Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[wigwam]

Treating "Israel" and "the Jewish people" as synonyms is not a good idea. The whole idea of "Jewish civilization" or "Israelite civilization," like the idea that Jerusalem, Jaffa, etc. are "their former cities," is best avoided, in my opinion.

I disagree somewhat about ancient Israel. It's true that, in the big scheme of things, all they really gave the world was Judaism, but in their time they had some notable achievements. What lasting impact did the Huns have on the world? Or Carthage? Even if it weren't for Judaism, ancient Israel would be notable, as the Huns and Carthage were, for their wars against Rome. They have good leaders, at least one decent UU possibility (Maccabees), plenty of UB and UA options—I think they could make a fun civilization.

All that said, they're very low on my list. And I would never in a million years have added the Huns to a Civ game if I were in charge.

And I see that while I was typing, Israel was proscribed. Whoops.

 

[werothegreat]

Hittites:

1) They conquered Babylon
2) They lasted for longer than many civs already featured
3) They started the Iron Age
4) They rivaled Egypt in power, leading to the world's first written peace treaty
5) If the Trojan war ever actually happened, the Trojans would have been Hittites

Honestly, the only reason they haven't been included outside of scenarios yet is because almost no one has heard of them.

EDIT: They also spoke the first known Indo-European language. Cool fact - at the end of their empire, as Assyrians/Sea People were conquering, they burned and abandoned their capital. Also, the Battle of Kadesh, which led to the peace treaty, took place under Ramesses II's reign. Shouldn't we include the empire that defeated him in battle if we're going to include him as a leader?

 

[Menzies]

Treating "Israel" and "the Jewish people" as synonyms is not a good idea. The whole idea of "Jewish civilization" or "Israelite civilization," like the idea that Jerusalem, Jaffa, etc. are "their former cities," is best avoided, in my opinion.

I disagree somewhat about ancient Israel. It's true that, in the big scheme of things, all they really gave the world was Judaism, but in their time they had some notable achievements. What lasting impact did the Huns have on the world? Or Carthage? Even if it weren't for Judaism, ancient Israel would be notable, as the Huns and Carthage were, for their wars against Rome. They have good leaders, at least one decent UU possibility (Maccabees), plenty of UB and UA options—I think they could make a fun civilization.

All that said, they're very low on my list. And I would never in a million years have added the Huns to a Civ game if I were in charge.

And I see that while I was typing, Israel was proscribed. Whoops.

What achievements? They were a minor kingdom that was almost never mentioned by the actual powers of the time (many of which aren't even in the game) who we only have any interest in due to a religion that was the basis for Christianity and Islam. That's why I mentioned it as an if. If a Jewish Civilization can't be done, then that's about it. Ancient Israel can't stand on it's own.

Also, comparing Ancient Israel to the Huns or Carthage is like comparing El Salvador to the United States in terms of the 20th century. Carthage was a true power of the Mediterranean and a rival of Rome, their significance is far greater than being simply a group that waged war against them. The Huns also forged an impressive Empire across Europe, which had a lasting effect on the region and led to many changed in Europe at the time.

What achievements do you actual think Ancient Israel had?

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

To be honest, I reckon any new civ-heavy expansions would be a bit of a mistake, as you would be seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting boring/modern/unimportant civs (not that it hasn't been done already mind you.) and although there are cases for Vietnam or the Hittites, I don't see enough to make a full and interesting expansion.

I would say if there's a new expansion, it should focus on expanding current civs like splitting India into Mauraya/Mughal/Maratha, or similar things, if just to make certain civs playable again.

 

[Sikandar]

The mods said no further discussions of Israel are to be continued in this topic.

 

[Menzies]

To be honest, I reckon any new civ-heavy expansions would be a bit of a mistake, as you would be seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting boring/modern/unimportant civs (not that it hasn't been done already mind you.) and although there are cases for Vietnam or the Hittites, I don't see enough to make a full and interesting expansion.

I would say if there's a new expansion, it should focus on expanding current civs like splitting India into Mauraya/Mughal/Maratha, or similar things, if just to make certain civs playable again.

They could easily get at least another expansion worth out and have it be both interesting and marketable from a Civ perspective alone. My worry would be that a third expansion would end up being over engineered like Beyond the Sword was. Then again, it wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't a buggy mess that required a community made patch to be playable, although they did eventually fix it themselves.

As for Civs, let's start with 9 extra, off the top of my head right now:

1. Vietnam
2. Hitties
3. Sumeria
4. Belgium
5. Italy
6. Timurids
7. Kongo
8. Australia
9. Canada

Not sure I like the idea of Italy, Australia or Canada, but they would be marketable. It's also got fan favourites Kongo and Timurids in it, as well as Sumeria, who are a gaping hole in the lineup as well as more recognition to South East Asia. Want so more?

1. Mali
2. Khmer
3. Serbia
4. Czech
5. Ukraine
6. Tibet
7. Gran Colombia
8. Mexico
9. Scythia

Mali and Khmer of course being huge gaping wholes in the lineup too. But wait, there's even more:

1. Swahili
2. Ashanti
3. Burma
4. Olmec
5. Zapotec
6. Hungary
7. Romania
8. Armenia
9. Nubia

The list could go on and on. The amount of hype and excitement new Civs bring isn't going to be the issue to stop producing expansions, it will be whether they can add more to the game without making it an over engineered pile of Beyond the Sword.

The mods said no further discussions of Israel are to be continued in this topic.

Did not see that before, seems that it got hidden on the last page.

 

[seancolorado]

^^ This list is proof that you could go on with marketable and powerhouse civilizations. It's just a matter of "Are we over-marinating the game?" which is a serious question the devs have to ask themselves since it's likely fans will ask for a third expansion

Sometimes it's good to leave out on top and move on to something new. We'll see

 

[Menzies]

^^ This list is proof that you could go on with marketable and powerhouse civilizations. It's just a matter of "Are we over-marinating the game?" which is a serious the devs have to ask themselves since it's likely fans will ask for a third expansion

To be honest we would ask for a fourth, fifth, sixth... and so forth expansion too. We're past the "CHANGE IS BAD" stage of Civ V now, so anything they add will be lauded for the most part, regardless of what happens. If any expansion is poorly received, all they need to do is count their profits and start planning Civ VI since by the time it's released Civ VI will be the worst game the series has ever produced, and the last anyone will ever buy, whilst anything they produced for Civ V will be the best the series has ever had to offer. The cycle will repeat and so forth.

 

[TimeWeaver]

But wait, there's even more:

5. Aztec

I have a strange feeling that the Aztecs are in CiV already...

 

[Menzies]

I have a strange feeling that the Aztecs are in CiV already...

Meant to write Zapotec, and now been edited.

 

[Nujabes]

To be honest, I reckon any new civ-heavy expansions would be a bit of a mistake, as you would be seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting boring/modern/unimportant civs (not that it hasn't been done already mind you.) and although there are cases for Vietnam or the Hittites, I don't see enough to make a full and interesting expansion.

Whenever I see someone making this argument, it always seems more like an indication of the limits of that person's knowledge rather than an exhaustion of all of the interesting/relevant civilizations that could be included in the series. There are tons of good potential additions, regardless of what area of the world you're most interested in.

 

[trexeric]

I'm gonna preposterous my 7 list and have some more explanation!:
1) Kongo - Well, for one, the area is massively under represented and Kongo could be a jungle-oriented civ. Or river and jungle oriented, with trade and culture sprinkled in there. Oh, the possibilities! Not to mention a great chance for a female leader (Nzinga)
2) Bulgaria - Believe it or not, the Bulgarians had an empire. In fact, they had two. Of all the European choices, they're my favorite. They have a nice leader choice (Simeon) and have war/culture/religion possibilities, and they also will represent the Balkans fairly well.
3) Nepal - Oh man, this would be awesome. A faith and mountain oriented civ? Sign me up! Although they haven't had a real massive impact on history, they still deserve a mention. Also, they can replace Tibet to avoid marketing troubles.
4) Khazars - Another awesome choice, with trade/faith/war potential. Also, kind of European!
5) Vietnam - Recognizable, and a popular choice. I would prefer the Khmer myself, but Vietnam is farther away from Siam so would cause less 'confusion'. Also, they could fit in TWO FEMALE LEADERS AT ONCE!!!!!!! Something I'm sure would be innovative and cool.
6) Australia - I honestly like the idea of Australia better than Canada, if not for the sole reason of the continent's lack of representation. Of course, Australia is the only real civ you Cnn have for that continent anyway. Also, marketing!
7) Timurids - Last but not least, the Timurids. They have an awesome leader (Timur) and a potential for a war/culture/trade design. Yeah, awesome.

 

[Bonci]

Personally I want:
- Khazars or Armenia
- Kongo
- Hungary or Bulgaria
- Tibet
- Khmers or Vietnam
- Hittites or Sumeria
- Swahili

I would love to see Italy, but now that we have Venice I can't bee too greedy XD

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Well don't I look an idiot now...

Still I think we need to be fixing some issues with current civs (I say again, divide up India) before we go and add civs that are a.) Modern like Canada or b.) Too similar to other civs for people who aren't history scholars. (I mean, I know they're very different but I fail to see a need for Sumeria, Assyria, Babylon and the Hittites.) or c.) arent civilizations. (cough*romania*cough)

 

[Menzies]

Well don't I look an idiot now...

Still I think we need to be fixing some issues with current civs (I say again, divide up India) before we go and add civs that are a.) Modern like Canada or b.) Too similar to other civs for people who aren't history scholars. (I mean, I know they're very different but I fail to see a need for Sumeria, Assyria, Babylon and the Hittites.) or c.) arent civilizations. (cough*romania*cough)

I always hear people talk about "Dividing India", but what exactly would you do, what divisions would you make? Generally I hear things like the Mughals (a Persian Empire that controlled the Sub Continent) or Mauryan Dynasty (a Dynasty that controlled similar territory much earlier). This is however getting back into the realms of having two Empires that are the same Civilization, similar to having Russia and the USSR or England and the British Empire. In fact, Ashoka the Great was an Indian leader in Civ IV.

So yeah, how exactly would you break up India, because I doubt most understand about the general smaller subdivisions and it would be quite hard to market. Much like China, there is a unified culture of sorts that does justify it being as one, similar to with Arabia or Persia in fact. If we were to go down having cultural divisions, then the question also becomes about China, although having sub divisions of China would likely make it unsellable in the PRC.

 

[Merciorum]

A Skanderbeg-led Albania would be cool...

But that would be going too far, I think.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

I always hear people talk about "Dividing India", but what exactly would you do, what divisions would you make? Generally I hear things like the Mughals (a Persian Empire that controlled the Sub Continent) or Mauryan Dynasty (a Dynasty that controlled similar territory much earlier). This is however getting back into the realms of having two Empires that are the same Civilization, similar to having Russia and the USSR or England and the British Empire. In fact, Ashoka the Great was an Indian leader in Civ IV.

So yeah, how exactly would you break up India, because I doubt most understand about the general smaller subdivisions and it would be quite hard to market. Much like China, there is a unified culture of sorts that does justify it being as one, similar to with Arabia or Persia in fact. If we were to go down having cultural divisions, then the question also becomes about China, although having sub divisions of China would likely make it unsellable in the PRC.

Well, its not quite the same as Russia - USSR, the Mughals were foreign Muslim kings who invaded India but basically liked it so much they turned what was supposed to be a colonial holding into their own nation and thought themselves the true rulers of india. The maurya came like roughly 1000 years before the mughals, which is your first big difference! they were the first people to unite the subcontinent, which is no mean feat in 400 BC, making them more worthy than most, which is why its kind of annoying that they are represented by the big bloob. I could go on about it but thats the 2 most important groups, personally, that really do deserve their own civs. Its not like Russia USSR, more like Rome - All of europe ever hahah

 

[Sikandar]

I always hear people talk about "Dividing India", but what exactly would you do, what divisions would you make? Generally I hear things like the Mughals (a Persian Empire that controlled the Sub Continent) or Mauryan Dynasty (a Dynasty that controlled similar territory much earlier). This is however getting back into the realms of having two Empires that are the same Civilization, similar to having Russia and the USSR or England and the British Empire. In fact, Ashoka the Great was an Indian leader in Civ IV.

So yeah, how exactly would you break up India, because I doubt most understand about the general smaller subdivisions and it would be quite hard to market. Much like China, there is a unified culture of sorts that does justify it being as one, similar to with Arabia or Persia in fact. If we were to go down having cultural divisions, then the question also becomes about China, although having sub divisions of China would likely make it unsellable in the PRC.

A Tamil civilization would be interesting especially consider the difference between the Indo-Aryan north and the Dravidian south.

Afghans instead of Mughals would be preferable as Muhammad of Ghor ruled a vast swath of northern India. The current India could represent the Indo-Aryan Hindu civilization of most of India through its recorded history.

 

[mitsho]

I also don't like the Mughals who are a explicit part of the India civ we have in civ5. The Maurya though could be made distinctive, but then Ashoka was a leader in civ4, so it's essentially the problem of needing several itinerations of one civ... A thing that's also true for China the other "Asian" blob civ we have. But you can't dissagregate China for various reasons.

What you can however do for India is bring in other "ethnicities" of the Indian subcontinent who mostly are from the Southern part. That's why I suggested Chola/Tamils (wiki, while they are located in modern India, they're not really in continuation of the state. Still, they do help the representation of the area and "India" in a sense of its diversity, no?

 

[cybrxkhan]

So yeah, how exactly would you break up India, because I doubt most understand about the general smaller subdivisions and it would be quite hard to market. Much like China, there is a unified culture of sorts that does justify it being as one, similar to with Arabia or Persia in fact. If we were to go down having cultural divisions, then the question also becomes about China, although having sub divisions of China would likely make it unsellable in the PRC.

I would argue China is less of a blob than people think - the concept of a unified China, at the least, has existed in some form since ancient times with the Middle Kingdom. When China broke into little warring states, they always wanted to re-unify China and restore the Middle Kingdom, essentially - India never had this sort of concept until very recently. All the great empires that managed to rule over large portions of the Indian subcontinent - including the Mauryans and the Mughals - never managed to get India the level of unity that China did. These great empires did not consider themselves true successors of each other the way that the Chinese dynasties did. (Do note however that when I speak of China I'm not including Manchuria/Tibet/Xinjiang, I'm referring to the core area of modern-day China that people associate with the Chinese civilization)

That said, as others have suggested, one way to go about the India split is basically to do north-south. So the current India can remain, representing the north, while we can have a Tamil/Chola/whatever civ for the south. This isn't too unreasonable, as there is a definite linguistic and even cultural split between the Indo-Aryan-speaking north and the Dravidian-speaking south.