Brave New World's New Civilizations - REVISED!

Which civs would you most like to see in BNW?


  • Total voters
    396
On Armenia, I really don't see it as a Silk Road civ because I tend to think the Silk Road is associated with Central Asia, which is to the east of Armenia (even though yes, Armenia was along the Silk Road trade routes). I would also think an Armenian civ wouldn't really focus on the fact that it's on the Silk Road, but on other things.

An Armenian civ would be cool, though, but I feel like other civs would get in ahead of it.
 
And who would be their leader? Batista is controversial, Castro is controversial..

Don't worry. Castro isn't going to make the civ community go mad, this will be done by Cuba simply being a civ.:p
But I don't see Firaxis adding Cuba or Castro into a civ game simply because this could create bad publicity for them.
 
What I love about CivFan is that it seems like for every person unilaterally dismissing all European civ's, there's someone who promotes Ablania, Armenia, Flanders, Basque, every Italian city-state as an individual civ, et cetera. :clap:
 
Don't worry. Castro isn't going to make the civ community go mad, this will be done by Cuba simply being a civ.:p
But I don't see Firaxis adding Cuba or Castro into a civ game simply because this could create bad publicity for them.

Actually I have nothing against Castro in Civ game, but I kinda don't see Cuba as a distinct civ. Maybe as a bigger, Carribean one..

steveg700, there's a big difference between Armenia and, say, Albania or Flanders. Armenia is a very ancient culture and Armenian was a lingua franca of Eastern Anatolia and neighbouring regions before Turkish invasions, along with Greek.
 
And who would be their leader? Batista is controversial, Castro is controversial..

Although I agree that Cuba may not be worthy of a civ, but Castro being controversial is a bit odd when COD can place Castro alongside JFK and Nixon, blowing off zombies heads in the Pentagon?
 
Although I agree that Cuba may not be worthy of a civ, but Castro being controversial is a bit odd when COD can place Castro alongside JFK and Nixon, blowing off zombies heads in the Pentagon?

Yeah, I think most people don't have a problem with Castro, to most he is just another politian. Although seeing how Firaxis removed Pope, in order to not offend the Pueblo, I doubt they'll add Castro as this would probably offend Cuban exiles in Florida.
 
I'd say the bigger problem with Castro is that he's still alive... (right? haven't heard much about him lately... ;))

Castro is immortal anyway(probably hiding magical potions behind his beard), let's give him the honour of being the first living leader to be appear in civ.
He even has a proper beard for BNW.:mischief:
 
What I love about CivFan is that it seems like for every person unilaterally dismissing all European civ's, there's someone who promotes Ablania, Armenia, Flanders, Basque, every Italian city-state as an individual civ, et cetera. :clap:

Confession: I'd hate to see any European civ other than Portugal, yet I'd love to see Armenia in the game... go figure.
 
Possible African Dark horses (all better than Zulu, IMO) that haven't been mentioned like Kongo:

The Sokoto Caliphate, led by Usman dan Fodio of the Fulani Jihad
Kanem or Kanem-Bornu
Dahomey (I'm iffy on Dahomey, to be honest...)
 
Possible African Dark horses (all better than Zulu, IMO) that haven't been mentioned like Kongo:

The Sokoto Caliphate, led by Usman dan Fodio of the Fulani Jihad
Kanem or Kanem-Bornu
Dahomey (I'm iffy on Dahomey, to be honest...)

Actually, Dahomey might be the best of these choices, but they'd probably combine it with Benin if it became a civ. Bornu is a decent choice, but Sokoto is too short-lived and small. Ashanti and Kongo might be better candidates for an African dark horse but I don't think any of these can beat the established Zulu tradition in Civ.

How would you make these work?
 
I don't see any reason to combine Dahomey with Benin, unless you mean just representing Dahomey in geographical terms as modern-day Benin, which is larger than Dahomey actually was. The Oyo might make more sense but Dahomey broke away from the Oyo fairly decisively and the Oyo precede the Scramble for Africa. However, I do feel like it would be hard to represent Dahomey well without adding slavey into the game, since that played a huge role in their rise to power and their international fame. Their UU would obviously be the Dahomey Amazons, and I imagine their UA would be the Annual Customs of Dahomey, with some mechanic similar to Montezuma's UA to depict their usage of human sacrifice. The only good UBs that come to mind involve the storage or trade of slaves though, so we'll see.


Ashanti would, in my mind, be a sort of religious/military state, drawing heavily from their faith in the Golden Stool as a unifying ideology. A good UB would also acknowledge their gold wealth (since they missed the chance to add Mansa Musa), maybe a market replacement?

Kanem-Bornu could be good too, but I don't know so much about them.
 
Kanem Bornu is the longest lived of all those mentioned states (and the largest, considering the Benin Empire was small, as was Dahomey). It also represents the Eastern Sahel. Personally, I want the 6 to be:

Portugal (it must be done)
'Nam
Indonesia
Kongo
Kanem-Bornu
Hittites.

If we must have Native Americans (I for one would rather have Hittites), than get rid of Kongo or Kanem, and put in the Anasazi or the Comanche.

As for how Kanem would work- I don't know. That's up to the developers. I think trans-Saharan trade could be represented.
 
I think that because the Zulu are so established, they will be replaced. Things need to be shaken up a little, and so I think the Kongo will get in instead. Aside from Kongo, I think that Benin will get in, and civ will find a way to tactfully deal with slavery, in the style of the way they dealt with religion. If not them though, the the Zulu or only one African civ.
 
put my vote in for Vietnam; don't really get the appeal of African or Native American civs, and I think I can agree with most people that traditional European civs are getting kind of boring right now. How ever; I love Asian Civs and would definitely like to see more of them, especially South East Asia.

second vote would probably go for Tibet; as the Tibetan Empire is really fascinating.
 
First off, this response assumes there is only one slot for a new Asian civ.

Indonesia, IMHO is the better choice for a new civ, for several reasons:

Reason #1: Population: Compare the (modern) populations of the two countries; Indonesia contains ~237 million people (#5 globally), while Vietnam contains only ~88 million people (#13 globally), so an Indonesia civ would represent a much larger portion of the world's population (and customer base, :deal: ).

Reason #2: Area: Compare the (modern) areas of the two countries; Indonesia contains ~735,000 square miles/~1,900,000 square kilometers, (#15 globally) , while Vietnam contains only ~127,000 square miles/~312,000 square kilometers (#66 globally) , so an Indonesia civ would represent a much larger portion of the world's area.

Reason #3: Trade Routes: With the expansion's focus on trade routes, Indonesia would be a better civ to take advatage of the new system; all of Indonesia's major empires were thalassocracies (sea-based empires), and they could have a UA based on sea trade (double profit/speed?) and possibly a cargo ship UU with enhanced movement values/defense ability?. Vietnam, at any rate, wasn't known for trade in the same way Indonesia was.

Reason #4: Outside Influences: Vietnam was routinely being attacked by Chinese armies from the north as well as Khmer/Siamese armies from the west, with varying degrees of success against them; while they fared well against their SE Asian neighbors they were controlled for China for a whole millennium. After this, they did establish a long-lived independent kingdom but even then they never achieved a great empire due to continuing attacks from the Chinese and the eventual encroachment of the French. Indonesia, on the other hand, did not succumb to European invaders until the 19th century; yet, while Vietnam struggled under the thumb of the Chinese, the Indonesians established trade empire after trade empire; Medang, Srivijaya, Kediri, Singhasari, Majapahit (the most famous), and finally Banten; all these states were based on trade between the various Indonesian islands.

Reason #5: Playstyle: Indonesia just seems like the better option to me; the idea of a vast archipelago trade empire is awesome (and Polynesia never quite clicked for me in that regard and they're more for :c5culture: than :c5gold:). Vietnam seems like just another militaristic civ, and we need no more of those!), while the niche Indonesia fills is one which is sorely lacking in Civ5 (Portugal fills this too, but if we can have so many military civs, two sea trade civs is excusable, and Indonesia could have a whole different spin than Portugal, given the two are worlds apart).

Addendum: Should there be a second Asian civ, The Khazars would be a superior choice, because they bring a land trade element to complement Indonesia's sea trade nicely. They could easily be the 'Silk Road' civ everybody wants, being at a major crossroads between Europe and Asia.

Clearly, Indonesia is FAR MORE WORTHY of inclusion than Vietnam. When you search Vietnamese Empire, all you get is a Japanese puppet state from pre-WWII. When you search Majapahit (greatest of the Indonesian kingdoms), you get this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Majapahit_Empire.svg
 
Top Bottom