Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Urdnot_Scott]

Whereas Indians, today, or any time, do not consider themselves Mughal, nor does anyone consider the Mughals truly Indian any more than the Turks consider themselves Macedonian.

 

[Menzies]

Both the Yuan and the Ming and the Qing were officially chinese speaking, oriental (its hard to use the religious argument since religions in the far east coexist so well), chinese cultured, for example the yuan adopted the ways of all the chinese whereas the mughals forced their own very unique culture and ways upon the subcontinent, which were very very seperate from those of the natives and their ancestors. Really, you kind of proved me right here since the mongols are very similar to the mughals, they are conquerors with a home region that is not the main focus of this civ. Do you think we should have either mongols or the Chinese? Not both.

At the end of the day, we could argue history for ages, but I like the Mughals from a gameplay point as much as a historical one.

And finally, Pakistan? Considering the rage we get about America being a little baby at 300 years old, I think if they added a civ that isnt even a century old, half of civfanatics would commit seppuku... (not to mention the political implications!)

P.S stop talking about the whole israel thing, mostly because we were banned from doing so, but also because I really really dont like where this circumcision thing is headed *shivers*

The Yuan Dynasty used both Mongolian and Chinese, whilst the Qing Dynasty did also use Manchu. The complexities of what happened with the Mongolian Empire as it split is also a very interesting, but irrelevant topic here. The key point however is that various dynasties around the world have taken over regions that aren't culturally "their own". The Mughals were not special in that regard.

Mongolia is both separate from the Chinese and in it's own right important. There has never been a question here. The Mughal Empire was however a dynasty controlling what is now India and Pakistan. Their origins however do offer an interesting point though.

The Timurids Dynasty is an interesting question here, and something I personally wouldn't mind in a future expansion. Whilst they themselves controlled largely what is Persia, they themselves came from and were largely based in the Steppe region. They themselves offer a potential alternative to suggestions like Afghanistan and potentially could cover your beloved Mughal Empire (as the Mughal Dynasty was a continuation of the Timurid Dynasty and is sometimes even referred to as the Timurid Dynasty even when speaking of the Mughal Empire).

Long story short though, it does all get very hairy and the Mughals are flirting with that lovely grey area that leads to so many debates. Taking them from India in the game though would be equivalent to ripping their heart out however, and having any ol' Dynastic Empire in the game could lead to massive issues with what is and isn't Civilizations. This one sits squarely in the same boat as various other Dynastic Empires.

As for the mention of Pakistan it's more of a cultural point there. As mentioned though, it is something that I doubt they'd ever do due to a desire to avoid any potential political issues. To simply call Pakistan "young" though is quite bizarre though as the origins of "Pakistan" were from the Mughals and it was merely a suggestion of a way having your beloved Mughals in some form without including a Dynasty as a Civilization.

Overall having Persia, Timurids and India should be able to cover that particular situation more than well, although some would probably argue that the Timurids are covered by Persia and Mongolia, although they culturally are quite different, this is on the other side of that lovely grey area.

Jewish law is a separate from Israel.

 

[baptismbyfire]

Well, Pakistan as the spiritual successor to the Mughals is not a terrible idea. One could really do that as the Timurids, as well.

It seems like we are talking more about doing what Civ IV did and have multiple leaders for each civ that could represent the strengths and unique attributes of each civ for two or three different time periods. I'm all in favor of bringing that back, since most of the civs we have are just so complex that they should have different iterations in the game.

 

[Menzies]

Well, Pakistan as the spiritual successor to the Mughals is not a terrible idea. One could really do that as the Timurids, as well.

It seems like we are talking more about doing what Civ IV did and have multiple leaders for each civ that could represent the strengths and unique attributes of each civ for two or three different time periods. I'm all in favor of bringing that back, since most of the civs we have are just so complex that they should have different iterations in the game.

Every Civilization is too complex to represent with one snapshot. The issue is that the effort to create a leader screen is so great in the current version that they are better off adding more Civilizations than more leaders. For each extra leader they added this version, that would have been one less Civilization. Personally I'd prefer 43+ Civs to 30 Civs and some extra leaders. That's the nature of the game though, the Civilizations are for flavour.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Alright Menzies, yeah, that seems like a good compromise there. Yeah, the Mughals were pretty cool but they do lie too far into the grey area and would raise too many questions, I guess as interesting as they would be, maybe it would be difficult to do. Although, if you say I'm not allowed to have Persia, India and the Mughals, I'm not letting you get away with 4 cradle of civilization civs hahaha

Also, with Pakistan, although a successor state to the Mughals, the meddling British (sorry about that guys, we goofed) kind of delayed their creation by 200 years, which is why I call them new.

 

[PerceeP927]

REALLY, I cannot see very much deviation from this list. It is exactly what they have done up until now. It fits their formula perfectly.

Hungary
Kongo
Vietnam/Khmer
Gran Colombia
Canada
Australia
Sumer/Hittites
Sioux/Navajo
Italy

Everyone MUST agree, right? Seems infinitely clear to me.

 

[Tinker]

Yes, those are the only civilizations left in the world, it's pretty nice how after this expansion they will have included the entirety of human history.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

REALLY, I cannot see very much deviation from this list. It is exactly what they have done up until now. It fits their formula perfectly.

Hungary
Kongo
Vietnam/Khmer
Gran Colombia
Canada
Australia
Sumer/Hittites
Sioux/Navajo
Italy

Everyone MUST agree, right? Seems infinitely clear to me.

Hungary - Maybe, I think should be beaten by bulgaria if youre looking around that area.
Kongo - Yeah
Vietnam/Khmer - One or the other yeah.
Gran Columbia - ...Is that a joke?
Canada - Not a Civ, boring, total lack of culture.
Australia - See Canada
Sumer/Hittites - Yes, but we may be looking at over representation given Assyria and Babylon.
Sioux/Navajo - Maybe, NA is underrepresented, but for a reason
Italy - Too Modern.

But yeah, besides that, everyone MUST agree eh?

 

[PerceeP927]

Yes, those are the only civilizations left in the world, it's pretty nice how after this expansion they will have included the entirety of human history.

I mean that's for one more expansion, which is all I can see them doing, because after that it becomes much less profitable for them. They can't keep including new features to justify it, they can't find speakers of every dead language from hunter gatherer indigenous tribes that you people want to put next to empires the likes of England, Japan, Spain, China, whatever...
I mean really, to justify another expansion you'd have to cut half of my list and hold out on it until the next one to spread out the civs. An expansion with what?

Olmec
Inuit
Ukraine
Romania
Manchu
...

it starts to become a joke.

 

[PerceeP927]

Hungary - Maybe, I think should be beaten by bulgaria if youre looking around that area.
Kongo - Yeah
Vietnam/Khmer - One or the other yeah.
Gran Columbia - ...Is that a joke?
Canada - Not a Civ, boring, total lack of culture.
Australia - See Canada
Sumer/Hittites - Yes, but we may be looking at over representation given Assyria and Babylon.
Sioux/Navajo - Maybe, NA is underrepresented, but for a reason
Italy - Too Modern.

But yeah, besides that, everyone MUST agree eh?

so do you think Brazil is deserving? Poland? Huns? Sweden? all my specualtion is based on precedent set by firaxis. They will put joke nations like Canada, Australia, and Italy because it sells units bruhbruh. Gran Colombia will be pushed for Bolivar like Huns were pushed for Attila. Sioux is clearly a fan favorite, thought to be a given for this one. Selling units = appeasing the majority.

 

[Cyanfunk]

Italy - Too Modern.

Italy's younger than the USA btw

So is Germany.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

so do you think Brazil is deserving? Poland? Huns? Sweden? all my specualtion is based on precedent set by firaxis. They will put joke nations like Canada, Australia, and Italy because it sells units bruhbruh. Gran Colombia will be pushed for Bolivar like Huns were pushed for Attila. Sioux is clearly a fan favorite, thought to be a given for this one. Selling units = appeasing the majority.

Meh, I guess, sorry, I misconstrued what you said and thought you were saying they all DESERVED to be in, my humblest of apologies. But anyway, Brazil is the most deserving of the colonial nations, as Brazil is so different to Portugal it has a completely different culture and that, regardless of age. With Canada and Australia the problem is that they don't really have a separate 'legacy' to speak of. Poland? whats with the hate there, powerful medieval nation. Huns, crap and uncivilized as they are, they brought down the Romans, no mean feat, whereas Gran Columbia brought down.. er.. themselves, after like ten years of doing nothing. Haha. Also, Sweden, the winner of one of Europe's most devastating wars, and the upholder of Protestantism throughout the early modern era, and the home of Gustavos Adolphus, Europe's most distinguished Military leader alongside Napoleon and Alexander.. What don't they deserve? ahaha!

Italy's younger than the USA btw

So is Germany.

Yeah.. that proves my point, does it not?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Who cares what they add, if it has a fun UA then let them add it, I don't care if Sealand is added with a UA of settling on cities.. honestly, I stopped caring what they add, if its' fun, It's fun, that's the point of this. Screw realism and deservance.

 

[PerceeP927]

for sure I'm just inflating my ego, as I'll keep note of my prediction and quote it in about a year when the new expansion comes out.

and idk why I'm having trouble convincing people of Gran Colombia, its a representation of Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and then some, it is a nation representing colonial revolution, a Spanish colony, with the Liberator Bolivar as leader.

Its an amalgamation not unlike ingame Greece, the greatest extent of the sum of the parts that had their own more storied histories (sparta athens etc)

 

[turingmachine]

Sumer/Hittites - Yes, but we may be looking at over representation given Assyria and Babylon.

I really don't understand why everyone lumps Sumer and the Hittites together as an either/or situation.

The Hittites were not in Mesopotamia, they were in Anatolia. Anatolia is not considered part of the Fertile Crescent/Cradle of Civilization.

On top of that, the Hittites were Indo-European, almost all the Fertile Crescent/Cradle of Civilization was Afro-Asiatic.

That means the Hittites were culturally, linguistically, and religiously not related to and completely distinct from Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, Akkad, and Egypt.

And speaking of Sumer, people are arguing against including one of the first civilizations because of supposed over-representation but then also want Belgium, Italy, Ukraine, Hungary, Bulgaria, Switzerland, etc. added on top of the rest of Europe which is already in?

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Meh I think the issue is that the greeks managed to do, when working together, alot of awesome stuff, like the creation of western culture as we know it, and the greco-persian wars.

Whereas Gran Colombia, despite being larger and more advanced, accomplished nothing with their unification, and collapsed in 20 years, unlike the half a century long hellenic league.

Thats the main Issue I think.

 

[iRule]

Urdnott,

As a Portuguese, I find Brazil's culture similar to what USA's to England's. And I guess we Portuguese and Brazilians can probably see that more easily than others.

It's pretty much a culture with a Portuguese substrata and mixed in with lots, lots of immigrant cultures (and - minor, but still in a greater degree than in the US - indigenous Americans).

That being said, I fully agree with you - a country with such an unique (by diversity, and which ended up resulting in something differently unique, an amalgamation of sorts) culture deserves to be in Civilization, not only for that, but also for the huge part it has always played in the American continent (only second to the US) and its role in contemporary world (5th largest economy, a now major - even if regional - military power, the true inheritor as the de facto leader, or at least prominent member, of the Portuguese-speaking Commonwealth [CPLP], etc.)

 

[Sikandar]

Many people in this topic are confusing the concept of a polity and the concept of a civilization.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Yeah, I guess its impossible for any culture to escape us Saxons, every culture is slowly being turned into one, which really sucks, and is all the more reason for keeping Brazil which has carved out a unique culture.

And yeah, glad someone agrees, don't get all the hate, modern doesnt mean bad, america and brazil may only be like 400 years old, but that still gives them a longer lifespan than lots of civs!

 

[iRule]

Many people in this topic are confusing the concept of a polity and the concept of a civilization.

I don't know if you're referring to me or the whole Indian discussion that precedes my post, but either way, I think we can drop that argument as this game was never really about civilizations...

There are no Portuguese, English, Spanish, French, American, Russian, etc. (actually there may be a Chinese, for example) civilizations. If this game was really about civilizations we'd probably have, I don't know, the Western Christian civilization... the Muslim civilization... the Eastern Orthodox civilization... the Chinese civilization, and so on.

Not that religions really matter these days, for those distinctions, but it's ultimately a cultural factor - and culture used to be/is driven by religion.