Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[flamming_python]

Poland!????

What a waste of a Civ, I mean they already have Austria with their winged Hussars; it's the same thing
Hardly much of a relevant country (by European history standards) either.

 

[anandus]

Well, Poland was instrumental in turning the tide of the Ottoman invasion and driving back the Ottoman forces out of Europe, so they definitely had an important role in European history.

 

[Imalich]

So, to sum up the argument over the possible inclusion of Italy:

Pros:
- Historical relevance.
- Consistent with expansion focus (trade, culture)
- Could be added in one of the two scenarios.

Cons:
- European civ (already too many).
- Core area already filled (by Rome).
- City naming controversy (at least the capital).
- Would mean the removal of a lot of city states and probably the denaturalization of the CS concept as it was originally conceived.

Other factors:
- Has been more historically important when divided than when united (as Greece).
- Has finally been united under one nation (unlike other civs like Maya)

All things said, it would surprise me if Italy is one of the new civilizations, but not completely.
Also because I think it's worthy to have its spot in civilization.

Here's my list:
-Poland
-Assyria
-Portugal
-Kongo
-Indonesia (whatever they will call it)
-Zulu
-Khazars/some kind of "silk road civilization"
-Native american civ (not literally, I mean some tribe)
-Italy/Venice/Florence

Well, I don't wanna feed the discussion, but i just wanted to raise some points.

Pros:
- European. (Really, the fact that we have a lot of european nations may cause a stir about Italy's inclusion in these forums... but market-wise? I think it actually helps their chances)
- Consistent with expansion focus (trade, culture), with ample room for related UA and flavor.

Cons:
- Would mean the removal of a lot of city states and probably the denaturalization of the CS concept as it was originally conceived. (City-State removal may be a point. But really, they only need to remove them and put on some others. Problem-solved. Denaturalization of the concept is a bit dramatic, I think. I fail to grasp that as a big factor)

Other factors:
- Has been more historically important when divided than when united (as Greece). Altought, as Greece, it shared culture and identity long before political unity happened.


With all that in mind, I'm still not very keen on Italy's inclusion. My point is: I think that, by Firaxis standards up to this point, it's a very strong possibility. More so than Brazil and even some far-east options advocated. The only civs i see stronger in probability would be Portugal, one or two African ones and a native-american (as it seems a good market option in the latter case).

 

[Bonci]

Yeah. That is not my view on the matter, it's the digest of all the previous discussion about the subject.

 

[xcross211]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/afri1914.htm

For this scenario, Portugal and Belgium has a good chance to be in the game. And thinking about the tittle of the expansion, BnW its about new lands? Like Africa and the Americas (witch give Brazil and others Ameticans and African civs a good chance) or its about the modern world, diplomacy and tourism (witch gives other modern states a chance)?

They are all horse archer civs from the steppes.

Can I say there are too much Musketman civs?
Kushan were great middle Aisa Empire and maybe the strongest in mid-Aisa history.The founder Yuezhi create the indenpent culture and a famous silk road civilization which be familiar to the BNW gameplay ponit "world trade".why they should be ignored?
And what about Armenia?(That's why I mentioned Parthian Empire)Which has the same history as Poland who were often ruled by other empires
I think Civ5 has paid too much attention to Western civilization,if BNW focus on "tourism&world trade",it should let more civilizations invovled from other regions.

 

[Bonci]

I also think that some kind of "Silk road civilization" could be included. At least for geographic completeness and the new trade system.

 

[otaman1]

I also think that some kind of "Silk road civilization" could be included. At least for geographic completeness and the new trade system.

Let's see.. the silk road ran through China, India, Persia, Greece and Renaissance Italy. Later Mongolia controlled the silk road

 

[xcross211]

I think Itlay has chance.Because it is the "beginning of the Renaissance",which mean "the beginning of the Brave new World".

Well, here is my list
Poland(confirmd)
Assyria
Portugal
a silk road civ(Kushan should be the best)
a southeast asia civ
a native american civ
two africa civs(Zulu/Great Zimbabwe/Kongo)
Itlay/SARDINIA(It unified Itlay) or a dark horse

 

[Bonci]

Yeah, I used a pretty bad definition. I mean central asian, which exploited closeness to the silk road commerce.

 

[mitsho]

He (or she)'s talking about a civilization located in what we call today the "stan"-countries: Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan with cities like Buchara, Samarkand and other great Silk Road Waystation cities. It's certainly a possibility, but I'm not sure it particularly fits with the focus of the expansion and offers a distinct enough gameplay for inclusion. I could see it with a revised Mongol Scenario (or a Russian expansion into the East one).

 

[InsanelyApple]

Candidates for female Leaders: Vietnam (Trung Sisters), Congo (Queen Nzinga), Israel (Golda Meir), Cherokee (Nanye-hi), Brazil (Queen Isabel/Maria I). I can't think of any more without further straining credibility even more than with the Cherokee and Brazil. My bet is that we will see at least two of those (or other good women candidates I can't think of), possible 3 or 4.

I'd be upset if Nanye-hi was the leader of the Cherokee because very little Cherokee have even heard of her. (I should know I live in Tahlequah, capital the Cherokee). Most Cherokee would expect John Ross, leader of the Cherokee during the Trail of Tears and the Civil War. (He has a Cherokee name too, Guwisguwi, but everyone here knows the "White" name because it's easier to remember.)

EDIT: If you had said Nancy Ward, I would have recognized the name. She is somewhat known, but still not to the extent of John Ross. However, her title was "Beloved Woman" and the leader of the Cherokee has the title "Principal Cheif", so she was never the leader.

But, to be fair, Gandhi was never the leader of the India, so that wouldn't be to unexpected.

EDIT2: Anybody who is interested can read about John Ross here.

 

[mitsho]

I only know it from a quick online research as well I was looking for female Native American leaders, and I found none (well, besides Pocahontas ). You see it's really hard to find additional female leaders without going totally into myth territory (like Queen of Sheba, but I don't find that to be a civ deserving of inclusion). I understand why you would get upset, but really it's just a game and I'd be more happy about the inclusion of the civ, even if it means a bit strange leader choice

 

[xcross211]

The more female leaders, the more africa civs

 

[Gucumatz]

Insanelyapple - For a Cherokee city list what would you prefer? A complete eastern focus or somewhat or mixed with western locations too?

 

[Inhalaattori]

Well on the other hand there are several Civs, which could have had good female leaders, but they did not choose to use them. Denmark, Sweden, Egypt and Ethiopia all had very good candidates for female leader.

 

[InsanelyApple]

I only know it from a quick online research as well I was looking for female Native American leaders, and I found none (well, besides Pocahontas ). You see it's really hard to find additional female leaders without going totally into myth territory (like Queen of Sheba, but I don't find that to be a civ deserving of inclusion). I understand why you would get upset, but really it's just a game and I'd be more happy about the inclusion of the civ, even if it means a bit strange leader choice

Well, upset is the wrong word. Confused would be much better. Though, I do know people in Tahlequah who may be very offended if John Ross wasn't the leader.

Insanelyapple - For a Cherokee city list what would you prefer? A complete eastern focus or somewhat or mixed with western locations too?

I wouldn't care either way, but the capital may be tricky. They could choose the modern capital, Tahlequah, or they could choose the capital before the Trail of Tears, New Echota. If they chose Tahlequah, they may offend the Eastern Band in the Tennessee area. (There are 3 bands with 2 calling Tahlequah their capital, but the Eastern calls something in Tennessee their capital, I think). If they choose New Echota, very little Cherokees would have heard of it and it's not that big of a town anymore. (I think less than 1000 people vs Tahlequah's 15000).

EDIT: I'd prefer a mixed city list since more Cherokee live out in Oklahoma, but I may be biased since I live out in Oklahoma too.

 

[otaman1]

Yeah. Only if Civ V had multiple leaders

 

[Tomatekh]

He (or she)'s talking about a civilization located in what we call today the "stan"-countries: Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan with cities like Buchara, Samarkand and other great Silk Road Waystation cities. It's certainly a possibility, but I'm not sure it particularly fits with the focus of the expansion and offers a distinct enough gameplay for inclusion. I could see it with a revised Mongol Scenario (or a Russian expansion into the East one).

The Timurids could work and are significant enough (plus you can easily fit them into a trade, conquest, science, culture, or even production type civ). Other than them, though, I don't really see a chance.

 

[Gucumatz]

Yea I don't see the Sassanids/Timurids ever having a great shot at getting into civ. That said I probably would have called you crazy if you told me Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and Poland would all get into the same civ game

 

[Inhalaattori]

Civs Id like to personally see:

Poland
Portugal
Assyria
Khazars
Tupis
Mapuche
Ashanti
Kongo
Zulus
Tibet
Israel
Khmers