Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Menzies]

Athens and Sparta together, when they were sworn enemies more often than they've been allies.

What's the problem with India or China? They represent their modern states and then they go back in time. Unlike Greece, which represents only it's Ancient culture.

Uh... you're kidding right?

Both India and China represent far more than just the modern states (particularly as China has a 7th/8th century ruler). The point of the game isn't that it represents a bunch of small independant political entities, but instead Civilizations and Cultures. That's why we have Civilizations like Germany, England, Greece, Polynesia, Mongolia, China, India etc. rather than Prussia, Bavaria, German Empire, United Kingdom, Athena, Makedonia, Sparta, Hawaii, Aotearoa, Yuan Dynasty, Golden Horde, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate, Zhou Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Mughal Empire, Maurya Empire... and so on. If that's what you really want, I would suggest looking into Paradox Games' products (they are quite frankly fantastic if that is what you're looking for), but that is not what Civilization is or about. The Civs in game are always going to be more general, as they are Civilizations, not Nations, not Nation-states, not short lived political entities. They follow the people and culture throughout their history, and whilst some have relation to eachother, they always have their own identity and culture.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Uh... you're kidding right?

Both India and China represent far more than just the modern states (particularly as China has a 7th/8th century ruler). The point of the game isn't that it represents a bunch of small independant political entities, but instead Civilizations and Cultures. That's why we have Civilizations like Germany, England, Greece, Polynesia, Mongolia, China, India etc. rather than Prussia, Bavaria, German Empire, United Kingdom, Athena, Makedonia, Sparta, Hawaii, Aotearoa, Yuan Dynasty, Golden Horde, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate, Zhou Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Mughal Empire, Maurya Empire... and so on. If that's what you really want, I would suggest looking into Paradox Games' products (they are quite frankly fantastic if that is what you're looking for), but that is not what Civilization is or about. The Civs in game are always going to be more general, as they are Civilizations, not Nations, not Nation-states, not short lived political entities. They follow the people and culture throughout their history, and whilst some have relation to eachother, they always have their own identity and culture.

I get your point, but where does a civilization end and another starts? If Athens, Sparta and Alexander's Macedon are part of the Greek civilization, why isn't Rome too? Also, when does one civilization become many civilizations (Rome into Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Romania)? I think political entities are the best "boundary" we can have to draw limits between civilizations. I also really want to have Athens fight with Sparta

 

[Kerath]

As an Italian myself, I'm rather curious about the leader they would pick for an Italic civ. As I stated before, Florence is maybe the first candidate for that: Lorenzo de' Medici has already appeared in the intro movie of G+K; modern Italian was born in Tuscany, so little trouble for language used; Uffizi is in Florence. The problem is, Florence's domination was very (geographically) limited, while Venice and the Kingdom of Sicily were a lot bigger, but their leaders are IMO quite less renowned (a lot of Doges or Manfredi, for example). And the probability they would choose Mussolini or a more modern leader is very little.

This can guide us on thinking about the Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) or the time period just before it. At this regard, I think Camillo Benso would be a better candidate than Garibaldi or a Savoy king and this would spare us all the thinking about the capital city (they could choose Turin instead of Rome). One of the most famous battles between Italian forces and africans, the battle of Adua, happened in 1896 = right in the middle of the Italian kingdom's story.

In the end, given the fact it would be an Italian civ, we have two choices: modern Italy or medieval-Renaissance Italy. Which will fit best?

About Morocco and the Almohads, I think that would be a great choice in case they wanna do a Reconquista-like scenario or if they want to mix history in the SfA one (Almohads toe to toe with Haile Selassie and, why not, Ramesses ).

Sorry for possible errors :\

 

[VermelhoRed]

As an Italian myself, I'm rather curious about the leader they would pick for an Italic civ. As I stated before, Florence is maybe the first candidate for that: Lorenzo de' Medici has already appeared in the intro movie of G+K; modern Italian was born in Tuscany; Uffizi is in Florence. The problem is, Florence's domination was very (geographically) limited, while Venice and the Kingdom of Sicily were a lot bigger, but their leaders are IMO quite less renowned (a lot of Doges or Manfredi, for example). And the probability they would choose Mussolini or a more modern leader is very little.

This can guide us on thinking about the Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) or the time period just before it. At this regard, I think Camillo Benso would be a better candidate than Garibaldi or a Savoy king and this would spare us all the thinking about the capital city (they could choose Turin instead of Rome). One of the most famous battles between Italian forces and africans, the battle of Adua, happened in 1896 = right in the middle of the Italian kingdom's story.

In the end, given the fact it would be an Italian civ, we have two choices: modern Italy or medieval-Renaissance Italy. Which will fit best?

Sorry for possible errors :\

I my opinion, the only possible solution would be modern Italy, but reaching out to the medieval and Renaissance, just like France or Germany. However this civ can't be made because of Rome, so I think Venice is more likely.

I just summed up all my thoughts on this subject in two sentences, I'm proud of myself.

 

[Menzies]

I get your point, but where does a civilization end and another starts? If Athens, Sparta and Alexander's Macedon are part of the Greek civilization, why isn't Rome too? Also, when does one civilization become many civilizations (Rome into Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Romania)? I think political entities are the best "boundary" we can have to draw limits between civilizations. I also really want to have Athens fight with Sparta

That's the hairy question in it all. The key comes down to recognisable cultures. Rome as it was is a recognisable culture and Civilization, hence it is a good choice. Whilst it had control over what was once Greece however doesn't mean that Greece is part of that "Civilization" as such though. Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, England, Byzantia and so forth all rose out of what was once controlled by Rome, and whilst there is definite Roman cultural influences, they themselves are clearly distinct cultures.

The problem is that what they define as different is hard to pin down at times when they have such Civilizations as Polynesia which covers a huge number of loosely associated cultures with a common background, but limited communication and control from one side to another. Then there's cases like with Germany where it covers a huge amount of history for Germanic peoples as a whole, but Austria, part of that history is independent in it's own right. In Germany's case it seems to be modern dominated with some flavour of the past and this is true for a lot of choices they've made.

Long story short it's clear what they've done, and whilst it can seem a bit odd at times and hard to define, it is how they've done, and in terms of Civilizations there's nothing wrong with that. What is clear though is that if we can count Byzantia, France, England etc. as distinct from Rome, we can count Italy as distinct from Rome, despite the geography. I still don't like it, but I hey.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Long story short it's clear what they've done, and whilst it can seem a bit odd at times and hard to define, it is how they've done, and in terms of Civilizations there's nothing wrong with that. What is clear though is that if we can count Byzantia, France, England etc. as distinct from Rome, we can count Italy as distinct from Rome, despite the geography. I still don't like it, but I hey.

I do count Italy as distict from Rome, that's not why I'm against an Italian civilization. The problem I have is the city of Rome, which should be the capital of both. And even if you prefer Florence as Italy's capital, it's undeniable that Rome is one of the top 5, at least, most important cities for the post-Roman-Empire Italian civilization. So I think it's unacceptable that Italy might end up without Rome. As there is no way to represent two Romes in Civ V's system (unless you think calling one of those "Roma" is a solution, I don't and I hope Firaxis doesn't), the only way for Italy to be present is as one of the separate Italian states, like Florence/Tuscany or Venice. Of those, I think Venice is not only the most interesting, but also the most likely, for a number of reasons.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Actually there is, and funnily enough Rome is a part of it. Rome has Londininium (or something like that) in its city-list down the line. They could potentially have Florence as the capital and Roma as the fifth city or so.

 

[turingmachine]

I do count Italy as distict from Rome, that's not why I'm against an Italian civilization. The problem I have is the city of Rome, which should be the capital of both. And even if you prefer Florence as Italy's capital, it's undeniable that Rome is one of the top 5, at least, most important cities for the post-Roman-Empire Italian civilization. So I think it's unacceptable that Italy might end up without Rome. As there is no way to represent two Romes in Civ V's system (unless you think calling one of those "Roma" is a solution, I don't and I hope Firaxis doesn't), the only way for Italy to be present is as one of the separate Italian states, like Florence/Tuscany or Venice. Of those, I think Venice is not only the most interesting, but also the most likely, for a number of reasons.

The game already handles the Rome situation, though. Give both civs the same capital, Rome. If both are in the game, the city goes to whoever builds it first and the other's capital starts at their second city. It's absolutely no big deal. Rome would never be in the game twice.

 

[Kerath]

Another thought of mine: seeing how all the leaders unveiled until now are all males, it could be that some civs will have a female leader. In that case, Italy's only F leader I recall now is Queen Margherita of Savoy (I don't think Lucrezia Borgia would be possible lol).

 

[cybrxkhan]

Another thought of mine: seeing how all the leaders unveiled until now are all males, it could be that some civs will have a female leader. In that case, Italy's only F leader I recall now is Queen Margherita of Savoy (I don't think Lucrezia Borgia would be possible lol).

What about Maria of Portugal?


Anyhow as for female leaders for Italy others have made a few reasonable possibilities, like Matilda of Tuscany (which any self-respecting CKII player should know very well).

 

[Kerath]

Matilde di Canossa, that's right. Studying History at college and playing CKII, I know her very well. But she wasn't a remarkable leader... I don't know, it's like picking El Cid as leader of Spain.

 

[Art Grin]

I do count Italy as distict from Rome, that's not why I'm against an Italian civilization. The problem I have is the city of Rome, which should be the capital of both. And even if you prefer Florence as Italy's capital, it's undeniable that Rome is one of the top 5, at least, most important cities for the post-Roman-Empire Italian civilization. So I think it's unacceptable that Italy might end up without Rome. As there is no way to represent two Romes in Civ V's system (unless you think calling one of those "Roma" is a solution, I don't and I hope Firaxis doesn't), the only way for Italy to be present is as one of the separate Italian states, like Florence/Tuscany or Venice. Of those, I think Venice is not only the most interesting, but also the most likely, for a number of reasons.

Two solutions:
1. Make Rome the capitol of Italy and if the Roman civ is in game, then whoever founds the city first gets it.
2. Make Rome the second city on the Italian city list, if the Roman civ is in game then they'll found the city and Italy won't get it. There's something similar going on with Polynesia and America right now. Honolulu is on both civ's city lists, but America doesn't found it because it's Polynesia's first city if both are in game.

Another thought of mine: seeing how all the leaders unveiled until now are all males, it could be that some civs will have a female leader. In that case, Italy's only F leader I recall now is Queen Margherita of Savoy (I don't think Lucrezia Borgia would be possible lol).

Firaxis really only cares whether or not the female leaders is famous when choosing them.
I would suggest those as possible female leader options for Italy:
Matilda of Tuscany
Caterina Sforza
Lucrecia Borgia

 

[alpha2117]

I do count Italy as distict from Rome, that's not why I'm against an Italian civilization. The problem I have is the city of Rome, which should be the capital of both. And even if you prefer Florence as Italy's capital, it's undeniable that Rome is one of the top 5, at least, most important cities for the post-Roman-Empire Italian civilization. So I think it's unacceptable that Italy might end up without Rome. As there is no way to represent two Romes in Civ V's system (unless you think calling one of those "Roma" is a solution, I don't and I hope Firaxis doesn't), the only way for Italy to be present is as one of the separate Italian states, like Florence/Tuscany or Venice. Of those, I think Venice is not only the most interesting, but also the most likely, for a number of reasons.

Remember that this is not a Paradox style sim it's a world builder. The citylists are merely flavor and have no relation to real world places except for the name. In terms of any Italian city list there is absolutely no issue with having a Roma. Firaxis has already clearly showed that with Constantinople/Istanbul and heaps of cities on Romes list. We have a CS of the Vatican City which sits firmly within Rome in the real world but happily sits on different continents in many a game. If they decided to have a Italian civ then there would be no issue with having Roma on that list - it might ot be the capital (Florence seems a fairly good choice). City names is a nonsense argument because we have already seen them do it so many times that to argue that they wouldn't do it again is ignoring the way they design things. If you dont want an Italian civ then by all means argue the case against it but the city name thing is a non issue. I dont particularly want them nor do I particularly want Venice but if the design choices made are good I'll be happy enough if either are in.

My only issue with Italy is that the game is so Euro centric now that I would prefer the design elements that come with a non Euro civ but if a Euro civ comes in it's hard to argue against a Renaissance flavored Italy isnt offering design possibilities. Venice is a little more problematic in that at it's heart it's a one city deal - if they implement it as a standard civ going out and founding new cities then it doesn't really have any similarity to the real Venice. As a trade civ I dont think it's the best choice (Majapahit is better, and there are a few others with more inherently interesting design choices). Venice to me is either a CS or part of a greater whole. That said a good designer may well have come up with a screamer of a design that I would fall in love with.

 

[Scaramanga]

I my opinion, the only possible solution would be modern Italy, but reaching out to the medieval and Renaissance, just like France or Germany. However this civ can't be made because of Rome, so I think Venice is more likely.

I just summed up all my thoughts on this subject in two sentences, I'm proud of myself.

For me there's a problem with suggesting that the brilliance of the independent city-states somehow culminated with Unified Italy. It's anti-climatic. At least with Germany you have more of an upward trajectory.

 

[otaman1]

I also really want to have Athens fight with Sparta

There's a mod for that here

 

[PhilBowles]

The problem with Macedonia is that people will confuse it with the modern Slavic state. The Macedon of Alexander was very much Greek and is well represented as Greece as in the game.

In fairness you're going to have few if any people who are aware of the modern Baltic state but unaware where Alexander came from. Modern Macedonia doesn't have a high enough profile to spawn that kind of confusion.

The point remains that Greece in the game is Macedon, renamed Greece because it would be odd having a game like Civilization without a "Greek" civ. It's like the Siam situation - representing a set period prior to Siamese conquest, but with a more widely-recognised name than Sukothai. Greece is a military-focused civ, which represents Athens no better than the game's military-focused Rome represents Florence.

 

[Scaramanga]

In fairness you're going to have few if any people who are aware of the modern Baltic state but unaware where Alexander came from. Modern Macedonia doesn't have a high enough profile to spawn that kind of confusion.

The point remains that Greece in the game is Macedon, renamed Greece because it would be odd having a game like Civilization without a "Greek" civ. It's like the Siam situation - representing a set period prior to Siamese conquest, but with a more widely-recognised name than Sukothai. Greece is a military-focused civ, which represents Athens no better than the game's military-focused Rome represents Florence.

Athens is represented by being the capital, which typically is better suited for Great People and Wonder production, especially if you have Maritime friends/allies. The major theme of conflict they were going for was the Greco-Persian wars which on occasion did unite the Greek city-states and secured Alexander's place in history.

 

[Louis XXIV]

As an Italian myself, I'm rather curious about the leader they would pick for an Italic civ. As I stated before, Florence is maybe the first candidate for that: Lorenzo de' Medici has already appeared in the intro movie of G+K; modern Italian was born in Tuscany, so little trouble for language used; Uffizi is in Florence. The problem is, Florence's domination was very (geographically) limited, while Venice and the Kingdom of Sicily were a lot bigger, but their leaders are IMO quite less renowned (a lot of Doges or Manfredi, for example). And the probability they would choose Mussolini or a more modern leader is very little.

I think Lorenzo de' Medici is the best choice. If they felt they had to pick a leader of unified Italy, though, it would be Vittorio Emanuele II.

Or who knows. Maybe it'll be Beppe Grillo (Solo Scherzando )

 

[sukritact]

I think Lorenzo de' Medici is the best choice. If they felt they had to pick a leader of unified Italy, though, it would be Vittorio Emanuele II.

Or who knows. Maybe it'll be Beppe Grillo (Solo Scherzando )

I hope they don't use a unified Italy a the basis, I think most people are right in saying the unified nation was not as notable.

Athens is represented by being the capital, which typically is better suited for Great People and Wonder production, especially if you have Maritime friends/allies. The major theme of conflict they were going for was the Greco-Persian wars which on occasion did unite the Greek city-states and secured Alexander's place in history.

I thought they were two separate events? We had the Greco-Persian Wars which were the Independent Greek City States fighting against an invading Persia, and the Wars of Alexander the Great which was basically Macedonia VS. the Persian Empire, Pauravas, the Greek city states, Illyria, Thrace, Getae and Sogdiana (not in that order).

I would have much preferred a cultural militaristic Greece, I hope they change it slightly. Perhaps throw in an odeon or the Academy

 

[Scaramanga]

I hope they don't use a unified Italy a the basis, I think most people are right in saying the unified nation was not as notable.



I thought they were two separate events? We had the Greco-Persian Wars which were the Independent Greek City States fighting against an invading Persia, and the Wars of Alexander the Great which was basically Macedonia VS. the Persian Empire, Pauravas, the Greek city states, Illyria, Thrace, Getae and Sogdiana (not in that order).

I would have much preferred a cultural militaristic Greece, I hope they change it slightly.

I'm not going to get drawn into anything here I just think that Greeks vs Persians (anachronistically) and the Golden Age of Athens is what they were going for in Greece in the game. That's really all that needs to be said about an in-game Greece IMO.

Similarly with Italy we have a golden age but who was the leading city is less discernible to me, at least, that's what the game seems to be saying with all the city states. If we're looking for direct parallels with Greece then maybe Italy's cities should be added to Napoleon's France. In any case I expect the BNW Civilopedia entry for an Italian civilization to have: "There was a major empire on the Italian peninsula (or so we're told) BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REAL ITALIAN HISTORY. MOVING ON."