Brave New World's 9 new Civs

Unification has very little to do with the civ.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say this given that the only reason we're even talking about "Italy" as a single entity is because of unification.

Actually I will edit my list. I think a Swahili civ would be more likely with both tourism, trade routes, and the scramble for Africa than Morocco would be.

But so I think:

3 African Civs
2 European
1-2 Middle East (Assyria and a chance for another wildcard)
1-3 from the Americas (A native American, Brazil, and potentially Gran Colombia still in the running)
1-2 from Asia (Indonesia seems particularly suited)

With context of Mali in consideration comes another though on the Zulus, for the Zulus are likely with the "Scramble for Africa" scenario. What UA will the Zulus have?

You know, Ive always thought there is a simple solution to this whole "we can't have that civ because too many CS's depend on that civ not being in the game."

That solution is for Firaxis to simply implement something similar to the Huns: name the city states in the game after the cities of civilizations not currently in the match. That would also be fun, because they could simultaneously implement a randomizing feature for the CS's so that you could never predict which would be maritime, cultural, religious, militaristic, etc.

If they were to do this, Italy could easily be in the game (not that I think they're necessary.

More on topic, I posted what I would like to see as far as new civs go just a few days ago... that list was thus:

Portugal
Zulu
Majapahit
Sumeria
Kongo
Sioux
Nepal
Hebrews
Inuit

With Poland's confirmation and the new information on Brave New World features, I think now that this could be near to the truth:

Poland
Assyria
Portugal
Zulu
Majapahit
Kongo
Sioux
Brazil
+ a 'dark horse' (out of my discarded Nepal, Hebrews, and Inuit, I'm not sure which I'd go for more... they honestly all sound fun to me).

You could represent the renaissance proto-Italian civilization of northern Italy by addressing it as the Lombard civilization.

It covers everything from the Barbarian Invasions in the 500s (last Germanic invaders to seize control of the area) to the Lombard League era where the various duchies and petty kingdoms kept swinging from client-states of the Holy Roman Empire or rivals to the HRE.

Milan, Genoa, Venice, Florence being the big names to start out with, you'd have what you are looking for: 1000+ years of civilization and representation of the strong renaissance cultural output of that region of Italy.

If you really want to nod to the rivalries between the cities (and even within them) you could reflect this in a unique ability to switch capitals without losing your original to another player. Give them a Pikeman replacement like "Company of Death" lacking the bonus Vs. mounted and instead having higher base strength and getting a bonus based on how close they are to a friendly city. (+4 for in the city, +3 for first ring, +2 for second, +1 for third).

Their unique building would be culture and tourism based - either an upgraded Amphitheatre / Opera House or another Ren-era building with a culture bonus added.

- Marty Lund

The inclusion of "your" nation in the game or not should have very little bearing on whether that nation should be played, esp if it ends up a low-tier civ.

Bad Wolf said:

I don't know how you can say this given that the only reason we're even talking about "Italy" as a single entity is because of unification.

Click to expand...

It's a convenient way to group it, but we're not focusing on that particular period. Simple and no worse then grouping the Celts, India, China, or Polynesia.

Bad Wolf said:

I don't know how you can say this given that the only reason we're even talking about "Italy" as a single entity is because of unification.

Click to expand...

Not really.
People saw that there were cultural or geographical entities in areas where there was no unified political entity.
People spoke of Greece when there was no unified Greek state, the word Germany was used throughout history despite there not being a German state and same goes for Italy. People knew that there was an entity called Italy even before unification, be it geographic or cultural.
IIRC even the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor were Emperor of Romans, King of Germans and King of Italy or the Italians.
So even during the middle-ages people recognised that there was an entity called Italy.

I just don't see Italy getting it (Belgium is a dark horse but I can't see them getting in either, even during the era of colonization they couldn't handle their colonies and they were just given most of them by other European states after WWI).

Italy's capital is the same capital as the Roman Civ. I can see them being a Scenario specific civ, but not an in game civ

We have already Poland and Assiria, that leave us with 7 free spots:
- Zulu. A civ classic and relevant to the scramble for Africa scenario
- Portugal. Historically relevant, good for trade routes mechanics et al
- Indonesia. Forum favourite, Borodobur has been included as a wonder *wink* *wink*
- Brazil. Latin America is currently underrepresented, also, tourism
- Missisipi / Comanche / another native American civ due to the civil war scenario

Now onto the wild guesses:

- Mali. African civilization with far more historical relevance and cultural weight than the Zulu and very oriented towards trade
- Switzerland. There must be some kind of diplomacy-oriented civilization, right?

Not really.
People saw that there were cultural or geographical entities in areas where there was no unified political entity.
People spoke of Greece when there was no unified Greek state, the word Germany was used throughout history despite there not being a German state and same goes for Italy. People knew that there was an entity called Italy even before unification, be it geographic or cultural.
IIRC even the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor were Emperor of Romans, King of Germans and King of Italy or the Italians.
So even during the middle-ages people recognised that there was an entity called Italy.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of all of this (my degree is in history), but really we're getting way outside the focus of the discussion, which is what new Civs are going to be in BNW? (Am I the first one on this board to use that acronym?) And on the evidence, I just don't think Italy is very likely, for all the reasons I've already stated. All of these arguments about Italy's historical status are interesting, but put it this way: if I were betting money on this, I definitely wouldn't bet on Italy unless the house were giving me some really crazy odds.

Gucumatz said:

Italy's capital is the same capital as the Roman Civ. I can see them being a Scenario specific civ, but not an in game civ

Click to expand...

This again? Firenze or Venecia is the perfect answer! You can be a bit flexible, those two cities were the centres of the renaissance anyway...

Civ 5 GK had a ton of scenario related civs which makes it possible to see wildcards. Its just Italy has too many things going against it

1. City States were practically designed with Italy in mind, removing a cast of city states would be nice to see some other Mesoamerican and other ones from the world, but I can't see the developers doing that.
2. Rome would be the same name and capital for two civs and several other cities would have the exact same names.
3. Italy fits better as multiple city states than anything else
=====

Come to think of it, I would say a potential dark horse civ could be the Vatican/Papal States. Have had a ton of cultural influence around the world, would utilize Italian cities not currently used as city states, has acted as a world congress in previous civ games (Apostolic palace anyone?), a faith oriented civ, etc.

Gucumatz said:

Civ 5 GK had a ton of scenario related civs which makes it possible to see wildcards. Its just Italy has too many things going against it

1. City States were practically designed with Italy in mind, removing a cast of city states would be nice to see some other Mesoamerican and other ones from the world, but I can't see the developers doing that.
2. Rome would be the same name and capital for two civs and several other cities would have the exact same names.
3. Italy fits better as multiple city states than anything else
=====

Come to think of it, I would say a potential dark horse civ could be the Vatican/Papal States. Have had a ton of cultural influence around the world, would utilize Italian cities not currently used as city states, has acted as a world congress in previous civ games (Apostolic palace anyone?), a faith oriented civ, etc.

Click to expand...

On point 2, it'd be like Rome having Londonium. You could exclude it from the city list if Rome is in the game (don't they already do this with the US and Honolulu? I remember reading this somewhere..)

Personally, Italy seems more likely to me. The Papal states just aren't as well known.

Bad Wolf said:

I'm well aware of all of this (my degree is in history), but really we're getting way outside the focus of the discussion, which is what new Civs are going to be in BNW? (Am I the first one on this board to use that acronym?) And on the evidence, I just don't think Italy is very likely, for all the reasons I've already stated. All of these arguments about Italy's historical status are interesting, but put it this way: if I were betting money on this, I definitely wouldn't bet on Italy unless the house were giving me some really crazy odds.

Click to expand...

I suppose we should leave it at that then. This has no bearing whatsoever on which civs will be included anyway!

There are better things to discuss anyway. like speculation on the finer points. like the UUs and UBs.

I'm guessing Assyria's gonna have two UUs, no idea what it might be though.

I wouldn't mind seeing Austrailia and New Zeland in there. They'd fit a more modern theme and that region of the Earth is somewhat poorly represented.

Bad Wolf said:

I'm well aware of all of this (my degree is in history), but really we're getting way outside the focus of the discussion, which is what new Civs are going to be in BNW? (Am I the first one on this board to use that acronym?) And on the evidence, I just don't think Italy is very likely, for all the reasons I've already stated. All of these arguments about Italy's historical status are interesting, but put it this way: if I were betting money on this, I definitely wouldn't bet on Italy unless the house were giving me some really crazy odds.

Click to expand...

I didn't really think of Italy as a playable civ until I read that BNW( nice acronym you got there ) will focus on culture and commerce and a scramble for Africa scenario.
My first thought was:
Scramble for Africa you say?
I wonder what civs will be playable? Most likely Zulu, Portugal, maybe Kongo.
Belgium and Italy are also needed for this scenario, right?
They'll be probably renamed Dutch and Rome...wait a second.
New commerce and culture focus?
That really sounds a lot like an Italian thing.

And from that point on I believe Italy might be a possible civ. Considering Firaxis gave us the Huns and Sweden last time I decided not to remove Italy from the civs I could see in BNW.

Also hooray for another historian.

sukritact said:

This again? Firenze or Venecia is the perfect answer! You can be a bit flexible, those two cities were the centres of the renaissance anyway...

Click to expand...

No, that's far too much of a stretch. I don't dispute your point about those cities' relevance as being inaccurate, but you're looking at it from too in-depth of a perspective. Look at it from the point of view of casual fans, all the people who play this game and don't check fansites or have an extensive knowledge of history; the vast majority of people who would buy this expansion would look at Italy, see Firenze/Venecia, and immediately question why the capital of Italy isn't Rome.

I'm not saying your overall point is invalid, or that Italy wouldn't be a good addition (I'd like it, personally), but Rome must be its capital.

Kizo said:

No, that's far too much of a stretch. I don't dispute your point about those cities' relevance as being inaccurate, but you're looking at it from too in-depth of a perspective. Look at it from the point of view of casual fans, all the people who play this game and don't check fansites or have an extensive knowledge of history; the vast majority of people who would buy this expansion would look at Italy, see Firenze/Venecia, and immediately question why the capital of Italy isn't Rome.

I'm not saying your overall point is invalid, or that Italy wouldn't be a good addition (I'd like it, personally), but Rome must be its capital.

Click to expand...

I have the feeling that Assassin's Creed II made Florence and Venice so famous that most casual players won't be too surprised if the see either of them as the Italian capitol.

I'm gonna say Canada too. Yes send me your hate.

Tubbilicious said:

I wouldn't mind seeing Austrailia and New Zeland in there. They'd fit a more modern theme and that region of the Earth is somewhat poorly represented.

Click to expand...

I'm from New Zealand and I'd hate to see them in the game. I'd love to see Wellington as a CS, and I'd love to see the Maori as a separate civ in VI. But not NZ as a civ.