Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Sikandar]

Moors and Berbers being lumped in with Arabians is extremely painful.

Well I was just anticipating arguments that the Arabians represent a pan-Islamic Middle-Age civilization.

 

[turingmachine]

Do you think Ashanti have a shot to an Africa civ?

"From 1806 until 1896, the Asanteman was in a perpetual state of war involving expansion or defense of its domain. The Ashantis exploits against other African forces made it the paramount power in the region. Its impressive performance against the British also earned it the respect of European powers. Far less known than its Zulu contemporaries, Asanteman was one of the few African states to decisively defeat the British Empire in not only a battle but a war."

Would make a good showcase civ for the Africa imperialism -scenario..

Honestly, I feel there are more important and significant African civs before the Ashanti.

Ignoring the big three overlapping ones of Ghana-Mali-Songhai, as well as Ethiopia, there's still Kongo and Benin both of which played huge roles in colonialism and were actual empires. Great Zimbabwe should have already been included in the Civ series already if it wasn't for the unfortunate fact that it shares some land with Zulu and Zulu seems to need to get in. Then there's still Kilwa, Kanem-Bornu and the Morrocon Empires.

 

[Sonereal]

That itself is as bad an idea as the Native American civilization in CivIV being a pan-Native American civilization. While I doubt that Moors and Berbers would be included anyway, it is mainly because the Moors and Spain would probably share so many city names it isn't funny, and the Berbers do have the uncomfortable position of being in a busy neighborhood.

@turing

Great Zimbabwe should really be included over the Zulus. The only reason the Zulus are even being brought up is due to "tradition" as opposed to any good reason.

 

[Menzies]

I don't see how this works against Italy. With every opportunity they've been replacing city states with less Eurocentric choices. I don't see why the fact that they'll have to remove around 4-5 city states works against Italy. It's a simple matter of names and some text.

From what I've heard they directly based the City State system on the great city states of Italy. To remove the Italian City states (which they were) to replace them with a unified empire (which they weren't at their pinnacle) would seem a bit silly.

 

[Menzies]

Well I was just anticipating arguments that the Arabians represent a pan-Islamic Middle-Age civilization.

Yet Rome representing Italy is unacceptable to some?

 

[Dragonflow]

Honestly, I feel there are more important and significant African civs before the Ashanti.

Ignoring the big three overlapping ones of Ghana-Mali-Songhai, as well as Ethiopia, there's still Kongo and Benin both of which played huge roles in colonialism and were actual empires. Great Zimbabwe should have already been included in the Civ series already if it wasn't for the unfortunate fact that it shares some land with Zulu and Zulu seems to need to get in. Then there's still Kilwa, Kanem-Bornu and the Morrocon Empires.

Considering we got Denmark instead of the usual Vikings there is a chance that the Zulu will not be in this time. Civ5 seems to break with certain traditions(Vikings, Hannibal, Tokugawa and Mao) and there is hope that they'll skip the Zulus this time and instead add some interesting African civ.

 

[Uberfrog]

I don't see how this works against Italy. With every opportunity they've been replacing city states with less Eurocentric choices. I don't see why the fact that they'll have to remove around 4-5 city states works against Italy. It's a simple matter of names and some text.

Technically, that's true. Conceptually, I think it's a huge backtrack to introduce this idea of independent city states by removing a huge load of them and bundling them into a playable civ.

The city-states that have been renamed thus far were really placeholders: the capitals of nations not yet included rather than genuine historical city states. Seoul, Copenhagen and Stockholm (and potentially Lisbon and Rio in future) aren't really city states, they were just representing their respective countries until they were added as full civs.

Florence, Venice, Genoa etc are by far the most historically sensible independent city-states in the game. To cut them all out would, I feel, severely dent the flavour of having these city states at all.

 

[Sikandar]

Yet Rome representing Italy is unacceptable to some?

Not sure what you're trying to say. I've been arguing for the inclusion of Middle-Age Italy.

 

[sukritact]

From what I've heard they directly based the City State system on the great city states of Italy. To remove the Italian City states (which they were) to replace them with a unified empire (which they weren't at their pinnacle) would seem a bit silly.

Not really. You unify them for ease of representation; simply group them together like what's done with Greece. But you nonetheless show the height of their power in the Renaissance.

This is what I'm thinking of.

The concept of City-States, while originally based of the Italian states, has evolved. The majority now represent countries and I see no reason why we can't complete the transition.

 

[Menzies]

I've never liked geographical boundaries, as it never quite describes the situation better.

Central and South America is very different from North America (modern USA and Canada).

North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa are also very different, as are East Asia, the sub continent, the Steppes and the middle east. Yet when people say terms such as "Africa" or "Asia" they can cover a huge amount of cultural groups. To me it seems as odd as calling all of Europe and Asia Eurasia, or all the Americas as the Americas.

 

[Sikandar]

Florence, Venice, Genoa etc are by far the most historically sensible independent city-states in the game. To cut them all out would, I feel, severely dent the flavour of having these city states at all.

But it's OK for Argos, Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Thebes etc to be in a civilization rather than city-states?

It just seems hypocritical to me.

 

[Menzies]

Not sure what you're trying to say. I've been arguing for the inclusion of Middle-Age Italy.

I don't really see the need. They are the archetypical city states. If medieval Italy are in you may as well not have City states anymore. Italy only acted as a single civilization since they unified, which is both modern and not particularly significant all things considered.

Explain them representing "countries". They still seem to represent proper city states (as the Italian city states represent well) for the most part.

 

[Menzies]

But it's OK for Argos, Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Thebes etc to be in a civilization rather than city-states?

It just seems hypocritical to me.

It is, but the reason Greece is included as a nation is because is because there have been "Greek" Empires. Italy at least has an antecedent, Greece does not.

 

[Dragonflow]

I have the feeling we'll be having the Italy discussion every single day until Italy or the last civ is revealed.
And if Italy happends to be revealed we'll be having daily discussion about it being worthy/unworthy.

 

[Bonci]

It's just a natural assumption. Italy was a major world power in the period after its unification; if you're going to have Italy as a civ, you can't seriously be suggesting that it NOT represent modern Italy?

The solution is to represent both! For most of its history Rome hasn't been the center of the italian civilization. (I mean, it has always been very important, but arguably Florence and Venice were much more important politically speaking. Or at least at the same level.)
And the italian kingdom had to conquer Rome, so that could happen also in the game. (from the grandfather Roman Empire or from the Vatican CS)

Also you cannot argue against Italy when greece is an united civilization that represents both Greek city states and the Macedonian Kingdom
I feel that is the closest example of the italian situation.

EDIT: sorry for repeating what others have already said, I'm responding before reading all the posts XD

 

[Menzies]

Probably not, we'll get the Dark Horse eventually and have a chance to complain about how they didn't deserve it.

 

[sukritact]

I don't really see the need. They are the archetypical city states. If medieval Italy are in you may as well not have City states anymore. Italy only acted as a single civilization since they unified, which is both modern and not particularly significant all things considered.

Explain them representing "countries". They still seem to represent proper city states (as the Italian city states represent well) for the most part.

Not so, the only cities which are actual city states are:

Florence
Milan
Monaco
Venice
Cahokia?
Genoa
Singapore
Tyre
Sidon
Geneva
Vatican City

I may have missed a few. The rest appear to be part of larger nations however. You do see a LOT of captial cities

 

[Menzies]

Not so, the only cities which are actual city states are:

Florence
Milan
Monaco
Venice
Cahokia?
Genoa
Singapore
Tyre
Sidon
Geneva
Vatican City

I may have missed a few. The rest appear to be part of larger nations however. You do see a LOT of captial cities

How about you list those which aren't "city states" as well, with some time of reasoning. I'm interested now. Especially considering that cities such as Ragusa and "La Venta" were in fact City States.

 

[Dragonflow]

Probably not, we'll get the Dark Horse eventually and have a chance to complain about how they didn't deserve it.

This is also quite likey, especially if they pull out something like the Huns.
We're also going to have discussion about how every single civ they reveal is worthy/unworthy.

 

[Menzies]

This is also quite likey, especially if they pull out something like the Huns.
We're also going to have discussion about how every single civ they reveal is worthy/unworthy.

Where's the fun otherwise.