What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?

What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?

  • Total voters
    403
  • Poll closed .
Art Grin said:
I have a feeling that Indonesia isn't going to make it. If Portugal is included they will be very similar in gameplay, both being trade focused naval civs., and I think this speaks against Indonesia.
Despite being in high demand I believe they won't make it.
Click to expand...

Even if we grant this logic, it could equally count against Portugal if Indonesia's included - it's already been suggested elsewhere that Portugal might lose its place to Brazil to avoid overrepresenting Portuguese culture. While Portugal will almost certainly be part of the Scramble for Africa scenario, other civs likely to be included in that - such as Belgium - are not generally being treated as shoe-ins for inclusion in the main expansion.

Other considerations:

1. Portugal is not primarily a "naval trade" civ. The Portuguese certainly controlled maritime trade from Europe for a long time, but that was because they were premier explorers and navigators (and indeed missionaries) - they flourished because they explored first and staked the first claims, not through commercial acumen, and were ultimately less successful commercial empires than the later-developing British and Dutch. If their UA relates to the new mechanics at all, something that plays well with the Exploration policy tree is at least as likely as one based on trade routes.

2. It's by no means certain that any new civ will have a 'naval trade' UA. Not all of the G&K additions were explored through civ UAs or themes, and one of the two key themes - espionage - was only treated in UAs by adding it to an existing UA. It could very well be that the 'naval trade' civ, if one exists, will be Carthage or the Netherlands rather than any of the new civs.

3. From what we know of trade so far there's a lot more to it than a coarse 'naval' vs 'caravan' trade division (a division which in any case seems somewhat trivial). Domestic vs. international is one bigger difference - I can quite readily see Indonesia being the "domestic trade" civ that gets bonuses from national trade routes, which would reflect the already-mentioned idea of a civ that obtains trade via tribute (as well as simply its island nature), something that would not fit Portugal or (e.g.) the Timurids. So they have a definite niche.

4. The new civs may in any case not be selected to showcase the new mechanics. Only three of the G&K civs had any significant interaction with the expansion's themes (some have stretched to describe Carthage as fitting a minor "naval" theme in the expansion, but nothing in Carthage's UA or UU has any more relation to the changes in how naval warfare plays than Byzantium's).

We know there was a theme (the scenarios) behind the selection of most of the G&K civs (only the Maya, aside from Carthage, are a bad fit for both the expansion themes and the scenarios, and they may have been added for no better reason than that the expansion was released in 2012), but that doesn't imply there's a similar theme for BNW, and we haven't been told that civ selection reflects either scenarios (none of the three civs so far revealed relates in any way to the scenarios) or expansion themes (neither Assyria nor Poland relates in any way to the known expansion themes).

I'm still thinking all three have a relatively even three-way split in terms of chances, but indeed the fact that we're now considering the Silk Road civs - in contrast to before when some of us were only considering Vietnam vs. Indonesia - makes things harder for Indonesia, indeed.
Click to expand...

Firaxis seems to have selected some Civ V civs on the basis mainly of the leader rather than the civ, and Tamerlane is certainly a leader worthy of inclusion, so I'd say the Timurids may have the best chance of a "Silk Road" civ if one were to be introduced.

Portugal, Kongo (The Zulu are so played out), Timurids, either the Cherokee or Mississippians(The inuit would make no sense as one of their cities would be a US air base built in the 1940's...), Indonesia, total dark horse the Kingdom of Madagascar.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned Madagascar as an outside chance in the 'dark horse' thread; a diplomatic UA would work, also possibly an ideology-based one (though the island was never a Cold War focal point, it did adopt communism), and it could have one of the female leaders Firaxis loves so much (I know nothing about the Truong Sisters proposed for Vietnam, but I don't see Firaxis having a dual leaderhead somehow). As for the Inuit, while they'd be a rather silly choice, giving them American airbase names would be no worse than all the US city names taken by the Iroquois. Indeed, any Native American culture based in what's now the US would run into problems in that regard; they may have to settle on a Canadian tribe.

They had the largest empire in Southeast Asian history, yet they haven't made it in any Civ game at all thus far - so why should they be any more likely to make it in the 2nd expansion of Civ V?
Click to expand...

Not very sound reasoning; Southeast Asia wasn't included in any Civ game until Civ IV, where the Khmer made it probably mainly because Angkor Wat is better-known than Borobodur. And they were included in a Civ IV scenario, which likely contributes to their popularity now. There's no precedent for having a second SE Asian civ at all, yet that doesn't mean that no SE Asian civ stands a chance, any more than it means we won't get more than one new African civ because no previous Civ game has had more than 3 African civs. There's also no precedent for a Civ game having 43 civs.
 
ferretbacon said:
The only issue with the Comanche is that they lack a strong leader.

The Apache could have Geronimo, Cochise, Mangas Coloradas...

The Sioux have Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse...

The Comanche would have who? Quanah Parker seems to be the best candidate I suppose, though he'd be a strange choice for a 'Vikings on horseback' civ.
Click to expand...

Quanah Parker would not be a bad choice though. He led raids against Buffalo killers, killing over 100 personally, led one of the latter Comanche Campaigns against the US government, freed women and children that were being held hostage by the Texas Rangers, and eventually secured at least a parcel of recognition of Comanche Territory. Quanah Parker was more important than Geronimo ever was. Apache and other natives had to ask for permission to see Quanah Parker and Geronimo himself had to go through several intermediaries to get an audience with Quanah.

But there are other potential leaders you could choose from too. The 1700s had several strong Comanche Leaders, Tabivo Naritgant led one of the Comanche Wars against Mexico for a couple of decades. He was finally ambushed and killed, but he stole what would be worth today millions from the Spaniards, using it to buy new weapons, goods, etc. for the Comanche.
 
Bonci said:
Speaking of wonders...Italy is the only civ that has more than one wonder in the game and is not yet included...(3 with this expansion, same number as England and France just to compare).

Source
Click to expand...

Italy has only 2 Wonders: Leaning Tower of Pisa and Uffizi Museum (presuming neither of the two unknowns is Italian). The Uffizi Gallery is in Florence, which is represented in the game as a city-state. Pisa is technically Italian in the sense that it's in the modern state of Italy, but the tower itself predates a unified Italy by several centuries.

The Sistine Chapel is of course located in Vatican City, which is not only in Civ but - while located on the Italian Peninsula (indeed in Rome) - has never formally been part of the Italian state (between the conquest of the Papal States by the new Kingdom of Italy and the creation of Vatican City some 40 years later, the Vatican's political status was indeterminate but it was not formally included within Italian jurisdiction).

You also can't feasibly include Italy without perhaps 90% overlap in city-names with the Romans. While a Papal States civ might be an outside option, an Italian civ seems to be pretty much a no-no.
 
Also for anyone interested, it looks like the Comanche people have compiled a list of some of their most important Paraiboo in chronological order.

http://www.comanchelodge.com/paraiboo.html

I am not familiar with most of them, but there are some that are fairly famous (Quanah Parker and Green Horn for example) that could be theoretically chosen to lead the Comanche.
 
PhilBowles said:
Italy has only 2 Wonders: Leaning Tower of Pisa and Uffizi Museum (presuming neither of the two unknowns is Italian). The Uffizi Gallery is in Florence, which is represented in the game as a city-state. Pisa is technically Italian in the sense that it's in the modern state of Italy, but the tower itself predates a unified Italy by several centuries.

The Sistine Chapel is of course located in Vatican City, which is not only in Civ but - while located on the Italian Peninsula (indeed in Rome) - has never formally been part of the Italian state (between the conquest of the Papal States by the new Kingdom of Italy and the creation of Vatican City some 40 years later, the Vatican's political status was indeterminate but it was not formally included within Italian jurisdiction).

You also can't feasibly include Italy without perhaps 90% overlap in city-names with the Romans. While a Papal States civ might be an outside option, an Italian civ seems to be pretty much a no-no.
Click to expand...

I'm not going through this again, there is a thread where the same objections have been raised and they got a fairly reasonable solution.
The Sistine Chapel is most definitely an extraordinary example of italian art.
Even if you want to think that the papal states were not part of italian culture (which is kinda debateable), let me just bring you as example some of the artists that took part in its creation.
Michelangelo was born on 6 March 1475 in Caprese near Arezzo, Tuscany.
Sandro Botticelli was born in the city of Florence.
Pietro Perugino in Città della Pieve, Umbria. Umbria was part of the papal states, nonetheless the umbrian school is regarded as one of the most influential in the italian renaissance. Raphael was his student. It's said that he studied with Leonardo da Vinci.

Also, can city states build wonders? I don't think so.

Pisa Tower was built before the italian unification, so wat? We are talking about civilizations, not kingdoms and not nations.
 
PhilBowles said:
You also can't feasibly include Italy without perhaps 90% overlap in city-names with the Romans.
Click to expand...

This is just not true. Here is the list of Roman cities:

Rome (Italy)
Antium (Extinct)
Cumae (Extinct)
Neapolis (Now Naples, no cross-over)
Ravenna (Could cause problems)
Arretium (Now Arezzo, no cross-over)
Mediolanum (Extinct)
Arpinum (Extinct)
Circei (Extinct)
Setia (Extinct)
Satricum (Extinct)
Ardea (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Ostia (Extinct)
Velitrae (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Viroconium (Extinct Roman Britain town)
Tarentum (Now Taranto, no cross over)
Brundisium (Now Brindisi, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Caesaraugusta (Now Zaragoza, Spain)
Caesarea (town in modern day Israel)
Palmyra (Extinct, ancient Syria)
Signia (Extinct)
Aquileia (Now a village of 3000, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Clusium (Extinct)
Sutrium (Now a village of 5000, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Cremona (Small town of 70,000. Unlikely inclusion)
Placentia (Now Piacenza, no cross-over)
Hispalis (Now Seville, Spain)
Artaxata (Now Artashat, Armenia)
Aurelianorum (Now Orléans, France)
Nicopolis (Extinct Greek city)
Londinium (Now London, UK)
Eburacum (Now York, UK)
Gordion (Extinct, remains lie in modern Turkey)
Agrippina (Now Cologne, Germany)
Lugdunum (Extinct city in Gaul)
Verona (Could cause problems)
Corfinium (Extinct)
Treveri (Now Trier, Germany)
Sirmium (Extinct, Serbia)
Augustadorum (Bayeux, France)
Bagacum (Bavay, France)
Lauriacum (Enns, Austria)
Teurnia (Extinct, Austria)
Curia (Extinct)
Fregellae (Extinct)
Alba Fucens (Extinct)
Sora (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Interrama (Extinct)
Suessa (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Saticula (Extinct)
Luceria (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Arminium (Extinct)
Senagallica (Extinct)
Castrum Novum (Extinct)
Hadria (Now Adria, no cross-over)

So out of these, only 3 are a problem (Rome, Verona and Ravenna). Verona and Ravenna can either be moved over, or just left out. No big deal. Rome can be named Roma, or be excluded from the city list if the Roman civ are present (a la Honolulu), while Florence might be capital (feasible). A lot of the cities aren't even in the Italian peninsula!!

All in all, this is no barrier for inclusion of Italy.
 
Hurray for Wilbeard and his laser-like beam of truth. :clap:

As someone else suggesed, another option for the capital is Turin.
 
Bonci said:
Also, can city states build wonders? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Are wonders tied to the civ that built them in real life? I don't think so. This point is moot.

As to the rest, yes Italy has a lovely culture. Italy also already has representation in civ. And, perhaps more importantly, that period of culture everyone loves so much is represented better in it's current form as multiple city states than as a civ.

If Italy gets included then honestly, what is the point of the city state mechanic any more? They exemplify it.
 
Bonci said:
I'm not going through this again, there is a thread where the same objections have been raised and they got a fairly reasonable solution.
The Sistine Chapel is most definitely an extraordinary example of italian art.
Even if you want to think that the papal states were not part of italian culture (which is kinda debateable), let me just bring you as example some of the artists that took part in its creation.
Michelangelo was born on 6 March 1475 in Caprese near Arezzo, Tuscany.
Click to expand...

Granted, but when you make a claim that "Italy has 3 Wonders" it's clearly implied that the country of Italy has three Wonders, not that three are products of ethnically Italian culture. Would you say that Christo Redentor represents France rather than Brazil because it was built by French architects? Or the Statue of Liberty is French rather than American on the same basis?

Also, can city states build wonders? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

As someone else asked, why is that relevant? The point is surely that it makes the world consistent - it makes little sense for a gallery in Florence to be in the game if Florence doesn't exist. But Florence does exist in the game.

Pisa Tower was built before the italian unification, so wat? We are talking about civilizations, not kingdoms and not nations.
Click to expand...

Actually that's precisely what we're talking about, since "Italy" is simply the name of a modern political construct - the Papal States were indeed the Italian culture of the period, and it would consequently make some sense to represent a Papal States civ. But if you're asking for an Italian civ, that's implicitly asking for a modern Italian civ rather than a Papal States or the existing Roman civ. If you're just after a civ that represents the culture of the peninsular peoples (i.e. the Italians as an ethnic group), we already have the Romans. Most discrete states of the scale represented by Civ are specific nations. If you're talking anthropologically or archaeologically, few of the divisions in Civ would qualify as civilizations - we'd have Greco-Roman civilization instead of Greece and Rome, Mesopotamian civiization instead of Babylon and Assyria, modern European civilization instead of the assorted nation-states represented, possibly even broad-brush enough to have Western civilization incorporating the modern American cultures. You can't diagnose a discrete "Italian civilization" distinct from either prior Roman civilization or contemporary European civilizations on any basis other than the nation-state.

Of course it's undeniable that there's been a great deal of cultural development between Augustus' time and the modern Italian state, but that's true of every historical civ in the game. If you take that line then, again, what makes a civ called Italy more deserving than one called the Papal States, from which most of these artefacts originate?
 
Again this argument, Rome is not Italy. You know that rome conquered parts of hispania before completing the conquest of northern italy?
Then how is northern italy more roman than spain?

Italian states shared an identity and cultural ties far before unification, like greek city states shared an identity before being conquered by alexander and german states shared an identity before being united under prussian rule.
Altough I agree with you about the broad civilization definition, in terms of this game Italy is most definitely classifiabe as a civilization even before unification.

My point on city state wonders is that city states are not a legitimate rapresentation of a civilization that built wonders, discovered technologies etc...

From a game perspective, Rome is a military-productive civ.
Italy would be a culture-tourism/trade civilization. Plenty of differences to warrant its inclusion.

I can agree on the artist nationality point, but still I do not think we can say that papal states were not part of the italian civilization.
 
My prediction for Asian civ:

Civ : Majapahit
Capital : Trowulan
Leader : Queen Tribhuwana
UU : Jong ship. Replace Galleass, may enter ocean tiles.
UB : Candi (replace monument/amphitheater/temple/shrine), generates tourism and gold in addition to normal effect.
UA : Spice trade. International naval trade route generate culture, gold and faith. After discovering Steam power it will also generate tourism.
 
My prediction for European civ:

Civ :portugal
Capital : Lisboa
Leader : Joao de Braganza
UU : Carrack. Replace caravel. Gain gold every time its discover other civs' or city states' cities.
UB : Padrao. Replace monument. +1 gold for every naval trade route in the city.
UA: Colonial Trade. Increased naval trade route range. Bonus gold for trade route between cities in different continents.
 
My prediction for European civ: (because I think we need more Eastern European Civ)

Civ : Saka/Schytians/Indo-Scythians
Capital : Tanais (European Schytians) or Taxila (Indian Schytians)
Leader : Maues
UU : Schythian Archers. Replace composite bowman. Have additional strength.
UB : Kurgan. Replace shrine/temple/monument/amphitheaters. Ranged unit built in the city gains additional +15 XP. Cost no gold for maintenance
UA : Golden Hills. Gold and silver produce additional hammers. +25% speed of Ranged units productions in city with gold or silver.
 
bob massingbird said:
My predictions for African Civ :
Civ : Dahomey
Capital : Abomey
Leader : Do-Aklin
UU : Dahomey Amazon. Replace musketman. -25% to all nearby enemy units' morale if fighting in friendly territory.
UB : Slave Station. Replace market. Gain additional gold for every enemy unit killed nearby.
UA: Annual Customs of Dahomey. Randomly gain bonus of culture, gold, hammer or food productions during golen ages.
Click to expand...

I see many African civs mentioned, with in the quote another one, but I dont know much about african history and I do think that there are more people here who are unaware like me. For possible African civs I already heard these:
  • Zulu
  • Nubia
  • Moors/Morocco
  • Kongo
  • Ashanti
  • Swahili
  • Madagascar/Merina Kingdom
  • Kanem Empire
  • ...and several others
I think it would be a good idea if someone with more knowledge could summarize what their chances are to get in based on arguments.
 
Bonci said:
Again this argument, Rome is not Italy. You know that rome conquered parts of hispania before completing the conquest of northern italy?
Then how is northern italy more roman than spain?

Italian states shared an identity and cultural ties far before unification, like greek city states shared an identity before being conquered by alexander and german states shared an identity before being united under prussian rule.
Altough I agree with you about the broad civilization definition, in terms of this game Italy is most definitely classifiabe as a civilization even before unification.

My point on city state wonders is that city states are not a legitimate rapresentation of a civilization that built wonders, discovered technologies etc...

From a game perspective, Rome is a military-productive civ.
Italy would be a culture-tourism/trade civilization. Plenty of differences to warrant its inclusion.

I can agree on the artist nationality point, but still I do not think we can say that papal states were not part of the italian civilization.
Click to expand...

Within the context of this game, italy is not classified as a civ before inclusion. The only way i can see it involved is as the modern nation state, taking aspects from the renaissance history.
But i see that as such a weak candidate, because Modern Italy is primarily what it would then represent, and nobody really thinks on its own that it has a place.

Differences don't warrant inclusion. Building of wonders doesn't guarantee inclusion. In this case fortunately though, their differences and wonder building among other things HAS warranted inclusion. We already have them represented as city states, and that seems utterly reasonable to me. They were city states. They were not unified until much later on when they had largely passed their significance as cultural and trading hubs. That means we are left we a dozen separate states with a somewhat unified culture.

At this point i'm gunna put in that i don't think Greece would have made the cut as a civilisation without alexander, and i don't think italy should. There is no union there. All western civilisations included thus far have been distinct polities or made up (Celts..)

Now i have no problem with Italy being added, but i would much prefer it in DLC form. That way at least those of us who think it is already represented in the best manner can keep it that way at the same time that you can play them as a full blown civ.
 
ABOUT ITALY: There are good points about the italian civ on this thread. The inclusion of italy is a major problem (even for the developers, I think). Let's face the arguments and counter arguments:

ITALY:
- Strong culture (defenition of civilization)
- No need of national unification (like greece or germany)
- Easy to provide city names

NO ITALY:
- Firaxis gives the name "civilization" to "nation" [personally, I do understand, but I do't agree]
- Many important city states will be lost
- There are other civilizations waiting to get in that could cause less problems.

(I won't use the arguments of city states as they are not that important in my oppinion...)
In conclusion, Italy is a major necessary civilization BUT the game was designed (from the beginning) to not include Italy. Solution? Include italy in BNW or in any future DLC and make an option in advanced setup "italian cities as city-states (no italy)"

ABOUT PORTUGAL: Well... Brazil is in civ V (AWSOM!!!) I don't see a way to exclude portugal. It should have appeared as a DLC before GaK and it is not even confirmed in BNW.
The point is that portugal had much more importance in world politics (contact with esastern nations) and cultue (missionaries, etc.) than some civilizations we see (Austria or Sweden. Note that I really like these civs). Having Poland and no Portugal is just stupid. Removing portugal because there is Brazil would be like removing England becuase we have the US. There is "expansion" in social policies. Portugal fits there perfectly (much better than in trade). "Indonesia is a trade civ and if they come to civ, portugal will not appear" some people say... False. There are many ways to improve trade AND portugal is better as an expansive civ.

In conclusion........... Or we have portugal or the developers lost their mind... (just kidding, but there will be portugal. you can confirm it as the 4th civ)
 
Well, if you think that Greece should not be in civilization...I don't know how to change your mind.

Still its inclusion generates a precedent, and I do not se why we should use two weights and two measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Civ always beats me to World Wonder
Replies
3
Views
204
GeneralZIft
GeneralZIft
OzzyKP
  • Poll
Which Civ5 Wonders of the World Have You Visited? (Pt 1)
Replies
5
Views
795
borad
B
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
987
coolhandluke11
C
OzzyKP
  • Poll
Which Civ5 Wonders of the World Have You Visited? (Pt 2)
Replies
1
Views
479
borad
B
mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
362
mastrude
mastrude
Top Bottom