Brave New World's 9 new Civs

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that Italy in the Renaissance form could be a possible civilization. Cities such as Florence, Venice, and Genoa were the economic capitals in Europe in those day, which fits in nicely with the trade theme of the expansion. We can't forget either that Italy produced some of the worlds greatest artists (Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael) and that Florence and Rome are among the art capitals of the world (once again tying into the theme of the expansion). Making Florence the capital with the leader being either Cosimo or Lorenzo de Medici is certainly a possibility. I think the inclusion of the Ufuzzi Gallery as a wonder also makes a good case for an Italian civ
 
I'm glad Poland got in. At the end of the day this is a game for the fans and it would have been very unfortunate if they were omitted.

I really hope Indonesia/Majapahit/Srivijaya/etc makes it. I have a feeling most people prefer Vietnam and others just because they have been exposed to it more but really Indonesia the is the heart and soul of SE Asia
 
Menzies said:
Byzantium existed as a separate entity and evolved greatly over that time, being a major force in history. Italy has spent most of it's time as separate states until the unification, and if we're just taking about Italy since then, it doesn't even compare to Byzantium in terms of significance.

If we're going to talk about how culture evolves in regions like that we may as well campaign for a middle England and Great Britain in the game instead of just England.

What makes this absolutely ridiculous though is that people are now complaining about Italy only being represented by Rome, but having a single all encompassing "India"... nah, that's chill brah!
Click to expand...

Nobody is complaining about Italy being represented as Rome. People are pointing out that an Italian civ would work despite Rome being in game.
Your argument about separate states doesn't really work because we have quite some civs in game that never united until the industrial/modern era.
If we follow that logic we shouldn't have a playable Greece, Germany, India and Celts( unless I'm forgetting someone).
 
sukritact said:
And how is Greece any better?

Greece: Centre of Classical Development
Italy: Birthplace of the Renaissance

Greece: Bunch of City States
Italy: Bunch of City States

As for significance, wasn't the Renaissance significant enough? Leonardo Da Vinci, Michealangelo, Christopher Colombus (He was from Genoa), Galileo Galilei?

Meanwhile, Alexander isn't even Greek.
Click to expand...

Now we enter the domain of "what is Italy". Are we talking about Italy after the unification, or the association of various states?

With Greece there is a clear long term history that they are basing the Civilization off of, and as a cultural region it is quite well defined and has a history that stretches an inordinate time.

Now, the Italian states have been of significance to European history, but as that, states, not as "Italy" as such, which is a fairly recent development. You cite the Renaissance as a key here, which is before the Unification, so it's clear what's being discussed. How exactly would you go about creating "Italy" from the various smaller states? Who would be their leader for the game? Why is this not covered by Rome and the city states being in the game? Unlike Greece, there is the previous Empire of Rome in the game to cover the region, if Greece had something similar it would be in the game instead most likely. Greece however, is the predecessor here, and hence is in the game.
 
Art Grin said:
Nobody is complaining about Italy being represented as Rome. People are pointing out that an Italian civ would work despite Rome being in game.
Your argument about separate states doesn't really work because we have quite some civs in game that never united until the industrial/modern era.
If we follow that logic we shouldn't have a playable Greece, Germany, India and Celts( unless I'm forgetting something).
Click to expand...

The difference here is that as a region Rome covers what became Italy, there is no such Empire for Greece, Germany and India.

In fact, India probably should get more representation than it gets, but hey...
 
I'd argue Polynesia jumped through many more hoops
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but I don't think the situations are in any way the same. I just think you should look objectively at what they've done in the past (as opposed to what you hope they'll do in the future) if your object is to determine what they are likely to do. And the precedent they've set so far is that they avoid overlap. Constantinople and Istanbul is and always has been the major exception to this rule, and in this case it can be justified because the Byzantine and Ottoman empires are completely different and covered widely different (if somewhat overlapping) territory.

If you're just listing Italy among civs you hope they'll include, then I have no argument; everyone can hope for whatever they like.
 
Menzies said:
Now we enter the domain of "what is Italy". Are we talking about Italy after the unification, or the association of various states?

With Greece there is a clear long term history that they are basing the Civilization off of, and as a cultural region it is quite well defined and has a history that stretches an inordinate time.

Now, the Italian states have been of significance to European history, but as that, states, not as "Italy" as such, which is a fairly recent development. You cite the Renaissance as a key here, which is before the Unification, so it's clear what's being discussed. How exactly would you go about creating "Italy" from the various smaller states? Who would be their leader for the game? Why is this not covered by Rome and the city states being in the game? Unlike Greece, there is the previous Empire of Rome in the game to cover the region, if Greece had something similar it would be in the game instead most likely. Greece however, is the predecessor here, and hence is in the game.
Click to expand...

How?
The same way Greece is in game. The Greek civ we have in game is just as much an artificial creation as the proposed Italian civ.
Greece is led by Alexander( who didn't even rule over all Greek cities), it's UA is based on the Dalian League, one of it's UU is Macedonian and only the Hoplite is universally Greek. Greece in game is just a collection of historical aspects of ancient Greece, the same way an Italian civ can be done.
 
Let's be clear - the Byzantine and Ottoman empires are not "completely different". The Ottoman emperors even styled themselves as Roman emperors up to the nineteenth century. The situation is more like the Celts and the English, where the latter's military-aided migration assimilated the former in their heartlands. Boudicca is the Celt leader, and she was based close to what is now London. And the Iroquois and USA overlap too.
 
Menzies said:
Now we enter the domain of "what is Italy". Are we talking about Italy after the unification, or the association of various states?

With Greece there is a clear long term history that they are basing the Civilization off of, and as a cultural region it is quite well defined and has a history that stretches an inordinate time.

Now, the Italian states have been of significance to European history, but as that, states, not as "Italy" as such, which is a fairly recent development. You cite the Renaissance as a key here, which is before the Unification, so it's clear what's being discussed. How exactly would you go about creating "Italy" from the various smaller states? Who would be their leader for the game? Why is this not covered by Rome and the city states being in the game? Unlike Greece, there is the previous Empire of Rome in the game to cover the region, if Greece had something similar it would be in the game instead most likely. Greece however, is the predecessor here, and hence is in the game.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but I don't think the situations are in any way the same. I just think you should look objectively at what they've done in the past (as opposed to what you hope they'll do in the future) if your object is to determine what they are likely to do. And the precedent they've set so far is that they avoid overlap. Constantinople and Istanbul is and always has been the major exception to this rule, and in this case it can be justified because the Byzantine and Ottoman empires are completely different and covered widely different (if somewhat overlapping) territory.
Click to expand...

Geographic Area isn't really an issue. Rome somehow manages to overlap the Ottomans, the Celts, England, Egypt, Greece, Byzantium, Carthage, France, Spain, Arabia, etc. at various points in time.

And the fact that it's well represented by city-states is a good thing! It's a perfect excuse to diversify! In addition, doesn't it fit well with the themes: Culture and Trade?

Also, compare the extreriors of the (I believe the inside has been reworked? I'm not sure) Pantheon to the Duomos of Florence, Venice or Milan. It's obvious the are culturally distinct enough.
 
Let's be clear - the Byzantine and Ottoman empires are not "completely different".
Click to expand...

Maybe "completely" is too strong a word, but can we at least agree they're far less connected than Italy and Rome? I mean, the ideology of Italian unification was itself heavily based around the shared history of the Roman empire.

Geographic Area isn't really an issue. Rome somehow manages to overlap the Ottomans, the Celts, England, Egypt, Greece, Byzantium, Carthage, France, Spain, Arabia, etc. at various points in time.

And the fact that it's well represented by city-states is a good thing! It's a perfect excuse to diversify! In addition, doesn't it fit well with the themes: Culture and Trade?
Click to expand...

Again, not saying you're wrong, we don't know what they're going to include. But given there are only nine slots and given Italy is already amply represented in various ways... I wouldn't hold your breath. That's all I'm saying.
 
chrisjwmartin said:
The situation is more like the Celts and the English, where the latter's military-aided migration assimilated the former in their heartlands. Boudicca is the Celt leader, and she was based close to what is now London.
Click to expand...

More a case that she was responsbile of the first fire of London, burning down the Roman settlement.

Yes: further overlap with Rome-Celt-England.
 
Dregor said:
I'm gonna say it. Canada will be in! I believe!
Click to expand...

I would have thought someone would have asked about a Canadian civ by now? :confused:
 
Menzies said:
The difference here is that as a region Rome covers what became Italy, there is no such Empire for Greece, Germany and India.

In fact, India probably should get more representation than it gets, but hey...
Click to expand...

Well, Rome covers the areas now used by England, France, Spain and Austria, yet they are still in the game.
Only because Italy is located in the Roman heartland doesn't mean it is just a different era Rome. The Germanic migrations into Italy are about the same as the ones into Hispania and Gaul which in turn became France and Spain.
The peoples who lived in Italy became a very distinct entity from Rome throughout the middle-ages.
 
Bad Wolf said:
Maybe "completely" is too strong a word, but can we at least agree they're far less connected than Italy and Rome? I mean, the ideology of Italian unification was itself heavily based around the shared history of the Roman empire.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we're focusing on different time periods here. Unification has very little to do with the civ. And culturally they are wildly distinct

Bad Wolf said:
Again, not saying you're wrong, we don't know what they're going to include. But given there are only nine slots and given Italy is already amply represented in various ways... I wouldn't hold your breath. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

So the list so far is

Poland
Assyria

Most probably

Majapahit
Portugal
Kongo
Zulu
Brazil

So still two more spaces.

I still find it highly reasonable. They've never had problems removing city states for civs. They removed Oslo and Copenhagen for Denmark didn't they? This is a perfect time for them to diversify. It reasonably fits the themes as well.
 
My guesses with the new info:

1. Poland (Congratulations, but it can still spawn in N. Africa)
2. Assyria

Now lets say 4 civs involved with Scramble for Africa

3. Kongo
4. Portugal
5. Zulu
6. Morocco/Moors/Berbers

Civil War Scenario related
7. Comanche

Others:

8. Indonesia
9. Brazil
 
Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Zulu and Kongo would seem to be a lock given the Scramble for Africa scenario. With Poland confirmed and Assyria highly likely, it's going to be a busy Spring guessing the other two civs...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Legen
  • Locked
[Complex] (7-NS) Alternative Carthage adjustments
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Legen
Legen
pineappledan
[Sponsored] (7-58a) Songhai UA change
Replies
3
Views
342
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
pineappledan
[Sponsored] (7-30a) Carthage UA/UNW reworks
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Y
  • Locked
[Complex] (7-NS) Spain UA + UU rework
Replies
6
Views
347
pineappledan
pineappledan
Y
  • Locked
[Complex] (7-NS) Polynesia UA and Carthage UA+UB rework
Replies
16
Views
746
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Top Bottom