Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Louis XXIV]

Or Sweden over Scandinavia. Or Austria in addition to Germany. The only difference is where the modern lines on a map are.

 

[trexeric]

Which is one of the reasons (I think) that they would have Italy over Venice.

 

[Moraiwe]

I think many people don't see Venice as a viable civ because the city still exists, but under a different authority. Had the city been destroyed at some point and not become part of Italy, it would be seen as a fallen civ - which is how I see it.

 

[InsanelyApple]

I'm surprised you think that after you read the Wiki. Is it because of Venice appearing to be replaced or do you actually prefer Italy as a whole civ instead of city-states?

I kind of see it like having all the Greek city states under one civilization. Italy had a huge impact during the Renaissance. That's why I want them. With the new culture mechanic, it would be silly to exclude what them.

Also, whether or not Florence had a bigger impact than Venice, I don't know. Though, I do know Lorenzo de' Medici would probably be the best choice for an Italian civilization and having him as the leader and Venice as the capital would just be odd since Lorenzo was from Florence.

 

[PhilBowles]

I think many people don't see Venice as a viable civ because the city still exists, but under a different authority. Had the city been destroyed at some point and not become part of Italy, it would be seen as a fallen civ - which is how I see it.

I think the key for most people is that, despite a short-lived and rather minor imperial foray, Venice was for most of its golden age a city-state. It seems perverse to introduce a game feature specifically designed to allow city-state representation, and then subsume some of the best-known ones into civs. It's bad enough that Sparta is still a Greek city in the game rather than a CS.

I kind of see it like having all the Greek city states under one civilization. Italy had a huge impact during the Renaissance. That's why I want them. With the new culture mechanic, it would be silly to exclude what them.

The Greek issue is not at all comparable. The game's Greece represents Alexander's unified empire and the subsequent Macedonian empire (the inclusion of Sparta notwithstanding, but most civs have similar anachronisms), hence its military-heavy playstyle, leader and period-appropriate UUs. There was a genuine historical period when Greece was both unified and responsible for major accomplishments; it doesn't represent a conglomeration of city states that were never unified. Despite the capital, it is clearly not representative of Athenian civilisation, which is not best-remembered for its warmongering (although it was militarily highly successful).

And as for the culture mechanic, that makes as much sense applied to the Romans as to the Italians (and not very much applied to the Venetians, who were primarily known for commerce). I'd much rather see the effective but conceptually awkward and uninteresting Glory of Rome UA reworked to better-reflect the cultural prominence of both Roman and later-period Italy than to see a new Italian civ for the sake of it. You compare it with Greece, but I don't see people angling for an Athenian civ because the existing Greek civ doesn't reflect the cultural achievements Athens is best-known for, although this is an exactly analogous argument.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, no. Greece does represent the Empire of Alexander, but it also represents the Poleis independent of Alexander. Hence Athens as its capital and the inclusion of Sparta. I wouldn't dismiss Sparta as an anachronism when the intent is just as easily explained as an agglomeration.

 

[nunor]

Well, no. Greece does represent the Empire of Alexander, but it also represents the Poleis independent of Alexander. Hence Athens as its capital and the inclusion of Sparta. I wouldn't dismiss Sparta as an anachronism when the intent is just as easily explained as an agglomeration.

Exactly.

 

[pedropavani]

Or Sweden over Scandinavia. Or Austria in addition to Germany. The only difference is where the modern lines on a map are.

Not really, Austria and Germany may "share the same culture" (Please notice the " ") but considering how Civ Germany is basically Teutonic/Prussian and how Prussia and Austria antagonized trough a long time, I see it as a completely valid by putting Austria and Germany together on the same game, and I do hope they keep it as a pattern instead of in the future trying to just impose the classic "Blood and Iron" Germany over everything else that happened on the region, and most importantly, over Austria, since it has been a separated entity for way too long and was only part of unified Germany for a few sad years during the WWII era.

Now, back on topic, it is quite funny how people are not speculating about Morocco, even with it basically being confirmed.

 

[PhilBowles]

Well, no. Greece does represent the Empire of Alexander, but it also represents the Poleis independent of Alexander. Hence Athens as its capital and the inclusion of Sparta. I wouldn't dismiss Sparta as an anachronism when the intent is just as easily explained as an agglomeration.

Sparta is likely in the list for no other reason than copy-paste - Sparta has been in the Greek list since Civ I, because until Civ V there was no way to represent it other than as a Greek city, and it would have seemed strange to leave it out. I suspect it just didn't occur to anyone to revisit it. Athens as the capital is probably much the same.

If you're going to take the line that the Greek civ represents Athens and the other independent states, then you have as good (or bad) an argument for complaining about it as the current crop of complaints that Rome shouldn't represent Italy, because the civ portrayed does not represent it well.

Either Khmer or Malaysia/Indonesia would also be very welcome.

And of course none of the CSes that could conceivably be added to the Majapahit city list (Jakarta, KL and Singapore) have yet been spotted in BNW screenshots, so the evidence for Majapahit is pretty much as strong as for Italy (aside from the scenario relevance of an Italian civ).

Greece is Ancient Greece. Look at the units, uniques, and cities. Byzantium is medieval Greece. There is no modern Greece in the game. Also including a separate Macedon could be considered offensive to modern Greeks, who consider the ancient Macedonians Greeks.

Modern Greeks consider the Byzantines Greeks too, but I don't know that they've raised a fuss about the inclusion of Byzantium in the game.

I presume by Macedon what was meant was the Macedonian kingdom, not modern Macedonia (which is unrelated). Macedon was the name of the first unified Greek state (founded by Alexander's unification, and surviving until the Roman conquest); this is however the Greece already represented in the game.

I believe that the "pro-civ" will be, unfortunately, the HRE.
It would have the motte and bailey as UI.

The motte and bailey is much more closely-associated with the Normans than with the HRE, and Civ V already has precedent for using the motte and bailey as a Norman UI (actually the first UI in the game, strictly speaking - from the 1066 scenario packaged with Denmark. I think the graphic is the same one). The HRE itself (as opposed to Charlemagne; while he was called Holy Roman Emperor, his empire and its descendants weren't called the 'Holy Roman Empire' until some centuries afterwards) is mostly associated with the later-medieval and early Renaissance periods, when the motte and bailey was long obsolete.

Finally, the Huns were included not solely because of Attila, but because the Huns indirectly ended the Roman empire's power and launched Europe into the Middle Ages. They had a huge impact on the world in that way.

The Huns did have a huge impact on Europe, but I rather doubt that was a consideration. At best it's a pleasing coincidence. The Huns were included because Attila. And we know that minor powers much less deserving than the Huns have made it in on the strength of a leader in past Civ games - just look at the Zulu. Shaka wasn't even the Zulu leader during their period of greatest prominence. To some degree the Aztecs may fall into the same category; despite lasting about a century, controlling a rather limited area of Mexico, and inheriting rather than creating notable monumental architecture, the Aztec with Montezuma have been a Civ fixture for longer than the more 'deserving' Maya and have tended to get 'higher billing', turning up in the core game while the Maya only show up in expansions.

 

[cybrxkhan]

And of course none of the CSes that could conceivably be added to the Majapahit city list (Jakarta, KL and Singapore) have yet been spotted in BNW screenshots, so the evidence for Majapahit is pretty much as strong as for Italy (aside from the scenario relevance of an Italian civ).

To my knowledge Kuala Lumpur and Singapore were relatively modern cities that were built way after the heydey of the Majapahit - it'd be sort of like having Mexico City and Tijuana in the Aztec city list or Budapest in the Hunnic city list (okay, not the best examples, but I hope that made sense). Though I'm not 100% sure.

 

[PhilBowles]

A Cherokee NA civ could potentially be a good late game civ, depending on what the focus is. Did the devs say that there would be 3 fan favorites, or that they just wouldn't really relate to the new game mechanics?

They said that "about two thirds" of the civs were chosen for mechanics (implying late game mechanics), and one third because of fan pressure. Brazil was given as the specific example of a mechanics civ, and Zulu as a specific example of a fan pressure civ, so we know where those two fit into this scheme.

The three 'fav' civs really have to be ones that don't fit into the new mechanics, since five of the six civs so far revealed are among the biggest fan favourites - plus it's been confirmed that one of those, Brazil, is seen as a mechanics rather than a fan favourite civ.

To my knowledge Kuala Lumpur and Singapore were relatively modern cities that were built way after the heydey of the Majapahit - it'd be sort of like having Mexico City and Tijuana in the Aztec city list or Budapest in the Hunnic city list (okay, not the best examples, but I hope that made sense). Though I'm not 100% sure.

You're right, but I was drawing a somewhat facetious comparison with the arguments made for Italy, which aim to co-opt the achievements of independent entities in order to justify an Italian civ.

 

[InsanelyApple]

You compare it with Greece, but I don't see people angling for an Athenian civ because the existing Greek civ doesn't reflect the cultural achievements Athens is best-known for, although this is an exactly analogous argument.

I would actually like for the Greek Civilization to be split into three, the Athenian Empire, Spartan Empire, and Macedonia Empire. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

 

[VermelhoRed]

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.

Your own list proves you wrong. There was no "Gran Colombia", there was just República de Colómbia. And as far as I know there is no country called Columbia, unless it's an alternate spelling of Colombia, in that case, you counted the same country three times

Also, if Columbus was ever a leader of a country, it would be awesome to be able to play as him. But he didn't.

And Washington is in the game. So, by your analogy, Bolívar should be in?

What I'm saying is that you're comparing him to some mythological people, and the only other equivalent in civ is Dido, and you've seen how popular she is. So, please don't use that logic. He has one country named after him, and Hugo Chavez only named Venezuela (partly) after him for political reasons.

Dude, you are not understanding me. Let me rephrase for a bit. Imagine if Leonardo da Vinci was once Doge of San Marino. San Marino is not very notable civilization-wise, but if it's in you'd be able to play as Leonardo da Vinci!!! Now imagine if Leonardo was a bit less awesome, and you get Bolívar. And imagine if San Marino was a million times more significative and you get Colombia. And Chavez named Venezuela after it's greatest hero, why does that not count?

Finally, the Huns were included not solely because of Attila, but because the Huns indirectly ended the Roman empire's power and launched Europe into the Middle Ages. They had a huge impact on the world in that way.

No, they didn't end the Roman empire's power, either directly or indirectly. There were many factors for Roman decline, the Huns were just a small part of it. And why did they chose Attila instead of, for example, Alaric, the first person to sack Imperial Rome? Because Attila has a mythos around him, that's why!!

It would be interesting if they ever added Mexico, as Mexico City was built atop what was once Tenochtitlan.

Past that Londinium makes a sneaky appearance in the Roman city list.

There's also Mediolanum and Milan.

About Macedon and Ancient Greece. They are seperate civs, but as you state correctly, not in civ5. Ancient Greece, is the civilization of philosophy and local wars, whereas Macedon is the civilization of Alexander the Great conquering great parts of Asia. In my opinion they are different civilizations, but not according to the Civilization series.

I thought about that too. It would be very interesting to have a Greek civ representing the Delian League, a Macedonian civ representing Alexander's Hellenistic kingdom, and it's heir states, and Sparta as a militaristic CS. Would be accurate too.

Makedonia- Leader: Alexander
Capital: Pela
UA- Hellenistic Culture- Conquered cities have a 50% boost to and tourism production.

Or Athens instead of Greece.

I would prefer Athens instead of Greece. And Venice over Italy.

 

[PhilBowles]

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?

Ideologies are a huge focus of the expansion (check the cover art), and are treated as social policy trees. Yes, any culture-themed civ can make use of them, but because ideologies are just a new set of social policy trees, it isn't possible to have an "ideology mechanic" that isn't also a social policy or culture generation mechanic.

Think of an analogy with G&K: many civs in G&K had unique naval units. These weren't anything that couldn't have been included in vanilla, however within the expansion context they were there to showcase the new naval mechanics. Carthage has been described as showing off G&K themes although Carthage has no abilities that couldn't have been included in vanilla. Ships worked differently in G&K, and suddenly a naval civ seems to "fit" the expansion. Same with social policies; nothing's changed about the way social policies are generated, but they're very different in their effects.

I understand Poland can't feasibly be included in G&K with a hope of balance, but the fact is it COULD be included.

If it couldn't be included with a hope of balance, it couldn't be included. Period.

That shows how little it has to do with new mechanics.

It shows exactly how much it has to do with the new mechanics - that the way the mechanics work has changed so fundamentally that something that wouldn't have been feasible in the previous expansion is feasible now.

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.

But we haven't been told that the 6/3 split is in favour of civs with new mechanics, we've been told it's in favour of civs that affect the late game. Brazil was explicitly described as being a mechanic civ because it exploits the new cultural victory condition, not because it generates Great Musicians or tourism (which are new mechanics that come into play early). The fact that Assyria and Portugal couldn't be included in G&K in their current form without minor tweaking has no bearing one way or the other.

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

Since the developers have said they are, yes it is.

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

Brazil has been confirmed as a mechanics civ. Portugal's case is much less clear and depends very much on the designers' concept of a 'mechanics civ'. It's probably the second-most requested civ post-G&K (after the Zulu), it relates to the new mechanics in a somewhat limited way (neither the UU nor the UI relate to the new mechanics, although the UI complements the UA), and its UA is likely to be of rather limited use in the late game which BNW so explicitly focuses on.

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.

Except for Portugal...

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

There are 9 civs in the expansion. We know one of the top 10 fan civs (Kongo) is out, and at least four others are in. With the likelihood that the Sioux are the Native American representative, it doesn't seem a stretch at all that fan civ 11 would be a very reasonable fan-placating addition. If they just picked the top 9 we'd already know what all the civs are. I suspect there will be plenty of annoyed people if Indonesia doesn't make it in now that Kongo's known to be out, but that would be the case whatever other 'fan' civ they put in its place.

 

[Moraiwe]

I think the key for most people is that, despite a short-lived and rather minor imperial foray, Venice was for most of its golden age a city-state.

I'd disagree. But from this statement I suspect we have quite differing definitions of "short-lived", "minor", when Venice's golden-age was, and/or what a city-state is. I doubt we'd be able to come to a consensus.

 

[seancolorado]

There are 9 civs in the expansion. We know one of the top 10 fan civs (Kongo) is out, and at least four others are in. With the likelihood that the Sioux are the Native American representative, it doesn't seem a stretch at all that fan civ 11 would be a very reasonable fan-placating addition. If they just picked the top 9 we'd already know what all the civs are. I suspect there will be plenty of annoyed people if Indonesia doesn't make it in now that Kongo's known to be out, but that would be the case whatever other 'fan' civ they put in its place.

I will be one of those annoyed people if Indonesia doesn't make it. I can already foresee my rant and subsequent "Moderator Action: This thread won't lead anywhere" in the future

 

[SolInvictus]

I will be one of those annoyed people if Indonesia doesn't make it. I can already foresee my rant and subsequent "Moderator Action: This thread won't lead anywhere" in the future

If we don't get more clues or an outright reveal of information soon, I'm afraid the moderators will continue to make appearances as tempers flare and people drift of topic. At least your rant would be relevant.

 

[king Oosterveld]

sorry to go off topic, but i have a question about Morocco;what was the height of their empire? xD im sorry i dont know much about them.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'd disagree. But from this statement I suspect we have quite differing definitions of "short-lived", "minor", when Venice's golden-age was, and/or what a city-state is. I doubt we'd be able to come to a consensus.

Minor and short-lived in comparison with the other European imperial powers - Venice's dominion never extended outside Europe (though granted Constantinople is at the eastern limit of Europe), and it lasted only three centuries (from 1204 to the start of the 15th Century) as a major power, while it was an important, single-city commercial centre for considerably longer. There's not a great deal of subjectivity to it - nearly every major European power lasted longer and controlled a greater land area, and while Spain's golden age was indeed very brief, it had an impact that extended far beyond Europe's borders and across a land area far greater than Venice ever controlled.

I'd grant that it's as deserving of a place in Civ as Sweden, were it not for the fact that Venice's history as a major European power is overshadowed by a history almost three times as long as a commercial city-state. Many civs, in Europe and the wider world, matched or exceeded Venice's accomplishments as an empire, but few city-states were as important in their respective regions as commercial centres.

 

[Louis XXIV]

sorry to go off topic, but i have a question about Morocco;what was the height of their empire? xD im sorry i dont know much about them.

I would go with the Almoravid Empire, but there's also the Almohad Caliphate. The current ruling dynasty is the Alaouite Dynasty, which, iirc, is Arab instead of Berber (who make up the majority of the population).