What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?

steveg700 said:

Maylasia's a bit of a surprise. Good for them, I suppose.

Click to expand...

A lot of people go through Kuala Lumpur, so "international tourist arrivals" might not be the best measure depending on how it's done.

Zipa_DH said:

Polynesians, Celts, Mayans, and if we are more strict, with India too.

I'm just saying if they did it with all these, why they didn't do it with african civs?

Click to expand...

With Polynesia there's no other feasible way to represent that area, and Firaxis apparently wanted to visit an area no other Civ game had done. They might do something similar for Australia, but there's no justification for them doing it for Africa, which has a great many state-level entities that have yet to be represented (and where a trade-focused expansion is concerned, the Swahili would be a more obvious choice than the Bantu in any event, which still leaves the Zulus as the Zulus).

India has always represented post-colonial India in Civ games, hence Gandhi and a capital in Delhi. Suggesting that India encompasses multiple states because it's only recently been unified is equivalent to arguing the same about Germany.

The Maya were always politically Maya even though they operated as alliances of city-states and satellite cities. They're much more closely analogous to the game's Greeks than a predominantly tribal and agrarian ethnic group like the Bantu, which varied widely in cultural traditions, types of settlement and political structure.

The Celts indeed don't make any sense, but (a) they have been in past Civ games as the Celts, (b) in Civ's American homeland (and possibly more generally among its Western audience) there's a substantial demographic that sees itself as Celtic, and (c) It gives them an excuse to add Boudicca to the game (and, in Civ IV, Vercingetorix).

With the Bantu you'd be talking about removing an existing, popular civ with a charismatic leader figure for no gain, either thematic or in demographic coverage. There's no precedent for that in Civ games - the Celts weren't created by removing an Irish or Scottish civ.

We can expect the Zulu and hopefully Zimbabwe as a mercantile city state, but not a Bantu civ.

steveg700 said:

Yes, if you just look at the list and accept its results, that's fine. But it certainly looks like any entrance by a foreigner for any duration is being considered a tourist. So, if you're just passing through, say for example, Croatia because of its central location, you just helped it look like a tourist hotspot.

Of course, expense has a lot to do with it. Shouldn't be any surprise that people find it to hit Tijuna than Rio.

Maylasia's a bit of a surprise. Good for them, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Malaysia is accessible, offers quite a lot for tourists (colonial heritage, the Towers, wildlife tourism particularly in Sarawak and Sabah, as well as niche ethnographic tourism with mainland hill tribes and several ethnic groups in Malaysian Borneo), and is a dive destination.

awesome said:

According to the world tourism organization, brazil Isn't in the top ten tourist destinations. In 2008, the most recent year that listed past the top ten on that site, brazil didn't even crak the top 40. If we go by that source--and I say this as somebody who once did a report on tourism in brazil--almost any civilization in the game deserves a tourism bonus before brazil does.

Click to expand...

To be honest I don't think it matters whether Brazil is actually well-known for Tourism, it's more so whether people perceive it to be so.

Actually, New Delhi was created to be the capital of British India - so Delhi being the capital is (aside from missing out the 'new') consistent with colonial India as well as post-colonial.

awesome said:

According to the world tourism organization, brazil Isn't in the top ten tourist destinations. In 2008, the most recent year that listed past the top ten on that site, brazil didn't even crak the top 40. If we go by that source--and I say this as somebody who once did a report on tourism in brazil--almost any civilization in the game deserves a tourism bonus before brazil does.

Click to expand...

Brazil would have bigger chances of having an UA related to or than having an UA related to tourism .

cybrxkhan said:

To be honest I don't think it matters whether Brazil is actually well-known for Tourism, it's more so whether people perceive it to be so.

Click to expand...

Isn't 'well-known' a descriptor of perception?

GenjiKhan said:

Brazil would have bigger chances of having an UA related to or than having an UA related to tourism .

Click to expand...

I agree, but an UB related to tourism - namely the sambodromes - would fit perfectly. It's not only about perception, but if the civ offers something that could be used as an unique feature. Most of the top touristic destinations attracts a lot of tourists for its "World Wonders", but now that's a general mechanism.

PhilBowles said:

With Polynesia there's no other feasible way to represent that area, and Firaxis apparently wanted to visit an area no other Civ game had done.

Click to expand...

Bolded part isn't actually true. Or even remotely close to being true.

That being said, it's the second part that I think should be focused on - at least some of the African civs have been represented before, and nobody's about to mistake the Swahili for the Zulu...

Camikaze said:

Isn't 'well-known' a descriptor of perception?

Click to expand...

I think what he means is that it has to have a "tourist-y" feel to it. A lot of people think of beaches when they think of Brazil, even if it isn't statistically one of the biggest tourist destinations in the world.

Camikaze said:

Isn't 'well-known' a descriptor of perception?

Click to expand...

Ah, mistyped there. I meant even if statistically it isn't the top tourist destination in the world, if most people don't know and don't care, then it isn't relevant in a sense.

CivOasis said:

Bolded part isn't actually true. Or even remotely close to being true.

Click to expand...

Really? How would you go about it? You could have isolated island peoples such as the Hawaiians, Tongolese or Maori, some of which could justifiably be treated as state-level civs, but that would not serve the goal of giving meaningful representation to Polynesian cultures - any one you chose would be self-contained, isolated and unrepresentative of wider Polynesian culture, while geographically you'd fit it in a tiny part of the Pacific that wouldn't be visible on most maps (New Zealand aside). None would individually seem to warrant inclusion in a Civ game. It would be about as feasible for a Civ-scale game to take that approach as it would for it to represent Australia with a single Aboriginal tribe.

Well, that assumes that you intend to represent a pan-Polynesian culture, as opposed to a Hawai'ian or Maori civ, for example. Such an argument is akin to requesting a unified Latin American civ as opposed to requesting Brazil (Or Mexico, or Gran Colombia, or whatever it is you prefer).

As for "warranting inclusion," I hardly see that as a valid argument. These are cultures with impressive seafaring traditions, no prior representation, and few - if any - competing propositions in the region.

And while some cultures may have provided more difficulty than others, it would hardly be a problem to create a city list for the Maori or Hawai'ians, to name a couple. Unique components, again, are hardly difficult for several of the regions.

It's a lot closer to the whole "Latin American civ" argument than it is to an "Aboriginal Australian civ."

Now, that being said, I'm impressed and pleased that the Polynesians were included in civ at all, and I'm not complaining about the way it was done, I'm just saying that it is far from impossible - or even difficult - to make a civ that isn't pan-Polynesian.

1 point for me with Brazil

It really saddens me no one pays attention to one of the boldest, most interesting Native American civ not from North America that largely deserves to be included: The Mapuche from Chile & Argentina.

The Mapuche must be included this time on BNW. Not because I want it to, it's because a matter of justice with this brave nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche

The Mapuche were the only nation to successfully defeat the Inca and the Spaniards and preserve their beloved culture. They fought bravely for over 400 years (and they still do!) to keep they culture, language and beliefs intact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_war

The Mapuche were the only Pre-Columbian civ the Spaniards wrote in 1569 an epic poem celebrating their bravery, "La Araucana". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Araucana
Lautaro, one of their greatest commanders in battle, was largely celebrated in "La Araucana" and he deserves to be honoured in the game if the Mapuche are included.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautaro_(toqui)

I have nothing against new Native American Civs, but come on people, what have the Anasazi, Sioux, Navajo or Comanche have contributed to World History besides being depicted in Western movies??

quidpronihilo said:

I have nothing against new Native American Civs, but come on people, what have the Anasazi, Sioux, Navajo or Comanche have contributed to World History besides being depicted in Western movies??

Click to expand...

I gotta say, I reflexively dismiss posts advocating for someone's pet civilization when they can't make the case for their pick without crapping on other civilizations in really broad, generalizing ways. I wish posters on this board could get out of that habit.

Nujabes said:

I gotta say, I reflexively dismiss posts advocating for someone's pet civilization when they can't make the case for their pick without crapping on other civilizations in really broad, generalizing ways. I wish posters on this board could get out of that habit.

Click to expand...

"Pet Civilization"? You gotta be kidding me, seriously, read some more History outside American Elementary School textbooks and you'd be surprised how much you don't know about brave cultures defeating larger empires instead of a bunch of tribes smoking peace pipes and gunning down cowboys, my friend.

Liex said:

So Paraguay - which is more of a Guarani speaker than a Spanish speaker - would represent Latin America better than Brazil because the later speaks Portuguese?

And if the two most populous countries in the region had monarchies, I don't know how republican Latin America was. (Considering that Mexico's monarchy only lasted 2 years, the region was very republican indeed, but we're talking about Latin America, not Hispanic America, so Brazil must be taken into account with all its differences)

Brazil and Bolívar's Colombia are the ones with better chances, followed by Argentina and Mexico. I'd say that Paraguay chances are nonexistent, not even of becoming a City-State.

Click to expand...

hehe seems you're right, confirmed Brazil...I really wanna Colombia, but I'm not sure now...

quidpronihilo said:

It really saddens me no one pays attention to one of the boldest, most interesting Native American civ not from North America that largely deserves to be included: The Mapuche from Chile & Argentina.

I have nothing against new Native American Civs, but come on people, what have the Anasazi, Sioux, Navajo or Comanche have contributed to World History besides being depicted in Western movies??

Click to expand...

Agree, they're the native americans with most success fighting colonization, but sadly nobody cares them

quidpronihilo said:

"Pet Civilization"? You gotta be kidding me, seriously, read some more History outside American Elementary School textbooks and you'd be surprised how much you don't know about brave cultures defeating larger empires instead of a bunch of tribes smoking peace pipes and gunning down cowboys, my friend.

Click to expand...

Way to miss the entire point of my post, which was not about specifically about the Mapuche at all, and presume way too much about what I do or not know about different societies. Get a grip and take it down a notch, you take yourself (and this game) a bit too seriously. You keep feeling the need to insult Northern American tribes because you're upset about your pet civilization not being in, which is kind of amusing because it displays your own ignorance even as you complain about mine.

Nujabes said:

Way to miss the entire point of my post, which was not about specifically about the Mapuche at all, and presume way too much about what I do or not know about different societies. Get a grip and take it down a notch, you take yourself (and this game) a bit too seriously. You keep feeling the need to insult Northern American tribes because you're upset about your pet civilization not being in, which is kind of amusing because it displays your own ignorance even as you complain about mine.

Click to expand...

You are one of several US-centric History "connoisseurs" I've had to deal with frequently. Sir, without any intention of creating polemic over an internet thread, get a real History book, seriously. You have no idea of History. "Pet Civilization", meh.

Moderator Action: This sort of post is simply not acceptable. Chill, and don't attack other users. Address the content of their posts, rather than presuming to know the depth of their historical knowledge.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889