Brave New World's 9 new Civs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bad Wolf said:
and especially Italy, whose CAPITAL is the capital of another civ, which is obviously unworkable! Sumer and the Hittites are probably out if Assyria is included (Assyria and Babylon cover ancient Mesopotamia pretty well).
Click to expand...

Why!? Have Firenze or Venecia as the Capital and Roma as a foundable city (much like Rome has Londonium).

I mean Byzantium and the Ottomans same city for their Capitals. Just different names! Why do people keep overlooking Constantinople and Istanbul; The Hagia Sophia dominates both their skylines!
 
DataTraveler said:
I really would like if they included Lithuania It had a very rich history in medieval times -:)
Click to expand...

Most likely they'll be treated as part of the new Poland Civ, much in the same way that Norway will be considered part of Denmark for the sake of the game and Hungary part of Austria (I'd assume).
 
Art Grin said:
I'm not to sure about Indonesia. It seems like a logical choice to us, but that doesn't mean the developers think like us.
Everything other then the four you named aren't certain, Firaxis can always chose some obscure civ nobody expected( like Sweden or the Huns in G&K) instead of something everybody expects.
Click to expand...

The thing about Majapahit/Indonesia is that after Poland and Polynesia, both of which got in, its the civ that's got the most noise from the forums (or at least on the official 2K forums).
 
I do realize that Italy is rather different from Rome (the earliest time-period for Italy having been suggested is after all almost 1000 years after the fall of Rome), but with Poland and presumably Portugal Europe would just be too crowded, I think that the Italian city states would best be left represented by city states.

My guesslist:

  1. Poland
  2. Assyria
  3. Portugal
  4. Zulu
  5. Kongo or Swahili
  6. Indonesia/Majapahit
  7. Comanche or Sioux
  8. A modern nation like Brazil
  9. ... And about now I realize I really have no idea what other civs could possibly be added to the game.

Though I'd also love to see Malagasy, another Andean civ and the Mapuche.
 
Menzies said:
Most likely they'll be treated as part of the new Poland Civ, much in the same way that Norway will be considered part of Denmark for the sake of the game and Hungary part of Austria (I'd assume).
Click to expand...

Well yeah it depends if developers are looking at Poland medieval ages as it was in Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Or as it is now with just polish culture. However Lithuania has its own history before and after it was in the commonwealth.
Lithuania was once the biggest country in Europe spanning from Baltic sea to Black sea!!
 
I personally think that the siege tower will be a new unit altogether, not a UU.

As I've mentioned before in another thread, I'm hoping for the Haidas as a Native American Civ.
 
Even if the Assyrians are indeed in, I'd still love to see Sumeria in the game. I'd love to see a list like:

1. Poland
2. Assyria
3. Portugal
4. Zulu
5. Indonesia
6. Sumeria
7. Brazil
8. Kongo
9. Khmer

But I don't see it happening.

With a focus on international trade we could see a surprise from the silk road, but we'll have to wait and see. I think people mentioning Belgium might just be on to something, would seem a bit of a surprise, but with the 'Out of Africa' scenario and their general tendency towards Europe, it wouldn't be that unlikely.
 
Why!? Have Firenze or Venecia as the Capital and Roma as a foundable city (much like Rome has Londonium).
Click to expand...

Okay, but the fact that you have to go through so many contortions to include a civ that is already well-represented by city-states and its extremely notable antecedent should indicate to you that it's highly unlikely, no?
 
Menzies said:
Even if the Assyrians are indeed in, I'd still love to see Sumeria in the game. I'd love to see a list like:

1. Poland
2. Assyria
3. Portugal
4. Zulu
5. Indonesia
6. Sumeria
7. Brazil
8. Kongo
9. Khmer
Click to expand...

I can't see the Khmer as a civ with Siam. What would be the UU, another elephant? I'd like to see it though. Perhaps with 2 UBs.

Bad Wolf said:
Okay, but the fact that you have to go through so many contortions to include a civ that is already well-represented by city-states and its extremely notable antecedent should indicate to you that it's highly unlikely, no?
Click to expand...

I'd argue Polynesia jumped through many more hoops (Compressing a bunch of semi-related cultures over a distance of thousands of miles into a single civ?).

And like I said. It opens up the city states for a much more diverse range. the Americas (esp. the modern states) could use better city-state representation; In fact I'm especially eager for this BECAUSE of the city-states.
 
Also Byzantium is closer to ancient rome than italy would be being they were the remnants of the old roman empire. Saying italy and rome are the same is like saying the huns make hungary redundant because of geographical location.
 
InsanelyApple said:
Hungary? Well, Austria is in the game. Doesn't that count? I mean the Austria-Hungarian Empire was a major power.
Click to expand...

This again.:rolleyes: It's like saying that the US was *initially* part of England, so it is irrelevant to put them in-game, put only the British to the game and mention the Americans as only a footnote in the most negligible part of the Civilopedia. If that would be the case, I think many would ask: why do we have to be a footnote? Or even less?
 
tmacdec said:
Also Byzantium is closer to ancient rome than italy would be being they were the remnants of the old roman empire. Saying italy and rome are the same is like saying the huns make hungry redundant because of geographical location.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, please correct Hungary. I stared at that word, confused for a moment.
 
tmacdec said:
Also Byzantium is closer to ancient rome than italy would be being they were the remnants of the old roman empire. Saying italy and rome are the same is like saying the huns make hungry redundant because of geographical location.
Click to expand...

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!
 
The four likely to be in will be Poland (announced), Assyria (siege tower wouldn't fit anyone else), Zululand and Portugal (those two have been featured in previous games).

As for the other five, here's my guesses, though not necessarily the ones I would want:

Indonesia - most plausible SE Asian civilization - while I would like to see Vietnam or even the Khmer, those are too close to Siam
Kongo - or some other sub-saharan African civ like Nubia or the Swahili or something
Italy - somehow related to the World Congress thingy and would make sense in a scenario featurnig it
Sioux or Apache - perhaps would go along as a non-playable civ in the Civil War scenario
Another Middle Eastern civ like the Hittites or Sumeria
 
I think it's more likely the siege tower is just a new unit anyone can get. I really like that idea, and think it would really add some tactics to taking cities. Nice idea Herald.
 
Menzies said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

And Classical Greece was never truly united (the only time I've heard of Sparta and Athens united is during the war with Persia). Macedon came and conquered them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Legen
[Complex] (7-30b) Alternative Carthage adjustments
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Legen
Legen
pineappledan
[DLL] (7-58a) Songhai UA change
Replies
0
Views
171
pineappledan
pineappledan
pineappledan
[DLL] (7-30a) Carthage UA/UNW reworks
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
2K
pineappledan
pineappledan
Y
[Complex] (7-89) Spain UA + UU rework
Replies
6
Views
309
pineappledan
pineappledan
Y
[Complex] (7-30) Polynesia UA and Carthage UA+UB rework
Replies
16
Views
692
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Top Bottom