Here's a well made map by Liex some time ago.
Thread about the map: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459909
Spoiler :
Thread about the map: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459909
What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?
- Thread starter AbsintheRed
- Start date
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Fun Fact: Your fact is wrong. Horses are actually originally native to the Americas and eventually the species spread out across the Being Strait. Another fun fact, camels are originally native to the Americas as well - Just like horses they reached the rest of the world via the Bering Strait.
Horses went extinct in the Americas about 14,000 years ago. So that means there was a brief period of time when humans and horses existed at the same time in the Americas prior to the Europeans. But yes, your larger point stands.
awesome
Meme Lord
Lots of things are where they are today because of Columbian exchanges. That doesn't change the fact that there were some pretty effective mounted natives. I'd expect them to be lancer and cavalry replacements instead of anything earlier anyway.
JanghanHong
Enrico Trololo
People didn't arrive in the Americas until 12000 years ago.
Also, the domestic horses were product of thousand years of incremental domestication, the "horses" in the NA would have been useless.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Still doesn't change the fact that the Sioux, Comanche, Apache, etc. would never have had horses had it not been for one of the most important and often neglected moments in American history:
The Pueblo revolt and destruction of the Spanish colony in the southwest changed Spain's plans for settling the interior [Only 2,000 people were spared and largely because a good number of these colonists were natives from previously conquered Spanish territory]. Thousands of horses were seized from the fleeing Spanish and most were released to the wild and some were traded to other native American Civs in the interior.
Once again, without the Anasazi/Pueblo/Hohokam [They are still the same people] none of that cavalry culture that the US loves would have been able to exist
The Pueblo revolt and destruction of the Spanish colony in the southwest changed Spain's plans for settling the interior [Only 2,000 people were spared and largely because a good number of these colonists were natives from previously conquered Spanish territory]. Thousands of horses were seized from the fleeing Spanish and most were released to the wild and some were traded to other native American Civs in the interior.
Once again, without the Anasazi/Pueblo/Hohokam [They are still the same people] none of that cavalry culture that the US loves would have been able to exist
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
You are wrong on the people didn't arrive in the Americas until 12,000 years ago. Radiocarbon dates suggest people in the northwest by 16,000 years ago.
And that's ignoring the massive trend that's currently flowing the university systems and anthropology departments in the world that the Bering Strait wasn't the only method of settling. There are several sites (IE Pumapunku) that seem to suggest various pockets of South America/Central America were settled 18,000-20,000 years ago.
The Maya Holy Book, the Popol Vuh, talks about how people in the Americas came largely from "the north" a place of constant ashes and cold [What many anthropologists think is the Bering Strait] but that Mesoamerica was already settled by people who had crossed from across the Seas by the time they arrived. The "solely" Bering Strait theory is outdated and coming into question from more and more sources [The Popol Vuh says that most of the people who came from the north eventually displaced the earlier peoples, or integrated them into their new societies (Side note, the Popol Vuh can at least be dated back to over 1,000 B.C., so its a fairly old book)] .
But yes, you are right that the wild horses that were here in the Americas wouldn't have been nearly as useful for people here as domesticated horses. Still, it takes time to domesticate things. [Have you seen the wild descendant of corn? Humans domesticated corn over thousands of years from a wild prickly grass that was smaller than half an inch in length to what we know today, it takes time and domestication is hard to predict]
Moderator Action: Please stay on topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
What I voted for by probability (mostly what everybody else also voted for, with the exception being Kongo):
1. Portugal
2. Zulu
3. Native Northern American (Plains) Civ
4. Brazil
5. Indonesia/Majapahit Empire
With Poland & Assyria being given (not really sure how those fit the context of the expansion name) I hope we would also see Israel/Judaea in some form and the Hittites.
1. Portugal
2. Zulu
3. Native Northern American (Plains) Civ
4. Brazil
5. Indonesia/Majapahit Empire
With Poland & Assyria being given (not really sure how those fit the context of the expansion name) I hope we would also see Israel/Judaea in some form and the Hittites.
Here's a well made map by Liex some time ago.
Spoiler :
Thread about the map: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459909
That map! Soon I'll have to update it.
Ah, yes, that's the one I was thinking of. My apologies for attributing elsewhere, Liex.
Anyways, backtracking to my comment on colonies, I did indeed mean the colonial era, and specifically those nations that were results of colonization during the period - in the game, the only one we see is the US, which can largely be attributed to it being the homeland and main market of the game.
Now, if the Brazilian market is really that big, it might be possible to see that come over, but - and correct me if I'm wrong - didn't it take the efforts of modders to even get Civ translated into Portuguese?
Please note that I am in no way attempting to take away from Brazil's accomplishments - I would actually find it a deserving and interesting addition to the game - I just rather doubt that it will be in. Portugal, IMO, stands a much better chance at inclusion.
Anyways, backtracking to my comment on colonies, I did indeed mean the colonial era, and specifically those nations that were results of colonization during the period - in the game, the only one we see is the US, which can largely be attributed to it being the homeland and main market of the game.
Now, if the Brazilian market is really that big, it might be possible to see that come over, but - and correct me if I'm wrong - didn't it take the efforts of modders to even get Civ translated into Portuguese?
Please note that I am in no way attempting to take away from Brazil's accomplishments - I would actually find it a deserving and interesting addition to the game - I just rather doubt that it will be in. Portugal, IMO, stands a much better chance at inclusion.
I don't think it's that big, but a lot of gaming companies are coming to Brazil (eg.: Blizzard translated all of its games into PT-BR, and they have a lot of voice acting and stuff. Riot, a smaller company that owns League of Legends, recently launched BR servers and translated the entire game as well), so perhaps it's considerable. Actually Civ V would be extremely easy to translate, since it doesn't require one voice actor for each leader, but anyway...
There is a translation of Civilization for Brazilian Portuguese .
Portugal has the advantage of being in Civ4 and the Scramble of Africa scenario just confirms that Portugal,along with Zulu,will return . About Brazil,I'm pretty sure it will be included,more because of their rich history and culture than its selling potencial,although the late one can be seen as a bit of incentive for them,thanks to this:
http://store.steampowered.com/news/9299/
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
The G&K civs basically fell into two camps: Previous inclusions (the majority), and wild cards. There weren't really any 'expected' civs that hadn't been in previous Civ games (except possibly Austria). No one anticipated the Huns or Sweden. If BNW does the same, none of the commonly-suggested names are likely to make it except for civs that have previously been in the game. We might be seeing something similar with Assyria - there have been lots of suggestions for Sumer or the Hittites (both in past Civ games), but Assyria is something of an unexpected addition. Although many people have suggested Poland.
I think the most likely civs to be added are the two 'big names' from past games missing from the current one: Portugal and the Zulu. Sumeria, the Hittites and Mali don't really have the same resonance with players. Portugal also fits very well with the emphasis on international trade, and as in G&K it's likely they'll want civs that showcase at least one of the new mechanics. Portgual may or may not preclude the inclusion of Brazil.
The Khmer have a good chance for inclusion, and with Asia largely ignored in G&K (the Huns may have originated there, but wouldn't have made the cut if not for their influence on European history) I hope for a couple of Asian civs this time around. But with Siam already in the game there's a good chance of a 'wild card' SE Asian civ, either Burma or Vietnam (Vientiane would be a very wild card and I suspect unlikely) in their place.
I also suspect Indonesia is likely to make the cut, despite being "expected" - it had an important role in regional trade, it's important into the modern era the expansion wants to focus on, and it represents a large area not previously covered by Civ games.
They may want to finish off the European roster once and for all with Belgium, another outsider although one that fits the Scramble for Africa scenario (which means little if anything).
Incidentally, I like the map posted in the thread, but shouldn't English influence be marked as hashes throughout most of the world...?
I think the most likely civs to be added are the two 'big names' from past games missing from the current one: Portugal and the Zulu. Sumeria, the Hittites and Mali don't really have the same resonance with players. Portugal also fits very well with the emphasis on international trade, and as in G&K it's likely they'll want civs that showcase at least one of the new mechanics. Portgual may or may not preclude the inclusion of Brazil.
The Khmer have a good chance for inclusion, and with Asia largely ignored in G&K (the Huns may have originated there, but wouldn't have made the cut if not for their influence on European history) I hope for a couple of Asian civs this time around. But with Siam already in the game there's a good chance of a 'wild card' SE Asian civ, either Burma or Vietnam (Vientiane would be a very wild card and I suspect unlikely) in their place.
I also suspect Indonesia is likely to make the cut, despite being "expected" - it had an important role in regional trade, it's important into the modern era the expansion wants to focus on, and it represents a large area not previously covered by Civ games.
They may want to finish off the European roster once and for all with Belgium, another outsider although one that fits the Scramble for Africa scenario (which means little if anything).
Incidentally, I like the map posted in the thread, but shouldn't English influence be marked as hashes throughout most of the world...?
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
In fact, Carthage is in, while Phoenicia is not... unfortunately
But this is a special case of course, Carthage is way too old and significant to be historically considered as a colonial civ
They have put enough down on the table (while being unique enough) to be considered as a separate civ
Carthage wasn't a colony in the sense of 'colonialism' as now understood. It was like any state: founded by people from somewhere else. That somewhere else happened to be the Phoenician states, but Carthage wasn't ruled from an external Phoenician power and wasn't in any meaningful sense Phoenician.
As far as game representation goes, I think the current representation is ideal: most major Phoenician cities are in the game as city states (there never was a unified Phoenician empire), while Carthage is a full empire.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Yeah, it's of course subjective, but I would love to see a full Phoenicia civ in the game.
Much more than a unified Italy civ (something form the Italian city states or representing modern Italy), or than a Brazil civ for example.
I would even prefer them to the Zulu, Kongo, or to any other african civ...
I have no idea how big percent of the civvers are with me on this, but Phoenicia could definitely be a worthly addition
Also, while city states may represent the Phoenicians to some extent, it's very from far giving a full picture
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
I'd particularly like the Merina (Malagasy), but they're not likely even with room for two or three African civs. The Zulu are almost a certainty (they could sell as DLC, but Firaxis will do better by using the name to prompt people to pay for a full expansion including them); if there are others Kongo and the Moors seem most probable.
Personally, I prefer the game's city-states to be genuine city states, rather than random capitals like Sydney, and I'm glad that as time's gone on Firaxis has gradually replaced "preoccupied" names like Vienna with real city-states (the Phoenician states, Cahokia, Vatican City, Venice, Monaco etc.) or cities with some kind of semi-independent history (such as Geneva and Wittenburg). As it is there aren't really enough options for city-states that aren't preoccupied (we can't have Sparta for example because Greece has it, while all the Maya territories were independent to semi-independent city-states). With Civ V the game has moved more towards representing genuine unified empires as civs and has fewer "catch-all" civs like "Native Americans" or "Vikings", and represents non-imperial states as CSes (with the exceptions of Polynesia, the Huns, the Celts, the Maya and now almost certainly the Zulu - however aside from the Maya none of these had city-state structures either).
AbsintheRed
Deity
I think at least 2 african civs will be added in this expansion
Still, I hope that the Zulu will be added later
They are popular enough to be very profitable with any form, especially with DLC
(and I would love to see as many full civs as possible)
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
The map is more representative of the core regions dominated by the various civilizations. If it represented the civs at their greatest extent, Mongolia, for instance, would be all over Eurasia, which would defeat the purpose of the map which is to show where gaps are in civs.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Except notice how they planned ahead. The Songhai have Timboctou and Jenne, spellings never used for these cities. That may have been deliberate to make room for cities with the correct spelling to be used in a Malian civ (although many other cities would likely overlap).
If the G&K scenarios are any guide, the scenarios won't have any particular relevance to what civs are included. Fewer than half the civs in G&K were related to any of the scenarios, the ones that were related to only two of the three, and the majority of scenario civs didn't make it in. It's not likely that the ACW scenario will include any civs that are represented in the main game.
There's no reason the Civ V Khmer would have a similar playstyle to the Civ IV Khmer. They may make it in, but could equally be held over as a DLC. They don't have any particular resonance with any of the new expansion's themes and they don't relate to its scenarios, unlike the 'front runner' suggestions (notwithstanding my above comment about scenarios). One barrier is that the only obvious colour scheme - the colours of the modern Cambodian flag - is already taken by Korea (not sure why; white is the dominant colour on the South Korean flag, and blue the tertiary colour, so they should either have white in their civ colours or their existing scheme should be blue on red rather than red on blue).
I seriously doubt that Mali was planned from the start, let alone that the reason for Songhai spellings was that.
Of course, the whole Byzantium/Greece/Ottomans thing we have going on now certainly shows that they're willing to do it.
Of course, the whole Byzantium/Greece/Ottomans thing we have going on now certainly shows that they're willing to do it.
Similar threads
