Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Dragonflow]

Everyone else is tired of repeating this, but as far as Firaxis is concerned it is, and always has been. The only times they've ever broken the rule that two civs with a shared history can't be included are the Holy Roman Empire (with Germany) and Gallic Celts (with France).

It's actually more like they did it only once with the HRE. Gallic Celts have almost nothing to do with the French who are of Frankish decent AFAIK.

 

[Option]

I just thought it was a changed Rome color scheme. There's no reason to discount the idea that it's just a changed color marker for an existing civ.

There's no reason to believe that they would change the color scheme 2 expansions in either, though.

 

[tnick777]

There's no reason to believe that they would change the color scheme 2 expansions in either, though.

Well when you have 43 civilizations it may be necessary at this point.

 

[Bonci]

As a Sicilian, I do not feel Venice represents many parts of Italy. As you know, each region is very distinct in its culture. Even the languages are very different.

Sicily and many other parts of Italy are as much Venetian as they are, say, Spanish.

Ok, I can understand that Spain could be closer to south Italy than Venice (though I don't agree).

But Rome is much more far away...

I'm aware of the differences (historical and actual) between north and south Italy, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that Rome represents Italy better than Venice.

 

[Monado]

Anyone know where I can find the achievement list for BnW? I'm interested to see if the two new civs are still blanked out.

 

[Option]

Well when you have 43 civilizations it may be necessary at this point.

I think the purple/gold color scheme is quite unique enough, I don't think it requires a change, and none of the so-far announced color schemes are anything remotely similar to it. If any time, it would've been with G&K and Sweden's inclusion as purple/blue are somewhat similar, and they share gold on the symbols itself.
Not to mention the purple on that BNW screenshot is different to the Roman purple as well.

I just don't see much sense behind a change like that. Of course, it's possible, but it would be a really weird decision.

Anyone know where I can find the achievement list for BnW? I'm interested to see if the two new civs are still blanked out.

The two new civs are still blanked out, and despite the update with the icons earlier, Morocco and Indonesia also remain to be blanked out.

 

[InsanelyApple]

From the Wikipedia Venice flag and mini-map using RGB colors.

Purple on Mini-map: 100 35 163
Purple on the flag: 102 34 162

Beige on Mini-map: 253 255 216
Beige on the flag: 253 254 219

All those numbers are less than 3 off from the corresponding value.

 

[Liufeng]

Ah, I knew it nobody wants Serbia . I wouldn't have a problem if they were named Berber Empire (Civilization), Berbers where important and I agree. But Morocco? Well... still gonna play them

I actually would like a yugoslavia civ under Tito. But since I'm not serbian, slovenian, bosnian, or any other ancient yugoslavian territory, I don't know how these people would feel about it.

 

[Scaramanga]

Ok, I can understand that Spain could be closer to south Italy than Venice (though I don't agree).

But Rome is much more far away...

I'm aware of the differences (historical and actual) between north and south Italy, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that Rome represents Italy better than Venice.

Venice's empire was in the East so I don't know how either of them do a better job of representing Italy than the other.

 

[teriaky]

The next european civ: Moldova!

 

[Crodface]

Venice's empire was in the East so I don't know how either of them do a better job of representing Italy than the other.

Exactly. As it stand right now, there is no proper Italian representation.

 

[Bonci]

Venice's empire was in the East so I don't know how either of them do a better job of representing Italy than the other.

Because the epicenter of the Venetian empire was, well, Venice which was an italian city state. There is little to no sign of dalmatian/greek/turk culture in what is considered Venice.

Venice was(is) italian, as England was(is) european despite having colonies everywhere.


But I don't want to derail the thread...I just wanted to share my concern about the venetian situation ._.

 

[Crodface]

Everyone else is tired of repeating this, but as far as Firaxis is concerned it is, and always has been. The only times they've ever broken the rule that two civs with a shared history can't be included are the Holy Roman Empire (with Germany) and Gallic Celts (with France). The Papal States and Italian city-states are important enough to history that if the developers didn't feel they were adequately represented by Rome, they would have been a civ long before now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Italy needs to be included. They just fit with this expansion and I want them for selfish reasons. But I understand why they wouldn't be.

Personally I feel that the reasons for the exclusion are many (never really a unified entity, no clear leader, too many other worthy European civs, etc.). I can understand those.

But saying it's because Rome = Italy is simply not accurate, even by gameplay/developer standards.

 

[Pedro P]

Exactly. As it stand right now, there is no proper Italian representation.

However, let's say that there is a new expansion, Venice would hit hard the chances of an Italian civilization, right now people think Italy is equal to Rome (which is idiotic, but it happens) , imagine with an actual Italian civ there.
Anyway, can't complain, as long as we get at least one civ that is related to Italy it would be good enough, so yeah... team Venice all the way :crazyeye

 

[Tsar NicholasII]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Italy needs to be included. They just fit with this expansion and I want them for selfish reasons. But I understand why they wouldn't be.

Personally I feel that the reasons for the exclusion are many (never really a unified entity, no clear leader, too many other worthy European civs, etc.). I can understand those.

But saying it's because Rome = Italy is simply not accurate, even by gameplay/developer standards.

They've been a unified entity through the Roman Empire as well as the Risorgimento. They probably exclude it because the region has already been represented, the game's very Eurocentric as it is and for most of its post-Roman history, Italy functions better as separate city states. Unless they plan on having the Kingdom of Italy in the game with Victor Emanuel II or Garibaldi as the leader I don't think they should have any post-Roman Italian civ.

 

[VermelhoRed]

And aside from Rome itself, even the cities are completely different.

Somewhat different. Rome has Mediolanum, Neapolis, Arretium, Ravenna...

 

[Crodface]

They've been a unified entity through the Roman Empire as well as the Risorgimento. They probably exclude it because the region has already been represented, the game's very Eurocentric as it is and for most of its post-Roman history, Italy functions better as separate city states. Unless they plan on having the Kingdom of Italy in the game with Victor Emanuel II or Garibaldi as the leader I don't think they should have any post-Roman Italian civ.

That's my point. They were unified under Rome, along with essentially all of Europe, but then weren't for a millennia. It was during this time of separate kingdoms and city-states that the peninsula was most influential.

Once they were unified again after the Risorgimento, they really haven't had that big enough of an impact globally to include them over others.

These are the reasons for exclusion. I agree.

 

[Pedro P]

They've been a unified entity through the Roman Empire as well as the Risorgimento. They probably exclude it because the region has already been represented, the game's very Eurocentric as it is and for most of its post-Roman history, Italy functions better as separate city states. Unless they plan on having the Kingdom of Italy in the game with Victor Emanuel II or Garibaldi as the leader I don't think they should have any post-Roman Italian civ.

Civilizations don't have to be bound to Nations. It would be completely ok for a possible Italian civ to be lead by a Medici or a Borgia, it works exactly like that to many other civs, most of them I would dare to say.
Anyway, Italy is out, that we know. I really hope it is out because of some serious reason or issue, because the whole "Rome = Italy" is a terrible, terrible concept. I Imagine if back in the Civ 1 era, when speculating about a new Civ on Civ2 people would say that Spain shouldn't be in because Rome would already cover all the region of Hispania. (And they do actually, rome=italy people should also demand that Spain is erased from the game )

Oh, and all the shogun and warring states era of Japan is represented in a unified Japanese civ (with a leader that wasn't actually a leader of all japan). So the impact that the city states had could be counted into a Italian civ with no problems.

Anyway, about the native americans, let's say that the white/purple is theirs, which tribe would fit the best such colour?

 

[tonberry]

Something I discovered recently, the city of Kiev is nowhere to be found in Civ5. It's not on the russian city list nor is a city state.

I know many think that Venice will be the next european civ, and I kind of agree, but I think Ukraine is still possible.

 

[PhilBowles]

It's actually more like they did it only once with the HRE. Gallic Celts have almost nothing to do with the French who are of Frankish decent AFAIK.

They're of Frankish descent, but ethnicity is not a good guide to cultural continuity, especially in such a heavily intermingled area as Europe. As emerged on another thread, English ancestry is mostly Celtic, but English culture is roughly equal parts Anglo-Saxon and Norman French in origin. The French claim the Gallic culture within their own.

Of course that raises the question of perceptions vs. real historical continuity; I think much of the wrangling over Italy and its components is that historically, there's a clear continuity between the Roman period and the later states, and the Renaissance was built on essentially Roman foundations even in city states that didn't exist during the Roman period. However, probably because of Italy's long subsequent history of provincialism, Italians themselves seem to identify with their city of origin more than with a unified Romano-Italian culture.