Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Menzies]

Lots of wonders of absent Civs have been in. The Wonders mean little about inclusion, though you'd hope Indonesia or historical would be in.

 

[Sonereal]

I would prefer a Caribbean or South American civilization over the inclusion of Canada.

 

[Bad Wolf]

Inuit is not artificial

I guess it depends on how you define "artificial". I mean the Inuit as a group (the northern peoples of Canada, Russia, Greenland, etc.) have never really united into a single political entity. Like Polynesia, which is also an artificial construction blending many different peoples with similar cultures, many of whom had no or limited contact with each other, together. This isn't exactly "wrong", as this is after all just a game, but it's really not to my taste.

Wouldn't that mean a civ whose unique units and buildings were able to build at (in game terms) Modern/Atomic era?

I don't understand - are you arguing this is unprecedented or something? I believe both of America's UUs are quite modern, Germany has the panzer, etc. This has always been a trade-off you make when you play a civ with late-game over early-game advantages; you hope you'll still be alive at the end of the game to use them.

 

[Nujabes]

Lots of wonders of absent Civs have been in. The Wonders mean little about inclusion, though you'd hope Indonesia or historical would be in.

It's merely a question of curiosity, but what are the others?

 

[Bad Wolf]

is there enough flavor in them to make memorable uniques?

I guess this depends on your persepctive. I've seen many people here make comments to the effect that Canada/Australia have "no culture", are "insignificant", "boring" - one even said he would outright refuse to buy the game if they were included! If you're coming at it from this perspective, obviously the answer would be no. However there are probably a number of people who would enjoy playing as either civ; I bet there are a lot of Civ fans in both countries; and I bet a lot of people would just enjoy the novelty of conquering the world as Canada - that's what Civ has always been about right, counter-intuitive alternative history?

 

[johnny139]

I'm starting to see Italy are more and more likely - the Africa Scenario would suit it, it's another European Civilization (which we're running low on for this release), and it sorts of reminds me of Sweden... culturally very similar to a Civilization already included, could probably have been lumped in, but interestingly enough added in.

So:

1) Poland
2) Portugal
3) Italy

4) Zulu
5) Kongo
6) More Africa (Zimbabwe? Benin?)

7) Assyria
8) Sioux/Comanche
9) Wildcard (I'm hoping Brazil, but...)

 

[Liex]

It's merely a question of curiosity, but what are the others?

Besides those you already pointed out (Australia, Canada and Brazil), there is the Angkor Wat (Khmer).

 

[Menzies]

As much as we discuss it, it's fairly obvious Italy won't be one of them.

 

[Imalich]

Pretty much all the central American civilizations were a rough collection of City states (particularly the Mayans and pre Aztec civilizations).

Rio certainly meet similar criteria as Sydney and co. If you really feel that more than half are parts of true civilizations, I'd be happy to discuss them if you're willing to offer explanation for each.

Well, the definition of city-states I'm familiar with derives mainly from the italian republics: Autonomous communities with it's own set of rules and definition of citizenship.

Rio just doen't fit. I just cannot see the correlation. It was a colonial center, then imperial capital. It doen't fit a single criteria.
La Venta, deriving from a completely different cultural panorama couldn't be even remotely compared to that definition (and that leaving aside the fact that the city was part of a much major complex and, by no means, as independent as a possible 'expanded' idea of city-state might accept).
And Lisbon, altought more independent than the other two for quite a while, was never autonomous, as far as i know.

I don't actually feel more than half are part of actual civilizations. I just do not see, in them, the degree of characterization to be considered, by itself, an independent political community. They are part of a complex, even if that complex does not constitute a civilization.
(It's not that the game's take on city-states is wrong or anything. It's a game, it needs to make things simple... It's just that i really feel any city with some historical background could fit the developers criteria for city-states. They needn't be actual city-states)

 

[Gucumatz]

As much as we discuss it, it's fairly obvious Italy won't be one of them.

I think the more we discuss it becomes more clear, Italy won't be in.

Belgium on the other hand...

 

[Sonereal]

If Italy is actually made a civilization, I take up the some bet I made in the old thread of eating my hat.

 

[Gucumatz]

Imalich - It is fairly reasonable to call La Venta a city state. Most cities in Mesoamerica were city states (Some of which expanded a bit further, but had their own kings, royals, etc)

The Greeks and Maya are examples of two city state peoples grouped together as an empire. From what archaeologists suspect of the Olmec it appears that they also fit the mold of city state oriented.

 

[Nujabes]

I think Brazil has a better chance than Belgium, and Belgium has a better chance than Italy, just because it's a ridiculous amount of overlap given the geographical holes still out there. It'd be cool to see Great Zimbabwe; who would be their leader?

 

[Menzies]

It's merely a question of curiosity, but what are the others?

Great Mosque of Djennéer - Canada
Cristo Redentor - Brazil
Great Mosque of Djenné - Maili
Leaning Tower of Pisa - Tuscany
Petra - Arguable in Civ terms
Sydney Opera House - Australia

This is before going into Civ IV wonders.

 

[Menzies]

If Italy is actually made a civilization, I take up the some bet I made in the old thread of eating my hat.

You seem to do this a bit. I expect pictures when you're wrong, and hopefully a video.

 

[Sonereal]

You seem to do this a bit. I expect pictures when you're wrong, and hopefully a video.

I was right the last time, since it wasn't announced on the specified day and my lawyers reject the idea of quarantining 1/7th of a week every week on prediction.

It is no secret that they delayed announcement just so I wouldn't need to eat a hat again.

 

[Liex]

Great Mosque of Djennéer - Canada

Hold on there!

(Also, there is the Angkor wat)

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

They're more artificial than the slated Polynesian civilization, that's for sure. At least they had cities of some kind. Then again, the Inuits drove the Vikings out of Nuuk.

Some cultures simply did not adopt "norms" like cities (out of necessity), capitols, kings, royalty or governmental entities but were-are relevent cultural civilizations none-the-less. An artificial discriptive term like "eskimo" or even "Mongol" does more to serve as a description of conglomerate of peoples (like the "mongol" golden horde) but are still considered "civilizations" by historians.

 

[Imalich]

If Italy is actually made a civilization, I take up the some bet I made in the old thread of eating my hat.

Congratulations, sir! You just made me an advocate for Italy's inclusion

 

[fuzzatron717]

Inuit is not artificial...but a conglomorate if you will of "eskimo" peoples. A very worthwhile and unique civilization which would fill a definite need in the game to populate snow and tundra areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

Inuit are in the game already there just not playable there those people who live in the far northern snow areas that live in camps are technologically behind and attack anyone who go by there called "Barbarians". As I stated before they are nomads adding them is worse than adding the huns and Polynesia but at least Polynesia built cities and the huns did something completely miraculous and pretty accelerated the destruction of the roman empire. Inuit did almost nothing of importance. They have nothing unique except surviving in snow for long periods of time.