Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[otaman1]

The only historic figure that can be equated to Hercules or Gilgamesh is, of course, Theodore Roosevelt.

There's a lot more historic figures that are like Hercules (Heracles) & Gilgamesh. There's Hammurabi, Achilles, Alexander the Great, Winston Churchill etc

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the problem with the Inuit on top of that is they don't have the superhuman achievement of the Pacific expansion (which places them in a unique category), they don't have the impressive building projects like the Moai statues, and they didn't have the bureaucracy of Hawaii or the quasi-Empire of Tonga.

In other words, they have the same problems of Polynesia without as many advantages. The advantages are that they would be unique in playstyle, which is quite good.

 

[Navelgazer]

I think the problem with the Inuit on top of that is they don't have the superhuman achievement of the Pacific expansion (which places them in a unique category), they don't have the impressive building projects like the Moai statues, and they didn't have the bureaucracy of Hawaii or the quasi-Empire of Tonga.

In other words, they have the same problems of Polynesia without as many advantages. The advantages are that they would be unique in playstyle, which is quite good.

All true indeed.

 

[Nujabes]

I agree with a bunch of your points, but I'm not sure why you make such a distinction ("superhuman"?) between Pacific expansion and Arctic expansion. I'm not sure the latter isn't more difficult, especially in terms of general lifestyle.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the difference is plenty survive in adverse conditions (look at the Bushmen) and plenty crossed from Asia to North America with the Inuit. The Polynesians invented technology unknown to the rest of the world to reach areas impossible without this technology. Crossing the Bering Strait simply involved walking

 

[Nujabes]

I think the difference is plenty survive in adverse conditions (look at the Bushmen) and plenty crossed from Asia to North America with the Inuit. The Polynesians invented technology unknown to the rest of the world to reach areas impossible without this technology. Crossing the Bering Strait simply involved walking

It's a lil' dismissive to describe it like that, I think, especially since you ignore the rigors of actually surviving there, which is what I said in my previous post. Maybe I'm missing some meaning from the first part of that first sentence.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It's a tricky one because at least one of the 'mechanics' civs - Brazil - has been an 'in-demand' civ as well. In fact Assyria is probably the least popular of the five civs revealed so far. Even when we have the full list it's unlikely we'll be able to distinguish which are the 'mechanics' civs (which we're told make up two thirds of the expansion) and which the 'popular' civs. Assyria's theme-effect is an odd fit for the Library, and appears to be a stretch to give them relevance to the new mechanics. That suggests to me they were included mainly on fan pressure and only then tied into the expansion. They also have no late-game relevance, and I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that the two-thirds Beach referred to are specifically civs that play with the late game (the example was Brazil as a civ devoted to cultural victory, if I recall correctly; significantly, not Brazil as a civ devoted to the tourism mechanic).

Conversely, a civ may not do anything mechanically new in the sense that it doesn't make use of a new BNW resource like trade routes or tourism, but it may be a mechanical civ if it has an ability that wouldn't have been possible in G&K for balance reasons and is only 'unlocked' by a change to - e.g. - cultural victory, and one which gives it advantages in combination with new mechanics. You couldn't make Poland in its BNW form when cultural victory revolved around social policies, and the civ has an advantage when it comes to unlocking ideologies even though it doesn't specifically say in the UA "Gain bonus X when selecting ideologies". Poland was a definite fan favourite, but it segues much better with BNW mechanically than Assyria, and much better with the expansion's late-game focus than Portugal. Poland is almost certainly one of the "mechanics" civs.

If the third 'fan favourite' civ has yet to be revealed, it may be the presumed Native American civ, which it would seem is not a natural fit for the late game any more than Assyria. Of course there's still no certainty there's any such civ. The Pueblo were shown as an example of a civ that was excluded for an interesting reason; nowhere was it implied that they had originally settled on 9 civs, of which Pueblo was the only one that was ditched. It could well be that numerous civs we don't know about were also floated and eventually dropped, not to be replaced by another civ from that region.

Of course it's possible than both Assyria and Portugal are considered 'mechanics' civs after all despite their limited relevance to the late game, in which case we still have two 'fan favourite' civs left to reveal.

Well cultural policies aren't actually changed fundamentally in the expansion, only the benefits of culture. Poland's ability is about generating cultural policies not culture. And that isn't really a feature i would say shows off new mechanics (i believe they used the term mechanics) It may show off the new exploration and aesthetics trees, but so does playing with any civ surely? I understand Poland can't feasibly be included in G&K with a hope of balance, but the fact is it COULD be included. That shows how little it has to do with new mechanics.

Assyria on the other hand, cannot be added to G&K. It's change may at least seem small for now (who knows how it will play out, it could be the equivalent of the mayan pyramid), but it is a new mechanic. What's more, being the earliest building with a great works slot it is a complete showcase for it.

Brazil's been very in demand i know, but they are aren't going to add civs noone wants just for mechanics, so it's a bit of a moot point. All the civs revealed thus far have been on the popular end of the scale. Mechanics are what differentiate them.

I think it's 100% clear that the Zulu are one of the fan favourite civs.

I also think its 100% clear that Brazil and Portugal are mechanics civs.

Poland i am 90% confident of being a fan fav civ, having no explicitly new mechanics and being the most popular european civ yet to be added.

Assyria, being the 11th most popular and having a new mechanic in its library, seems to me to be a mechanics civ. I imagine a lot of people would be a bit miffed at including it over other favs like indonesia, the sioux and co if it is classed as a fan fav

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's a lil' dismissive to describe it like that, I think, especially since you ignore the rigors of actually surviving there, which is what I said in my previous post. Maybe I'm missing some meaning from the first part of that first sentence.

The rigors of surviving there is impressive, but it's also impressive that the Bushmen survive in the Kalahari Desert. Both are inhospitable. So I said they're analogous to the Bushmen there.

 

[PerceeP927]

I'd love to play as Haiti but Port-au-Prince at least needs to be a city-state

 

[EricTheGreat12]

I'd love to play as Haiti but Port-au-Prince at least needs to be a city-state

what would Haiti's UU be?

 

[PerceeP927]

what would Haiti's UU be?

my knowledge of Haitian history is recent and well, insufficient. it'd have to be renaissance or later obviously, and a generic rifleman doesn't sound too appealing. prehaps workers that can defend themselves? I'm not sure if that is possible, being how they can be in the same tile as combat units

 

[VermelhoRed]

I am from Argentina and i still cannot believe how supportive of the Argentine Civ Phanteon16 is . But he is right in that Argentina is far more than "soccer lovers". And Argentina sure beat Brazil in the 1820s war (it was really just Buenos Aires against the Empire), only to lose everything in the negotiation table...

Which war are you talking about? I sure hope it isn't the Cisplatine war, because Brazil totally destroyed Argentinian navy and army, but didn't have the resources to invade Argentina, leading to a merely favourable result in the negotiation.

Following this line of examples, Bolivar is also like Dido, except she didn't turn into a dictator after she didn't get what she wanted. He was a great general who ultimately had little impact in other areas. If you want to claim he's looked up to by todays South Americans, just remember who in particular has used his legacy as a means of attracting popularity, Hugo Chavez. What besides helping to drive out the spaniards did he do? That's a great accomplishment, but on those standards people like San Martin and Ho Chi Minh deserve inclusion as well. The only difference is that Vietnam and Argentina lasted more then 10 or so years. (Please note, though I support both countries, I do not support either leader.) I think people deify Bolivar more then he deserves.

I'm not even going into the deserving part. People deify Bolívar. He's a folk hero. That's the reason why he should be in (deified by his own peoples, admired throughout the world). And how is Bolívar like Dido? Are you saying he didn't exist?

How the frick is Bolivar like Hercules of Gilgamesh? I know he has a lofty place in history but he's not a great epic superhero

He is seen a great epic superhero. Tell me a single person that has two countries named after them.

There's a lot more historic figures that are like Hercules (Heracles) & Gilgamesh. There's Hammurabi, Achilles, Alexander the Great, Winston Churchill etc

Churchill? Bolívar is like a megazord of ten Churchills.

Buenos Aires was many Things.

Mercantile center during the colonial period (Famous for all the sweet, sweet contraband).

Militaristic: One of the Spearheads of the revolutionary war in the early XIX century.

Cultured: It became a cultural center in the XX century.

I can even say religious, we own the goodamn pope right now!

I think cultured would be the best option. I'm saying some harsh things, but I would love to see Argentina in-game. As a civ or with Buenos Aires as city-state.

 

[PerceeP927]

Following this line of examples, Bolivar is also like Dido, except she didn't turn into a dictator after she didn't get what she wanted. He was a great general who ultimately had little impact in other areas. If you want to claim he's looked up to by todays South Americans, just remember who in particular has used his legacy as a means of attracting popularity, Hugo Chavez. What besides helping to drive out the spaniards did he do? That's a great accomplishment, but on those standards people like San Martin and Ho Chi Minh deserve inclusion as well. The only difference is that Vietnam and Argentina lasted more then 10 or so years. (Please note, though I support both countries, I do not support either leader.) I think people deify Bolivar more then he deserves.

why do you say that Colombia only lasted 10 years? What would be included in the game, as always, is the civ at its greatest extent. Gran Colombia was the greatest extent of what can be considered modern day colombia, venezuela, panama, and ecuador.

would you include the Ottoman Empire or Turkey? You include the Ottoman Empire, because that was at its biggest extent (not the best example, because the Ottoman Empire... lasted a long time. I hope you know what I mean)

and again, the main justification is Bolivar. Do you think the Huns are in the game because of their culture and history, or maybe because of the name cemented into everyone's minds, Attila?

 

[otaman1]

what would Haiti's UU be?

Haitian Militia

 

[king Oosterveld]

I've sen tons of arguments about civilizations that will be added because of scenarios, but that hasn't been the case in the past. with G&K, only one civ was added truly because of the scenarios (Ned. was a favorite, Spain was already n the game.) im sort of thinking out of the box, i guess, but why not Iceland/Norway? they were a major economic powerhouse from the 1990ish to 2005. also, this could bring in a naval UU that focuses on exploration in the early game, and a geothermal generator as the UB, bringing in mass production if there i t a mountain/volcanic wonder in our territory. thoughts?

 

[PerceeP927]

Haitian Militia

perhaps, maybe call it a civilian militia, revolutionary fighter or something

give it slightly less combat strength, but give it 3 moves, woodsman upgrade, ability to withdraw (forgot what its called, slingers do it, evasion or something)

 

[PerceeP927]

I've sen tons of arguments about civilizations that will be added because of scenarios, but that hasn't been the case in the past. with G&K, only one civ was added truly because of the scenarios (Ned. was a favorite, Spain was already n the game.) im sort of thinking out of the box, i guess, but why not Iceland/Norway? they were a major economic powerhouse from the 1990ish to 2005. also, this could bring in a naval UU that focuses on exploration in the early game, and a geothermal generator as the UB, bringing in mass production if there i t a mountain/volcanic wonder in our territory. thoughts?

I don't mean to put down the idea, but with only four slots left I am hoping for more unique cultures, ones like Indonesia and Morocco that really need to be in civ. we already have two scandanavian civs I wouldn't count on norway anytime soon

edit: also I think the ingame denmark encompasses norway

 

[ImperialChaos]

He is seen a great epic superhero. Tell me a single person that has two countries named after them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_named_after_people

Columbus is more prominent: Gran Colombia, Colombia, Columbia, etc.

Bolivar is relatively unknown outside of Latin America; whereas Columbus is known universally (except maybe a few places.) Washington appears several times in the U.S. The point is every nation gives their founders or famous leaders a certain grandeur, but that certainly does not make them on a scale of mythic, supernatural beings. That's ludicrous.

Despite that, a Gran Columbia civ would be interesting. It won't happen in BNW though. They have a mod if your interested.

 

[Luziadus]

As he said, cities that would be prerequisites for their inclusion are instead found in-game as city-states (CS).

you mean that if theres a city state it means that will be a civ of that cs?

 

[Gucumatz]

Admittedly Haiti would be an interesting civ - Charismatic leaders, interesting history and existence, unique culture, possible new gameplay, etc.

Certainly not a bad choice imo, but I don't think it will get in