Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[sanpavlos]

the Sioux are heavily criticized here and at the 2K boards

We have seen with Civ 5 Firaxis wanted to avoid the nomadic and largely non-deserving Sioux

Respectfully, I really think you sell the Sioux short. They're as deserving as any NA group, and certainly more prominent than most. Whoever said they're nothing more than a quintessential Indian to a Hollywood cowboy really needs to do some more research.

If they're not your first pick, no problem. But undeserving? I disagree. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Gucumatz]

Compared to the big 5 of the USA, (Mississippians, Comanche, Pueblo, Iroquois and the Sioux), yes they are easily the least deserving.

Relatively unlike the Comanche they inhabited more so of a backwater in the Pre-Colombian era and are particularly famous in the US for a single battle, whereas various other civs did much more against the US than the Sioux

 

[Gucumatz]

And of course I don't even mention South American/Mesoamerican civs for a reason, simply because they aren't thought of in the west although many were significantly more influential in their regions, longevity, warfare, technology, spread of religion etc. than the Sioux ever were

Even with the cavalry native civs, there are several better (Comanche and Mapuche IE)

 

[Sikandar]

I think the Seminole are an ideal fit if the Pueblo are no longer in play. The Seminole had actual towns. With the Sioux you'd have to use battlesites as city names and that's just...not ideal.

 

[Sikandar]

And of course I don't even mention South American/Mesoamerican civs for a reason, simply because they aren't thought of in the west although many were significantly more influential in their regions, longevity, warfare, technology, spread of religion etc. than the Sioux ever were

Even with the cavalry native civs, there are several better (Comanche and Mapuche IE)

Between the Toltec and the Zapotec, who do you think would be a better fit for Civ?

 

[Radu_Magus]

Vast trading Empire, unique culture, Titian, Tintoretto and a host of other painters, architecture, city effectively built on the sea, straddling both the Eastern and Western worlds (born from Byzantium, unlike the other Italian states, but still Italian and Catholic in nature), pivotal importance on world history... they are not Lombard in origin, but neither are they Greek in nature. They were pretty unique, and not simply another Italian city-state... and don't forget that there wasn't even an Italian language before the 18th-19th century, and it didn't come into widespread usage until after 1861- the Venetians had their own language (not a dialect, even though it is increasingly becoming such) which is still occasionally used, with 2.2 million native speakers... no more a city-state than Rome or Carthage, which are both in the game... unique political culture which developed before the rise of the Italian communes...

Why, what do you class as a civilisation?

Yes, not just another Italian city-state... but a city-state nonetheless. Arguably, with this logic, you would probably have more arguments to include Athens or Sparta (as cool as that would be) as civilizations. Everything you mentioned, in terms of it being unique, could be said for many parts of Italy, except that the city-state of Venice was more powerful due to its trade.

And please, it would be too absurd, to say the least, to compare Venice to the Roman Empire. I assume you are from Venice or just a Venice-fanatic?

 

[turingmachine]

Yes, not just another Italian city-state... but a city-state nonetheless.

Carthage was a city state, and Babylon, and even Rome. Then they formed empires still centered on the original city state. There's no reason to discriminate against Venice in this regard.

 

[InsanelyApple]

I just thought of something guys. What if the Tomahawk unit is a raider? Similar to the privateer of Civ4. Using it you can destroy trade caravans. What do all of you think? It doesn't have to be a UU.

 

[Radu_Magus]

Carthage was a city state, and Babylon, and even Rome. Then they formed empires still centered on the original city state. There's no reason to discriminate against Venice in this regard.

I think you don't know the meaning of "city-state" if you call Rome (at the height of the Roman Empire) a city-state.

 

[tnick777]

While not separating them to see how many each of the major would get individually. :rollseyes: Doesn't change the fact that the Sioux are heavily criticized here and at the 2K boards

We have seen with Civ 5 Firaxis wanted to avoid the nomadic and largely non-deserving Sioux in favour of the Iroquois and attempted Pueblo. Wouldn't be surprised if they were left out again

I struggle to grasp your anti-sioux vendetta.

 

[VermelhoRed]

If you'd love to have Hungary, please support them along with the other civs you love rather than put down one in favor of another.

Nope. I'd love to have Hungary over Poland, but I'd really dislike to have both Hungary and Poland. Enough Europe.

 

[InsanelyApple]

I struggle to grasp your anti-sioux vendetta.

I don't know about him, but I don't want the Sioux because they never founded cities. That's the same reason I don't like the Huns.

 

[tnick777]

I don't know about him, but I don't want the Sioux because they never founded cities. That's the same reason I don't like the Huns.

They were arguably one of the loudest, most militant tribes in NA though.

 

[VermelhoRed]

I think you don't know the meaning of "city-state" if you call Rome (at the height of the Roman Empire) a city-state.

But you call the Venetian Empire a city-state. What is a city-state to you? Because if Carthage is not a city-state in your opinion, neither is Venice.

 

[InsanelyApple]

They were arguably one of the loudest, most militant tribes in NA though.

And we have enough warmongers as it is.

 

[tnick777]

And we have enough warmongers as it is.

It'd be necessary to balance out all the new cultural/tourism/trade civs we're getting.

Zulu, Songhai, France, Greece, Japan, Denmark, Aztecs, and Indonesia(?) are pretty much the only war-mongerers we have right now. USA, Sweden, China, Germany, and Russia are up there too.

Not too much compared to 43 civs.

 

[Hyperion529]

what we haven't many of yet, are female leaders. there were 4(3 if you exclude Spain) women out of 9 new leaders in gnk, and we only got maria so far...

 

[turingmachine]

I think you don't know the meaning of "city-state" if you call Rome (at the height of the Roman Empire) a city-state.

I didn't call Rome a city state at the height of the empire. Read what I said, I said it started as a city state then formed an empire. However even at the height of the empire Rome didn't stop being the most important city.

Venice is no different. Started as a city state and then formed an empire.

I think your overly biased in classifying Venice as just a city state despite it being parallel to more well known examples.

 

[alpha2117]

Thank you Tsar , I forgot the most obvious one lol. Still, only 3 civs for the scenario is very little

So you are saying the CSA is in as a civ to go with the other scenario?

I kid, I kid

The Scramble is loaded as is - we have Boers, Belgium, Italy, England, Morocco, Zulu, Ottoman, Portugal, France - possibly Ethipoia, Songhai, Spain, Egypt either as they are or reskinned. They have between 9 and 13 civs automatically without having to try to adjust. I assume Boers will be a reskinned Dutch, Belgium a reskinned Austria? Italy a reskinned Venice (assuming Venice is in)?

I dont think they need to go adding civs for that scenario.

The Civil Wars extra civ is unlikely to be in and the preview that had it added said nothing about native tribes so I assume CSA is just a alternate scenario only civ.

Sioux are probably in based on the naming ranges available as are Venice. Wouldn't have been my first choices and it appears Sioux wouldn't have even been Firaxis's first choice either but if they are in then lets hope the design choices are good. In the end thats all that matters. The civ names are really only flavor because in reality they are mythical representations of those real world societies.

 

[Radu_Magus]

But you call the Venetian Empire a city-state. What is a city-state to you? Because if Carthage is not a city-state in your opinion, neither is Venice.

And when did I mention Carthage?

I didn't call Rome a city state at the height of the empire. Read what I said, I said it started as a city state then formed an empire. However even at the height of the empire Rome didn't stop being the most important city.

Venice is no different. Started as a city state and then formed an empire.

I think your overly biased in classifying Venice as just a city state despite it being parallel to more well known examples.

But Rome is not in the game because of its origin as a city-state, but for what it became afterwards. So I don't see the point of mentioning Rome there. Sure, Venice might have had a few territories here and there, important art a powerful trade network, but a civilization? Nope. Put Italy instead (and I would be against it, because we already have Rome). Like I said, the same arguments could be used to support Athens or Sparta, but I think Greece already represents them sufficiently.