Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[ehecatzin]

The wording doesn't mean anything. Why hide achievements about the 4 unknown civs but reveal an achievement with Italy in?

To watch the fans go absolutely crazy on especulation and hype before they reveal Italy the next day?

 

[Gucumatz]

Because it doesn't confirm anything either way? Razor time...

 

[PerceeP927]

The wording doesn't mean anything. Why hide achievements about the 4 unknown civs but reveal an achievement with Italy in?

indeed there is really no way they'd leave in an achievement even referencing a fully playable civ they had not announced yet. no way.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The wording doesn't mean anything. Why hide achievements about the 4 unknown civs but reveal an achievement with Italy in?

Because it concerns specifically a scenario. There's nothing really suspicious about it at first, everyone would've been expecting Italy in the scenario - the wording, though, is pretty suspicious. Perhaps they thought it was innocuous enough.

 

[Gucumatz]

I am certainly no fan of the inclusion of Italy, but again the only thing that would confirm a civ is the inclusion of the typical achievement for winning a game with them. Including an achievement for them in a scenario doesn't guarantee it not being in or it being in. Heck you are convinced they aren't in, which means relatively its innocuous enough to not be hidden for the moment - meaning your own point and example is yourself Percee

 

[Arachnofiend]

Yeah, Italy being in SfA doesn't confirm anything either way so there's no danger in showing the achievements. They could just as easily be a full-fledged civ or go the way of Belgium with this particular piece of evidence. It's with everything else stacked on top of it that makes Italy more likely.

 

[SnowKomodo]

It's with everything else stacked on top of it that makes Italy more likely.

This.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I am certainly no fan of the inclusion of Italy, but again the only thing that would confirm a civ is the inclusion of the typical achievement for winning a game with them. Including an achievement for them in a scenario doesn't guarantee it not being in or it being in. Heck you are convinced they aren't in, which means relatively its innocuous enough to not be hidden for the moment - meaning your own point and example is yourself Percee

I'm 99% convinced they're in.

I'm saying though that the devs thought it was innocuous, but I think they thought wrong.

Still, the evidence is pointing more and more strongly towards Italy, in my opinion.

 

[Navelgazer]

I'm on the side that takes the wording of the achievement as near-certain confirmation that Italy is in. Now, I've been vocal about my support of Italy being in, but I'm saying that if the wording had gone the other way (i.e. the achievement had been worded without the SfA qualifier, as with Belgium) I'd be sure that it wasn't in. This sort of leaking is not at the discretion of a state-department clearance - it's meant to get us into a tizzy and talking about the game more excitedly*, and so that's where I am with this.

I would love to see an Italian civ since it would be hilarious what kind of BS Unique Ability it has to occupy itself during the Ancient/Classical eras where it pretends to not be the center of the Roman Empire. This is because presumably any Italian Unique Unit or Building would come at the Renaissance at the earliest (to avoid connotations with Rome), so the Unique Ability would have to cover the earlier eras for gameplay purposes - everything about it can't be Renaissance-based. Maybe something Etruscan? Or is that off-limits for "real" Italy too?

Italy would hardly be the only civ to have it's Uniques centered around a single era. Look at Babylon, whose bowmen and walls are both Ancient era, and whose UA, while lasting game-long, is also centered around the ancient era (i.e. getting to Writing early.) The Huns similarly have a fully-ancient focus. Rome is fully classical.

Now, a fully renaissance focus is a little different than an ancient one, to be sure, but such a thing is neither unplayable, untenable, nor an impediment to enjoying them or gaining an advantage with them. It just means playing with that certain aspect in mind. Particularly if Italy has a Great Works focus, as Louis XXIV has suggested and seems likely, then owning the renaissance in order to secure a later culture victory makes a lot of sense.

In another (highly unlikely) UA set up which I've spitballed around here before, imagine if the UA is that Italy alone may have the Piety and Rationalism trees open simultaneously. That would be both accurate to their history and legacy, and encompass both Medieval and Renaissance eras without betraying the civ, while lasting ever after in the game in fruitful ways, and yet even the fact that it takes a while to come up wouldn't hurt it as a UA, because in order to make the most of it one must plan to use it properly in the early stages. Hell, consider the current French UA, which craps out in the Industrial Age. I'm sure there are lots of ways that a civ can fail, but being centered around a single historical era isn't one of them from what we've seen so far.

*(which I'm totally cool with, by the way. Firaxis and 2K and Aspyr don't have to tell us anything, really. If they had just dropped by in July to say that there was a new expansion and come get it, those of us here would have done so. This way, they are able to generate buzz via their fans and also get our feedback, and also hopefully bring in new fans, who can also be part of the conversation and help to come up with more and better ideas, more and better mods, etc. It's a good system and has kept me and a lot of other people consistently excited during the waiting period, so I'm in favor of it.)

 

[Martinus]

I am certainly no fan of the inclusion of Italy, but again the only thing that would confirm a civ is the inclusion of the typical achievement for winning a game with them. Including an achievement for them in a scenario doesn't guarantee it not being in or it being in. Heck you are convinced they aren't in, which means relatively its innocuous enough to not be hidden for the moment - meaning your own point and example is yourself Percee

Yeah. For example, I am fairly certain Boers are not a civilization in BNW and they have their own achievement for that scenario too.

 

[Martinus]

I'm saying though that the devs thought it was innocuous, but I think they thought wrong.

I disagree. I think that IF they left the Italian achievement from the scenario as hidden but included the Belgium, England, Ottomans and Boer ones there, this would be a dead give-away that Italy is a civilisation (because people would figure out what the likely missing civ from that scenario is).

The way they did it, it neither confirms nor denies that Italy is in.

 

[turingmachine]

Yeah. For example, I am fairly certain Boers are not a civilization in BNW and they have their own achievement for that scenario too.

But the Boers and Ottomans have a different wording for their achievement all together so it can't be compared to the Belgium, Italy, England wording.

 

[Martinus]

But the Boers and Ottomans have a different wording for their achievement all together so it can't be compared to the Belgium, Italy, England wording.

Hasn't Antwerp been spotted as a city-state though, which would exclude Belgium as a civ?

 

[sukritact]

But the Boers and Ottomans have a different wording for their achievement all together so it can't be compared to the Belgium, Italy, England wording.

I'm a huge Italy supporter, but I must agree here. The Boers are definitely not in, right? I believe they'd come before Brazil.

 

[Martinus]

Same with Belgium.

 

[Martinus]

The only weak evidence comes from the wording of the Italian achievement, which is similar only to English achievement:

Praise the Victories - Win the Scramble for Africa playing as the Boers on Deity.
Ottoman Carpentry - Win the Scramble for Africa playing as the Ottomans on Deity.
Dr Livingstone I presume? - Playing as Belgium, move your Stanley Explorer to within a tile of England’s Livingstone Explorer.
The Rhodes Colossus - Playing as England in Scramble for Africa, complete a railroad from Cairo to Capetown.
Nigerian Bank Account - In Scramble for Africa, marry Sokoto or Bornu.
Discoverer - Playing as Italy in Scramble for Africa, earn the VP for finding two Natural Wonders.

As both Boer and Ottoman refer to simply winning the scenario, and Belgium achievement does not refer to doing something in the Scramble for Africa (so this assumes Belgium is available ONLY in the scenario).

Both England and Italy are supposed to do something they could, conceivably, achieve outside of Scramble for Africa, so the specification this needs to be done in the scenario could suggest they are also available outside of the scenario.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I disagree. I think that IF they left the Italian achievement from the scenario as hidden but included the Belgium, England, Ottomans and Boer ones there, this would be a dead give-away that Italy is a civilisation (because people would figure out what the likely missing civ from that scenario is).

They don't have achievements for all civs, though, in G&K scenarios, so there's no need for them to have all civs in the Scramble for Africa scenario either.


That's not to mention, again, the difference of wording between Belgium and Italy. Sure, it may be meaningless - nothing is 100% certain here -, but it's just too much a coincidence to pass up.

 

[sukritact]

Can we compare it to previous scenarios? It's a convincing theory but I'm still not convinced this is very definite proof.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Can we compare it to previous scenarios? It's a convincing theory but I'm still not convinced this is very definite proof.

It's different in every scenario, though as time went on they became more descriptive. Into the Renaissance has every civ say "Win as X in the ItR scenario" whether the civ is in the main game or not, the Korean scenario aggravatingly just says "Lose as Korea" or "Win as Japan", which can be confusing if you bought the game late.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Can we compare it to previous scenarios? It's a convincing theory but I'm still not convinced this is very definite proof.

This might help - do we have any comparisons? We'll ahve to compare it to achievements that specifically mention civs that have to do with some special accomplishment, and not actual victory, as is the case with Italy and England in the achievements.