Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[HKY09]

I just hope, if they made a third expansion, they do not add another native american civ. We have the Iroquois and the Shoshone, and it's pretty enough.

Also, I would not mind Armenia's inclusion, but then again, it could be controversial because of X events, which I won't talk or argue about it, that happened a century ago (more or less) and that a certain government denies the existence ...

But if people truly wished a silk road civ, I'd vote for the Timurids. A lot more gruesome than your Vlad (and a thousand times more effective). Sorry to bring this again, I just cannot comprehend why people would want Romania or Wallachia ... I'd prefer even Belgium or Hungary !

And finally, if they ever had a post-colonial modern civ, I sure hope its an Argentina under Eva Peron, than a Canada or an Autralia.

1. Achievement question, there's not much to talk about them, except how peaceful both are (Canada's UA would be Sorry : "if you commit any offense to Canada, they'll instantly forgive you, and give you a luxury" ... while Australia would be A thousand ways to die : "every non-australian unit which penetrates Australia's territory instantly looses 50 hp).

2. I don't feel like playing a civ which still considers a foreign queen as their own.

Pfft. You're acting like the Queen still runs the show.
Honestly, there was room for Australia in this expansion with the new Trade and Tourism mechanics. Canada... ehh.
I think a better UA name for Australia would be "Natural Attrition", but even then that's going a bit too far. If Australia is ever going to be in the Civ Franchise, it needs to do something with the outback.
UA: Outback Legend - Desert provides +2 culture, +1 food. Bonuses double when tile is worked.

 

[AbsintheRed]

But if people truly wished a silk road civ, I'd vote for the Timurids. A lot more gruesome than your Vlad (and a thousand times more effective). Sorry to bring this again, I just cannot comprehend why people would want Romania or Wallachia ... I'd prefer even Belgium or Hungary !

Totally agreed, Wallachia was just a very minor regional power, while Vlad being an unsuccesful prince to them.
Would be a terrible civ and leader choice...
I can't believe so many people are suggesting them

Eastern Wallachia (then simply called Wallachia) was a vassal state to Hungary for a good chunk of time in those centuries btw
While Oltania (western Wallachia) was integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 12th to the end of the 15th centuries.

I cannot think of any reasons why would anyone want them instead of Hungary, apart from being nationalistic.
If you think Wallachia/Romania and Hungary are even on the same page when considering historical significance, then you should read more about the medieval history of Europe.

 

[iRule]

Argentina doesn't make much sense. For South America there's Brazil, as the leading modern South American nation. The same goes for Canada/USA. I'd rather they focused on something else, say, Africa and India/Asia.

 

[JFD]

2. I don't feel like playing a civ which still considers a foreign queen as their own.

Luckily, neither Canada nor Australia have a foreign Queen.

Totally agreed, Wallachia was just a very minor regional power, while Vlad being an unsuccesful prince to them.
Would be a terrible civ and leader choice...
I can't believe so many people are suggesting them

Eastern Wallachia (then simply called Wallachia) was a vassal state to Hungary for a good chunk of time in those centuries btw
While Oltania (western Wallachia) was integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 12th to the end of the 15th centuries.

I cannot think of any reasons why would anyone want them instead of Hungary, apart from being nationalistic.
If you think Wallachia/Romania and Hungary are even on the same page when considering historical significance, then you should read more about the medieval history of Europe.

I wouldn't question Hungary's contextual superiority to Romania, but I would question whether any of their leaders are more recognizable than Vlad the Impaler, whether or not Hungary should live without the Hussar and whether or not Hungary could exist aside the Huns (for a purely nominal reason), and if it is a contest between whether Hungary or whether Romania gets a spot, I would wager Romania would get the spot. Of course, I'd prefer Hungary first and foremost and I'd love it to be under Louis the Great. A game with Louis and Venice would be most fun.

 

[Louis XXIV]

how about the Neanderthals

I can't tell if this is sarcasm since it's in reply to my post, but there are several problems. First, they were a species, not a civilization. Even at the broadest (probably Polynesians) they still are a subset of a language group (Austronesian) that have defining characteristics in common (in particular, the crossing of the ocean is the big one). Neanderthal are not this.

Even if you limited it to the Neanderthal in northern Europe, there are still other issues. Who would the leader be? What would the language be? These are serious obstacles to inclusion. I decided to avoid problems of whether or not their society was a "Civilization" under even the broad terms of the game. It's impossible to say if there was any unifyied structure or not (whether they had a government, stratified society, conducted diplomact, etc.) because we simply don't know.

I just hope, if they made a third expansion, they do not add another native american civ. We have the Iroquois and the Shoshone, and it's pretty enough.

I'm never sure I can get this. It seems an arbitrary rule. Why can't a civ's qualifications be judged individually as opposed to categorically? Take a look at my proposals and let me know if you think any of them are unqualified for inclusion?

Regarding Armenia. I've thought about them. In the past, I've included them on lists. I'm never sure exactly how to represent them, though. I don't want a glut of religion-based civs and, to me, religion is the most important feature. But only in the sense that they were the target of another's religion (specifically, the battleground between Christianity and Zoroastrianism).

 

[Cyanfunk]

Vlad III is incredibly iconic, like Attila.

Are there better Civ choices? Certainly. But let's be honest here; who wouldn't want to go on the warpath as Dracula?

 

[ldvhl]

I just hope, if they made a third expansion, they do not add another native american civ. We have the Iroquois and the Shoshone, and it's pretty enough.

Far from it. We lack any representation from the Southeast, Pacific Northwest, Californias, Great Plains, Southwest, Carribean, or Subarctic. And even the regions we do have representation of (Northeast, Great Basin) have barely been developed in terms of variety or complexity.

 

[The QC]

The nonsensical drive to include for Romania seems to be the only one of the nonsensical inclusion drives that is not motivated by nationalism. At least there doesn't seem to be anyone saying that they are Romanians and want their country in the game or explaining how Romania is great (like you see with the Serbs).

Personally, as a Romanian, I'd be quite offended to be represented by a psychopathic mass murderer. Of course, I'd be in a minority, since most Romanians still believe the history lessons that they were taught during communism, about what a great justice giver Vlad was.

I may have told this story before, but it bears repeating for the new wave of Vlad fans: one of Vlad's greatest achievements was to eradicate poverty in Bucharest... by inviting the city's poor to a great feast, where he set them all on fire.

Yeah.

 

[Menzies]

Far from it. We lack any representation from the Southeast, Pacific Northwest, Californias, Great Plains, Southwest, Carribean, or Subarctic. And even the regions we do have representation of (Northeast, Great Basin) have barely been developed in terms of variety or complexity.

Compare this to regions not represented around the world. The Native North Americans of the US and Canada have more than enough recognition at this point.

 

[HKY09]

Compare this to regions not represented around the world.

I love the way you hinted at Australia.

Australia has only Sydney for representation in this game.
The Australian continent that is.

 

[Menzies]

I love the way you hinted at Australia.

Australia has only Sydney for representation in this game.
The Australian continent that is.

I was not hinting at Australia at all actually.

 

[HKY09]

I was not hinting at Australia at all actually.

Actually, I was thinking about Australia at the time, then looking at your name, then your location...
It kinda fabricated itself.

 

[Liufeng]

Luckily, neither Canada nor Australia have a foreign Queen.

Which is why Canada and Australia consider the actual british, Elizabeth II, as their own queen. Unless australians and canadians feel as british or part of the UK. But htat, I cannot answer, as I'm nor british, nor canadian, nor australian, or whatever commonwealth country.

 

[ldvhl]

Compare this to regions not represented around the world. The Native North Americans of the US and Canada have more than enough recognition at this point.

I'm not comparing. The statement was in direct response to Liufeng stating that there's enough representation of North American indigenous peoples.

But I can also say there are regions not represented in North America. Even counting the USA as an American civ, that still leaves out the northern Pacific Northwest, Baja California, Carribean, or Subarctic.

 

[Liufeng]

Vlad III is incredibly iconic, like Attila.

Are there better Civ choices? Certainly. But let's be honest here; who wouldn't want to go on the warpath as Dracula?

Iconic ? Comparing Vlad III, which almost nobody knows, to Attila, the scourge of God ? Perhaps you're a little exagerating. At least, Attila, like Timur, formed a consequential empire during their time. Vlad III, except being cruel, has done nothing. He fought the Ottomans, won, but lost later, and took refuge in Hungary. End of story. And for the fact that Dracula was inspired by him, that'ss a pretty poor argument. Just imagine roumanians playing "awesome, my civ is represented by a psychopath, but its represented by DRACULA !" ... Sorry, inspiration for a popular character is not a criteria for an inclusion.

 

[Liufeng]

But I can also say there are regions not represented in North America. Even counting the USA as an American civ, that still leaves out the northern Pacific Northwest, Baja California, Carribean, or Subarctic.

You realize the number of tribes which exist, right ? I'm not saying the amerindians do not differ between each other. What I'm trying to say is that most of them were nomads, disparate groups, or tribes. Among these, how many built cities, formed a complexed centralized state (on the large sense) ? For me, 2 north amerindians is enough. Maybe there were more deserving amerindians than the Iroquois or the Shoshone, I don't know since I'm not a specialist on them. The only amerindian I would maybe accept would be the Pueblo, but they're out.
Aztecs, Mayas and Incas were a must because of the very reason they formed a civilization, even on the narrowest definition to the word.

I do not wish to offend these people, but the fact is that I give privilege to civs like Kongo, Khmer, Sumer or Viet Nam.

PS : Sorry for the double post.

 

[Tinker]

Iconic ? Comparing Vlad III, which almost nobody knows, to Attila, the scourge of God ? Perhaps you're a little exagerating. At least, Attila, like Timur, formed a consequential empire during their time. Vlad III, except being cruel, has done nothing. He fought the Ottomans, won, but lost later, and took refuge in Hungary. End of story. And for the fact that Dracula was inspired by him, that'ss a pretty poor argument. Just imagine roumanians playing "awesome, my civ is represented by a psychopath, but its represented by DRACULA !" ... Sorry, inspiration for a popular character is not a criteria for an inclusion.

Vlad the Impaler is very well known, of course partly due to Bram Stoker's story, but also because he presumably murdered thousands and enjoyed a great reputation in the area at the time. He is also not a mythical, mythified or fictional character, like Hiawatha, Dido or Boudicca, and he didn't exactly show much more mercy than Attila, Genghis or Montezuma; I think it's arguable that Wallachia/Romania was important enough to warrant inclusion, but neither cruelty nor being unknown count against him.

 

[Gucumatz]

There are plenty of Mesoamerican and South American empires that would make for great civs . The question is if Firaxis/2K have even heard of them

I wouldn't be surprised though if one day we had the Toltecs in game for their power, incredible empire, technological innovations, religious reformations in Mesoamerica etc.

And I think most people know Dracula

 

[George is Angry]

The inherent difficulty in making Civs is a balance between actual accomplishment of said civilization versus real world location. What did Polynesia do aside from build large statues (I'm sure they did a lot more, but concede to my point for a moment) versus almost any other Civ that's been mentioned in this thread? Not a lot, but geographical, the whole region is unrepresented, and as such the devs felt they had to add something.

Add too many Civs? Over-saturated. Too many from Europe? Racists! Lump many different cultures into one? Ignorant. It seems to be a lose/lose for everyone

 

[The QC]

Vlad the Impaler is very well known, of course partly due to Bram Stoker's story

Partly?? That's the ONLY reason he is known outside of Romania.