Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[SnowKomodo]

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.

It very may well be a red herring, but talk about a remarkable coincidence if it is considering they all just "happened" to be in order

 

[Gucumatz]

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.

It was discussed earlier, it would make 0 sense to have a Unique Raiding unit, because every other civ would be able to determine who it belonged to. While the game doesn't consider multiplayer heavily, we were told specifically that they would never do that for Civ 5 prior to the release of Vanilla.

 

[Loaf Warden]

talk about a remarkable coincidence if it is considering they all just "happened" to be in order

That's not what I said. I wouldn't put it past them to fudge the order just to see what we'd do with it. I don't say it's likely. I'm just a skeptic by nature. I don't like to take circumstantial evidence as proof.

 

[Dragonflow]

It would be indeed quite amusing if the unrevealed achievements aren't in alphabetical order. Personally I doubt it.

 

[Loaf Warden]

It would be indeed quite amusing if the unrevealed achievements aren't in alphabetical order. Personally I doubt it.

I doubt it, too. All I said was that I'd laugh, because it is possible, however slightly.

 

[ImperialChaos]

The background building look's like Wringin Lawang:

Spoiler :

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

dshirk is lurking in the forum, checking out the frisson the reveal has caused, no doubt.

 

[PhilBowles]

It was discussed earlier, it would make 0 sense to have a Unique Raiding unit, because every other civ would be able to determine who it belonged to. While the game doesn't consider multiplayer heavily, we were told specifically that they would never do that for Civ 5 prior to the release of Vanilla.

The point isn't to make it hard to tell who the attacker is, the point is to let the Sioux attack without declaring war or letting the AI civs know what it is. Think of it as something like the 'camouflage' ability from Company of Heroes - there are two players so the enemy always knows it's you shooting them, the point is that the code tells the AI it can't shoot back.

In game world terms, we can imagine that the Sioux are the only native civ but that there are other tribes out there, so you can still imagine that the Sioux would have plausible deniability.

That is in any case only one possibility, and the most familiar. Others might be that there's been a change to barbarian mechanics so that they can capture or be gifted military units, for instance.

 

[SnowKomodo]

That's not what I said. I wouldn't put it past them to fudge the order just to see what we'd do with it. I don't say it's likely. I'm just a skeptic by nature. I don't like to take circumstantial evidence as proof.

Fair enough. I don't either but at the same time we're stuck here speculating based off of nothing but odd tips now and then so throwing out these theories doesn't really hurt. (As long as people don't get attached to the the theories to the point of interpreting them as fact)

 

[ImperialChaos]

Also, it is, without a doubt, Gajah Mada:

Mada:

Spoiler :

Leader Image:

Spoiler :

 

[Gucumatz]

The point isn't to make it hard to tell who the attacker is, the point is to let the Sioux attack without declaring war or letting the AI civs know what it is. Think of it as something like the 'camouflage' ability from Company of Heroes - there are two players so the enemy always knows it's you shooting them, the point is that the code tells the AI it can't shoot back.

In game world terms, we can imagine that the Sioux are the only native civ but that there are other tribes out there, so you can still imagine that the Sioux would have plausible deniability.

That is in any case only one possibility, and the most familiar. Others might be that there's been a change to barbarian mechanics so that they can capture or be gifted military units, for instance

Which is still entirely useless, we were promised no raiding types and if there were, they wouldn't be unique in Multiplayer. You can't simply 'attack' across a border without war in MP if everyone knows who the unit belongs to, you will get flack for it and have no real benefit to the UU. Likewise it makes no sense for singleplayer if a human could easily tell which AI was raiding them distorting the "fun" level for the human

Its a mechanic that we were promised we would not receive

Regardless, people keep shaving themselves on Occam's Razor on this issue and have to bring up a series of mental gymnastics to even remotely argue that this is a new UU. And there are possibilities the Galley does nothing that a Barb trireme can't do now with GK and as new trade routes mean naval barbarians are being slightly readjusted, it could be a replacement for the galley

 

[Loaf Warden]

Fair enough. I don't either but at the same time we're stuck here speculating based off of nothing but odd tips now and then so throwing out these theories doesn't really hurt. (As long as people don't get attached to the the theories to the point of interpreting them as fact)

With the alphabetical list, they are. It comes up time and time again: "Such-and-such a civ can't be in because of that list! The list rules them out completely!" While that's probably true, I still wouldn't be surprised if they've got one or two more unexpected plot twists up their sleeve.

 

[EulerMcE]

A Barbarian mechanic wherein they appropriate UUs of Civs not in the game. Now if only they could build B17 bombers.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Of course, I had to open by big fat trap yesterday and change my guess from Venice to Italy.

 

[ImperialChaos]

Of course, I had to open by big fat trap yesterday and change my guess from Venice to Italy.

I did the same like four times. All we got is speculation. Just have to go with the tide.

 

[Nujabes]

I'm still not feeling Venice. It's a really poor choice, especially considering the presence of both Portugal and now, ostensibly, Majapahit. Best case scenario, neither Italy nor Venice are present and it's and something we haven't anticipated.

 

[Louis XXIV]

^ And the replacement of Venice as a city-state? Unless they gave it to Austria, it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

The one I'm focusing on is the Rifle or Cavalry replacement. Essentially, I'm trying to determine if a Moroccan or Indonesian UU could replace it. Specifically, the Black Guard for Morocco would be what I'm trying to figure out as a Rifleman replacement.

It basically determines whether I think the Sioux will be in or not.

My guess for Vietnam no longer seems supported by the facts, though. I thought Hanoi was removed - it turns out they've added new militaristic city-states without necessarily removing old ones. I felt they needed an Asian leader - Indonesia fits the bill. I thought Trung Trac would be a good female leader - they do not seem to prioritize female leaders this time through. Because of this, I'm going to bank on there still being a Native American civilization, although I was not convinced before now.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

^ And the replacement of Venice as a city-state? Unless they gave it to Austria, it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

The one I'm focusing on is the Rifle or Cavalry replacement. Essentially, I'm trying to determine if a Moroccan or Indonesian UU could replace it. Specifically, the Black Guard for Morocco would be what I'm trying to figure out as a Rifleman replacement.

It basically determines whether I think the Sioux will be in or not.

My guess for Vietnam no longer seems supported by the facts, though. I thought Hanoi was removed - it turns out they've added new militaristic city-states without necessarily removing old ones. I felt they needed an Asian leader - Indonesia fits the bill. I thought Trung Trac would be a good female leader - they do not seem to prioritize female leaders this time through. Because of this, I'm going to bank on there still being a Native American civilization, although I was not convinced before now.

I'm thinking Camel Cavalry for Morocco. They made the camels lay down to fire rifles, swivel guns, and even gatling guns mounted to the saddle.

 

[sukritact]

I'm still not feeling Venice. It's a really poor choice, especially considering the presence of both Portugal and now, ostensibly, Majapahit. Best case scenario, neither Italy nor Venice are present and it's and something we haven't anticipated.

C'mon, ships for the crusades, stealing the remains of saints, exquisite glasswork, great trading empire, home of the Polos, and "the-guys-who-accidentally-blew-up-the-Parthenon"!

I'm thinking Camel Cavalry for Morocco. They made the camels lay down to fire rifles, swivel guns, and even gatling guns mounted to the saddle.

Zamburaks are cool, but I bet that isn't the UU .

 

[codepoet]

I'm still not feeling Venice. It's a really poor choice, especially considering the presence of both Portugal and now, ostensibly, Majapahit. Best case scenario, neither Italy nor Venice are present and it's and something we haven't anticipated.

Venice makes total sense IMO.
It just works with trying to portray a Renaissance power in the game... something that is really quite lacking. France is being switched to portray it better too.
Plus they can do something fun with canals if it's Venice :]