Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[otaman1]

I think the point is that Italy very clearly existed in the form of an already existing civ, i.e. Rome; which doesn't occur for any other civ (but does exist similiarily with Constantinople and Istanbul). To be honest I think some people are associating the United Italy too closely with Renaissance Italy, which shifts the centre of Italy from, for instance, Florence to Rome, which is where the parallels are more apparent (i.e. same location). I don't think it's as much as an issue is being suggested, but it does make for a unique situation.

Italy did not come from Rome. They're just in Rome's geographic area. Italy has been invaded numerously over the past thousand years or so. Italy was not unified until the 19th century

 

[Xen]

Italy did not come from Rome. They're just in Rome's geographic area. Italy has been invaded numerously over the past thousand years or so. Italy was not unified until the 19th century

Well its not like the Romans do not comprise the modern Italians, either - I mean, those invasions people like to point out amount to surprisingly little in the grand scheme of things, and the most important distinction between the two would be that the rest of Italy outside of Rome has its own long and distinguished history of politics and cultural accomplishments both before, and after Roman domination of the peninsula.

 

[JFD]

Italy did not come from Rome. They're just in Rome's geographic area. Italy has been invaded numerously over the past thousand years or so. Italy was not unified until the 19th century

I know that; I especially know that. That's not want I mean. I mean there are people who think that Rome is sufficient to represent Italy, based upon that they are in the same specific location. I don't share this opinion, because in civ terms real-world location is irrelevant.

 

[Menzies]

That's an angle I haven't thought about. Perhaps those opposed to Italy because of a purported redundancy should think about that first.

Not really, Byzantine culture was very different to that of Western Rome. The thing a lot of people fail to understand about Rome was how complex it was as an Empire. Whilst it was at times united as one, it was effective several Empires which were only at times united under one power, and for the most part simply cooperated with each other. Byzantia not only was very different from the Western Roman Empire of which most people associate the name "Rome" (for understandable reasons) with, but went on to exist for almost a millennia after the fall of the Empire that the game represents.

In terms of a comparison, think of the difference between Charlemagne's Francia and the German Empire as formed in the 19th century. Rome "fell" in the 5th century, whilst Constantinople fell in 15th century, a full 10 centuries later. On the other hand, the Francia of Charlemagne split in 9th century. Are people here seriously considering a comparison between the Rome in the game (based around Rome of the 1st Century) and Byzantia, which lasted around a millennia, the same separation as Charlemagne's Francia (which included much of what is now Germany and Northern Italy) and the German Empire. This isn't some vague redundancy, these are two very different cultures and Civilizations, which whilst sharing a common history for a period, are very different.

That said, my main objection to Italy is that they seem to have been the main motivation behind the city state concept, and adding Italy as a Civilization didn't sit right, particularly with the heart of Rome covering the area geographically. That said, I have been swayed since the early discussions on this, although largely on the matter of Venice being removed as a city state, although I'm a stubborn prick. With the new evidence today it seems almost certain now that Italy is being added as Italy, and in truth I welcome them, Italy (particularly Northern Italy) has been a major player in European history, and do deserve some recognition, especially with the city state concept now so washed out that it barely seems worth discussing (Sydney and Quebec City as City states, rightyo!).

 

[tonberry]

I just realize that Panama-city will be a city-state. I've check and Grand Colombia did include Panama so that erase most of it's chance.

Still hope to get 1 spanish-speaking civilization...

 

[JFD]

Not really, Byzantine culture was very different to that of Western Rome. The thing a lot of people fail to understand about Rome was how complex it was as an Empire. Whilst it was at times united as one, it was effective several Empires which were only at times united under one power, and for the most part simply cooperated with each other. Byzantia not only was very different from the Western Roman Empire of which most people associate the name "Rome" (for understandable reasons) with, but went on to exist for almost a millennia after the fall of the Empire that the game represents.

In terms of a comparison, think of the difference between Charlemagne's Francia and the German Empire as formed in the 19th century. Rome "fell" in the 5th century, whilst Constantinople fell in 15th century, a full 10 centuries later. On the other hand, the Francia of Charlemagne split in 9th century. Are people here seriously considering a comparison between the Rome in the game (based around Rome of the 1st Century) and Byzantia, which lasted around a millennia, the same separation as Charlemagne's Francia (which included much of what is now Germany and Northern Italy) and the German Empire. This isn't some vague redundancy, these are two very different cultures and Civilizations, which whilst sharing a common history for a period, are very different.

I understand that, but there is a distinction between what someone with historical knowledge and what someone without would think over whether or not the Byzantine Empire is a continuation of Rome. I don't know a lot about the Byzantine Empire, but I know enough that it is distinct enough that it shouldn't be considered a continuation, but I'm just highlighting that if you think Italy is just a continuation of Rome, and by that reason not a good candidate for a civ, you should surely consider the same for the Byzantium.

 

[AbsintheRed]

IMO it's almost certain that Italy and Morocco are in as full civs. Both at 99+%.
The question is the remaining 2 civs between Portugal and Zulu:
From SE Asia either Indonesia under the name Srivijaya, or Vietnam.
Also a North American native civ, Sioux maybe?

 

[Arachnofiend]

It's highly unlikely they'd include Indonesia under any name other than Indonesia. Indonesia is the more marketable name and therefore makes a better tag for the civ for Firaxis's purposes. I'd say we're down to Italy, Morocco, Vietnam, and the Sioux as the most likely candidates for the remaining civs.

 

[Menzies]

I understand that, but there is a distinction between what someone with historical knowledge and what someone without would think over whether or not the Byzantine Empire is a continuation of Rome. I don't know a lot about the Byzantine Empire, but I know enough that it is distinct enough that it shouldn't be considered a continuation, but I'm just highlighting that if you think Italy is just a continuation of Rome, and by that reason not a good candidate for a civ, you should surely consider the same for the Byzantium.

Yeah, but the issue for Italy is that many would consider the geography before anything else. The issue for Italy is that it "on top of" what was the core of Rome. What most don't realise is that the heart of the Italy that would be in the game (Florence, Venice, Genoa, Milan etc.) would be Northern Italy, and that Italy as it was formed in the 19th century actually formed around this region, before finally bringing Rome into it, rather than the other way around. The only issue I can really see with Italy is the fact that at it's height it was City states in it's most modern sense, and it made sense to have the key cities as city states. However, when even within the XMLs city states are called "Minor Civs" at times, and looking at some of the choices this becomes apparently, I guess this isn't much of a reason.

 

[JFD]

I would almost certainly guess the Sioux, rather than Srivijaya. The latter is not a name that the ordinary consumer would be familiar with (and I certainly wasn't until visiting these forums) and I'm certain there'll be a Native American civ and the best bet would be the Sioux.

My final wish list:

6. Morocco
7. Venice
8. Sioux
9. Indonesia

My expectation list:

6. Morocco
7. Italy
8. Sioux
9. HRE (suspicious Motte and Bailey, a possible World Congress orientated UA) or Vietnam (possible ideology orientated UA, another chance at a female leader)

 

[Menzies]

It's highly unlikely they'd include Indonesia under any name other than Indonesia. Indonesia is the more marketable name and therefore makes a better tag for the civ for Firaxis's purposes. I'd say we're down to Italy, Morocco, Vietnam, and the Sioux as the most likely candidates for the remaining civs.

As disappointed and quite frankly shocked as I am by this development, it seems that Indonesia aren't in. Whilst Majapahit was possible (although very unlikely, they wouldn't include them under the name Srivijaya. They like their names to be general (well, apparently from having the Ottomans in, but I guess the Dynastic name is the name they are best known as), and I doubt they'd go for anything but Indonesia for marketing reasons.

It does seem that it will be:

1. Italy
2. Morocco

With the most likely final pair being:

3. Sioux
4. Vietnam

Not a bad overall civ list I guess.

 

[Loaf Warden]

It's highly unlikely they'd include Indonesia under any name other than Indonesia. Indonesia is the more marketable name and therefore makes a better tag for the civ for Firaxis's purposes.

Or maybe Majapahit. Maybe. (Which would also be ruled out under the current hypothesis.) To suggest they'd include it as Srivijaya, the least recognized name of the three, is just wishful thinking in my view.

 

[SnowKomodo]

It's highly unlikely they'd include Indonesia under any name other than Indonesia. Indonesia is the more marketable name and therefore makes a better tag for the civ for Firaxis's purposes. I'd say we're down to Italy, Morocco, Vietnam, and the Sioux as the most likely candidates for the remaining civs.

Indeed. We mention Srivijaya and Majapahit because those would be what Indonesia encompasses, but I don't think any of us expect those names to be used hence why many of us are ruling Indonesia out

 

[AbsintheRed]

Having said that, I would love to see another 9 civs in a 3rd expansion

Obviously the civs should be chosen from the great "losers" of the Firaxis civ race:
Hungary, Khmer, Phoenicia, Sumer, Hittites, Mali, Vietnam or Indonesia (whichever is not included in BNW), Tibet, Armenia, Kongo, Khazars, Nubia

If all those civs would made it in (or at least the first 7-8), then my CiV experience would be complete - at least regarding civs

 

[wigwam]

So we're expecting two civs between Brazil and Poland and two between Portugal and Zulu. They've announced the civs in a way that leaves practically the whole alphabet open, but it does make a few things clearer. These are all civs that people have floated in various threads (I weeded out some of what I thought was really unlikely, but obviously left a lot of left-field possibilities in there):

Ruled out: Afghanistan, Australia, Argentina, Armenia, Asanteman, Anasazi, Apache, Belgium, Benin, Berbers, Bornu, Bangla, Bhutan, and Bohemia.

Possible: Any two of Burma (Pagan), Chachapoya, Cherokee, Chile, Colombia (Gran Colombia), Comanche, Cree, Crete (Minoans), Cuba, Hittites, Hungary, Indonesia, Inuit (Eskimo), Italy, Khazaria, Khmer, Kush (Nubia), Kushan, Laos, Mapuche, Merina, Mexico, Morocco (Moors), Navajo, Nazca, Nepal, or Pakistan and any two of Romania, Scythians, Seminole, Sioux, Timurids, Toltec, Uzbeks, Venice, or Vietnam.

Indonesia, Italy, and Morocco are clearly the favorites from the first group, and the Sioux, Venice, and Vietnam from the second. Indonesia could theoretically show up under a different name (Srivajaya, Majapahit); Italy and Venice are presumably mutually exclusive. Evidence is very strong for either Italy or Venice being in, and pretty strong for Morocco (definitely wouldn't say "99%" though). Because Firaxis had planned to introduce the Pueblo, a Native American civ seems likely, but that's not certain either. Somebody pointed out that there's a Silk Road achievement that only names existing civs, which might imply that Khazaria, Kushan, etc. aren't going to make it.

It's interesting that the second group is so much smaller. Obviously there's nothing very scientific about the way we've come up with potential civs, but it seems to me like that's a pretty thorough list and some of them are very improbable. Scythia, the Timurids, the Toltecs, and the Uzbeks are all very close to existing civs (the Huns, Persia, the Aztecs, and Persia again, respectively). That just leaves the three favorites, plus Romania and the Seminoles, both of which seem extremely unlikely to me. By comparison, the group of civs between Brazil and Poland seems wide open.

Any chance the Sioux don't make the cut? I kind of doubt we'll get Venice and Vietnam, and what else could go there? They've been in the Civ series before, and they do have a pretty good leader and some interesting cultural bits and bobs, but I have to admit I'd be a little disappointed by a Sioux civ. Pueblo definitely would've been way cooler (and, actually, there's still a remote chance that the Pueblo are in—and they'd fall into that second group).

 

[Louis XXIV]

I was sceptical, but I must admit this pretty much wins me over. I would say Italy is in as one of the 9 new civs, while Belgium is not.

The problem here is the Boers. They specify the scenario for them as well, but they're not likely to be in the game (nor are they likely to appear in any other scenario). Just compare the Boers to the Ottomans to Belgium to Italy. There's basically no consistency.

BTW, assuming it's alphabetical and Italy is in, can anyone guess which civ would have the resource?

 

[Dragonflow]

The problem here is the Boers. They specify the scenario for them as well, but they're not likely to be in the game (nor are they likely to appear in any other scenario). Just compare the Boers to the Ottomans to Belgium to Italy. There's basically no consistency.

BTW, assuming it's alphabetical and Italy is in, can anyone guess which civ would have the resource?

Sioux and buffalo?

 

[Loaf Warden]

BTW, assuming it's alphabetical and Italy is in, can anyone guess which civ would have the resource?

The Sioux with buffalo.

Edit: D'oh! Ninja'd!

 

[Menzies]

The problem here is the Boers. They specify the scenario for them as well, but they're not likely to be in the game (nor are they likely to appear in any other scenario). Just compare the Boers to the Ottomans to Belgium to Italy. There's basically no consistency.

BTW, assuming it's alphabetical and Italy is in, can anyone guess which civ would have the resource?

The "resource civ" is far too general to be predictive.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't think the resource civ relation is gunna be as simple as 'Sioux and Buffalo'

I also really doubt the Sioux. Given the axeman i'm more inclined towards the Shawnee.