Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Nujabes]

Can we quit derailing now that we actually have a 'lil new information?

 

[PhilBowles]

Yeah, this is the thing that I don't like about Wu. She was a leader, I don't deny that, and she may even been a good leader, but I dunno why she would get ahead of the many other good and even great and iconic leaders that China has had.

They had a good source for the art, she's female (and, in the base game, the only non-European female leader, which makes her leaderhead distinctive), and she adds variety? For all China's long and varied history, it hasn't been replete with variety in its Civ leaders:

Civ I: Mao
Civ II: Mao
Civ III: Mao
Civ IV: Mao. Qin added in an expansion

Faced with that a new face is a breath of fresh air. Sure, Qin undoubtedly deserves a chance to be shown in full screen, but I have no objections to a change.

 

[ImperialChaos]

Yeah, Hannibal is much more suited for a Great General rather than a leader. Napoleon, Alexander, and Washington were all famous generals but they were also famous statesmen that held political office and were leaders in their respective civilizations. Hannibal defended Carthage as a general but never became sole ruler who made Carthage into a substantial empire. Instead he was a part of an oligarchy (he was quite successful, though) and was later exiled. Had he become a great ruler of Carthage and then went off to cross the Alps it would be a different story.

If the Confederate States of America were ever a civilization it would not be led by Robert E. Lee but by Jefferson Davis; despite Lee being the great general of the Civil War.

 

[PhilBowles]

That's the thing. The reason I feel so strongly is because Indonesia/Majapahit is the only current civ with claim to having the largest empire to a global region - Southeast Asia - who has never seen the light of day throughout the entire civ series.

I've said this before but the reason I thought they were in the cards is because in G&K the Dutch UA owes an overwhelming amount of its fame and fortune thanks to Indonesia. It's like a big middle finger to history by having point B without having point A, even for a video game

Maybe Indonesia won't be in because it's perceived as being under Dutch control throughout the entire period of the game...?

 

[RockTheCazbah87]

They had a good source for the art, she's female (and, in the base game, the only non-European female leader, which makes her leaderhead distinctive), and she adds variety? For all China's long and varied history, it hasn't been replete with variety in its Civ leaders:

Civ I: Mao
Civ II: Mao
Civ III: Mao
Civ IV: Mao. Qin added in an expansion

Faced with that a new face is a breath of fresh air. Sure, Qin undoubtedly deserves a chance to be shown in full screen, but I have no objections to a change.

Qin was in the original Civ IV I think, along with Mao.

I agree that change is good, but I think either of the two would've been better. Still, why complain about what you can't change I guess...

 

[InsanelyApple]

From the Native American thread, someone mentioned a Eurogamer article mentions "Anasazi pottery shards" after they talked to people at Firaxis.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-15-sid-meiers-cultural-victory

 

[ImperialChaos]

Can we quit derailing now that we actually have a 'lil new information?

Good idea. Enough history lessons guys (we can't help it; most Civfanatic posters are history buffs)

Just to make my updated four remaining civilizations list:
Morocco (confirmed at this point)
Italy
Sioux or Pueblo
Vietnam

 

[SnowKomodo]

Maybe Indonesia won't be in because it's perceived as being under Dutch control throughout the entire period of the game...?

This sentence is not clicking for me for some reason. Care to rephrase/elaborate?

 

[PhilBowles]

Let's not forget Rammesses. He's got huge sculptures.

He has, and he's undoubtedly Egypt's best-known leader, but the average tourist (say) won't think of "Abu Simbel of Ramses" despite statuary all over it depicting him. The Tomb of Hatsepshut is very explicitly named for the leader, which in itself gives her prominence.

I'd forgotten (or hadn't realised) that she was in Civ IV; it's welcome that she was.

 

[PhilBowles]

This sentence is not clicking for me for some reason. Care to rephrase/elaborate?

What I was saying, albeit facetiously, is that the Dutch UA is "Dutch East India Company". The Dutch East India Company only existed during a period when the Dutch effectively controlled Indonesia (or rather, only became profitable through annexing large portions of Indonesian territory to enforce their monopoly on the spice trade).

So if you were to add Indonesia as a separate civ, you have the conceptually odd situation that the Dutch have a UA that they couldn't reasonably have until or unless they conquer Indonesia. Which in turn suggests that the Dutch civ as it exists in the game represents the Dutch + Indonesia (despite the absence of Indonesian city names).

 

[SnowKomodo]

I think some perspective is sorely needed in regards to leaders chosen for the Civ series. Ultimately this is a game, not an Arecibo message to the world with some sort of definitive list of ultimate leaders to be revered. Diversity is good.

You know I never thought about it that way but I actually agree quite strongly with this

 

[ImperialChaos]

*Watches for Erickson's Mod Axe that closes threads because they get off topic*

 

[PhilBowles]

Qin was in the original Civ IV I think, along with Mao.

I agree that change is good, but I think either of the two would've been better. Still, why complain about what you can't change I guess...

Mao wouldn't work - he was apparently removed from Chinese editions in Civ IV, and with the work required for a leaderhead in Civ V you can't have a leader who has to be removed for censorship reasons in one of the game's markets.

From the Native American thread, someone mentioned a Eurogamer article mentions "Anasazi pottery shards" after they talked to people at Firaxis.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-15-sid-meiers-cultural-victory

Anasazi aren't an option, since we know the first civ (alphabetically) in BNW is Assyria, and the first "gap" in the achievement list (i.e. the first hidden achievement) is after either Brazil (if Morocco is the second hidden achievement) or Morocco (if it's the first).

 

[cybrxkhan]

They had a good source for the art, she's female (and, in the base game, the only non-European female leader, which makes her leaderhead distinctive), and she adds variety? For all China's long and varied history, it hasn't been replete with variety in its Civ leaders:

Civ I: Mao
Civ II: Mao
Civ III: Mao
Civ IV: Mao. Qin added in an expansion

Faced with that a new face is a breath of fresh air. Sure, Qin undoubtedly deserves a chance to be shown in full screen, but I have no objections to a change.

If they wanted a new leader there were plenty of other Chinese leaders to choose from. A few possibilities:

• Taizong
• Yongle
• Qianlong
• Kangxi
• Wudi
• Wendi
• Taizu
• Xuanzong
• Sun Yatsen
• Hongzhu
• Gaozu (Liu Bang)
• Cao Cao

Unless, of course, they thought that most Chinese leaders must've looked like the Emperor from Disney's Mulan. Seriously, though, there's plenty of Chinese leaders with different interesting personalities to choose from. I won't argue whether Wu was a good leader or not - personally I don't think she's that spectacular a leader, but that's just my personal opinion - but when you have a crapload of other Chinese leaders to choose from, each with their own personalities and from different time periods with clearly different looks and styles and backgrounds, you have to wonder why they settled on Wu. If Wu was added merely because being female added "variety"... well, that would be a pity. That's what I object to the most. It's not like there were only two or three options for a Chinese leader, there were plenty, but Wu was the one they chose, and I feel like the fact she was female was what really got her in, not because of her accomplishments or her contributions to Chinese civilization or whether she's an iconic Chinese figure (Boadicea at least, for instance, is a well-known symbol of resistance against Rome).


Also, Qin wasn't added in Civ4's expansion, he was in the base game.

 

[SnowKomodo]

What I was saying, albeit facetiously, is that the Dutch UA is "Dutch East India Company". The Dutch East India Company only existed during a period when the Dutch effectively controlled Indonesia (or rather, only became profitable through annexing large portions of Indonesian territory to enforce their monopoly on the spice trade).

So if you were to add Indonesia as a separate civ, you have the conceptually odd situation that the Dutch have a UA that they couldn't reasonably have until or unless they conquer Indonesia. Which in turn suggests that the Dutch civ as it exists in the game represents the Dutch + Indonesia (despite the absence of Indonesian city names).

Ah I see what you meant. Yeah, facetious indeed

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Cherokee
Morocco
Venice
Vietnam

 

[SnowKomodo]

This may actually be a consideration - if they add all the favoured civs to Civ V, what new can they add that will sell Civ VI? In fairness Civ V hasn't been short of new 'fan fave' civs - Brazil, Poland, Assyria, Iroquois, and quite possibly Venice - and Polynesia was purportedly based on suggestions here. Getting rid of unrealistic and undeserving fan options like Inuit or Israel, politically contentious ones like Tibet, fan-contentious ones like Italy (if not in BNW) or simply unlikely ones like Australia or Canada (really, do you expect anyone could take a game seriously if, close to the top of its civ list, you have something like "William Bligh of the Australian Empire"? Particularly since Australia's other leader options would be either forgettable or silly - heaven forbid they go with Ned Kelly. A civ led by Slim Dusty would make as much sense...), the pool of civs that large numbers of fans really want is probably rather small. They have enough to lure people with Kongo and recently-popular Hungary, I suspect, but they may want to hold Indonesia back for similar reasons.

I've never had any experience in marketing but my gut tells if they want to maximize profits that they would sell what is most popular in the now. I think it's more likely that they are just neglecting civs like Indonesia and Kongo than it is they are saying "We should hold them back for Civ 6"

 

[InsanelyApple]

Anasazi aren't an option, since we know the first civ (alphabetically) in BNW is Assyria, and the first "gap" in the achievement list (i.e. the first hidden achievement) is after either Brazil (if Morocco is the second hidden achievement) or Morocco (if it's the first).

Someone else mentioned that the Pubelo could've been one of the later two and since they were removed, they just stuck the new civ in the Pubelo's old spot.

 

[Loaf Warden]

From the Native American thread, someone mentioned a Eurogamer article mentions "Anasazi pottery shards" after they talked to people at Firaxis.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-15-sid-meiers-cultural-victory

Not in any context that was relevant to BNW.

 

[Gucumatz]

Mao wouldn't work - he was apparently removed from Chinese editions in Civ IV, and with the work required for a leaderhead in Civ V you can't have a leader who has to be removed for censorship reasons in one of the game's markets.



Anasazi aren't an option, since we know the first civ (alphabetically) in BNW is Assyria, and the first "gap" in the achievement list (i.e. the first hidden achievement) is after either Brazil (if Morocco is the second hidden achievement) or Morocco (if it's the first).

But again, the Anasazi are the Pueblo as most anthropologists/archaeologists state as has been mentioned a thousand times.. Different eras as is established...

However, look at the context of the pottery quote, its clearly not any relevant clue to our speculation