Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Nujabes]

I said it gave Vietnam an "edge", not that it discredited Indonesia's inclusion. Between Portugal, Venice, and Morocco we'd have three trade civs introduced in the expansion. We know that Firaxis has stated that they wanted to put in civs that display the new mechanics and so far there is nothing that directly relates to ideologies, which Vietnam could. I don't guarantee it but I'm fairly confident in this theory.

I also think Vietnam is more likely than Indonesia, I'm saying that Portugal as a naval trade civilization is filling Venice's role as well, since the developers have characterized Portugal as the expansion's quintessential naval trade civilization. No guarantees yet about Morocco, but if they're focused on land trade that's different. Venice, however, is largely defined by its maritime trade empire.

 

[Arachnofiend]

The potential for the glass resource would give it something to differentiate it. The UA could be focused around espionage/diplomacy while their trading empire could be represented through, for example, a UB that grants one glass.

Dag nabbit it's a glorified city-state I need to stop getting excited about the gameplay implications they could bring

 

[Louis XXIV]

I also think Vietnam is more likely than Indonesia, I'm saying that Portugal as a naval trade civilization is filling Venice's role as well, since the developers have characterized Portugal as the expansion's quintessential naval trade civilization. No guarantees yet about Morocco, but if they're focused on land trade that's different. Venice, however, is largely defined by its maritime trade empire.

While I agree that Venice is a naval trade civ generally, that doesn't mean their specialties in game have to be that. The current theory is that they have a unique luxury associated with them. So they would be the Unique Luxury trading civ.

 

[VermelhoRed]

So, did anyone analyze civs' colors yet? Because Venice's symbol is a golden winged lion on a red field, and that would heavily clash with Persia's. That might seem minor, but it's still a point to take in consideration.

Also, looking at the revealed civs, we have:

Poland- bright red field, dark red symbol
Brazil- lime green field, dark green symbol
Assyria- light yellow field, bright yellow symbol
Portugal- white field, dark blue symbol
Zulu- light brown field, white symbol

From that we can imagine that it's highly unlikely that another civ with a red field is added, unless it's a very different tone of red than Poland, and there are not that many tones of red.... Could be a case against Marocco.

There's still a place for a blue field, maybe they could have Venice with bright blue field and golden winged lion? I think, depending on the tone of blue they choose, it could fit right between Sweden's dark blue and France's pastel blue

 

[steveg700]

Sorry if I missed this in the discusison, but is there rhyme or reason to white and blue colors for Portugal?

 

[VermelhoRed]

Sorry if I missed this in the discusison, but is there rhyme or reason to white and blue colors for Portugal?

Yes. Portugal has historically been white and blue, they adopted the red and green only after the Republican Revolution occured. Which was in the XX century, I think? So, white and blue throughout most of their history.

 

[alpha2117]

There's an idea that, since the previous expansion and DLC included civs very few people would have expected (namely, Polynesia and the Huns; and to an extent Songhai in vanilla), that BNW will necessarily include a similarly leftfield inclusion.

It's kind of silly logic, in my view, since the Huns clearly fit the Fall of Rome scenario, and Polynesia were almost certainly included for their interesting scenario and unique playstyle rather than just to surprise the audience. Just because the previous game included something you didn't expect doesn't mean all future expansions have to, too.

Suggesting that an obscure civ will be in BNW by virtue of its being obscure is not really an argument. If the past proves anything, it is just that Firaxis aren't afraid to include an obscure civ if it matches their other criteria.

That's why people are suggesting various African civs though. Somewhere like Benin is getting suggested because of the scenario. Same with the various Nth American tribes. Most people done really know much more about them than perhaps their name but they do know they fir the criteria.

I threw out the names Cuba & The Confedarcy not because I want them (although done right both could be interesting) but more because the new game mechanics or scenarios mean they cant be discounted. They haven't been mentioned often but when I look at the American Civil war scenario - I know the CSA has at least been developed for that so it's not unrealistic to think they could be in. It would surprise me - hence dark horse. As for Cuba - it's on the borders of the US, is well known, fits ideology changes etc etc.

If the 7th and 8th slots go to Asian & Nth American civs nobody will be shocked because we expect the developers to spread their choices around and those are the two areas not really addressed so far.

In general that 9th slot is a mystery and in all likelyhood will cause some people to be upset because no matter what they choose it will be different from what they would have chosen. I'd choose Australia, I kind of expect Italy but virtually any of the suggestions people make seem plausible because most any civ choice is plausible - some more than others of course. Some people would pick an ancient civ, others a tribal, others a colonial, others a European etc etc.

 

[nunor]

Sorry if I missed this in the discusison, but is there rhyme or reason to white and blue colors for Portugal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_Portugal#Historical_Flags

 

[otaman1]

We haven't seen any Italian city-states, Jakarta, nor Hanoi. But my bets go to Venice Republic, Indonesia/Vietnam, Morocco, and Sioux/Native tribe

 

[sukritact]

While I agree that Venice is a naval trade civ generally, that doesn't mean their specialties in game have to be that. The current theory is that they have a unique luxury associated with them. So they would be the Unique Luxury trading civ.

And remember the Polos? Marco Polo and all that? Venice could easily be a generic trading civ.

 

[Nujabes]

And remember the Polos? Marco Polo and all that? Venice could easily be a generic trading civ.

They could be, but then it begins to feel like we're stretching, and in doing so kinda defeating the purpose of adding Venice. Besides, I've never played Marco Polo on land.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

So, did anyone analyze civs' colors yet? Because Venice's symbol is a golden winged lion on a red field, and that would heavily clash with Persia's. That might seem minor, but it's still a point to take in consideration.

Also, looking at the revealed civs, we have:

Poland- bright red field, dark red symbol
Brazil- lime green field, dark green symbol
Assyria- light yellow field, bright yellow symbol
Portugal- white field, dark blue symbol
Zulu- light brown field, white symbol

From that we can imagine that it's highly unlikely that another civ with a red field is added, unless it's a very different tone of red than Poland, and there are not that many tones of red.... Could be a case against Marocco.

There's still a place for a blue field, maybe they could have Venice with bright blue field and golden winged lion? I think, depending on the tone of blue they choose, it could fit right between Sweden's dark blue and France's pastel blue

In the Italy/Venice thread we postulated a gold lion on a field of cyan for Venice. It would look a bit like the inverse of Incan colors.

 

[alpha2117]

And remember the Polos? Marco Polo and all that? Venice could easily be a generic trading civ.

So Croatia is in then? He was a Croat.

I tend to think if they do anything with Italy it will be more culture than trade. When I think classical Italy I'm thinking Leonardo, Donatello etc so I'm thinking that they may have some sort of ability to produce more great artists or get increased benefits. Venice was a great trade city as were most of the others but art & culture seems to be the lasting impression to me.

 

[otaman1]

So Croatia is in then? He was a Croat.

I tend to think if they do anything with Italy it will be more culture than trade. When I think classical Italy I'm thinking Leonardo, Donatello etc so I'm thinking that they may have some sort of ability to produce more great artists or get increased benefits. Venice was a great trade city as were most of the others but art & culture seems to be the lasting impression to me.

Marco Polo was a Venetian. He was born in the Republic of Venice

 

[Menzies]

So, did anyone analyze civs' colors yet? Because Venice's symbol is a golden winged lion on a red field, and that would heavily clash with Persia's. That might seem minor, but it's still a point to take in consideration.

Also, looking at the revealed civs, we have:

Poland- bright red field, dark red symbol
Brazil- lime green field, dark green symbol
Assyria- light yellow field, bright yellow symbol
Portugal- white field, dark blue symbol
Zulu- light brown field, white symbol

From that we can imagine that it's highly unlikely that another civ with a red field is added, unless it's a very different tone of red than Poland, and there are not that many tones of red.... Could be a case against Marocco.

There's still a place for a blue field, maybe they could have Venice with bright blue field and golden winged lion? I think, depending on the tone of blue they choose, it could fit right between Sweden's dark blue and France's pastel blue

I doubt that the colours even cross the minds of developers when deciding who to add. If Portugal had been added earlier it probably would have been Green and Red or something similar, and there are others that would have been very different colours. I highly doubt that colours will play any role at all in a decision. They may be a consequence of the order of adding them, but I doubt they play a role in choosing them.

 

[Bonci]

So Croatia is in then? He was a Croat.

Lol? He was born in venice, how can you say he was croatian?
Also Marco Polo doesn't sound as a croatian name to me...

 

[AbsintheRed]

There is a theory that he was born on the Dalmatian coast, on the island of Curzola/Korcula
But it was then part of the the Venetian Republic, not Hungary/Croatia (Croatia was part of Hungarian Kingdom for 850 years)
Also, even if he was born on the island (and this theory is without any real proof), he was certainly born to a venetian family there
So it's completely ridiculous to claim that he was croatian...

I cannot beleive how some of the southern slav nationalistics are trying to steal other nations positive or at least well-known history
Like claming that the Serbians stopped and later pushed the Ottomans out of Europe, and not the Hungarians in the 15-16th century, and later the coalition of the Polish, the Hungarians and the Habsburgs.
I don't want to argue with the fact that the Serbs fought too, that's obviously true, but how can anyone claim that they were the major factor?? (I saw someone pushing this a couple pages before )
And I don't even want to get into some of the romanian nationalistic theories...
Why is it important for some people in these fairly new/modern nations to lie about historical facts?

 

[nunor]

There is a theory that he was born on the Dalmatian coast, on the island of Curzola/Korcula
But it was then part of the the Venetian Republic, not Hungary/Croatia (Croatia was part of Hungarian Kingdom for 850 years)
Also, even if he was born on the island (and this theory is without any real proof), he was certainly born to a venetian family there
So it's completely ridiculous to claim that he was croatian...

I cannot beleive how some of the southern slav nationalistics are trying to steal other nations positive or at least well-known history
Like claming that the Serbian stopped and later pushed the Ottomans out of Europe, and not the Hungarians in the 15-16th century, and later the coalition of the Polish, the Hungarians and the Habsburgs.
I don't want to argue that the Serbs fought too, that's obviously true, but how can anyone claim that they were the major factor?? (I saw someone pushing this a couple pages before )
I don't even want to get into some of the romanian nationalistic theories...
Why is it important for some people in these fairly modern nations to lie about historical facts?

Sorry, but as a Hungarian yourself (apparently), your post looks a bit biased too.

People are entitled to express their opinions in this threads, even nationalistic opinions, as long as they do it respectfully... Some think a Serbian civ is worthy of inclusion; you don't need to bash them to disagree.

 

[andrewlt]

Sorry, but as a Hungarian yourself (apparently), your post looks a bit biased too.

People are entitled to express their opinions in this threads, even nationalistic opinions, as long as they do it respectfully... Some think a Serbian civ is worthy of inclusion; you don't need to bash them to disagree.

Sure, but other people are free to express their opinions as well when certain people's ultra-nationalism goes way overboard into crazy territory. Frankly, I have noticed the same thing he has about posters from the same region.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Sorry, but as a Hungarian yourself (apparently), your post looks a bit biased too.

People are entitled to express their opinions in this threads, even nationalistic opinions, as long as they do it respectfully... Some think a Serbian civ is worthy of inclusion; you don't need to bash them to disagree.

I guess it's true that I'm biased too, at least to some extent
Anyway, I'm not against healthy nationalism at all, that wasn't my point
I'm only against too much nationalism, which results in some misleading nationalistic "facts" or ridiculous claims.
Like Marco Polo was Croatian, Serbia was the main power aganst the Ottomans, or that Romania is the successor state to the Roman Empire...

PS: I'm not even against a Serbian civ actually
It could be a nice historical civilization, altough I think it's not significant enough to be in the first ~80-100 civs
There are a lot way more significant civs, in the area Hungary and Bulgaria for example
IMO Hungary is the most deserving left-out civ from Europe, but as you said, I might be somewhat biased.
Hungary is definitely in the very top tier though, even if you want to be absolutely realistic