Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Gucumatz]

I know the Vatican is already a city-state but maybe we should add the papal state

Yea I have them as one of my dark horses for the expansion

(With the Pope's resignation, the Malachy Prophecy [Hey - They had a lot of fun with the Maya UA partly due to the 2012 crap and there are some Catholics who work on developing the game], previous games/scenarios the Vatican has acted as a diplomatic conduit similar to the world congress, would be another faith based civ and could fill up more of Italy not used by city states, potential use even in Scramble for Africa)
=============

I didn't think the Zulu would be in Civ 5 vanilla or in the first expansion. I think they will probably appear in this 2nd and probably last expansion. However, I think we are all getting a little too presumptuous with the Zulu. If there are any DLC following this last expansion I could see the Zulu being placed on wait and instead us getting another African civ. They may be tradition in the game, but they have received backlash before

 

[Uberfrog]

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

I'll join the masses and say that this list seems convincing and would be very satisfying (perhaps swapping Sioux for the Comanche).

Zulu and Kongo are, I think the best choices for the African scenario, as they give the best geographical coverage. I wonder if Ethiopia will be thrown in (on top of the new 9, of course), like Spain was, for players who don't have G&K? A colonisation of Africa scenario would be extremely remiss not to include them.

That would mean you'd have Songhai in the north-west, Ethiopia in the east, Kongo in the centre and Zulu in the south.

 

[ProddingLions]

Has anyone entertained the thought of splitting China into ancient and modern? I know that Civ 5 has shied away from offering multiple leaders for one empire, allowing for more diversity. What if they had a China PR civ with Mao Zedong as leader? One could make the argument that China, with its vast history and longevity, has enough material to have a civ based on the later eras.

This IS a speculation thread, so why not speculate?

 

[AbsintheRed]

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.

There is a thin line between Brazil and the other mentioned civs
I would also choose Brazil if I have to, but you are absolutely right, none of them should get in as a full civ
I really hope Firaxis will continue it's civ choosing trend and won't add any modern civs...
That would be a huge mistake in a game series like this

 

[Imalich]

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.

The question wasn't directed at me, I know, but there are some things i think worthy of being said in this topic. There are just too many criteria to discuss when making these comparisons. I'll just come up with some of them, which i hope make the discussion clearer.

If the criteria is economy, there are only 2 countries among the top 10 economies of the world that are not represented in civ V yet, Brazil and Italy (6th-7th economy and 8th, respectively). Canada and Australia come in 11th and 12th.

But anyway, I personaly don't consider economy as the most important criteria in this matter. (1) Cultural weight and (2) importance to it's region are what i give more value to.

(1) In culture, I think Brazil surpasses both Canada and Australia, as it is more "unique". Of course that's a very subjective perception and the other two are also relevant.
(2) For regional importance, i would say Canada gets a hit... Australia and Brazil surpasses it, as being two big(gest) players in their regions.

If we bring this to a historical level, surely there are lots of merits for each one. I'm not a specialist in these, but Canada has it's military merits, Brazil had it's wars (like the paraguayan) and regional historical significance, and you yourself pointed out aspects of the australians (which I really know less about).

Of course, all that being said, IMO, Brazil has more attachment to this expansion's proposal (culture/tourism and diplomacy) than the other two, even if they have their relevance - specially diplomatically, if i'm not mistaken.

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

Brazil, in terms of marketing and general public perception, is more "unique" than Canada and Australia, which many would just see as another variation of America.

Remmeber that throughout the civ series, even Civ5, civs have not necessarily been chosen because of their achievements. (The most infamous case would be the Zulus, in my opinion, as for the first three Civ games the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, with its many advanced civilizations and cultures, had been uterrly ignored)

 

[Gucumatz]

Brazil has actually had a continent which its been able to dominate . Its waged in war and diplomacy with its neighbors to shape a lot of how S. America looks today. The fact that its a rising power, so much so that many predict it will be the most powerful "Western" Superpower in the world by the end of this century and a more comprehensive native culture for additional units/UA synergy puts Brazil in a better slot. We have only ever had 1 S. American civ ever for the entire continent, its about time there was a 2nd.

 

[OzzyKP]

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.

I think the following four are shoe-ins, based on evidence we've seen and past Civ history:

1. Poland
2. Assyria
3. Portugal
4. Zulu

As for the other five... I dunno. I suppose we could look at it by region/era:

Ancient Mesopotamia:
I don't think we'll see any more ancient Mesopotamian civs. If they're adding Assyria, that'll be enough. I'm sure they'll quit with that.

Africa:
With the Scramble for Africa scenario and the historical inclusion of Zulu in Civ games I felt comfortable enough to add them to the top 4. I think Mali are out, as others have mentioned they are basically replaced by the Songhai. Ethiopia, Zulu, Songhai, Egypt & Arabs probably wouldn't be enough. Only three of those would be in sub Saharan Africa. So I like the suggestion for the Kongo. Especially since they were around during the Scramble for Africa.

Americas:
I think Brazil is long overdue. In all the years of civ we've never had a modern South American civ. Seems to be quite an oversight. With the rise of the BRIC nations, I think Brazil's chances are pretty good.

Mexico or Argentina have a small chance, but I seriously doubt it. I don't really see the Sioux being included. People keep talking about a tie in with the Civil War scenario, but as others have mentioned, it's focused more in the east. There has never been a game of Civ (except Civ:Col of course) where there is more than one North American native civ. I don't see them starting now.

Asia:
People keep suggesting Khmer, but with Siam in the game I doubt they'll add in Khmer as well. Just like I doubt they'll have both the Mali & Songhai. Maybe Khmer will be back in Civ6 or 7, but I don't think it'll happen here.

I very much like the suggestion of Majapahit or Indonesia. Another increasingly populous/important nation right now who should get their due, they occupy an otherwise empty part of the map, and have had some history.

I'm not sure who else they would add. The Mughuls maybe? Generally they've been included under India, but who knows. I think it'd be pretty neat to put them in, but I wouldn't bet on it. Israel perhaps? I dunno.

Europe:
Ah, good ol' crowded, ethnocentric Europe. Poland is in. Some have suggested Belgium... ugh. Under any other circumstance there is no way Belgium would get in, but since we've got a World Congress feature and a Scramble for Africa scenario, Belgium is looking like a real contender. No offense to Belgians, but the idea of adding Belgium makes me a bit ill...
Moderator Action: If you have a reason why you would prefer Belgium not be included, please state it. That it makes you ill is an emotional response and is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Ill because including Belgium makes it much less likely they'll add Hungary. With as crowded as Europe already is I can't see them adding FOUR of the nine new civs from Europe. Poland, Portugal and probably one more. And damn, Hungary needs a shot. The country been around for more than 1,000 years, has made a real impact on Europe, and has been neglected by Civ for much too long. Poland has been in much the same situation, another great civ that just never got its due. So with Poland in could that make Hungary a possibility? I'd sure like to see it, but... probably not.

Another possibility as a dark horse candidate would be Venice. As others mentioned, Venice and trade routes couldn't possibly go together any better. They'd definitely have a trade related power. I think they'd have a stronger case for themselves than modern Italy.

So my guesses for the last five are:

1. Kongo
2. Brazil
3. Majapahit/Indonesia
4. Belgium
5. A darkhorse like: Mexico/Argentina/Mughuls/Hungary(please!)/Venice/Italy/Israel

 

[nunor]

Brazil, in terms of marketing and general public perception, is more "unique" than Canada and Australia, which many would just see as another variation of America.

I'd say it really is more unique... Brazilian society and culture is a melting pot of Portuguese, Amerindian and African customs, enriched by successive waves of European (namely Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch) and Asian (namely Japanese and Korean) immigration. The impression I get is that Canada and Australia have been hosting a lot of foreign communities, but with no interaction between them, nothing intrinsically Canadian or Australian has been produced. Brazil actually took all those influences, combined them, and produced unique, "stand-alone" Brazilian styles.

It's just a feeling, though. I could be wrong.

 

[CivCube]

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.

Just wanted to requote Camikaze because he makes a very good point. It's always going to be an awkward question of what constitutes a "civ" in this game. I think Firaxis has done a good job of walking that tightrope for Civ 5.

 

[strijder20]

No offense to Belgians, but the idea of adding Belgium makes me a bit ill...

No offence taken, it is making me a bit ill too.
(Especially because we will probably get Leopold II as a leader if we're added... ugh.)

 

[Gucumatz]

Honestly Leopold II is a leader I would want to see less than even Hitler.

 

[Bad Wolf]

The UU could be like the Canadian Mounties

Although I would love to see Canada included in the game, I would hate this as a UU. It's a far more gross stereotype than any other (hockey and snow included). The Mounties are indeed a national symbol, but they were never involved in any major military conflict (except a minor scuffle with the Red River Metis, which I would hardly count as anything approaching a war). Contrast this to the Canadian Corps, who made a name for themselves as among the most feared and respected of the Entente troops (which in turn helped give rise to the very idea of a Canadian identity independent of the British empire).

Australia and Canada are both part of the British Commonwealth

Not to split hairs, but so is India.

Let's not forget, btw, that England represents only ENGLAND, not the entire British empire, and in fact not even the entire British isles (as the inclusion of the Celts and their city-list certainly proves).

Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King or John A. MacDonald as leader. Possibly diplo UA

I think Macdonald is the only logical choice. King was a master political operator, but Macdonald was a nation-builder; through sheer force of personality he brought together six colonies spread across an entire continent, most of which really would have been content to remain colonies (or become independent themselves) and forged them into a single country.

Diplo UA would make sense to represent the golden age of Canadian diplomacy in the post-WWII era (a Canadian diplomat wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of course Lester Pearson famously prevented a war over the Suez Canal), but I would caution that this age is long since over. Canada still punches above its weight in international affairs but it doesn't wield the clout it did in the post-war era (this is unsurprising; after all, neither does the US). I think a trade or resource-based UA would make far more sense, as Canada's main advantage has always been its abundant natural resources.

I feel that any modern Latin American country has a fair chance of making it in.

I think the only ones with any real chance of inclusion are Brazil and Argentina, and of those two I'd say Brazil is far more likely. (They're doing great these days, and would really fit the modern- and trade-based focus of this game.) Argentina was a major centre of world commerce during its heyday around the turn of the century, but it has since declined markedly, making it far less likely we'll see it.

As for Gran Colombia... this would surprise me more than anything. It was an artificial union that survived barely a decade. Not saying it didn't have an impact or anything, but I think it's safe to assume the devs wouldn't have given much consideration to "civs" that lasted just over ten years. You're as likely to see the United Arab Republic or the Republic of Texas.

Canada and Australia don't really have independence

Really? That's a really interesting position; I'm sure the British Imperial Parliament would be fascinated to learn that they still have authority to govern Canada and Australia. You should write them informing them of this.

 

[fuzzatron717]

Yea I have them as one of my dark horses for the expansion

(With the Pope's resignation, the Malachy Prophecy [Hey - They had a lot of fun with the Maya UA partly due to the 2012 crap and there are some Catholics who work on developing the game], previous games/scenarios the Vatican has acted as a diplomatic conduit similar to the world congress, would be another faith based civ and could fill up more of Italy not used by city states, potential use even in Scramble for Africa)
=============

I didn't think the Zulu would be in Civ 5 vanilla or in the first expansion. I think they will probably appear in this 2nd and probably last expansion. However, I think we are all getting a little too presumptuous with the Zulu. If there are any DLC following this last expansion I could see the Zulu being placed on wait and instead us getting another African civ. They may be tradition in the game, but they have received backlash before

Actually I was joking on the that before the mods deleted it I had a picture of the grumpy cat with the pope hat on. Plus in all seriousness who would be the actual leader there have been many good and bad leaders.

 

[Sikandar]

I think the following four are shoe-ins, based on evidence we've seen and past Civ history:

1. Poland
2. Assyria
3. Portugal
4. Zulu

As for the other five... I dunno. I suppose we could look at it by region/era:

Ancient Mesopotamia:
I don't think we'll see any more ancient Mesopotamian civs. If they're adding Assyria, that'll be enough. I'm sure they'll quit with that.

Africa:
With the Scramble for Africa scenario and the historical inclusion of Zulu in Civ games I felt comfortable enough to add them to the top 4. I think Mali are out, as others have mentioned they are basically replaced by the Songhai. Ethiopia, Zulu, Songhai, Egypt & Arabs probably wouldn't be enough. Only three of those would be in sub Saharan Africa. So I like the suggestion for the Kongo. Especially since they were around during the Scramble for Africa.

Americas:
I think Brazil is long overdue. In all the years of civ we've never had a modern South American civ. Seems to be quite an oversight. With the rise of the BRIC nations, I think Brazil's chances are pretty good.

Mexico or Argentina have a small chance, but I seriously doubt it. I don't really see the Sioux being included. People keep talking about a tie in with the Civil War scenario, but as others have mentioned, it's focused more in the east. There has never been a game of Civ (except Civ:Col of course) where there is more than one North American native civ. I don't see them starting now.

Asia:
People keep suggesting Khmer, but with Siam in the game I doubt they'll add in Khmer as well. Just like I doubt they'll have both the Mali & Songhai. Maybe Khmer will be back in Civ6 or 7, but I don't think it'll happen here.

I very much like the suggestion of Majapahit or Indonesia. Another increasingly populous/important nation right now who should get their due, they occupy an otherwise empty part of the map, and have had some history.

I'm not sure who else they would add. The Mughuls maybe? Generally they've been included under India, but who knows. I think it'd be pretty neat to put them in, but I wouldn't bet on it. Israel perhaps? I dunno.

Europe:
Ah, good ol' crowded, ethnocentric Europe. Poland is in. Some have suggested Belgium... ugh. Under any other circumstance there is no way Belgium would get in, but since we've got a World Congress feature and a Scramble for Africa scenario, Belgium is looking like a real contender. No offense to Belgians, but the idea of adding Belgium makes me a bit ill...

Ill because including Belgium makes it much less likely they'll add Hungary. With as crowded as Europe already is I can't see them adding FOUR of the nine new civs from Europe. Poland, Portugal and probably one more. And damn, Hungary needs a shot. The country been around for more than 1,000 years, has made a real impact on Europe, and has been neglected by Civ for much too long. Poland has been in much the same situation, another great civ that just never got its due. So with Poland in could that make Hungary a possibility? I'd sure like to see it, but... probably not.

Another possibility as a dark horse candidate would be Venice. As others mentioned, Venice and trade routes couldn't possibly go together any better. They'd definitely have a trade related power. I think they'd have a stronger case for themselves than modern Italy.

So my guesses for the last five are:

1. Kongo
2. Brazil
3. Majapahit/Indonesia
4. Belgium
5. A darkhorse like: Mexico/Argentina/Mughuls/Hungary(please!)/Venice/Italy/Israel

Good post. I'd like to see the Armenians (they have a rich classical history), Bulgarians, or the Hungarians. The latter two were important civilizations of Middle-Age Europe.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I would also be rather sad if they added Belgium. No offense to anyone from Belgium, of course, but frankly Civ5 has had enough European civs - personally I feel like it's a step back from Civ4 when they finally got started to adding civs other than Europe and Near Eastern civs relevant to Europe, and Western Europe is crowded as is.

I'd say it really is more unique... Brazilian society and culture is a melting pot of Portuguese, Amerindian and African customs, enriched by successive waves of European (namely Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch) and Asian (namely Japanese and Korean) immigration. The impression I get is that Canada and Australia have been hosting a lot of foreign communities, but with no interaction between them, nothing intrinsically Canadian or Australian has been produced. Brazil actually took all those influences, combined them, and produced unique, "stand-alone" Brazilian styles.

It's just a feeling, though. I could be wrong.

Brazil is definitely very unique in that sense, being a mix of many, many different cultures. It's also something that's somewhat well-known to the public, too, and could be marketed rather easily.

 

[Gucumatz]

Actually I was joking on the that before the mods deleted it I had a picture of the grumpy cat with the pope hat on. Plus in all seriousness who would be the actual leader there have been many good and bad leaders.

You have 2,000 years of succession. Picking a leader wouldn't be an issue . The Papal States dominated Italy for centuries and only after Italy finally dealt with the Papal State could it reunify as a country.

 

[Bad Wolf]

Here are my guesses, by order of probability:

1- Poland
2 - Portugal
3 - Assyria
4- Kongo
5- Sioux
6- Zulu
7- Magyars
8- Tibet
9- Brazil

Supplents:
Belgium
Inuit

This is probably the most likely list I've seen so far, with the following caveats:
- I wouldn't bet on the Magyars because Austria kind of covers Hungary already, and because Europe is already very crowded. I'll be really surprised if we see another European civ besides Poland and Portugal (and given the Africa scenario, if I had to bet on a third I'd pick Belgium).
- I also think Tibet is highly unlikely given political realities. (I don't want to get into this, I've seen debates in this place on this topic go on for pages. Let's just say I wouldn't bet on the devs deliberately ensuring the game would be banned in China.)
- Inuit would be interesting but really... what would they even use as a city-list?

Also I've seen Majapahit listed several times... while I wouldn't rule this out, I'd say Indonesia (more well-known) is far more likely if they're looking to give representation to that part of the world.

 

[fuzzatron717]

Although I would love to see Canada included in the game, I would hate this as a UU. It's a far more gross stereotype than any other (hockey and snow included). The Mounties are indeed a national symbol, but they were never involved in any major military conflict (except a minor scuffle with the Red River Metis, which I would hardly count as anything approaching a war). Contrast this to the Canadian Corps, who made a name for themselves as among the most feared and respected of the Entente troops (which in turn helped give rise to the very idea of a Canadian identity independent of the British empire).

Yeah I know I understand that. I am a Canadian I know all the stereotypes here but still it would give Canada ablilty's in tundra hills and forests and Canada does have lots of hills and forests. On the other side the Canadian corps are famous and well respected and battle hardened example vimy ridge. Maybe both could be added if they added Canada later. Leaders though that is one thing Canada has got yet...

But it is unlikely and I guess I have to resort to mods for now. (Sigh)

 

[fuzzatron717]

You have 2,000 years of succession. Picking a leader wouldn't be an issue . The Papal States dominated Italy for centuries and only after Italy finally dealt with the Papal State could it reunify as a country.

But now there is one more problem that people are trying to deal with the Italy, Rome. Rome the Capital of the Roman Empire the Papal state and Modern day Italy adding the Papal state will have the same problem Italy cities and Rome. Overlapping cities and the capital would be very irritating.