Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Dragonflow]

The Native American list has been narrowed down to Powhatan, Sioux, Shawnee, and Seminole. My Comanches are out and so are the Cherokees (and other Ch groups). Here's hoping for Tecumseh or Osceola.

God, I hope Pocahontas won't be in BNW.
I'm all for Tecumseh, but I think feel it'll be the Sioux.

 

[i_diavolorosso]

So will they make Trowulan or Jakarta the capital?

I think it depends on whether it's Majapahit or Indonesia.
My bet is it's the latter, so Jakarta is more likely for me..

Btw another quite resembling pic

 

[ImperialChaos]

The tomahawk barbs do point to the Shawnee/Powhatan

 

[Lord Xavius]

Two of the games - Civ II and Civ III. And although Civ IV's "Native Americans" were nominally generic, the leader and UU were both Sioux.

Small correction, the Dog Soldier is historically Cheyenne.

 

[Gucumatz]

I still don't understand how the Tomahawk idea gets soo much credence. It was a barbarian unit. Occam's razor makes it incredibly unlikely that it was all a faked setup to demonstrate a new UU. Barbarians already have UUs (Brutes and Galleys), by definition they could have changed one of the two UUs or it might mean a new unit (we have new unit line too afterall)

Sadly it seems the Sioux are the frontrunners once again, but still hoping for the Pueblo

 

[Magean]

According to the alphabetic list, if Morocco (or Moors) and Indonesia (or Majapahit) are in, then the two upper gaps are filled and Italy, Hungary, Belgium... are out. If that's true, the new European civ starts with P or a later letter. What could it be ? Serbia ?

Of course, if the Moors are in and their capital is Cordoba, then they could be the new European civ and that problem would be solved.

 

[Gucumatz]

Belgrade has been seen as a city state, no Serbia

 

[PhilBowles]

I think it depends on whether it's Majapahit or Indonesia.
My bet is it's the latter, so Jakarta is more likely for me..

Btw another quite resembling pic

I hope very much for Trowulan as the capital. If it's not, I'll rename it.

 

[Cyanfunk]

Depends on what they call the new civ. If they go general and call it Indonesia, we're back at square one for European civs. If they go accurate and call it Majapahit, Italy's still in the clear.

 

[nunor]

Depends on what they call the new civ. If they go general and call it Indonesia, we're back at square one for European civs. If they go accurate and call it Majapahit, Italy's still in the clear.

No, because of Morocco.

 

[Sikandar]

I think that Firaxis will go for the civ name as Javanese rather than Majapahit or the Indonesians. Majapahit was a Javanese polity. Indonesia is a Western term that originated in the 19th century.

 

[Gucumatz]

M still comes before P.... By definition, still would mean Italy is out

 

[Glassmage]

Depends on what they call the new civ. If they go general and call it Indonesia, we're back at square one for European civs. If they go accurate and call it Majapahit, Italy's still in the clear.

uh.... the other guy yesterday is Morocco.

 

[Iklabain]

Here are my last four.
Indonesia/Majapahit.
Inuit.
Morocco.
Anasazi/Navajo/Other Native tribe.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Two of the games - Civ II and Civ III. And although Civ IV's "Native Americans" were nominally generic, the leader and UU were both Sioux.

The Sioux were not in Civ III. That was the Iroquois.

 

[Gucumatz]

Here are my last four.
Indonesia/Majapahit.
Inuit.
Morocco.
Anasazi/Navajo/Other Native tribe.

You already posted this, we know that the Inuit and Anasazi can't be in because of the alphabetical order of the civs already established

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

My four:

Indonesia/Majapahit
Morocco
Shawnee/Seminole
Venice

 

[Loaf Warden]

I'm going to laugh so hard if the alphabetical achievement list turns out to have been a red herring instead of the absolute gospel people are treating it as.

 

[PhilBowles]

I still don't understand how the Tomahawk idea gets soo much credence. It was a barbarian unit. Occam's razor makes it incredibly unlikely that it was all a faked setup to demonstrate a new UU. Barbarians already have UUs (Brutes and Galleys), by definition they could have changed one of the two UUs or it might mean a new unit (we have new unit line too afterall)

Sadly it seems the Sioux are the frontrunners once again, but still hoping for the Pueblo

It's not a question of "soo much credence", it's simply a question of evidence of any kind. There's little for any of the non-confirmed civs, but an actual appearance of a unit in the game that's clearly linked to one feasible civ type is much stronger evidence than speculation about what Firaxis might or might do with city-state colours when they've changed their rules where those are concerned before.

The barbarian colours are curious, but without knowing the unit's abilities or the UA of any associated civ we don't know whether it's a setup. There is precedent from past civ games for units appearing as barbarians (privateers).

It's not simply a graphical change to an existing unit, because the unit icon is new. No one has yet presented any good reason why either (a) a new barbarian unit is needed, or (b) why such a specific non-European unit style would be used while every generic unit in the history of the Civ series has had European graphics. Ideas that it's somehow geography-related don't work because Civ takes place on fictional maps, and if the style of barbarian units was linked to the civ they spawn near (as also suggested), a Native American barbarian would not spawn close to Assyrian units.

It's not definitive any more than the disappearance of Venice is definitive, but what it cannot be is simply dismissed as irrelevant.

 

[cybrxkhan]

My four:

Indonesia/Majapahit
Morocco
Shawnee/Seminole
Venice

My four now. I gues s I have to concede to the Indonesia fans. I'll probably have to wait forever to get my good ol' Nam.