Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Nirosi]

Confirmed:
~Poland
~Assyria
~Brazil

Likely:
~Portugal
~Zulu
~Indonesia
~a Native American civ (esp. Sioux, but poss. Comanche, Cherokee or maybe it's still Pueblo, IMO Inuit would be so cool )

I suspect after Poland, and especially considering the sheer number of European civs in G+K, Portugal will be the last Euro civ. Asia's starting to look lonely, since the last Asian civ was Korea, in August 2011! Indonesia is the best candidate there, Khmer is IMO more qualified than Siam, but they overlap too much. Same with Vietnam, but I don't see them as better than Siam. Africa could use a few extra civs, prob 2, poss 3 total. The Zulu are a Civ tradition and pretty awesome, so they're a virtual lock. Americas have 1 confirmed civ, assuming there is another Native American civ in BNW we're good there. So it's pretty much Asia and Africa. That leaves us with three civ slots left.

Unlikely, Dark Horses:
~Italy
~Holy Rome
~Belgium
~Khazaria
~The Timurids
~Phoenicia
~Israel
~The Hittites
~Nubia
~Ashanti
~Kongo
~Tibet


Italy is the only civ on the latter list I feel is absolutely necessary, if unlikely. The boot had such an impact on world culture and history it would be a shame not to have it. Holy Rome was one of my favorites, but it got a LOT of hate for being similar to Germany which it is not. For more see: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12292577#post12292577 and http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12296276#post12296276 . Belgium, conversely, is a TERRIBLE idea. There are better ideas for a Euro civ, and Belgium lacks any period of domination or global influence. What would a UU be? Walloon Warrior ? Khazaria is my new favorite dark horse. They are another horse UU civ, but at a crossroads btw W and E they have trade route UA potential and they have garnered some faithful followers. They would also be a good Jewish civ, of which there are none. The Timurids have a similar 'crossroads' feel with likely another horse UU, but less commercial and more militaristic than the Khazars and a slightly different geographic rage. They have a more famous leader, too. I both suggestions, but there's only room for one, maybe none, IMO. Phoenicia is another great idea for trade route UA with maybe a trade UU; cargo ship with ability to defend itself? They're also not the same as Carthage, saying so is like equating England with America, Spain with Mexico, or Portugal with Brazil . Israel is another good possibility, warming up to the idea but still convinced there are better candidates with less controversy. If they are included, I feel it should strictly be the ancient state, not the modern country. They would, with Khazaria, be the only Jewish civs. The Hittites, I would like, but now with Assyria confirmed they are a bit too similar; I would have preferred Sumer, but with Ur as a CS they're certainly out. Nubia is another great dark horse, one of my favorites. They aren't the same as Egypt, actually conquering them (see: 25th dynasty of Egypt) at one point. They were accomplished traders, so that would be a good UA. Ashanti are another good trade civ, earlier and not equivalent to nearby Songhai. Both could have some sort of caravan UU with defense ability; same as Phoenicia UU above, except on land. Kongo is a popular choice, I prefer Nubia/Ashanti but they seem to be the consensus second African civ. They seem too similar to so many other civs (esp. Zulu) in that they would be an early-game warmonger, my least favorite civ genre. However, there are opportunities to distinguish them from the rest. Tibet is the last Asian civ I can seriously consider, with some serious faith UU/UB/UA and maybe a snow/mountain bonus; except like Israel, they come with controversy.

Phew!

Don't you think there would be too many trade UAs?Arabia, Netherlands, Portugal, Majapahit, Khazars/Timurids.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Don't you think there would be too many trade UAs?Arabia, Netherlands, Portugal, Majapahit, Khazars/Timurids.

Yeah, I though of this problem as well. Though there is a ton of flexibility when it comes to trade routes in Brave New World, It would make the game a little less interesting if that many civs have trade-based UAs. However, the UAs don't have to be the main component of a civ. The Netherlands and Arabia depend a lot more on their other unique components than their trade-based UAs. I think Portugal could definitely get some Naval/Exploration bonuses, the Majapahit could get something to do with Faith/Culture/Happiness, and I think the central Asian civs could get some other bonuses.

 

[Stonecutter9]

Don't you think there would be too many trade UAs?Arabia, Netherlands, Portugal, Majapahit, Khazars/Timurids.

There can never be enough of a new feature which hasn't been released yet!

Seriously, though, you're right! For one, these UAs are pure speculation, so there are always better ideas. Also, there are only three civs, so most ideas won't be in the game, if any. I'm really proud of the 'trade units can defend themselves' concept, whether as a UA or UUs, so I hope they include it (though on second thought it might be a good UA instead of wasting a 'unique strength slot' on a civilian type unit) .

 

[dashwinner]

I don't see a problem in there being two more nomad military civs in Civ5, nobody is going to rage about another civ like the Mongols or Huns.

I would. Although they have different play styles, having both the mongols and the huns is way more than enough for me.

Same as a north american civ. 1 is enough.

Same as italy. we already have rome. who are the ancestors of the italians. who share the same capital. all three of these civs (italy, another american-indian, and another nomad military) seem very very redundant.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I have a hard time seeing Native Americans as a homogeneous group. They were quite varied. You have the Eastern Woodland culture like the Iroqouis. We probably only need one of them. They were preceded by the mound builders. We don't know enough about them to effectively make more than a mod civ. you have the plains nomads. They've been represented in the past by the Sioux. One is probably enough of them. In the Southwest US we have the rather improbably agricultural Pueblo and Navajo type groups. We were going to get the Pueblo but they nixed that. In the Pacific Northwest there were maritime cultures like the Haida who had the unique culture that produced totem poles. In the far north there are the Inuit who exist on the very margins of what humans can tolerate.

I think there is a lot of variation that can be observed and represented. To say that the Iroquois are good enough to represent the whole continent is ridiculous.

 

[Villager720]

I have a hard time seeing Native Americans as a homogeneous group. They were quite varied. You have the Eastern Woodland culture like the Iroqouis. We probably only need one of them. They were preceded by the mound builders. We don't know enough about them to effectively make more than a mod civ. you have the plains nomads. They've been represented in the past by the Sioux. One is probably enough of them. In the Southwest US we have the rather improbably agricultural Pueblo and Navajo type groups. We were going to get the Pueblo but they nixed that. In the Pacific Northwest there were maritime cultures like the Haida who had the unique culture that produced totem poles. In the far north there are the Inuit who exist on the very margins of what humans can tolerate.

I think there is a lot of variation that can be observed and represented. To say that the Iroquois are good enough to represent the whole continent is ridiculous.

^^^ all of this. The variation between the different cultures, even within a single region like the Southeast, easily matches if not surpasses the differences between European populations. Saying the Iroquois are a fair representation of all Amerindians is the equivalent of proclaiming Denmark as the only Europeans needed within the game.

 

[dashwinner]

Right. And you both feel strongly about this because, due to personal reasons, you have an attachment to north-american indians. Just like pretty much anyone writing in this thread, wether it is for Hungary or Italy or what have you.

Now imagine how a Belgian would feel reading the last 10 pages of straight Belgium-bashing. Yeah Leopold II was a very terrible man, but so was Mao or Hitler, hence why they weren't chosen as their perspective civ's leader.

From a gaming perspective I never even though of Belgium as a potential civ, but now after reading this thread, I almost want them to be the 'dark-horse'.

Point is, we all have our own preferences for obvious reasons. Just try and keep an open mind. The way you both felt when i grouped native-american indians as 1 is exactly the same way another person might feel if they see their own country being diminished.

 

[Tyrvos]

Right. And you both feel strongly about this because, due to personal reasons, you have an attachment to north-american indians. Just like pretty much anyone writing in this thread, wether it is for Hungary or Italy or what have you.

Now imagine how a Belgian would feel reading the last 10 pages of straight Belgium-bashing. Yeah Leopold II was a very terrible man, but so was Mao or Hitler, hence why they weren't chosen as their perspective civ's leader.

From a gaming perspective I never even though of Belgium as a potential civ, but now after reading this thread, I almost want them to be the 'dark-horse'.

Point is, we all have our own preferences for obvious reasons. Just try and keep an open mind. The way you both felt when i grouped native-american indians as 1 is exactly the same way another person might feel if they see their own country being diminished.

I think seeing more European civs would be cool, but they should focus on American Indian gaps first. I'm not even too into their culture but it is lacking in this game. I don't think anybody here is seriously bashing Belgium. Choices like the sioux, pueblo, and cherokee just offer more unique choices. And lumping all the American Indians as 1 would be like lumping Europeans as 1, meaning definitely no Belgium by that standard.

 

[Villager720]

We weren't diminishing anyone or grouping different peoples as one unit. We weren't even debating whether they warrant inclusion as a Civ. We were simply pointing out your insensitivity towards an entire continent of unique cultures. I fail to see how this is not being open-minded.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: Ok I am going to place a warning here because people are going off the main point of this thread, if this continues we will have to close the thread again
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[SolInvictus]

Right. And you both feel strongly about this because, due to personal reasons, you have an attachment to north-american indians. Just like pretty much anyone writing in this thread, wether it is for Hungary or Italy or what have you.

Now imagine how a Belgian would feel reading the last 10 pages of straight Belgium-bashing. Yeah Leopold II was a very terrible man, but so was Mao or Hitler, hence why they weren't chosen as their perspective civ's leader.

From a gaming perspective I never even though of Belgium as a potential civ, but now after reading this thread, I almost want them to be the 'dark-horse'.

Point is, we all have our own preferences for obvious reasons. Just try and keep an open mind. The way you both felt when i grouped native-american indians as 1 is exactly the same way another person might feel if they see their own country being diminished.

I think most of the people who have seriously discussed Belgium have been rather open minded about its viability as a civ. The problem arises because of the way that civ works now and the way things are announced encourages speculation, which is fun, about a zero-sum game, which is not fun. Every civ that gets in means another civ won't. When you have a pool of hundreds of viable civs--and with over six millennia of scattered recorded histories over every inhabited continent--their are hundreds. That sort of competition doesn't always bring out the best in people, but I just don't see the where the people who actually discussed rather than only joke about Belgium really bashed it. Perhaps I am missing something?

Anyway to recap: I am not enthusiastic about Belgium but they could work something like this:

Leader: Leopold I/Leopold II/Baudouin
UU: Resistance fighter, (works like a partisan in Civ II)
UB: Guild Hall (+ 1 production, +2 production with gold, silver, or jewels, +1 culture)
UA: Capital of Europe (+1 vote in the World Congress)

 

[dagriggstar]

There can never be enough of a new feature which hasn't been released yet!

Seriously, though, you're right! For one, these UAs are pure speculation, so there are always better ideas. Also, there are only three civs, so most ideas won't be in the game, if any. I'm really proud of the 'trade units can defend themselves' concept, whether as a UA or UUs, so I hope they include it (though on second thought it might be a good UA instead of wasting a 'unique strength slot' on a civilian type unit) .

Would prefer a UU that gets a bonus when positioned near a trade based unit, rather than the trade unit itself being able to defend. Perhaps one with that Incan slinger promotion that allows it to withdrawal would be useful too.

 

[Dragonflow]

I would. Although they have different play styles, having both the mongols and the huns is way more than enough for me.

Same as a north american civ. 1 is enough.

Same as italy. we already have rome. who are the ancestors of the italians. who share the same capital. all three of these civs (italy, another american-indian, and another nomad military) seem very very redundant.

I guess I should have elaborated the concept of the new nomad civ more. They'd be less of a nomad civ, but more of a Silk Road based civ. I'd even wager that if Firaxis go for the Timurids, they won't even need to have another horse-archer UU in-game.

Mongols: Horse-archery + city-state sacking civ
Huns: Horse-archery + eary warmonger civ
Timurids: Heavy Cavalry/Elephants/Foot Archers + land based trade

I think the Timurids could be made distinct and interesting enough without being a Mongolia 2.0. They also fit into the entire trade concept pretty well because of the Silk Road, although that would be kind of ironic since it was Timur's actions that made the Europeans search for safer sea-trade routes to India/China and thereby making the Silk-Road obsolete.


On another note we could try to deduce the new civs by finding civs that fit the usual categories like warmonger, scienmonger, city-state friend, turtle, showcasing new features civ etc.

 

[bob massingbird]

Repost for neighboring thread

My predictions for African Civ :

Civ : Dahomey
Capital : Abomey
Leader : Béhanzin
UU : Dahomey Amazon. Replace musketman. -25% to all nearby enemy units' morale if fighting in friendly territory.
UB : Slave Station. Replace market. Gain additional gold for every enemy unit killed nearby.
UA: Annual Customs of Dahomey. Randomly gain bonus of culture, gold, hammer or food productions during golen ages.

My prediction for Asian civ:

Civ : Majapahit
Capital : Trowulan
Leader : Queen Tribhuwana
UU : Jong ship. Replace Galleass, may enter ocean tiles.
UB : Candi (replace monument/amphitheater/temple/shrine), generates tourism and gold in addition to normal effect.
UA : Spice trade. International naval trade route generate culture, gold and faith. After discovering Steam power it will also generate tourism.

My prediction for another Asian civ:

Civ : Khitan
Capital: Shangjing
Leader : Abaoji
UU: Liao cavalry. Replaces knight. Ranged unit unlike knight which it replaces.
UB: Porcleain maker. Replace Workshop. Generate culture for every trade route in the city.
UA: Khitan scripts. Increased science production if one of your neighbour has at least one technology you don't own.

My prediction for European civ:

Civ ortugal
Capital : Lisboa
Leader : Joao de Braganza
UU : Carrack. Replace caravel. Gain gold every time its discover other civs' or city states' cities.
UB : Padrao. Replace monument. +1 gold for every naval trade route in the city.
UA: Colonial Trade. Increased naval trade route range. Bonus gold for trade route between cities in different continents.

My prediction for European civ: (because I think we need more Eastern European Civ)

Civ : Saka/Schytians/Indo-Scythians
Capital : Tanais (European Schytians) or Taxila (Indian Schytians)
Leader : Maues
UU : Schythian Archers. Replace composite bowman. Have additional strength.
UB : Kurgan. Replace shrine/temple/monument/amphitheaters. Ranged unit built in the city gains additional +15 XP. Cost no gold for maintenance
UA : Golden Hills. Gold and silver produce additional hammers. +25% speed of Ranged units productions in city with gold or silver.

 

[Nirosi]

Like your vision of Majapahit but I think Spice Route should give a x3 multiplifier for naval trade.

I don't really think the Khitans will make it in, they are cultural a mix of Manchuria and China.
Sakians or Skythians are unprobable too, with westcentrism a european civ would be Italy.(I don't want them in but, eurocentrism.)

 

[cybrxkhan]

I don't really think the Khitans will make it in, they are cultural a mix of Manchuria and China.
Sakians or Skythians are unprobable too, with westcentrism a european civ would be Italy.(I don't want them in but, eurocentrism.)

Agree with this.

Khitan are not only too obscure, they are too similar to the Mongols in terms of possible mechanics and uniqueness - that's not to mention Khitan's a dead language we barely have any knowledge of, and the closest living language to Khitan is Mongol.

Saka/Scythia is also unlikely in my opinion too, though they'd be an interesting inclusion for a western Silk Road civ. I feel like the Khazars would be a more plausible Western Silk Road civ given their rather unique situation (if only because their rulers were Jewish).

However, I do think Dahomey stands a chance of getting in, and Majapahit/Indonesia are one of the most predicted civs so far for BNW.

 

[Sikandar]

It hadn't occurred to me until just now but what about the Tamils as a civilization?

 

[Cyanfunk]

I wonder if the Axumites could work as a dark horse.

They were a key trading civilization (they controlled both sides of the Red Sea, i.e. the Romans' hassle-free route to India), and were one of the major powers of the first half of the first millenium. Maybe make Kaleb the leader.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I wonder if the Axumites could work as a dark horse.

They were a key trading civilization (they controlled both sides of the Red Sea, i.e. the Romans' hassle-free route to India), and were one of the major powers of the first half of the first millenium. Maybe make Kaleb the leader.

Too much overlap with Ethiopia, unfortunately. Ethiopia currently represents ancient (stele UB) and modern Ethiopia (UU, UA, leader). Also, many of us are assuming that a second African civ (a dark horse) would probably be tied in with the Scramble for Africa scenario.

 

[nunor]

Yes, Kush=Axum=Ethiopia, no question about that.

I'm wondering if Firaxis will resort to an amalgamation of Kongo, Ngola, Ndongo and Matamba just to have Queen Nzinga in.