Brave New World's New Civilizations - REVISED!

Which civs would you most like to see in BNW?

  • Total voters
    396
steveg700 said:
At the end of the day, what does a Florence or Venice or Italy civ amount to? As with any civ, it's just picking three appropriate uniques, and a list of city names. So, let's say you have a civ called Italy, and the three uniques and city names work for Florence or Venice. What breaks? For Venice, I guess you have some holdings that aren't part of the italian peninsula. Is that it?
Click to expand...

Venice is a problem-reducing alternative to Italy. Other than that, there is nothing conclusive saying that Venice should be included over Italy, or vice-versa, and all that remains is left to an individual's preference. You're trying to break reason for Venice's inclusion over Italy, when that reason comes mostly of desire and not a better argument.
 
JFD said:
Venice is a problem-reducing alternative to Italy. Other than that, there is nothing conclusive saying that Venice should be included over Italy, or vice-versa, and all that remains is left to an individual's preference. You're trying to break reason for Venice's inclusion over Italy, when that reason comes mostly of desire and not a better argument.
Click to expand...
Trying to break reason for Venice's inclusion? Not at all. I'm breaking reason for voting "other" or "none of the above" when there are reasonably close matches. Label it Venice or Florence, it would still get my vote, because it would be unreasonable for me to expect a poll such as this to offer every conceivable choice with a 100% degree of exactitude.
 
THat's where we differ, Steveg. I have no great desire for an Italy civ, nor a Florence civ. I don't see either of them being a reasonably close match to a Venice civ (which I do desire). So, why on earth would I want to vote for the Italy one?
 
Moraiwe said:
THat's where we differ, Steveg. I have no great desire for an Italy civ, nor a Florence civ. I don't see either of them being a reasonably close match to a Venice civ (which I do desire). So, why on earth would I want to vote for the Italy one?
Click to expand...

This is basically how I feel as well.
 
Moraiwe said:
THat's where we differ, Steveg. I have no great desire for an Italy civ, nor a Florence civ. I don't see either of them being a reasonably close match to a Venice civ (which I do desire). So, why on earth would I want to vote for the Italy one?
Click to expand...

We're back to the exact same proposition I offered earlier to no great response. Given that a civilization consists simply of three uniques, a leader, and a list of city names, how would this great schism between Venice and Italy be reflected in one or the other?

Is it simply a matter of assigning a high priority to nomenclature, as I asserted before?
 
Since this is about which civs I would love to see rather than those most likely to get in. Here is my wishlist:

1. Indonesia-another SE Asia country, and quite different from Siam linguistically and culturally

2. Ashanti-West African coastal civ, involved in slave trade, possible female leader

3. Tibet-may never get in, but I don't care!, kinda fills the Central Asian gap. I'm not sure about a Timurid civ. Will Tamerlane speak Persian?

4. Mississippian (my favorite North American Indian civ, not that Puebloans are out)-though info is lacking, they had potential, Cahokia is even in the game

5. Nubia-ancient civ, influenced by Egypt, yet not identical, potential female leader (s)

6. Malagasy or Georgia or Taino: all have female rulers, Malagasy could work in the Scramble for Africa scenario (though it'll prolly be a city-state), Georgia represents the Caucasus (though Armenia is prolly more worthier), and Taino represents the Caribbean (also has a better female Amerindian leader than Pocahontas)
 
steveg700 said:
We're back to the exact same proposition I offered earlier to no great response. Given that a civilization consists simply of three uniques and a list of city names, what would this great schism between Venice and Italy consist of?

Is it simply a matter of assigning a high priority to nomenclature, as I asserted before?
Click to expand...

If a civ was directly related to venice it would no doubt have a venician leader, and a mix of maritime trade and culture coming through its uniques.

If a civ was based on italy, it would have maybe garibaldi as the leader and a cultural theme and potentially a religious one coming through at all levels. Italy is less known for trade than venice. It would also have to have at least one unique focussed on the modern Italy to justify calling it the modern state.

It's not simply nomenclature. The name can define the civ.
 
steveg700 said:
We're back to the exact same proposition I offered earlier to no great response. Given that a civilization consists simply of three uniques and a list of city names, what would this great schism between Venice and Italy consist of?

Is it simply a matter of assigning a high priority to nomenclature, as I asserted before?
Click to expand...

If Firaxis actually conformed to what you suggest, why, then, bother with the Celts? When you could engineer a British civ which incoporates all the things presented by England and all the things presented by the Celts. The identity of Venice and the identity of Italy are more distinct from one another for some people, just as the identity of the Holy Roman Empire and Prussia might not be for others. This is a poll/thread about what you want - not want you expect. Besides, Venice would play considerably differently to Italy and perhaps that is merely what those who voted Other-Venice want; a commercial Italy, not a cultural one.

True_Candyman also makes a valid point. A unified Italy has an increased chance of taking Garibaldi or Victor Emmanuel as leader. Immediately, then, Italy loses its appeal for some-because with them it feels too modern. Then if you give Italy a Papal/Florentine/Venetian leader (or any other) it glaringly discriminates against very distinct, very important political entities.
 
With the arrival of this "axeman" or "tomahawk" in another thread, it seems that there may well be two native american civs in the expansion, moreover two north american civs in the expansion.

Being an east coast civ it will no doubt have some involvement in the civil war scenario and thus will likely have been planned for inclusion at the same time as the pueblo. If the pueblo are indeed out then they likely have a substitute civ from North America to replace them. Of course it could be that the civ from the civil war scenario had enough together to make a full civ after the pueblo crashed and weren't in fact planned from the beginning, i guess that's open to debate.

Nonetheless, an east coast north american civ seems a lock now to me. That makes 4 certain civs. There could potentially be another but that's by no means a certainty.

The focus on africa means we've got to have another from there, which is at least 5.

Then we have a severe lack of asia focus that will no doubt garner at least one asia civ, which is a least 6.

I'm gunna go out on a limb and say those 3 will be the Cherokee, the Zulu and Majapahit. Then there are 3 slots left wide open.
 
I don't know why and i'm sorry i don't know much about history but i'd really like to see a appearance from Switzerland.
 
XboxAddict77 said:
I don't know why and i'm sorry i don't know much about history but i'd really like to see a appearance from Switzerland.
Click to expand...
Well, they got the bank accounts, so from the standpoint of a diplomatic victory, maybe they're not such a bad idea.

Unique unit could be the Pike Square, or "Switzer Pike".

Unique ability could be something like "Switzerland and any civilization they share embassies with receives +2% GPT. A Declaration of Friendship increases this to +4% per turn.

Or maybe some "armed neutrality" ability where no city-states will ever declare war on you.
 
True_Candyman said:
With the arrival of this "axeman" or "tomahawk" in another thread, it seems that there may well be two native american civs in the expansion, moreover two north american civs in the expansion.

Being an east coast civ it will no doubt have some involvement in the civil war scenario and thus will likely have been planned for inclusion at the same time as the pueblo. If the pueblo are indeed out then they likely have a substitute civ from North America to replace them. Of course it could be that the civ from the civil war scenario had enough together to make a full civ after the pueblo crashed and weren't in fact planned from the beginning, i guess that's open to debate.

Nonetheless, an east coast north american civ seems a lock now to me. That makes 4 certain civs. There could potentially be another but that's by no means a certainty.

The focus on africa means we've got to have another from there, which is at least 5.

Then we have a severe lack of asia focus that will no doubt garner at least one asia civ, which is a least 6.

I'm gunna go out on a limb and say those 3 will be the Cherokee, the Zulu and Majapahit. Then there are 3 slots left wide open.
Click to expand...


Personally I would assume that an eastern native american civ was the replacement for the Pueblo, as we don't know how far back the Pueblo were being worked on. Unless if they were scrapped very, very recently, then I doubt the game would have two north american civs.
 
I'll just point you to a world map for a moment - now if you look below the equator there are actually some pretty sizeable countries and precious little coverage in Civ 5. Australia Argentina, Zulu, Indonesia (or the earlier versions of that society (Majapahit), South Africa - all have strong cases.

I dont want to disrespect any Euro countries but the game is saturated with them and Northern Asia is solidly represented. Southern Africa, Southern Asia & Australia not so much.

If we are talking about a Brave New World then I'm saying Majaphit, Australia & Zulu(Sth Africa) should all make the cut. They probably wont but they SHOULD. Not including them ignores vast parts of the real world map and also history way too much.

The Moors should be in due to their effect on the world (and Nth Western Africa isn't really represented).

Portugal should be in because they were one of the truly great powers at one stage and did much of the exploration of the new world.

Another native American civ should be in. If not the Pueblo then another. Again that continent is a little underrepresented.
 
Hey there. Am a newbie that's been lurking for a few days, since BNW announcement. Getting excited about the new Civs. I voted for the Timurids, ideally with Ulugh Beg as leader, because they could have an exciting combination of military/rough terrain and science/astronomy bonuses which would be gnarly - enlightened warriors.

Also, considering the dire need for African civs, I can't believe no one has suggested Benin! (At least, I may've missed it if they had.) They were a fabulously influential and cultural nation; skilled metallurgs and sculptors; they helped kickstart the atlantic slave trade by selling captured enemies to merchant ships and even had diplomatic ties with Renaissance Europe; I think it was James the I&VI who had an ambassador in their court? With both the Scramble for Africa and new trade routes they would be a great addition, but I doubt I'm going to be lucky. Sob sob sob. :(

In fantasy land I would love to see a European Union civ, but would be very difficult to see them surviving early to mid game, as their UA, UB, UU, or UI would probably all need to be late late game. Unless their UA was an Iron Age Europe 'Urnfield Culture' or 'Longbarrow Builders' theme - with a limited ability to domesticate barbarians or turn encampments into cities or holy sites or similar. With any other uniques not coming in until very late in the game. But I think we have more chance of seeing an Atlantis civ.

I'm finding the Rome/Venezia/Italy conundrum interesting. As someone said, we have little problem with Boudicca and the Celts overlapping with Elizabeth and the English (even though Boudicca is somewhat Scottish flavoured in the game). And it's worth considering that with Scramfrica we might well see a (scenario specific?) British Empire civ, with Cecil Rhodes as leader, maybe? So that's the British with three Civs, why not Italy? Ancient Rome, Renaissance Venice, and Fascist Italy.

I hope my first post hasn't been too long, boring or broken some hideous rule I should have observed and will now be duly crucified. :eekdance:
 
LordProtector said:
Hey there. Am a newbie that's been lurking for a few days, since BNW announcement. Getting excited about the new Civs. I voted for the Timurids, ideally with Ulugh Beg as leader, because they could have an exciting combination of military/rough terrain and science/astronomy bonuses which would be gnarly - enlightened warriors.

Also, considering the dire need for African civs, I can't believe no one has suggested Benin! (At least, I may've missed it if they had.) They were a fabulously influential and cultural nation; skilled metallurgs and sculptors; they helped kickstart the atlantic slave trade by selling captured enemies to merchant ships and even had diplomatic ties with Renaissance Europe; I think it was James the I&VI who had an ambassador in their court? With both the Scramble for Africa and new trade routes they would be a great addition, but I doubt I'm going to be lucky. Sob sob sob. :(

In fantasy land I would love to see a European Union civ, but would be very difficult to see them surviving early to mid game, as their UA, UB, UU, or UI would probably all need to be late late game. Unless their UA was an Iron Age Europe 'Urnfield Culture' or 'Longbarrow Builders' theme - with a limited ability to domesticate barbarians or turn encampments into cities or holy sites or similar. With any other uniques not coming in until very late in the game. But I think we have more chance of seeing an Atlantis civ.

I'm finding the Rome/Venezia/Italy conundrum interesting. As someone said, we have little problem with Boudicca and the Celts overlapping with Elizabeth and the English (even though Boudicca is somewhat Scottish flavoured in the game). And it's worth considering that with Scramfrica we might well see a (scenario specific?) British Empire civ, with Cecil Rhodes as leader, maybe? So that's the British with three Civs, why not Italy? Ancient Rome, Renaissance Venice, and Fascist Italy.

I hope my first post hasn't been too long, boring or broken some hideous rule I should have observed and will now be duly crucified. :eekdance:
Click to expand...

Welcome. :)
I think we're all excited. Yay anticipation!
:woohoo:
 
Portugal should be for sure.
Great Zimbabue for some subsaarian african role, or Congo, or Ngola.
Australia to fit a role in that part of the globe.
Argentina, to opose Brazil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hinin
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (6-70) Add New City-States When Major Civs Are Absent Ingame
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Recursive
Recursive
Leoreth
New and Changed Civilizations in 1.18
9 10 11
Replies
200
Views
26K
HNation
HNation
PDX Firefly
Developer Diary | After the Demo
Replies
5
Views
965
Sephi
S
Recursive
  • Locked
New BETA Version - 4.4.2 (December 31, 2023)
11 12 13
Replies
240
Views
35K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
New Version - 3.7.12 (August 4, 2023)
13 14 15
Replies
283
Views
46K
Recursive
Recursive
Top Bottom