Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[ImperialChaos]

Yeah. The Hittites, Assyria, and Sumeria would be too much ancient Mesopotamian civilizations for one expansion.

 

[Luziadus]

I think we might have the British with Queen Victoria, instead of England, because the role they had in Africa.

 

[Loaf Warden]

I think we might have the British with Queen Victoria, instead of England, because the role they had in Africa.

In the scenario, yes. Not in the main game.

 

[otaman1]

Yeah. The Hittites, Assyria, and Sumeria would be too much ancient Mesopotamian civilizations for one expansion.

G&K had a lot of European civs: Austria, Byzantium, Carthage, The Celts, The Huns, The Netherlands, Spain, & Sweden. That's 8 European civs out of 10 IF you count Carthage.

 

[PhilBowles]

G&K had a lot of European civs: Austria, Byzantium, Carthage, The Celts, The Huns, The Netherlands, Spain, & Sweden. That's 8 European civs out of 10 IF you count Carthage.

Why would you count Carthage? It's North African. The Huns are central Asian. That leaves 6 out of 10 (5 out of 9 given that Spain is not really a G&K civ). As for comparing it with Mesopotamia, firstly Europe gets special dispensation to get extra civs in Civ games, and secondly there's no way an expansion explicitly, and repeatedly, described as focusing on the modern world and the end game is going to have three pre-classical civs, let alone three of them from the same general area.

New Achievement: Praise the Victories - Win the Scramble for Africa playing as the Boers on Deity.

Incidentally, where are people getting the achievement descriptions? On the Steam Community 'global stats' page I only see a list of achievement names for the BNW achievements, and going to the Civ V achievements page itself the BNW ones don't yet show at all.

1) For a native American civ, the Cherokee, simply because of their immense acheivements in the late 18th and the whole of the 19th century. One of the most untold and remarkable stories; and sad that everyone only remembers them for the Trail of Tears.

My suspicion is that the Native American civ will be the Sioux. Partly this is because of the tomahawk unit, but mostly it's because BNW so far looks like having the fewest returning civs of any Civ game expansion to date (since Civ III, as the prior games added no civs in expansions at all), despite the fact that several are still unaccounted for. Hittites, Sumer and the HRE won't make it in, nor of course will the generic "Native Americans", which leaves the available options as the Sioux, Mali and the Khmer. None really seem to fit the expansion thematically, but since we're all expecting a Native American civ to be included (and it's not clear why else there would be a tomahawk unit), the Sioux are the best candidate for a third returning civ.

2) Venice. The Venetian Empire was extremely powerful, a hub for trade and culture, the bane of Byzantium and Ottomans alike. It deserves a place. They were too much of a player to be relegated to city-state status. If not this, then some kind of medieval/renaissance Italian representation as a civ.

Venice is a poor fit for the expansion thematically except for its trade focus, which is already taken by Portugal. And while Venice was long-lived as a state, the Venetian empire was only a power for around 300 years, and rather than being the 'bane of Byzantium' it rode to power on the back of that empire's terminal decline. And while Venice played a leading role in the capture of Constantinople, it's questionable whether the Latin Empire that resulted - which was born from an alliance of Crusader states - should really be considered part of the later Venetian empire.

It was a genuine rival to the Ottomans, but plenty of people are still complaining about the inclusion of the Huns because they were the bane of Rome - being a thorn in the side of more powerful and longer-lasting empires is surely not enough by itself to warrant inclusion.

Venice certainly had its heyday, but it was a somewhat provincial empire in comparison with the later European powers that make up the bulk of Civ V"s European civs and its maritime success ended with the dawn of the Age of Sail. It did however have a long subsequent history as an important city state.

3) Indonesia, of course. I don't know too much about them, but they sound like their contributions to the world are excellent.

4) I'd like to say something like the Timurids, but we already have one Mongol state. I'd also like to say Mughals, but they're sort-of covered by India. Georgia would be a great addition, but very unlikely; they're probably more city-state material. It probably won't be Western, given how many Western civs there are already (14, much more than any other civ). I think, on balance, it'll probably be the Khmer, the Timurids at a long shot, perhaps the Hittites or the Moroccans/Almoravids. Honestly, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

I still hope for Indonesia - it or Majapahit could still take one of the 'gaps' in the achievement list. There is reasonable evidence that Morocco will be in (certainly more compelling than the evidence for Venice or Italy) - a building icon on the poster, a reference in an interview to a "Moroccan spearman" and as supporting circumstantial evidence the absence of Marrakesh from the city-states we've seen (not compelling in itself, but adds to the other evidence).

There's also the Motte & Bailey graphic on the poster, which seems out of place. There's no clear reason why the 1066 scenario would be bundled into BNW as an 'extra' (like Spain for G&K). It may be a misdirection, or it may be that since they have the graphic they plan to reuse it for a new generic improvement or perhaps a graphical update that will see GP improvements change appearance by era. But we can't rule out the possibility that it could also relate to a Norman civ.

For new city states: Samarkand, Salzburg (as it wasn't own by Austria for much of its history), Tbilisi, Gibraltar... there are many cities which could fit the bill.

Salzburg is however in the Austrian city list, and Samarqand in the Mongol one. Gibraltar's a Natural Wonder so would make an odd city-state (and has never really functioned as one that I'm aware). I could see places like Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Great Zimbabwe, Troy (it was a CS in Wonders of the Ancient World), Toledo and others, though.

 

[Pedro P]

G&K had a lot of European civs: Austria, Byzantium, Carthage, The Celts, The Huns, The Netherlands, Spain, & Sweden. That's 8 European civs out of 10 IF you count Carthage.

Yep, you counted two continents, one extra civ from a DLC that HAD to be in the game for a scenario, and a lot of different ages. Totally the same as ancient Mesopotamia alone.

 

[Loaf Warden]

You could just about argue that the Huns are European, in that they were based in Europe during the brief period they were important to history (i.e., Attila's lifetime). But they were Central Asian by origin; most experts today believe they were an offshoot of the Xiongnu, who originated in Mongolia and are the reason China has a Great Wall. To call the Huns "European" is understandable, but a stretch.

Carthage was in North Africa, and had been founded by colonists from Canaan, which is now roughly Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. They were not European in any sense.

 

[j51]

The Hittites aren't from Mesopotamia.

 

[SolInvictus]

You could just about argue that the Huns are European, in that they were based in Europe during the brief period they were important to history (i.e., Attila's lifetime). But they were Central Asian by origin; most experts today believe they were an offshoot of the Xiongnu, who originated in Mongolia and are the reason China has a Great Wall. To call the Huns "European" is understandable, but a stretch.

Carthage was in North Africa, and had been founded by colonists from Canaan, which is now roughly Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. They were not European in any sense.

One could argue that Carthage, like Byzantium, Turkey, and Russia, was a bi-continental civilization, having colonized Sicily, Malta, and Spain. I think that was what otaman1 was getting at.

 

[Loaf Warden]

One could argue that Carthage, like Byzantium, Turkey, and Russia, was a bi-continental civilization, having colonized Sicily, Malta, and Spain. I think that was what otaman1 was getting at.

By that logic, Portugal counts as an African and Asian civ.

 

[otaman1]

I get where y'all are going. Sorry if I don't know much about the Huns (like I said before); I didn't know they originated from Siberia or somewhere around there. As for Carthage, I count it as part of Europe cause they established camps in parts of the Mediterranean Sea

 

[Nujabes]

This is a complete derail based on someone misidentifying some achievements. Do any of us expect the Hittites or Sumeria? If not, what are we arguing about?

Four civs we don't know, hints of Morocco and Italy (which might just be scenario only), expectations of an Asian civilization, and what many think will be a Native American civ. We know that these civs are going to either be fan favorites are associated with the new mechanics, and one is linked in some way to a new resource. Let's at least keep the general clues we have in mind when making guesses and whatnot for fun, otherwise things get really brutal and meandering.

 

[God of Kings]

I will play Devil's Advocate here. When you play as the Huns, you get European music. When you play as Polynesia, you get (native) American music.

 

[Loaf Warden]

As for Carthage, I count it as part of Europe cause they established camps in parts of the Mediterranean Sea

The Mediterranean Sea has shorelines on three continents. The Carthaginians come from the two that aren't Europe.

 

[SolInvictus]

This is a complete derail based on someone misidentifying some achievements. Do any of us expect the Hittites or Sumeria? If not, what are we arguing about?

Four civs we don't know, hints of Morocco and Italy (which might just be scenario only), expectations of an Asian civilization, and what many think will be a Native American civ. We know that these civs are going to either be fan favorites are associated with the new mechanics, and one is linked in some way to a new resource. Let's at least keep the general clues we have in mind when making guesses and whatnot for fun, otherwise things get really brutal and meandering.

Agreed.

I still stand by most of my reasoning from March.

 

[otaman1]

The Mediterranean Sea has shorelines on three continents. The Carthaginians come from the two that aren't Europe.

They had colonies in Europe. Maybe I'm getting them confused with the Punic Wars

 

[turingmachine]

Yeah. The Hittites, Assyria, and Sumeria would be too much ancient Mesopotamian civilizations for one expansion.

Mesopotamia only really equals the Tigris–Euphrates river system or at most the extent of the fertile-crescent area. It does not include Anatolia, so the Hittites are not from Mesopotamia. Furthermore, the Hittites were Indo-European, while all those other civs were Afro-Asiatic stock, meaning the Hittites were a completely different cultural and linguistic heritage than all the Mesopotamian civs.

 

[Loaf Warden]

They had colonies in Europe. Maybe I'm getting them confused with the Punic Wars

Portugal had colonies in Asia. I doubt many people would be satisfied to have them count as this expansion's Asian civ.

Your main point, that G&K was very Euro-heavy, is perfectly valid. The Carthaginians just weren't a European people.

Mesopotamia only really equals the fertile-crescent area.

Less than that; it's only the eastern portion of the Fertile Crescent. Specifically the Tigris-Euphrates area. And the Hittites, as you rightly say, aren't even from the Fertile Crescent, let alone Mesopotamia.

 

[PhilBowles]

I get where y'all are going. Sorry if I don't know much about the Huns (like I said before); I didn't know they originated from Siberia or somewhere around there. As for Carthage, I count it as part of Europe cause they established camps in parts of the Mediterranean Sea

In fairness, no one knows a lot about the Huns' history outside Europe - as has been mentioned, it's not very clear where their homeland is. Their language is uncertain; the game's choice of Chuvash is as close as anyone's likely to get, and is at least in the right language group.

There's also common confusion among people who know little of either group (which is most of us) between the names Hun and Hungary. While there is an ethnic minority in Hungary that claims descent from the Huns, the two names appear to be etymologically unrelated - I don't know what the Magyar word for "Hun" is, but I doubt it's similar to the Magyar word for "Hungarian".

While both the Huns and the Hungarians spoke (or speak) non-Indo-European languages, these are from two unrelated language groups, and so there's no evidence of any historical continuity between the two.

Your main point, that G&K was very Euro-heavy, is perfectly valid. The Carthaginians just weren't a European people.

Perhaps the intent was "European" as a synonym for "Caucasian"? I think a lot of the motivation for requests for non-European civs relates to a desire for greater ethnic diversity among the game's leaders, and so objections to having too many European civs may have more to do with "too many white guys" than "civs with a geographical centre in Europe".

 

[Loaf Warden]

I don't know what the Magyar word for "Hun" is, but I doubt it's similar to the Magyar word for "Hungarian".

According to Wikipedia, it's "Hunok". As opposed to "Magyarok" for "Hungarians".

Perhaps the intent was "European" as a synonym for "Caucasian"? I think a lot of the motivation for requests for non-European civs relates to a desire for greater ethnic diversity among the game's leaders, and so objections to having too many European civs may have more to do with "too many white guys" than "civs with a geographical centre in Europe".

I don't know if "white"--let alone "Caucasian"--is really that helpful a term in this case. The Carthaginians, being Phoenician, were a Semitic people. If Dido is "white", then Harun al-Rashid and Ashurbanipal are also "white".