Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[aluelkdf]

If Australia's in the game I'd much rather have Aborigines represented.

I would rather see Australia than Aborigines. In my opinion, the Aborigines don't really qualify as a civilian. They were nomadic hunter/gatherers. They had no organized armies, no cities, they didn't even have written language. That's not a civilization in my book.

The European Neanderthals were just as advanced as the aborigines. So if we have aborigines in the game we might as well have Neanderthals. And this is not derogatory (most people have a very inaccurate view of the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were a sub-species of modern humans who when extinct as recent as 30,000 years ago. Their brains were larger than modern human brains and they were likely just as smart.)
Moderator Action: Wrong, this is derogatory, an we don't want to see such statements around.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

But hey, they put the Huns in the game who also don't really qualify as a true civ because they don't even habe their own cities. What kind of "civ" doesn't even have cities? So Attila runs around with cities like New York and Shanghai because there would be no other way to put them in the game other than creating made up fantasy cities. So who knows, they might put Aborigines in the game.

 

[sukritact]

I would rather see Australia than Aborigines. In my opinion, the Aborigines don't really qualify as a civilian. They were nomadic hunter/gatherers. They had no organized armies, no cities, they didn't even have written language. That's not a civilization in my book.

Not arguing for or against either civ, but just wanted to note that the Incans had no written language either.

While I would rather see the Aborigines than Australia; I agree with the sentiment that they don't really work as a civ.

 

[turingmachine]

Sumerians; i just hope they won't forget about Sumerians just because they added Assyrians.

Sadly, I think the Sumerians and Hittites chances died with the Wonders of the Ancient World Scenario.

A lot of the evidence points to that originally being a double civ pack much like Spain and Inca, that for whatever reason they changed their mind and never finished.

You would think this doesn't matter, but I really don't see them adding two ancient Mesopotamian civs in the same expansion, especially when they said the main theme of the expansion is the later half of the game.

 

[turingmachine]

I would rather see Australia than Aborigines. In my opinion, the Aborigines don't really qualify as a civilian. They were nomadic hunter/gatherers. They had no organized armies, no cities, they didn't even have written language. That's not a civilization in my book.

The European Neanderthals were just as advanced as the aborigines. So if we have aborigines in the game we might as well have Neanderthals. And this is not derogatory (most people have a very inaccurate view of the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were a sub-species of modern humans who when extinct as recent as 30,000 years ago. Their brains were larger than modern human brains and they were likely just as smart.)

But hey, they put the Huns in the game who also don't really qualify as a true civ because they don't even habe their own cities. What kind of "civ" doesn't even have cities? So Attila runs around with cities like New York and Shanghai because there would be no other way to put them in the game other than creating made up fantasy cities. So who knows, they might put Aborigines in the game.

The Vedic Aryans didn't have cities or a written language, yet they composed the Vedas; a cultural legacy and impact that profoundly shaped the world and continues to this day. You shouldn't have such a limited view of what a civilization is. Just because a group doesn't fit the typical model doesn't mean they weren't significant.

 

[Bonci]

Remember that Italy also fits very well the culture and tourism themes...I really hope it's going to happen I could see a problem with the capital, but maybe Florence or Turin could be good alternatives. Italian city-states could appear in the game only if Italy is not present.

I'm really happy that finally Poland got its well deserved spot in civilization, and I'm almost sure that Portugal will fit in there somehow (trade routes).

Also the siege tower is most definitely assyrian.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Not arguing for or against either civ, but just wanted to note that the Incans had no written language either.

While I would rather see the Aborigines than Australia; I agree with the sentiment that they don't really work as a civ.

Yep, neither civs should get in

 

[lp_04]

Here are my guesses, by order of probability:

1- Poland is already given.
2 - Portugal IS necessary. First of all, is more important, in my oppinion, than Austria or Sweden, for instance (I really like Austria and Sweden, that's not the point); second, the international trade rotes can work perfectly with portugal. There will also be the international congress that appears when a civ contacts with all the other (portugal had this purpose in the naval expansion). Don't forgat the Africa Scenario; Portugal was the first european country ever to have a city in Africa (Ceuta, 1415), and the first european country to colonize it (only the coast areas). It will, certainly, be there. If we talk about female leaders, Maria I is a good idea. There can also be leader João II (classic) or Manuel I or even D.Afonso Henriques (Afonso I).
3 - Assyria - siege tower and yellow colours are an interesting argument to support this civilization. I would like to see Assyria instead of the Hittites. It would be good to see sumeria or Akkad (specially akkad) but they will not appear if we have assyria, for ceratin...
4- Kongo - Well, there is an Africa Scenario... Plus, Kongo was an empire that was present for more time than the Zulus and was bigger than them. The only shadow I see over Kongo is that they became vassals of portugal and this can be considered by firaxis that kongo is a minor civ (hope not)... It can also cover some modern nations that have an important role in geoeconomics like Angola.
5- Sioux - There will be needed more native american civilizations. And there is the American Scenario. That's why I think the sioux do not miss this game. You can use other native americans, but I think the sioux are the best ones.
6- Zulu - They are a mark of civilization series. I would prefer the Bantu name but ok. It would not be good to see South Africa as a Civ, in my oppinion.
7- Magyars or Hungary, as you wish - look at europeans geopolitical maps from different years and eras. What are is uncovered by civ? That's right, central-east europe! There is a big blank spot in the european map (and it is like the only spot). Firaxis, please fill this spot and then try to cover the other continents. To this region, I would either use Magyars, Ukrain or Kievan Rus'. I think the Magyars are the best ones as Ukrain had not played a big role in history and Kiev is a primordial origin of modern Russia.
8- Tibet - We need more asian civilizations and the best one is Tibet. It is an ancient civ that walked throught the times and appears in the modern world as one of the major political problems (and we have in this expansion the world congresses).
9- Brazil - there is no modern post-colonial civilization in civ V. As Brazil is the economical, cultural and scientific power of south america in the modern times, I think it will be present. Plus, there is the tourism concept (which is a bit different from beach-sun-tourism). The only problem is that Brazilian history is mixed with Portuguese history. But I think it won't be considered a problem. Let's see in this expansion (which has an awsom name by the way, I always wanted to read that book) the portuguese diaspora and the portuguese language in action!!

Supplents:
Belgium (maby change it for tibet.) - Important role in modern politics. There is a problem with belgium: it is not a coese civilization and I don't consider the nation of Belgium as a Civilization (in the right concept). But it would be very good to see it
Inuit - I think it can come in a future DLC as Polynesia. If it happens, we will have 44 civilizations (a round number. Not very important but just a curiosity).

I look forward to this Expansion!

 

[xcross211]

Sumerians; i just hope they won't forget about Sumerians just because they added Assyrians.

Sumer has appeared in Ancient wonder DLC scenarios. I think there is little chance for Sumer to be a playable civilization in normal games.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Here are my guesses, by order of probability:

1- Poland is already given.
2 - Portugal IS necessary. First of all, is more important, in my oppinion, than Austria or Sweden, for instance (I really like Austria and Sweden, that's not the point); second, the international trade rotes can work perfectly with portugal. There will also be the international congress that appears when a civ contacts with all the other (portugal had this purpose in the naval expansion). Don't forgat the Africa Scenario; Portugal was the first european country ever to have a city in Africa (Ceuta, 1415), and the first european country to colonize it (only the coast areas). It will, certainly, be there. If we talk about female leaders, Maria I is a good idea. There can also be leader João II (classic) or Manuel I or even D.Afonso Henriques (Afonso I).
3 - Assyria - siege tower and yellow colours are an interesting argument to support this civilization. I would like to see Assyria instead of the Hittites. It would be good to see sumeria or Akkad (specially akkad) but they will not appear if we have assyria, for ceratin...
4- Kongo - Well, there is an Africa Scenario... Plus, Kongo was an empire that was present for more time than the Zulus and was bigger than them. The only shadow I see over Kongo is that they became vassals of portugal and this can be considered by firaxis that kongo is a minor civ (hope not)... It can also cover some modern nations that have an important role in geoeconomics like Angola.
5- Sioux - There will be needed more native american civilizations. And there is the American Scenario. That's why I think the sioux do not miss this game. You can use other native americans, but I think the sioux are the best ones.
6- Zulu - They are a mark of civilization series. I would prefer the Bantu name but ok. It would not be good to see South Africa as a Civ, in my oppinion.
7- Magyars or Hungary, as you wish - look at europeans geopolitical maps from different years and eras. What are is uncovered by civ? That's right, central-east europe! There is a big blank spot in the european map (and it is like the only spot). Firaxis, please fill this spot and then try to cover the other continents. To this region, I would either use Magyars, Ukrain or Kievan Rus'. I think the Magyars are the best ones as Ukrain had not played a big role in history and Kiev is a primordial origin of modern Russia.
8- Tibet - We need more asian civilizations and the best one is Tibet. It is an ancient civ that walked throught the times and appears in the modern world as one of the major political problems (and we have in this expansion the world congresses).
9- Brazil - there is no modern post-colonial civilization in civ V. As Brazil is the economical, cultural and scientific power of south america in the modern times, I think it will be present. Plus, there is the tourism concept (which is a bit different from beach-sun-tourism). The only problem is that Brazilian history is mixed with Portuguese history. But I think it won't be considered a problem. Let's see in this expansion (which has an awsom name by the way, I always wanted to read that book) the portuguese diaspora and the portuguese language in action!!

I could very well live with that list
Would replace Brazil with something from SE Asia
Khmer or Majapahit
Otherwise perfect

Also, I very much hope that they will finish the Hittite/Sumer civs eventually, and release/re-release them as a proper double DLC pack
(as they originally intended to do)

 

[WillBill]

Here are my guesses, by order of probability:

1- Poland is already given.
2 - Portugal IS necessary. First of all, is more important, in my oppinion, than Austria or Sweden, for instance (I really like Austria and Sweden, that's not the point); second, the international trade rotes can work perfectly with portugal. There will also be the international congress that appears when a civ contacts with all the other (portugal had this purpose in the naval expansion). Don't forgat the Africa Scenario; Portugal was the first european country ever to have a city in Africa (Ceuta, 1415), and the first european country to colonize it (only the coast areas). It will, certainly, be there. If we talk about female leaders, Maria I is a good idea. There can also be leader João II (classic) or Manuel I or even D.Afonso Henriques (Afonso I).
3 - Assyria - siege tower and yellow colours are an interesting argument to support this civilization. I would like to see Assyria instead of the Hittites. It would be good to see sumeria or Akkad (specially akkad) but they will not appear if we have assyria, for ceratin...
4- Kongo - Well, there is an Africa Scenario... Plus, Kongo was an empire that was present for more time than the Zulus and was bigger than them. The only shadow I see over Kongo is that they became vassals of portugal and this can be considered by firaxis that kongo is a minor civ (hope not)... It can also cover some modern nations that have an important role in geoeconomics like Angola.
5- Sioux - There will be needed more native american civilizations. And there is the American Scenario. That's why I think the sioux do not miss this game. You can use other native americans, but I think the sioux are the best ones.
6- Zulu - They are a mark of civilization series. I would prefer the Bantu name but ok. It would not be good to see South Africa as a Civ, in my oppinion.
7- Magyars or Hungary, as you wish - look at europeans geopolitical maps from different years and eras. What are is uncovered by civ? That's right, central-east europe! There is a big blank spot in the european map (and it is like the only spot). Firaxis, please fill this spot and then try to cover the other continents. To this region, I would either use Magyars, Ukrain or Kievan Rus'. I think the Magyars are the best ones as Ukrain had not played a big role in history and Kiev is a primordial origin of modern Russia.
8- Tibet - We need more asian civilizations and the best one is Tibet. It is an ancient civ that walked throught the times and appears in the modern world as one of the major political problems (and we have in this expansion the world congresses).
9- Brazil - there is no modern post-colonial civilization in civ V. As Brazil is the economical, cultural and scientific power of south america in the modern times, I think it will be present. Plus, there is the tourism concept (which is a bit different from beach-sun-tourism). The only problem is that Brazilian history is mixed with Portuguese history. But I think it won't be considered a problem. Let's see in this expansion (which has an awsom name by the way, I always wanted to read that book) the portuguese diaspora and the portuguese language in action!!

Supplents:
Belgium (maby change it for tibet.) - Important role in modern politics. There is a problem with belgium: it is not a coese civilization and I don't consider the nation of Belgium as a Civilization (in the right concept). But it would be very good to see it
Inuit - I think it can come in a future DLC as Polynesia. If it happens, we will have 44 civilizations (a round number. Not very important but just a curiosity).

I look forward to this Expansion!

Nice list, Tibet i doubt they gonna put in the game but id live it to see it.
The Sioux ill trade for The Amani Empire for the World of Warcraft!

 

[AessaSH]

I see no way the Khmer can make it in unless it's our first 2UB or first UB+UI civ. The "Battle Elephant" UU has been way overdone! On the other hand, perhaps a unique civilian unit?

Still, I think they'll consider it well covered by Siam. I'd rather see Vietnam myself. The reintroduction of the Khmer would still be cool though!

How about Burma with Horseman UU..?? This guy almost conquering all parts of Indochina..
At least, it's not feel odd when playing it on Earth map.., considering that Indochina is small and only fit for two or three cities..

But I expecting that we only will get 1 civ for each mainland and maritime Southeast Asia..
Or the worst, 1 SEA civ for the entire game..

 

[Germnoble]

Canada and Australia would be nice :/

Otherwise it seems you guys nailed the choices.

 

[Imalich]

1- Poland is already given.
2 - Portugal IS necessary. First of all, is more important, in my oppinion, than Austria or Sweden, for instance (I really like Austria and Sweden, that's not the point); second, the international trade rotes can work perfectly with portugal. There will also be the international congress that appears when a civ contacts with all the other (portugal had this purpose in the naval expansion). Don't forgat the Africa Scenario; Portugal was the first european country ever to have a city in Africa (Ceuta, 1415), and the first european country to colonize it (only the coast areas). It will, certainly, be there. If we talk about female leaders, Maria I is a good idea. There can also be leader João II (classic) or Manuel I or even D.Afonso Henriques (Afonso I).
3 - Assyria - siege tower and yellow colours are an interesting argument to support this civilization. I would like to see Assyria instead of the Hittites. It would be good to see sumeria or Akkad (specially akkad) but they will not appear if we have assyria, for ceratin...
4- Kongo - Well, there is an Africa Scenario... Plus, Kongo was an empire that was present for more time than the Zulus and was bigger than them. The only shadow I see over Kongo is that they became vassals of portugal and this can be considered by firaxis that kongo is a minor civ (hope not)... It can also cover some modern nations that have an important role in geoeconomics like Angola.
5- Sioux - There will be needed more native american civilizations. And there is the American Scenario. That's why I think the sioux do not miss this game. You can use other native americans, but I think the sioux are the best ones.
6- Zulu - They are a mark of civilization series. I would prefer the Bantu name but ok. It would not be good to see South Africa as a Civ, in my oppinion.
7- Magyars or Hungary, as you wish - look at europeans geopolitical maps from different years and eras. What are is uncovered by civ? That's right, central-east europe! There is a big blank spot in the european map (and it is like the only spot). Firaxis, please fill this spot and then try to cover the other continents. To this region, I would either use Magyars, Ukrain or Kievan Rus'. I think the Magyars are the best ones as Ukrain had not played a big role in history and Kiev is a primordial origin of modern Russia.
8- Tibet - We need more asian civilizations and the best one is Tibet. It is an ancient civ that walked throught the times and appears in the modern world as one of the major political problems (and we have in this expansion the world congresses).
9- Brazil - there is no modern post-colonial civilization in civ V. As Brazil is the economical, cultural and scientific power of south america in the modern times, I think it will be present. Plus, there is the tourism concept (which is a bit different from beach-sun-tourism). The only problem is that Brazilian history is mixed with Portuguese history. But I think it won't be considered a problem. Let's see in this expansion (which has an awsom name by the way, I always wanted to read that book) the portuguese diaspora and the portuguese language in action!!

I agree with pretty much everything. 9 civilizations actually seems few, if you consider these one's.

But really, the greatest voids that need filling, IMO, are South America and Africa. I don't really believe they will adress all this in this expansion, but Brazil (the empire, under Pedro II, not the 'modern'. I don't see much place for modern civs in civ V. Doesn't really suit the concept) and Gran Colombia, under Simon Bolivar, seem like great choices, IMO. For Africa, it's really the traditional Zulu and Kongo (maybe Mali, if weren't for the Songhai).

I would feel like dropping the Magyars (maybe solely out of ignorance), Tibet (just because this do not seem like the expansion for them, G&K fitted best), and maybe the Sioux (I just feel like there are other regions in direr need of adressing) and trading for Khmer, Gran Colombia, Majapahit maybe. Even Italy (empire, under Cavour?) looks like a good choice, considering the culture focus. A shame Europe's so crowded.

 

[Germnoble]

Ok, so if this is basically the agreed list.

1. Poland
2. Assyria
3. Indonesia
4. Portugal
5. Brazil
6. Sioux
7. Khmer
8. Zulu
9. Kongo


Maybe we get another DLC package that reworks the Economy and maybe adds just a simple "Environment" bar that affects happiness in your Civ/The World Congress takes issue with your polluting ways?

Then what Civs could you include other then.

Canada
Mexico
Australia/New Zealand

I don't think the HRE or Hebrews should be included. Maybe a HRE scenario. But Israel is a city state, which is basically how it is IRL.

So how many more Civs could we seriously expect to be included? We have enough European civs. Canada and Mexico for North America, we've covered native Civs now if we include brave new world. I guess some more African Civs maybe, Tibet or Vietnam? Magyars or Hungary?

I don't really see any Civs that are big enough to warrant inclusion after Canada/Australia/Mexico, I don't think New Zealand should get included over Australia and we don't need both of them.

 

[Camikaze]

I imagine trying to shoehorn Aboriginal culture into a very European conception of 'civilization' could actually be seen as quite offensive by a lot of people. This is probably one of the big problems with the game; it classifies the world in terms of city based entities and barbarians, at best leaving no room for Aboriginal peoples, or at worst lumping them into the latter category.

Having a modern Australian civ would be a bit of a no-win situation on the same front, insofar as it would imply tens of thousands of years of Aboriginal presence are not worthy of inclusion, but between twenty-five and eighty years of Australian independence are.

To move to a more pragmatic argument, if the expansion is meant to focus on a new cultural system, you'd think Firaxis would go for civs with highly distinct/disparate cultures, not closely related extensions of those already in the game.

 

[Cicero63]

I doubt the the Holy Roman Empire will ever be included. I believe that Austria was the replacement for the Holy Roman Empire, due to the Hapsburg Monarchy that were Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire and Austria. The civilization of Germany I think covers Prussia, especially with Bismark as the leader. Germany and Austria essentially cover both parts of German History.

 

[Dragonflow]

How about Burma with Horseman UU..?? This guy almost conquering all parts of Indochina..
At least, it's not feel odd when playing it on Earth map.., considering that Indochina is small and only fit for two or three cities..

But I expecting that we only will get 1 civ for each mainland and maritime Southeast Asia..
Or the worst, 1 SEA civ for the entire game..

A horseman UU with bonus damage against cavalry, just so that Siam is happy.
Burma sounds like an interesting choice, although I believe it will be bypassed for somebody like Indonesia.


The HRE's chances of appearance were zero already in vanilla, since the German civ represents the ancient Germanic tribes(Furor Teutonicus UA), the HRE(Landsknecht UU), the German Empire/Prussia(Bismarck) and WW2 Germany(Panzers).
Austria was just another nail in the coffin by separating the Habsburg monarchy from the HRE.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

Long time lurker here.
My list for new civs would be close to what is mentioned.

Poland
Assyria
-Given
Portugal -European
Zulu -Tradition
Kongo -African
Sioux -Native American
Brazil/Australia/Canada -Modern
Indonesia/Majapahit -or other SE Asian
Another native one -Cherokee/Apache seem likely but maybe Morocco/Moors

 

[Inhalaattori]

I almost forgot to throw in my own speculation.

Basically the confirmed ones:
1. Poland
2. Assyria

Speculation civs:
3. Portugal
4. Zulu
5. Kongo
6. Belgium
7. Indonesia( maybe under a different name)
8. Brazil
9. Native American civ

The last one is the one I'm least sure about, because I'm getting the weird feeling Italy is going to waltz in an surprise us all( and cause a lot of anger on this forum).

I think this list is probably pretty much right. I think in Civ V they have made mostly very good civ choices and I expect this to continue.

I would love to see another Civ from South-America, for example Mapuche. From Africa for example Ashanti could be a good civ along with Kongo. Zulus seem to have a lot of support because of appearance in Civ I, but in real history they were not that important.

I really hope they dont have civs like Canada, Mexico, South-Africa or Australia. Just not unique or important enough. Brazil is a modern civ, but its more unique and important than these others.

 

[Menzies]

I think this list is probably pretty much right. I think in Civ V they have made mostly very good civ choices and I expect this to continue.

I would love to see another Civ from South-America, for example Mapuche. From Africa for example Ashanti could be a good civ along with Kongo. Zulus seem to have a lot of support because of appearance in Civ I, but in real history they were not that important.

I really hope they dont have civs like Canada, Mexico, South-Africa or Australia. Just not unique or important enough. Brazil is a modern civ, but its more unique and important than these others.

I don't disagree, but I'm interested in what your answer is, what makes Brazil more important than Canada or Australia, which have contributed greatly to the World internationally in a number of ways?

Even without taking the relative sizes of their population into consideration, Canada and Australia have enormous economies, rivalling that or Brazil, despite Brazil dwarfing them population wise in modern terms. Australia and Canada (particularly Australia) played a significant role in both World Wars as well.

I don't disagree with you, but I don't see what Brazil offers in real terms that Australia and Canada don't.