Why do you say so?
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Brave New World's 9 new Civs
- Thread starter Art Grin
- Start date
- Status
Emperor Giulio
King
I would particularly like to see that happen, he commissioned a famous cathedral in my dad's town of Altamura, in Puglia. He even re-founded the city itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamura_Cathedral
Bonci
King
There are already the danes...
Option
Officer Dog
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 223
I'm perfectly fine with people opposing the inclusion of certain cultures as civs in the game (although I never would think it would be something to pride yourself in...), but just plainly going out of your way to throw as many insults at the people who don't share your opinion is quite agitating.
I mean, it all winds down to a flag in a video game.
I mean, it all winds down to a flag in a video game.
Their city list. It has Burmese cities in it
SolInvictus
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 183
I don't think we'll get an Italian-Norman civ and I don't want one in BNW, but how is the idea ridiculous? The Normans conquered Sicily and much of southern Italy and ruled it for the better part of two-centuries. We already have civs that didn't last as long or rule as large an empire in the game. I think calling the idea ridiculous is rather harsh.
Emperor Giulio
King
Ridiculous if you don't know history.
who's arguing for an Italian-Norman civ? Norman civ would be fine.
Tsuchinoko
Warlord
I'd be very surprised, and rather disappointed if the Normans were added as a civ - not only is Europe already heavily represented, but there are numerous European civs that would be better candidates. In my opinion at least, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, the Swiss, the Kievan Rus/Ukraine, or perhaps a classical European civ like Gaul, the Goths or the Franks would be a far more unique and deserving addition than the Normans. Even Venice would be better than them, and that's another civ idea that I'm really not too keen on (a unified Italy would be a better choice imo).
That's also not taking into account all of the fantastic civ options they have from outside Europe as well - Sumeria, the Hittites, the Khmer, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, Tibet, the Mughals, the Kushans, Israel, Phoenicia, Armenia, Kongo, the Swahili, Mali, Nubia, Gran Columbia, Argentina, the Chibcha/Muisca, the Olmec, the Sioux, the Pueblo, the Cherokee, the Inuit - do we really want to include the Normans at the expense of one of those? I know that we all have different priorities when it comes to what civs we think should be included in the game, but the Normans seem like a rather unecessary choice when we already have the Vikings (as Denmark), France and England. If people really want them in, then I'm sure somebody will make a mod for them anyway.
That's also not taking into account all of the fantastic civ options they have from outside Europe as well - Sumeria, the Hittites, the Khmer, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, Tibet, the Mughals, the Kushans, Israel, Phoenicia, Armenia, Kongo, the Swahili, Mali, Nubia, Gran Columbia, Argentina, the Chibcha/Muisca, the Olmec, the Sioux, the Pueblo, the Cherokee, the Inuit - do we really want to include the Normans at the expense of one of those? I know that we all have different priorities when it comes to what civs we think should be included in the game, but the Normans seem like a rather unecessary choice when we already have the Vikings (as Denmark), France and England. If people really want them in, then I'm sure somebody will make a mod for them anyway.
Moderator Action: This is a discussion thread, so please use your logic to make a case, this is not adding to the discussion. If you do not have anything to add, then please move along as this borders on trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Further, if you have a problem with another member, please report the post and let the staff handle it. Trying to act like a moderator only makes things worse.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
VermelhoRed
Prince
The problem is not size or longevity, I think. The problem is an Italian-Norman civ wouldn't be very special, culture-wise. It doesn't have that much... "personality", compared to Venice, for example.
Bonci
King
The danes were normans, that was my point...they were the same population living in two different places. Clearly there were differences, but they belonged to the same "civilization".
Sorry if I sounded rude, I thought my statement was self explaining.
Sorry if I sounded rude, I thought my statement was self explaining.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
The Italian-Norman state successfully blended the cultural traditions of the Scandinavian Normans, Latin Italians, Byzantine Greeks, and North African Muslims for 2 centuries. Roger II of Sicily, the greatest King of Sicily, was known for having Arab/Berber Muslims as well as Christians at his court, and was praised by Muslim rulers as one of the greatest of the Christian monarchs. They were far from not being special culture-wise and not having personality. The problem, more so, is translating this into a feasible civilization.
Stove
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 79
My list with reasoning.
Confirmed Civs:
1. Portugal
2. Brazil
3. Assyria
4. Zulu
5. Portugal
Almost confirmed civs:
6. Morocco
This leaves 3 civs remaining.
7. Lakota/Sioux- The fact that they had the Pueblo shows that they wanted another Native American civ. Of all the remaining ones, I think the Lakota are the most important. They were able to put up a very strong fight against the US even though the US was so much more advanced (possible UA about fighting someone with more techs than you?). They also fit because of the fact that there is said to be a new resource connected to a civ and it could be buffalo with the Lakota. The only other civ that I think properly fits the Native American qualification is the Inuit, but that is only because of uniqueness instead of influence.
8. Indonesia- I'm not very big on my Indonesian history, but from what I know they were a very large trade empire, which fits the new mechanics. This is also an area of the world, SE Asia, that needs more coverage. Siam is not enough. The other civ that fits the SE Asia qualification is Vietnam, but I don't think they are as relevant, and they conflict with Siam as well
9. Belgium- This hasn't been a popular choice, but I think it's the one that will happen. They fit the bill for both being involved in the Scramble for Africa and the fact that the late game is being focused more. We've also yet to see Brussels as a city-state. They overlap with Germany, France, and the Netherlands, but they also have their own distinct history from the others. The World Congress idea also fits them (European Union). The other civ I thought about putting here was Italy, but I think Italy has never been significant enough as a unified nation, and there's the problems with two Romes and a lot of Italian city-states.
Confirmed Civs:
1. Portugal
2. Brazil
3. Assyria
4. Zulu
5. Portugal
Almost confirmed civs:
6. Morocco
This leaves 3 civs remaining.
7. Lakota/Sioux- The fact that they had the Pueblo shows that they wanted another Native American civ. Of all the remaining ones, I think the Lakota are the most important. They were able to put up a very strong fight against the US even though the US was so much more advanced (possible UA about fighting someone with more techs than you?). They also fit because of the fact that there is said to be a new resource connected to a civ and it could be buffalo with the Lakota. The only other civ that I think properly fits the Native American qualification is the Inuit, but that is only because of uniqueness instead of influence.
8. Indonesia- I'm not very big on my Indonesian history, but from what I know they were a very large trade empire, which fits the new mechanics. This is also an area of the world, SE Asia, that needs more coverage. Siam is not enough. The other civ that fits the SE Asia qualification is Vietnam, but I don't think they are as relevant, and they conflict with Siam as well
9. Belgium- This hasn't been a popular choice, but I think it's the one that will happen. They fit the bill for both being involved in the Scramble for Africa and the fact that the late game is being focused more. We've also yet to see Brussels as a city-state. They overlap with Germany, France, and the Netherlands, but they also have their own distinct history from the others. The World Congress idea also fits them (European Union). The other civ I thought about putting here was Italy, but I think Italy has never been significant enough as a unified nation, and there's the problems with two Romes and a lot of Italian city-states.
PerceeP927
Warlord
I agree but believe Vietnam could potentially replace any of those three. It's really impossible to decide, we'll have to wait and see
sendos
Immortal
It seems quite possible that there will be another native American civ and another South East Asian civ, but I doubt that Belgium will become a civ, let alone Venice. Leave them as city states.
My only reasoning to support my country as a civ would be its colonial history and expansion across the whole continent, its contribution to WWI, its resistance to Imperial Japan and its sports/tourism culture.
Stove
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 79
Assuming your country is Australia, I don't think you should have much hope there.
Emperor Giulio
King
I feel like that works fine for Rome and Italy as well. Except in this case it's the same population, in the same place, but under two different political entities. Rome was orginally a republic, and modern Italy was originally a monarchy. I wouldn't be opposed to an italian civ, but I think Rome covers it.
VermelhoRed
Prince
I'm not saying they weren't culturally rich. Just that they don't have a "personality", like for example, Venice is associated with commerce and being a republic. The only characteristics from the Italian-Normal state that were "notable", "personality"-wise, were their multiculturality and tolerance. And those characteristcs are both footnote-y and don't fit well in the game.
Also, the speculation for the Normans started with the image of a motte-and-bailey castle. I don't know much about these castles, but from a superficial research, it seems that by the time Normans invaded Italy, they were already obsolete. I think they would fit a generic Norman civ as an UI, but they don't seem to fit Italian-Norman.
EDIT: Let me try to explain myself better. From a historian point of view, the Italian-Norman state is fascinating. But for the game's purposes, the civilizations are like characters, that are cast in roles. The Italian-Norman state would not be a good character. Which is why color diversity is also important.
I'm hoping for Viet Nam, Inuit and Venice, particularly.
- Status
Similar threads
