1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Brave New World's 9 new Civs

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Art Grin, Mar 15, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Urdnot_Scott

    Urdnot_Scott Sultan

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,437
    Location:
    The Trucial States.
    I get that, but I choose Maurya and Mughals because if youre gonna do that much dividing, what really becomes a civ? Plus the marketing potential of such niche Indian civs is very very small, whereas the mughals are well known(ish :lol:)

    Plus the mughals would play pretty differently, I see them as a sort of faith based warmonger, since they basically invaded the home of so many religions and forced one of them (a non native one at that) on the people.

    For example, UA: Jizya, conquering cities that follow a different religion yield +1 gold in that city.
    Leader: Akbar the Great
    UB: Maktab, courthouse replacement, usual benefits but also yields +1 faith and extra religious pressure.
    UU: Mughal Elephant, Cavalry replacement, more expensive than cavalry but gains a 50% increase against mounted units. (as well as the usual increased stats for a UU)

    So yeah, overall more than just being a division for accuracy's sake, its really more to do with having a unique civ that's fun to play.
     
  2. baptismbyfire

    baptismbyfire Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    126
    I hesitate to disagree with you, because I almost always agree with your opinions and the field is littered with the bodies of those who have tried. However, I do disagree when it comes to Ancient Israel. I think they can stand on their own. In terms of military power, obviously you are correct that it was not as powerful as Rome, Greece, Persia, Carthage, Egypt or Babylon and several others. (However, I think it is worth noting that, unlike Greek, Egyptian and Hittite societies, Ancient Israel was not destroyed by the Sea Peoples. That should be worth something.) I think Ancient Israel has left a great mark on our society, greater than many ancient societies, which eventually were subjugated by even greater military powers and often left no indigenous written record. The writings that Ancient Israel's learned left behind continue to play a key role in philosophical discussions, particularly ethics, as they have for millennia. Isn't a nation that left such an indelible imprint on human thought, ideas and philosophy, as well as religion, one that should be included? When you consider our daily lives, even as an atheist (as I am), I acknowledge the profound impact that thinkers and writers from Ancient Israel have had upon my thought process every single day when I ponder bigger questions about life and how we should treat each other.
     
  3. Donasin

    Donasin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    If I had to pick let's say 5 civs to add:

    1) Khazar
    2) Israel
    3) Kongo
    4) Somali City States Civ/Great Zimbabwe
    5) Vietnam
     
  4. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    Civilization is different to dynasties, political entities and so forth though. The Mughal Empire was an Indian Empire, no matter who ruled it. Yes, they were Persian rulers, much like the Qing Dynasty were Manchurian, that doesn't make it "Not India" suddenly.

    Persia also had various dynastic rulers over the eras, but they are in the game rightly as Persia as a whole. India clearly has been meant to represent the various previous dynasties and rulers as India as a whole, and breaking it up into various dynasties and such is better left to the various Paradox games.

    Tamil, whilst interesting, is hardly the most significant of Civilizations. It certainly could be represented on their own, but so could a massive host of cultures also not in the game.

    Afghanistan is an interesting suggestion though.

    Don't forget Inner Mongolia when talking about parts of China that are historically not "Chinese" as such. Of course, they could never split China for political reasons, and that includes Tibet, Xinjiang and Manchuria.

    A North-South split of India could work, but the question then becomes of the overall significance of the Tamil culture. A Civilization in the game can be included for various reasons:

    1. Historical significance
    2. Modern Significance
    3. Marketability
    4. Gameplay elements

    But a Tamil Culture doesn't really seem to fit this as such. It's more a case of offering more cultural diversity to the sub continent, which could be done in other ways, one of which would be having Civilizations such as Sri Lanka or even Burma. Tamil are certainly an option though, but I don't think it's the most obvious choice. It certainly wouldn't force a "split" of India either.

    Speaking of blobs though, the only real blob we have in the Civ V is Polynesia, and even they have some level of uniting culture. The issue is how to deal with Polynesia otherwise, as they are a very interesting and impressive culture that do deserve to be in the game for being very interesting and unique as well as offering something interesting to the game as a whole.

    I'd also add that one thing I hope the game keeps away from is Dynastic names. The only one that jumps out right now is the Ottomans on that front though, and they could be renamed to Turkey in future versions.

    We have sadly been asked to not discuss Israel here, which is a shame as there is much to discuss on this topic though this is not the place.
     
  5. wigwam

    wigwam Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    555
    Location:
    Berlin
    Carthage was a true power, yeah, but what's left of them now? Roman history and a few ruins. The Huns left their mark on European history, true, but they did so the same way Israel did: indirectly. In fact, I'd say that ancient Jewish law, literature, philosophy, etc. have had a much more direct effect on us than anything the Huns or Carthaginians did (and that's just as much part of their "civilization" as their cities or chariots or whatever were).

    Also, how on earth can you propose Belgium as a civilization? Of all the polities in world history, it must be one of the least deserving of that title.
     
  6. Urdnot_Scott

    Urdnot_Scott Sultan

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,437
    Location:
    The Trucial States.
    Yeah, this is why I say Mughals rather than what I would call, cultures, rather than civs.
    1. Not only one of the few people to ever unite India, but foreigners no less, not to mention their attributing to the spread of Islam into Pakistan and India. Also stood up to the British Empire a la Zulu
    2. Created the nation of Pakistan, and arguably India, so still pretty significant, even more so than say Carthage, now that all Phoenician heritage is gone from Tunisia.
    3. More well known to average joes than Tamil or Maurya, so I'd say as marketable as you're going to get for a non bloob Indian.
    4. I already outlined an interesting (to me anyway, I know its all relevant) gameplay area for the Mughals, as Maktkab in occupied cities are going to slowly convert them, losing you that extra gold, so they'll be always looking for new religions to bully, yeah I know the elephant is boring but its just off the top of my head, I'm sure someone could think of something better

    and, Voila! One Mughal Civ, very different to India, and any other civ. (Also, to say they're still Indian is to say you can't have Rome and France. Very different, same area)
     
  7. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    They are not a Civilization as such though, rather a ruling dynasty. The same argument could be made to split China into a Yuan Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty etc. They themselves are not better than a "blob" either. Having various Dynasties each be represented is more an area for Paradox games, not the Civilization series. If we followed this trend we could get around a hundred civilizations or more from China, India, Persia and Egypt alone, most of which would control the exact same territory.
     
  8. Urdnot_Scott

    Urdnot_Scott Sultan

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,437
    Location:
    The Trucial States.
    I hear that, its getting a bit ridiculous now with the minor powers and small political entities getting suggested. Its called Civilization, how one can be expected to see Romania stand next to Rome, China or the Maya confuses the heck out of me.
     
  9. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    Jewish law has little to no effect on the modern World.

    The moderators have already said that this is not the place to discuss Israel.

    I agree, Belgium are a terrible suggestion, they do however fit the profile of the kind of European Civilization that they could add in the future.
     
  10. cybrxkhan

    cybrxkhan Asian Xwedodah

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    9,687
    Location:
    The Universe
    @Menzies: The significance of the Tamils, I think, lies in how the various Tamil kingdoms and empires were right smack in the middle of the Indian Ocean trade routes, which were, as you probably know, as important if not more important than the Silk Road in world economic history. You can't get from Europe/Middle East to China without going through parts of Southeast Asia (represented now by Indonesia) or the southern Indian kingdoms/empires. I could see a trade and naval oriented Tamil civ, especially if they go with the Cholas. Whether that suffices for the game is another matter. If the Tamils get in, though, it will be because fans demand it, and not because of its significance and lack thereof, for better or worse.
     
  11. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    That argument would have more weight if the Silk Road itself was actually represented properly. I do agree that the Tamils would be an interesting option, I just don't see them standing out and I certainly don't see them actually being chosen.
     
  12. Urdnot_Scott

    Urdnot_Scott Sultan

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,437
    Location:
    The Trucial States.
    Yeah, I see your point, but I think we judge things too much off of Geography. Civ spots should be awarded based on their historical merits or accomplishments. The Mughals accomplished so much, it seems ridiculous to compare them to Belgium in terms of getting in. Had the Yuan dynasty been dramatically different to the Mings in culture, language, religion, technology, weaponry, control and gameplay style, I would be arguing for a seperation there, whereas the Mughals were different to their Persian ancestors and their Indian successors in all of those areas.
     
  13. cybrxkhan

    cybrxkhan Asian Xwedodah

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    9,687
    Location:
    The Universe
    Yeah, I'll agree you with that one. Personally myself I'd rather see a Silk Road civ, partly because I think it's much easier to market, what with romantic notions of caravans and trade and what not. But if the devs ever wanted to split up India (which I don't think will happen anytime soon), I think having a Tamil civ would be the best option.
     
  14. wigwam

    wigwam Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    555
    Location:
    Berlin
    If you're circumcised (and Wikipedia tells me that more than 50% of Australians were, ten years ago!), that's more than Carthage or the Huns ever did for you. For better or for worse.

    What do you mean? It seems to me that if there were any time to include Belgium as a civ, it would've been with the Scramble for Africa scenario.
     
  15. Nujabes

    Nujabes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    434
    Yeah, if Belgium didn't get in now, they're never getting in. Nobody wants it, and their most likely/well-known leader is pretty actively sh*t on by the community whenever he's brought up (rightly so).
     
  16. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    Circumcisions in Australia were done largely due to the supposed health benefits, which have come squarely into question in recent years. It has little to nothing to do with Jewish law in such a context.

    I simply meant that Belgium was the kind of European Civ they could add in the future, and the kind of Civ I could picture them adding. It was more a case of listing a token European Civ than anything else, and there were people who serious thought they would be in for quite a while.

    The Yuan Dynasty were foreign conquerors, exactly like the Mughals. They were the Mongolian Khans after they conqueror China and were founded by Kublai Khan. The Qing Dynasty is similar, as foreign conquerors from Manchuria. Simply being Persia doesn't make their empire somehow not Indian. They were an Indian Empire still, just as being Mongolian led didn't make Yuan China somehow different from Ming China, nor did being Manchurian led make Qing Dynasty China not China.

    It would take absolutely exceptional circumstances for the Mughals to be worth being in, but they aren't. They are just another foreign dynasty ruling over a Civilization already in the game.

    That said, if there was any hope, it would be more as a "Pakistan Civ" than anything else, but that gets into the world of the Pakistan-India division, and I don't think they'd want to go there in the game.
     
  17. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    [delete]
     
  18. Urdnot_Scott

    Urdnot_Scott Sultan

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,437
    Location:
    The Trucial States.
    Both the Yuan and the Ming and the Qing were officially chinese speaking, oriental (its hard to use the religious argument since religions in the far east coexist so well), chinese cultured, for example the yuan adopted the ways of all the chinese whereas the mughals forced their own very unique culture and ways upon the subcontinent, which were very very seperate from those of the natives and their ancestors. Really, you kind of proved me right here since the mongols are very similar to the mughals, they are conquerors with a home region that is not the main focus of this civ. Do you think we should have either mongols or the Chinese? Not both.

    At the end of the day, we could argue history for ages, but I like the Mughals from a gameplay point as much as a historical one.

    And finally, Pakistan? Considering the rage we get about America being a little baby at 300 years old, I think if they added a civ that isnt even a century old, half of civfanatics would commit seppuku... (not to mention the political implications!)

    P.S stop talking about the whole israel thing, mostly because we were banned from doing so, but also because I really really dont like where this circumcision thing is headed *shivers*
     
  19. Tomatekh

    Tomatekh Sahib-i-Qirani

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,369
    If I had to guess the hypothetical 9 civs of the next expansion (note, not necessarily the civs I'd want but how I see the spots getting divided up):

    1. Sumer
    2. Khmer, Champa, Burma, or Vietnam
    3. Kongo
    4. The Hittites
    5. The Timurids
    6. Either Gran Colombia or another modern civ (Australia or Argentina most likely).
    7. Hungary, Bulgaria, or Kievan Rus'
    8. Another European outside of spot 7 (Belgium, Italy, Switzerland)
    9. Whatever civ has been talked to death on the forums (Inuit, Tibet, Armenia, Khazars, etc.)
     
  20. Sikandar

    Sikandar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    397
    China doesn't need to be broken up into multiple civilizations. The Chinese have always considered themselves to be a continuous line of the same civilization (although with different ruling dynasties).

    Plus it would make China mad.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page