Brave New World's New Civilizations - REVISED!

JFD said:

Except I don't want an amalgamation; I distinctly want Venice. It is not semantics for me, and perhaps not for the rest who voted Other for Venice; it is the promise of a specific focus on a merchant empire (which, perhaps, is unfulfilled by the Netherlands or will be by Portugal, and would almost certainly be unfufilled by Italy), the promise of something unexpected or the expectation that the Venetian Empire resolves the problems of an incorporated Italian civ.

Click to expand...

My exact thoughts. Plus, if we had Italy the same way we have Germany, as an amalgamation, then Rome shouldn't be a separate Civ, as it would be a part of this amalgamation. It would be like adding Modern Greece alongside Ancient Greece.

Whereas Venice had its distinct culture, even conquered Constantinople at one time if I am not mistaken, and would also fit very well with the new international trade routes.

I do not get why Venice is more different than Italy with respect to Rome.

I think this is only an idea in popular culture, but if you think about it it's a very irrational one.

The truth is: Italy gives the idea to be Rome because nowadays it shares the historical capital of the roman empire.
If you say that Italy and Rome are the same, you should also say that Venice and Rome are the same.

You could call the civilization Italy and give it a renaissance UA a venetian UU and a florentine UB and still not be too far from a good representation, also ideally encompassing the whole italian history.

JtW said:

Whereas Venice had its distinct culture, even conquered Constantinople at one time if I am not mistaken, and would also fit very well with the new international trade routes.

Click to expand...

Yes. Venice helped to found the Latin Empire, which was founded out of their conquest of Constantinople, and were also a significant player in the Crusades.

Bonci said:

I do not get why Venice is more different than Italy with respect to Rome.

I think this is only an idea in popular culture, but if you think about it it's a very irrational one.

The truth is: Italy gives the idea to be Rome because nowadays it shares the historical capital of the roman empire.
If you say that Italy and Rome are the same, you should also say that Venice and Rome are the same.

You could call the civilization Italy and give it a renaissance UA a venetian UU and a florentine UB and still not be too far from a good representation, also ideally encompassing the whole italian history.

Click to expand...

I don't feel Rome and Italy or Rome and Venice are in any way alike; historically/culturally or in the way that they would be implemented. I do not feel Venice is any more culturally distinct from Rome than Italy, either. However, what it would come down to is their distinction gameplay-wise-which would be substantial, I expect. Italy, on the one hand, would play culturally. Venice, on the other hand, would play commercially. This doesn't mean that the commercial civ role can't be filled by another (and indeed it might-by Portugal or the Majapahit), but it does mean that Venice would offer something quite different from Italy, or even Florence or most of the reknown city-states of Italy, gameplay-wise.

Now you could put these together, as you suggested, and I agree it would represent Italy well enough for most-but then you run into a few problems. What about the capital? What is Italy without Rome-but this is already taken. Sure, you could call it Roma-but how would this affect non-English versions of the game? And what about the chunk of city-states that apparently inspired the system in the first place? It would truly attests to the arbitrary nature of naming city-states if they remove the most well-known of them. And then what about image? Would an Italy, no matter its attributes, allude to modern Italy and thus lose its appeal?

Personally, I feel the appeal for Venice is more an appeal for a non-conformed Italy, but yet a more Renaissance-feel for that cultural group. Venice simply fits the best. At the end of the day though I am not against an Italy civ; my educational bias merely inclines me to want Venice over Italy. Perhaps I just want to see the decrepit Enrico Dandolo in animated 3D.

Bonci said:

You could call the civilization Italy and give it a renaissance UA a venetian UU and a florentine UB and still not be too far from a good representation, also ideally encompassing the whole italian history.

Click to expand...

This would make little sense to me as Venice and Florence were separate states that even occasionally went to war with one another. They didn't constitute a uniform culture in that sense.

If we had Italy as a civ, they should only have unique features associated with the whole Italian peninsula. I would have no problem with condottieri, for example.

Italy is a modern association of historically independent cultures/entities. To exaggerate a little, we could as well add "European Union" as a civ.

codepoet said:

For me (Florence) it's that I want Renaissance Italian City States represented, not necessarily the modern state of Italy... which I see as completely different cultures and entities. Florence is largely considered the birthplace of the Renaissance, so that's why I say Florence rather than Venice.

Click to expand...

Well, Florence never got above the level of a city-state politically, whereas Venice was a regional power.

If you want an ancient world comparison, Florence was like Syracuse, whereas Venice was like Carthage.

JtW said:

This would make little sense to me as Venice and Florence were separate states that even occasionally went to war with one another. They didn't constitute a uniform culture in that sense.

If we had Italy as a civ, they should only have unique features associated with the whole Italian peninsula. I would have no problem with condottieri, for example.

Italy is a modern association of historically independent cultures/entities. To exaggerate a little, we could as well add "European Union" as a civ.

Click to expand...

The problem is that that is the sort of thing Firaxis has done: e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Greece etc. If the franchise were to last a hundred years, then the EU would, indeed, possibly become a Civ. These are combinations of states that warred between one another. Thus, the question becomes "what is a civilisation?" I don't think I would agree that Venice and Italy are seperate "civilisations." But then, not all of Firaxis' choices appear to me as distinct civilisations and are rather distinct nations, so who knows... all it comes down to is whether or not "Venice" has more appeal than "Italy."

JFD said:

The problem is that that is the sort of thing Firaxis has done: e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Greece etc. If the franchise were to last a hundred years, then the EU would, indeed, possibly become a Civ. These are combinations of states that warred between one another. Thus, the question becomes "what is a civilisation?" I don't think I would agree that Venice and Italy are seperate "civilisations." But then, not all of Firaxis' choices appear to me as distinct civilisations and are rather distinct nations, so who knows... all it comes down to is whether or not "Venice" has more appeal than "Italy."

Click to expand...

yeah, basically this would be my answer too...

If ancient Greece can be a civilization, Italy can also be a civilization.

Ummm.... Why was this new poll needed??
We already had 2 polls about the civs we would most like to see: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460009
And one about the civs which have the highest chance to get in: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=491240

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thewholeworld
-A native american civ would be nice since there is only one (Iroquois) so it would be nice to see another one.

Click to expand...

Quote:So what do you call the Inca, Maya, and Aztec? All Native American

But yeah, I'd love to see the Sioux, Cherokee, Comanche, Hopi or Apache make it in!
Mar 27, 2013 11:25 PM

Click to expand...

woops I was thinking about the North American civs so much I forgot the ones from central and South America
Well atleast we can hope to see some new native american civs

I'm upset that Brazil in BNW doesn't have any reference to its football team.

If it comes down to either the Comanche or the Cherokee then it's the Cherokee hands down, no contest. They almost, almost became an actual civ had they managed to play the US and Britain against each and got Spain, or France to claim a protectorate over them.

JtW said:

My exact thoughts. Plus, if we had Italy the same way we have Germany, as an amalgamation, then Rome shouldn't be a separate Civ, as it would be a part of this amalgamation. It would be like adding Modern Greece alongside Ancient Greece.

Click to expand...

There is a very notable point of demarcation in the Roman empire where it was no more. We even got a neat little scenario out of it. Then again, I've seen plenty of folks suggest the Seleucids as their own civ, so maybe multiple spins on Greece sits well with some.

At the end of the day, what does a Florence or Venice or Italy civ amount to? As with any civ, it's just picking three appropriate uniques, and a list of city names. So, let's say you have a civ called Italy, and the three uniques and city names work for Florence or Venice. What breaks? For Venice, I guess you have some holdings that aren't part of the italian peninsula. Is that it?

I voted for:

-Gran Colombia
-Portugal
-Israel
-Belgium
-Indonesia
-Zulu

Thewholeworld said:

woops I was thinking about the North American civs so much I forgot the ones from central and South America
Well atleast we can hope to see some new native american civs

Click to expand...

*cough* Central America is a part of North America too... *cough*

Gucumatz said:

*cough* Central America is a part of North America too... *cough*

Click to expand...

Yep. Panama and up.

Other: Australia and Canada.

*cough* Central America is a part of North America too... *cough*

Click to expand...

Well yes but I was thinking that the civs in Central America (Aztecs, Mayans) were different culturally than the civs in the rest of North America (Iroquois, United States).

But yes Central America is in North America.

I think that with the direction Firaxis has gone in the past, broad amalgamations are preferred by the designers over specific entities. With that said, I, personally, would like to see a pan-Italian civ, because with all the other combinations (Polynesia ) it seems to fit better with the current civ list. Also, Italy as whole could be a more versatile civ than Venice, which would be strictly trade , Florence, which would be culture/tourism , or the Papal States, which would be faith . Italy in its entirety could have an interesting mixed bag. Plus, I'm Italian , so I would LOVE to see them in Civ, something I see as long overdue. Finally, Italy is NOT the same as Rome, do you equate modern China to the Han dynasty or modern Egypt to the New Kingdom? Do you?

Stonecutter9 said:

Also, Italy is NOT the same as Rome, do you equate modern China to the Han dynasty or modern Egypt to the New Kingdom? Do you?

Click to expand...

I agree.

That said, I wouldn't expect both Chinas or both Egypts. Similarly, I don't expect Renaissance/Modern Italy because ancient Italy is already in the game, despite the cultural differences.

I myself have German ancestry, and if you look in my signature down there you'll see my idea for splitting Germany and the Holy Roman Empire into two distinct civilizations, which isn't a dissimilar situation. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening either.

AbsintheRed said:

Ummm.... Why was this new poll needed??
We already had 2 polls about the civs we would most like to see: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460009
And one about the civs which have the highest chance to get in: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=491240

Click to expand...

For one, this poll is NOT the same as yours, wanted civs are a whole different matter from expected civs, and mine was designed to less vague, with only one 'other' category. Secondly, this thread was created to be a revision of the original link here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=491222 , it removed Assyria and Brazil after they were confirmed, I condensed the Native civs into one category to free up room for more popular options, and thus these results are different than the original. If you don't like the thread, then don't visit it. It's not hard.