What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?

quidpronihilo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Part of the reason you're getting flamed in multiple threads is because you presume a lot about the posters you're trying to respond to, even though you don't know anything about me or what I know about history. Here's a hint, it's a lot more than you think. No one cares about your history of arguing with American posters on the internet.

I again have said nothing about the Mapuche, who sadly aren't going to be in this game; I'm responding to your arrogance and self-righteousness (very American of you, I must say). Please give it a rest and check yourself, there's enough idiocy on this forum without folks like you adding to it.

Moderator Action: If you have a problem with someone else's posts, please report them rather than retaliating or picking a fight.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The Mapuche haven't really contributed much to history, either. Probably less than the Sioux, actually.

i think vietnam is a rather big touristy place. It's self hating like the khmer, attracts old soldiers, disgruntled Viet Kieus, not so disgruntled viet kieus and french trying to relive the old imperial dream

Can a poll be updated? .............to take out Brazil since it has been confirmed?

Wouldn't that ruin the game?

My current guesses for the remaining 6 civs:

Portugal

Zulu

Indonesia

Sioux

Italy

Belgium/Australia/or Canada

We have yet to see a civ that hooks into the new system for great works. Of course, they may simply revise an existing civ, like France. But I'll keep a candle burning for Italy.

Well, I'm a bit more hesitant to throw Portugal in now, though I don't know that my predictions have changed all that much otherwise.

kingchris20 said:

Can a poll be updated? .............to take out Brazil since it has been confirmed?

Click to expand...

awesome said:

Wouldn't that ruin the game?

Click to expand...

It remains there, altough further votes for Brazil won't count as a point
Players with 1 point:

I should have done it earlier, unfortunately had to get drunk last night so didn't hear the news until this morning
We may have some late-voters for Brazil in the last few hours, so some free points for them... Sry guys

So, I'm late to the party. Poland, Assyria, and Brazil all confirmed. Six to go!

I'd still be surprised (though not very disappointed—sorry, Portuguese posters) if Portugal didn't make it in. They have precedent behind them, a major role to play in the Scramble for Africa, and some good gameplay options (say, an improved caravel, or a galleass replacement capable of crossing oceans). Same with the Zulu; I'd be shocked if they didn't make it in this time.

I'd also expect at least one other African civ. Kongo is a good bet, but I'll throw a seriously dark horse into the ring: Somalia. I don't think I've ever seen somebody propose it for any Civ game—which makes sense, because it's been synonymous with "failed state" for pretty much the whole time the series has existed—but it's actually a very old region with a rich history and quite a bit of past glory. Great trade routes, beautiful architecture, fierce resistance to European colonial expansion (read up on the Dervish State, for instance). There'd be plenty of interesting options for leaders, units, buildings, and abilities there.

Another Native American civ makes sense too, and I'll give my vote to the Sioux—again, they have the power of precedent in the Civ series, and they might play a role in the American Civil War scenario.

I also think Vietnam would make a strong choice, rounding out Asia a little bit. Plenty of good ways to make a Vietnamese civ distinct, good options for units, leaders, abilities, etc.

And then…some part of Italy might get a chance as an independent civ—Venice would be my guess (although their city list would be tricky). I don't think a unified Italy makes sense, gameplay-wise. Who's their leader? What is/are their unique unit(s)? What really ties all of Italy together, other than government and language?

People complain about the Zulu not being "a real civilization" or being less deserving than other African civs, which is true in a sense, but I think gameplay trumps history a lot of the time. The Zulu have a great leader, a great unique unit, and a culture that offers them a distinct gameplay style. Some of the civs people have proposed—Italy is one; Belgium is probably the most egregious example—have none of those things. Even Belgians don't think of Belgium as a distinct civilization—the Flemish actually want to secede!

wigwam said:

I'd also expect at least one other African civ. Kongo is a good bet, but I'll throw a seriously dark horse into the ring: Somalia. I don't think I've ever seen somebody propose it for any Civ game—which makes sense, because it's been synonymous with "failed state" for pretty much the whole time the series has existed—but it's actually a very old region with a rich history and quite a bit of past glory. Great trade routes, beautiful architecture, fierce resistance to European colonial expansion (read up on the Dervish State, for instance). There'd be plenty of interesting options for leaders, units, buildings, and abilities there.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea ... but it's right next to Ethiopia. I suspect on those grounds alone they'd go for somewhere different (and not Mali). Kongo is the most likely, but if there's a 'dark horse' instead I'd say the Merina have a shot - they could have a diplomacy-related UA (Madagascar retained its independence by playing off Anglo-French rivalry) and while not part of the 'classic' Scramble for Africa, Madagascar's first unified kingdom was active in the same period. Although, again, relative adjacency to the effectively-confirmed Zulu might count against them.

Another Native American civ makes sense too, and I'll give my vote to the Sioux—again, they have the power of precedent in the Civ series, and they might play a role in the American Civil War scenario.

Click to expand...

I increasingly suspect the Sioux are likely. We haven't yet had an announcement regarding any 'returning' civs, and if the Zulu and Portugal are the only two, that will be a big change from G&K. Granted there aren't as many previous civs left to add, but the Sioux are one of the few with a shot (Mali, Sumer, Khmer, Hittites and HRE pretty much certain to all be out)

I also think Vietnam would make a strong choice, rounding out Asia a little bit. Plenty of good ways to make a Vietnamese civ distinct, good options for units, leaders, abilities, etc.

Click to expand...

One thing that strikes me is the time periods. Nearly all the existing Asian civs are based on the medieval states or earlier, and the only Asian civ with a modern leader (India) has an ancient era UA and medieval UB. This is not the case for most other regions A modern Asian state is a fairly obvious gap. Indonesia still seems most likely - it's got a long history of maritime trade even before unification, diplomatically it's an important modern regional power and founding member of most regional charter organisations, and its period of precolonial ascendency was a couple of centuries more recent than the periods depicted for other civs from the region. But Vietnam is certainly an option for another.

And then…some part of Italy might get a chance as an independent civ—Venice would be my guess (although their city list would be tricky). I don't think a unified Italy makes sense, gameplay-wise. Who's their leader?

Click to expand...

Mussolini?

I prefer Venice to remain a CS - aside from a failed effort to annex territory in what's now Croatia that's what it essentially was, after all.

We have yet to see a civ that hooks into the new system for great works. Of course, they may simply revise an existing civ, like France. But I'll keep a candle burning for Italy.

Click to expand...

I'd like France to have an archaeology-themed UA, which would make a lot of sense.

CivOasis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are ... traditions shared with all the other Polynesian cultures. Hence the Maori wouldn't "warrant inclusion" where the Hawaiians were excluded, or vice versa; likewise the Fijians, Samoans... The assumption of pan-Polynesian representation appears justified; these are individually very small areas of land, in a game representing the breadth of global civilisation. The Polynesians as a group are an important diaspora on that scale; the Hawaiian kingdom is not.

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

Click to expand...

What's the justification for that contention?

I'd expect France to get a boost to tourism before anything or anyone else, but that's just me. And unfortunately, I'd only expect one more Asian civ at this point, even though I voted for two.
As much as I don't care for Portugal, I might actually get upset if they don't make it in and Brazil did.
I'd really like to see Kongo, but I had to think of a good dark horse for Africa, it would be Kanem-Bornu because of the trade focus.
And, of course, the Sioux would be great.

awesome said:

The Mapuche haven't really contributed much to history, either. Probably less than the Sioux, actually.

Click to expand...

Well there are dozens of civilizations in Central- and Southern America that were more advanced than the most advanced civilization in North-America. Than can be said based on facts. Mapuche are more important than any North-American Native tribe. This can be said without any hesitation.

Same thing with Zulus. They are not even near top 20 of African civilizations. Still few in US and UK know Ashanti or Songhai, but they know Zulus. Ashanti had 10 times more people and more than 10 times bigger kingdom. Zulu kingdom was small and pathetic compared to Songhai and Ashanti. Battle with British made them famous, battle that Brits had won if they hadn forget to take a tool that can be used to open bullet boxes.

We are living in a world where false Anglo-Saxon view of history is dominant and this leads to false interpretation of history. Civilization 5 could make things different. They could fix this corrupted Anglo-Saxon view of history.

Inhalaattori said:

Than can be said based on facts. Mapuche are more important than any North-American Native tribe. This can be said without any hesitation.

Click to expand...

This is not based on fact and just silly. One, 'Central America' is a part of North America. Two, "important" in what sense, there are various degrees of importance in different times and to different people.

The Anasazi/Pueblo were incredibly important in the pre-contact world and were still important in the post contact world (A thousand years of one of the most important trading civs in the Americas is nothing to scoff at). And then there are the Mississippians that have never gotten a fair shake (But I honestly don't see them ever making it in). And if we go for a South American civ - I would prefer a half dozen other civs over the Mapuche and many more have a better chance than the Mapuche would.

I wouldn't say the Zulu are particularly famous to non-civ players. I know Mali, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and the Songhai are all covered in middle-school level history, but I didn't know about the Zulu prior to civ, and I even have cultural traditions borrowed from them...


On the north/central/south America debate, divisions change depending upon where you are from. I know that, where I am from, the seven countries of the isthmus aren't considered a part of either continent (though we'd call them closer to the north than the south).

2 Civs I'm sure of -

Afonso I, King of Portugal and Shaka for the Zulu!

Less sure of -

Antonio López de Santa Anna of Mexico, (Geronimo of the Apache, Quanah of the Commanche, OR Sitting Bull of the Sioux), and King David of Israel.

I think we are forgetting the Cherokee, and a real curve ball would the Mississippian Culture, particularly the Middle Mississippian Culture

Cherokee have been mentioned a couple times.


As for the Mississippians, the primary problem is that we lack a leader or language; the old culture had largely collapsed by the time we were able to record the details of their descendants.