinion and a universal statement. The second statement was the logical consequence of my first proposition. It was still my opinion.

Second, no, there's no contradiction. In my statement, I believe that a civ is deserving by the criterias I explained before. Are they acceptable for the game, maybe yes, maybe no. I surely would not mind mississipians or pueblo, but I'm fully against the inclusion of a tribe or nomads, like the Sioux. I would accept their inclusion if there was no northern amerindian civ, but now that we have two, at least give a chance for others. Besides, I speak of native americans, but the same goes with Zulus. I only accept them because of the cruel lack of representation of the sub-saharian Africa.
All that to say I won't fall in your sophisms.

All these are not just good criteria for only those civs, but for civs in general. Certainly not the devs criteria, but mine. That you accept them or not is a whole other thong, and it is only up to you. But respect my choices.

And yes, you did say they had to add civs from North America, like south-east america (maybe it was another person who said it. If it is the case, my bad, I'm sorry).

If you consider them as relevant in history, good for you. I don't. But I won't try to convince you on that. You have your opinions and I have my own.

Finally, I'll lend this conversation now, if we can call it this way. You don't want to leave a bit of your grip on the rope, and so, I won't try any further.

Have a good day (or night).

 

[Liufeng]

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.

Well, I'd like the Missipians, but who would be the leader ? And which language would they speak ?

 

[Louis XXIV]

^ Did you look at my post at all?

Tuskaloosa, leader of the Coosa chiefdom of the Mississippians. Language: Muscogee.

Here is my post. Please read it

The Normans would make an amazing civ.

I was going to go with Vietnam and Khmer next, but let's go with the Normans. This proposal is fairly complete, I just don't know if it's balanced

The Normans



I know the Normans would be controversial to some, but there are plenty of reasons to support them. They were on the frontlines of every major conflict in Europe of the Middle Ages - from the Crusades to the Reconquista to the Conquests of Southern Italy and England. Obviously, there are some difficulties (they were located inside France and their status there was always ambiguous and their conquest of England is fairly represented by England). But they did have an independent Kingdom in Southern Italy and Sicily (which is not represented) and, even in France, their Viking heritage, connections to religion, and military adventurism gave them, imo, a unique culture.

Plus, this is all in good fun, so here goes:



That's really the most logical logo. Obviously, the colors are taken and the Lions are annoyingly English now (damn you William). There might be others. This is the coat of arms for the House of Hauteville which is associated with the Kingdom of Sicily. That might work too.

The rest is below the break:

Spoiler Normans :

There are two leader possibilities I'd suggest:
Robert the Magnificent


I know people have said Robert Guiscard or even William the Conqueror, but I like Robert, Duke of Normandy because he represents all the Normans. He was the father of William the Conqueror and has an interesting history himself with an effective rule of Normandy and was known for his piety. His life was short because he went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and never returned. Plus, how can you say no to that statue there

The other alternative is:

Richard the Fearless


Richard essentially centralized the Norman state, making the Duchy one of the most important areas in France. His reign was marked mostly by peace and tranquility. I know that's boring, but that's probably owed to his strength as a ruler since he had to fight other French counts (and the French King) to get that position. He also showed cunning diplomacy, focused on strengthening Normandy rather than getting involved in French politics, and built up his relationship with the church. Plus, his nickname is "The Fearless," which is badass.

Background would probably be inside the Cathedral in Rouen, although it was rebuilt so this one is a bit anachronistic:


Unique Unit: Knights of Roland
Replaces Knight. Unit is 25% stronger in enemy territory and starts with the Blitz promotion.


Before embarking on their conquest of England, soldiers sang the Song of Roland, which celebrated the victory of a Frankish army fighting against the Muslim Saracen invasion of France. The song had symbolic meaning for them because, even in their invasion of England (which had been sanctioned by the Pope), they viewed themselves as fighting a Holy War. No doubt the Normans who fought in Muslim Sicily, the Normans who fought in the Holy Land, and the Muslims who fought against Muslim Spain took a similar inspiration from La Chanson de Roland.

OK, that's my sales pitch. Basically, I needed a name better than Norman Knight and this one fit. The Song of Roland was important for everyone, but it was undoubtedly important for the Normans. The first recorded mention of the song is in the Chronicle describing the Conquest of England. As for the stats, if there's one thing that sums up the Normans better than anything else, it's going abroad and fighting people elsewhere. They also used Cavalry a lot. If it's too powerful, cost to produce can be adjusted.

I used three pictures to give some ideas. Really, the first guy with the ax from the second guy would be different enough so it doesn't look like the regular Knight. Although, if it has a lance, the different helmet and shield will help.

Unique Improvement: Motte and Bailey


Can build one in the territory of each city in conquered territory. Units adjacent to the improvement lose 10 HP per turn.

I tried to balance it a bit by limiting it to one per city. It's like a citadel except it doesn't require a Great General and doesn't steal territory. Otherwise, I basically borrowed directly from Firaxis's scenario.

Unique Ability: Soldiers of the Church
+25% combat bonus when attacking cities with a different religion than the majority religion in Norman cities. Norman missionaries can choose which religion to spread.

I wanted a religion-related bonus that did not require the Normans to found a religion. Historically, the Normans adopted Christianity as a political move, but became one of the churches strongest defenders. Although the church did not always approve their actions, they often turned to them. This is particularly true in Italy where the Normans were asked to fight against the Holy Roman Empire to protect Rome (the Normans happened to sack Rome on the way, but oh well). They were also asked to conquer Muslim Sicily and to go on the Crusades. Really, they are more associated with Holy War than any other individual group.

Anyway, that's my Norman idea.

Next up will be Vietnam and Khmer.

 

[DaNuke]

To repreresent neglected areas:
1.Kongo
2.Ashanti or Other african (Lemures from Madagascar \OOO/) LOL
3.Canadá
4.Carib
5.Australia
6:Vietnam
7.Argentina or Gran Colombia

 

[Gucumatz]

We are on the same page, there's plenty of mesoamericans to choose from:

-Toltecs
-Mixtecs
-Zapotecs
-Huastecs
-Totonacs
-Purepechans

A pretty good list there! Toltecs and the Zapotecs are certainly the favorites of the group though

 

[otaman1]

In reality we're reaching a point of really no new diversity in the Civs. If there are 9 new civs to be introduced in an ensuing expansion I would love to see...

1. Romania
2. Inuit
3. Caribbean
4. Tatars (representing the 'stans of the Central Asian Steppes)
5. Aboriginals
6. Powhatan
7. Toltecs
8. South Africa
9. Chinook

Romania Vlad III 1431-1476
Capital: Bucharest
UA: Blood of the Dacians - Horses grant twice the normal quantity. Cities will rebel twice as long when captured by another Civ. When at war with a more powerful civ great generals spawn three times as fast.
UU: Falx (replaces swordsmen) - No penalty for crossing river. Bonus against armored units. Less construction cost than swordsemen
UB: Castel (replaces Castle) - +2 culture and +? Defense

Inuit Akaitcho 1786-1838
Capital: Yellowknife
UA: Aurora Borealis - Units recieve major combat bonus in Tundra and Snow tiles, double movement, may pass through ice tiles.
UU: Canoe (replaces fishing boat) - +food and +culture
UB: Igloo (replaces Monument) - +food when built in tundra or snow

etc.

To continue your list:

Caribbean

Spoiler :

Leader: Agüeybaná II 1470-1511
Capital: Lucayan
UA: Payback - units do more damage to an enemy who previously attacked it; start with embarkation
UU: Arawak Tribal Warrior - replaces Warrior; ignores terrain cost; +1 sight
UB: Arawak Hut - replaces Shrine; +1 extra faith; reduces unhappiness from number of population in cities

Tatars

Spoiler :

Leader: Oluğ Möxämmäd ?-1445
Capital: Kazan
UA: The Golden Horde - all units receive an offensive bonus; mounted units have no penalty vs cities
UU: Heavy Cavalry - replaces Horseman; stronger than the base unit; can range and melee attack; can dismount to become Golden Horde Warrior; does not replace any unit
UB: Yurt - replaces Stable; mounted units built in the city earns +5% experience; +20% production towards mounted units

Aboriginals

Spoiler :

Leader: Windradyne 1800–21 March 1829
Capital: Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara
UA: Resistance - all non-gunpowder units receive a bonus when attacking gunpowder units; +3 faith from temples
UU: Aboriginal Warriors - replaces Warrior; stronger than the base unit; range attacks first before melee attack
UU: Gunai Slingers - replaces Archer; can range or melee attack; ignores terrain cost; +1 extra movement

Powhatan

Spoiler :

Leader: Wahunsenacawh (father of Pocahontas) or Pocahontas (need a native girl leader head) ?-1618 or 1595–March 1617
Capital: Werowocomoco
UA: Powhatan Federation - all units gain +10 HP and strength when in friendly territory; +2 culture from shrines
UU: Chiefdom - replaces Great General; provides a 15% combat bonus to all player-owned land units within 2 tiles; heal adjacent units for an additional 15 HP per turn
UB: Yihakans - replaces Barracks; +15% production towards melee units

Toltecs

Spoiler :

Leader: Quetzalcoatl
Capital: Tula
UA: Deity God - +1 extra culture from cultural buildings; +3 faith with a coast nearby
UU: Toltec Warrior - replaces Warrior; can attack twice in one turn
UI: Atlantes - provides +3 culture and +2 faith

South Africa

Spoiler :

Leader: Morgan Freeman 1 June, 1937-Not Dead Yet
Capital: Cape Town
UA: South African Party - increases relations with City-States and Civilizations faster; City-States will not get mad when walking in their border
UU: Field Ambulance - adjacent units earn +20 HP; +15% defense against enemy units
UU: Morgan Freeman's Army - +25% strength when in enemy territory

Chinook

Spoiler :

Leader: Comcomly 1765-1830
Capital: Siletz
UA: Social stratification - earn free units from DoF Civilizations; workers ignores terrain cost
UU: Dugout - replaces Work Boat; can move through rivers; +2 food and happiness
UB: Cathlapotle Plankhouse - replaces Barracks; +2 production for melee units

 

[Gucumatz]

I didnt mention the Olmecs because, sadly, there's a lot we dont know about them, I fear that if Firaxis tries to fill too many blancs we would end up with something like "native american empire". There's plenty of other choices in mesoamerica, and if what you want is a mesoamerican from the gulf area, theres the Totonacs and Huastecs. Totonacs are particulary interesting as they are believed to be closely related to Tajin and Teotihuacan, besides they were the first to ally with Cortez against the Aztecs.

I am glad you brought up the Totonacs. Certainly not as famous as many of their potential competitors, but their claims on the region are historically unique. El Tajin is one of those majestic Mesoamerican sites that is so unique from the rest of Mesoamerica that it adds another sense of awe when you visit it. Its probably the closest way to add Teotihuacan as a civ too [Sort of I guess how they did the Shoshone/Comanche].

Teotihuacan being the most important city in the Americas, ever, that dominated Mesoamerica and even the southwestern US, has always been an eye-sore in the Aztec City list (I mean what in the world is it doing there???)

 

[Gucumatz]

"When they saw that we were in earnest, the fat cacique and his captains told all the warriors to get ready to defend their idols, and when they saw that we intended to ascend a lofty cue--which stood high and was approached by many steps--the fat cacique and the other chieftains were beside themselves with fury and called out to Cortes to know why he wanted to destroy their idols, for if we dishonoured them and overthrew them, that they would all perish and we along with them...
The words were hardly out of their mouths before more than fifty of us soldiers had clambered up [to the temple] and had thrown down their idols which came rolling down the steps shattered to pieces. The idols looked like fearsome dragons, as big as calves, and there were other figures half men and half great dogs of hideous appearance. When they saw their idols broken to pieces the caciques and priests who were with them wept and covered their eyes, and in the Totonac tongue they prayed their gods to pardon them, saying that the matter was no longer in their hands and they were not to blame"
====

At the Totonac city of Cempoala ^ Was the real beginning of the end. The Totonacs allied the Spanish at their own peril, to rid themselves of their age old enemies - the barbarian Mexica/Chichimec mercenary Aztecs. Although certainly an interesting culture. A city list wouldn't be hard, units are possible too thanks to the Spanish accounts

 

[alpha2117]

Only culturally Serbia deserves more than Canada and Australia...but just that, also, Serbia isn't very popular



I'll love to see even only one of those...but let's be honest...they are too underrated, no one can difference them with Aztecs or Mayans, that's what I would vote for a caribbean civ

It's arguable on the culture thing. Many Euro countries have intertwined cultures stretching back thousands of years rather than purely unique cultures. The Colonial civ choices have developed their own unique personalities Canada, Australia, South Africa and the West Indies are all ex British but all quite different culturally. The Balkan states in comparison are intertwined - history for 1000's of years has ever changing borders through the region meaning those choices have traditional rivalries and huge perceived differences but strangely quite similar cultural elements. In the way Civ uses culture you could argue the colonial civs act more like the civs in the game in terms of culture than many of the smaller Euro civ choices.

Culturally I think it's a wash because in both situations you end up with fairly distinct cultures.

 

[Zipa_DH]

It's arguable on the culture thing. Many Euro countries have intertwined cultures stretching back thousands of years rather than purely unique cultures. The Colonial civ choices have developed their own unique personalities Canada, Australia, South Africa and the West Indies are all ex British but all quite different culturally. The Balkan states in comparison are intertwined - history for 1000's of years has ever changing borders through the region meaning those choices have traditional rivalries and huge perceived differences but strangely quite similar cultural elements.

Culturally I think it's a wash because in both situations you end up with fairly distinct cultures.

yeah, but anglo countries still are too related to England, that's why many people think they don't have a real and unique culture, for that people many people opposed to include South Africa

In the way Civ uses culture you could argue the colonial civs act more like the civs in the game in terms of culture than many of the smaller Euro civ choices.

agree, and that's why I support more colonial civs

 

[ldvhl]

How about some Tlingit?

Here's some pics:







I'm still working on details, but they have a lot of potential.

 

[DonStamos]

If I were picking nine more to add:

1. the Franks - Charlemagne
2. Romania - Vlad Tepes (famous figure, would sell games)
3. Mapuche - Lautaro
4. Kongo - Nzinga or Afonso III (resisted Portuguese expansion into the Kongo)
5. Vietnam - a multitude to pick from
6. Timurids - Tamerlane
7. Israel - Solomon
8. Mughals - Akbar (capital would be Agra, I think it's possible that this game's India minus the Mughal fort and the Mughals could coexist)
9. Australia - Menzies/Mackenzie - (dark horse, UA could allow them to lend units to city states for influence, perhaps)

 

[alpha2117]

yeah, but anglo countries still are too related to England, that's why many people think they don't have a real and unique culture, for that people many people opposed to include South Africa



agree, and that's why I support more colonial civs

I'd argue against the too like England thinking.

Canada has a very different culture to Australia to South Africa to West Indies. In each case lots of factors are at work creating distinct differences to each country. Native American and French + American, Aboriginal and Convict heritage, Boer & Native African & West African and Sub continental as well as native islander cultural elements have all effected each in it's own way. There are definite similarities but they really are very distinct. Arguably Persia, Babylon, Assyria and other ancient Mesopotamian civs could be said to be the same too but they cant really be said to be interchangeable. Thats why the Assyria design annoys me because it is too similar to Babylon.

Most any civ is viable if they offer up unique elements from which to extrapolate a design from... Venice is a terrible choice but design wise it's not too bad. Personally since colonial civs have barely been touched in the series I think they offer a lot of unique elements yet to be explored. The duality of Canada, the convict past of Australia, the varied nature of South Africa and it's troubled history and the slave and indentured laborers of the West Indies all are things that we haven't seen as much from other civs.

 

[PerceeP927]

To continue your list:

Leader: Morgan Freeman 1 June, 1937-Not Dead Yet
Capital: Cape Town
UA: South African Party - increases relations with City-States and Civilizations faster; City-States will not get mad when walking in their border
UU: Field Ambulance - adjacent units earn +20 HP; +15% defense against enemy units
UU: Morgan Freeman's Army - +25% strength when in enemy territory

Morgan Freeman? I hope this is a joke...

edit: as a side note, Nelson Mandela is in the hospital very sick. I don't mean to be insensitive... but perhaps he will be able to be in Civ 6 or so. I hope not for his sake.

 

[Louis XXIV]

^ It's almost certainly a joke, referencing Invictus where Morgan Freeman played Nelson Mandela.

How about some Tlingit?

Well, I suggested Haida. They're very similar so the question is why to pick one over the other? I like the Haida because of their aggressive warlike manner and the fact that they were outside the United States (to avoid accusations that we're only picking Indian tribes because of their US connection).

Although there are apparently only 55 native Haida speakers these days

There are 1100 Tlingit speakers, which is also not a lot, unfortunately, but certainly more. By comparison, Tewa, the language of the Pueblo leader Popé, has 1300 speakers and they struggled to find someone.