Because of the Scramble for Africa scenario, there will surely be a few African civs involved. My guess is Zulu and Kongo. Possibly Almohads / Morocco.
The devs have been clear that this will have more modern aspects to it. That suggests Brazil and/or Australia as tourism civs.
A few things....
1) Interesting that Firaxis isn't fully working on this, and that Aspyr is instead doing at least some of the work, maybe a significant amount. Hope they're up to the challenge.
2) Glad they will attempt to make cultural victories a bit more interesting. Sitting back and never expanding beyond a few cities gets boring after a few victories.
3) Well, everyone complained about the U.N., and they're finally listening, which is cool. Same with trade routes.
4) Maybe some of the missing multiplayer features everyone keeps asking for will finally be included?
That's a great list and similar to mine that I posted in the thread with basically the same discussion:
Okay, nine civs:
-Poland
-Assyria (possibly - however colours fit Hittites in a scenario earlier)
My hopes/guesses:
-Kongo
-Belgium
-Cherokee
-Brazil
-Portugal
-Majapahit
-Khmer
Is it just me? But this time around we seem to be surer of our civs? The lists are more alike and so. Hmm... What about a dark horse civ? For me, i threw in Belgium, just for fun.
How about Khazar for a dark horse? Probably have a UA for multiple religions in their cities, but would be hard to add for people without G&K. Lists are probably becoming similar because we are reaching the bottom of the barrel for well known civilizations.
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).
1) Interesting that Firaxis isn't fully working on this, and that Aspyr is instead doing at least some of the work, maybe a significant amount. Hope they're up to the challenge.
I imagine that's a mistake on the part of IGN. I can't think of any reason why Aspyr would be doing anything other than the Mac ports, or why Firaxis wouldn't be doing all the development work. Polygon's article states:
Civilization 5 developer Firaxis Games is working on the turn-based strategy title's second expansion, Brave New World, and plans to launch it this summer on Windows PC, publisher 2K Games announced today.
Aspyr Media will handle the expansion's Mac port, which is also set for release in the summer.
I really really hope there won't be more than two European civs.
Portugal seems likely because of the Africa scenario and their association with international trade and their empire.
I'm Ok with Poland because Poles on this forum have been whining/begging for years and this should finally shut them up. There's a chance that they'll now complain about Casimir III instead of Jan III Sobieski, but I can already see this guy in Civ 5 graphics.
And since slavs are unrepresented in civilization I'd let three European civs slide if one of them is Bulgaria or Serbia.
Venice on it's own is unlikely, but I could see them taking Venice and dumping it with all other Italian City States into one Italian civ led by either Garibaldi or one of the Medici.
Italy seems like a good civ to fit in the new culture and trade mechanics, basically they will be a renaissance trade-culture civ.
I'm not sure how I feel about that possibility.
Venice on it's own is unlikely, but I could see them taking Venice and dumping it with all other Italian City States into one Italian civ led by either Garibaldi or one of the Medici.
Italy seems like a good civ to fit in the new culture and trade mechanics, basically they will be a renaissance trade-culture civ.
I'm not sure how I feel about that possibility.
Venice on it's own is unlikely, but I could see them taking Venice and dumping it with all other Italian City States into one Italian civ led by either Garibaldi or one of the Medici.
Italy seems like a good civ to fit in the new culture and trade mechanics, basically they will be a renaissance trade-culture civ.
I'm not sure how I feel about that possibility.
i think there are too many 1800s leaders already so i'd prefer cosimo de medici over garibaldi, but then that puts the emphasis on florence over venice. still, florence were an economic and cultural powerhouse
Venice on it's own is unlikely, but I could see them taking Venice and dumping it with all other Italian City States into one Italian civ led by either Garibaldi or one of the Medici.
Italy seems like a good civ to fit in the new culture and trade mechanics, basically they will be a renaissance trade-culture civ.
I'm not sure how I feel about that possibility.
I'd be fine with that. Just have capital be Venice or Florence or another city state. No need to add confusion by having two Romes. (Or another idea is Rome and Roma.)
I don't think they'll do Italy, given that Rome is a staple civ. In Civ 4 they did do Germany and the HRE, but that wasnt exactly a huge hit with us fans, was it?
With tourism and modern diplomacy being a focus, I can see a modern civ in the game: Brazil, Canada or Australia. In fact, I'd put my money on one of these being in. It's just a great opportunity to get such a civ into the game.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
There's a chance that they'll now complain about Casimir III instead of Jan III Sobieski, but I can already see this guy in Civ 5 graphics.
