Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Bad Wolf]

Also you cannot argue against Italy

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not "arguing against" the inclusion of any particular civ (except a totally artificial one like the Inuit). What I am saying is that Italy is highly unlikely to be included for all of the reasons that have already been listed ad nauseum. From the fact that its capital is already the capital of another civ, to the fact that the devs clearly got the city-state concept from the city-states of medieval Italy, it just doesn't seem very likely to me. But maybe you have some kind of inside knowledge you're not sharing? If so, please spill the beans!

Otherwise, I think you have to admit there are more civs/countries/nations thare are more likely to get one of those nine slots, bearing in mind we already know about Poland and can all but confirm Portugal, Assyria and probably an African civ, probably the Zulu, which means there are really only five slots left to fill. So, five slots left... and one of them goes to Italy, when there are already a massive number of European civs in the game and this pack will surely add at least two more as it is? Forgive me, but I just don't see it happening. Given even odds, if you were betting money it would be an objectively terribly bet.

 

[Gucumatz]

Lets see the civs from the previous expansion:

Maya - Predictable
Netherlands - Predictable
Carthage - Predictable
Ethiopia - Predictable
Byzantines - Predictable
Celts - Predictable

The Huns, Austria, and Sweden were all dark horses. Literally every civ except the Maya and Ethiopia were connected to the scenarios. Both Poland and Assyria I think we can say don't fit either of the scenarios. I could easily see several dark horses from Africa (Ashanti, Zimbabwe, Benin, Swahili, Berbers, etc.) making it in

 

[Sikandar]

I mean if one were so inclined then one could argue that the Romans aren't a civilization at all but are merely a hegemonic polity representing Latin civilization.

 

[sukritact]

How about you list those which aren't "city states" as well, with some time of reasoning. I'm interested now. Especially considering that cities such as Ragusa and "La Venta" were in fact City States.

I missed Ragusa

If you want a list:

Brussels (Belgium)
Bucharest (Romania)
Kathmandu (Nepal)
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
Prague (Czech)
Warsaw (Poland)
Yerevan (Armenia)

Cape Town (South Africa)
Jakarta (Indonesia)
Lisbon (Portugal)
Manila (Philippines)
Mombasa (Kenya)
Quebec City (Canada)
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Sydney (Australia)

Antwerp (Belgium, again)
Colombo (Sri Lanka)
Hong Kong (China)
Marrakech (Morocco)
Zanzibar (Arguably Tanzania)
Zurich (Switzerland)

Almaty (Kazakhstan)
Belgrade (Serbia)
Budapest (Hungary)
Hanoi (Vietnam)
Valletta (Malta)

Jerusalem (Israel)
La Venta (Olmec peoples)
Lhasa (Tibet)
Wittenberg (Germany)

 

[Menzies]

I missed Ragusa

If you want a list:

Brussels (Belgium)
Bucharest (Romania)
Kathmandu (Nepal)
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
Prague (Czech)
Warsaw (Poland)
Yerevan (Armenia)

Cape Town (South Africa)
Jakarta (Indonesia)
Lisbon (Portugal)
Manila (Philippines)
Mombasa (Kenya)
Quebec City (Canada)
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Sydney (Australia)

Antwerp (Belgium, again)
Colombo (Sri Lanka)
Hong Kong (China)
Marrakech (Morocco)
Zanzibar (Arguably Tanzania)
Zurich (Switzerland)

Almaty (Kazakhstan)
Belgrade (Serbia)
Budapest (Hungary)
Hanoi (Vietnam)
Valletta (Malta)

Jerusalem (Israel)
La Venta (Olmec peoples)
Lhasa (Tibet)
Wittenberg (Germany)

You realise that pretty much all of these fit the definition of a city state historically right?

The key ones that don't are:

Warsaw - Already replaced with Poland
Sydney - May well be replaced
Quebec City - May be replaced as well

 

[Bonci]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not "arguing against" the inclusion of any particular civ (except a totally artificial one like the Inuit).

Yeah sorry I'm more of wishing here than giving plausible proposals...It's just that someone put this fly in my ear and I cannot pull it out XD

And also because I always found that it could be a very viable option, but I might be a little biased here

On a side note, has anyone tought about Khazars or Armenia?

 

[sukritact]

You realise that pretty much all of these fit the definition of a city state historically right?

Question is how do when you define it? Many of these were of little significance til later, after they'd been united in a nation (or developed into an actual city as part of them).

Siam historically for example worked under a Mandala system (up until the Ratanakosin Dynasty and that's not represented in the game). You had a huge group of City States all owing tributes and loyalties to a bunch of other City States; Ayutthaya and Sukhothai just happened to be notable. Yet, we have Siam as a civ, not a bunch of city states. (There'd be plenty of them too...)

Try taking a look at Europa Universalis. The amount of nations available near the beginning is ridiculous. More or less all of them fit the definition of a city state at some point.

Edit: Also, what a bunch of people below me say...

 

[Morningcalm]

Khazars would be awesome. We do need a civ that picks Judaism first, which makes me inclined to think they'll have either Khazars or Hebrews in this game (PLEASE HAVE HEBREWS, 'twould be a revolution, like having the Polynesians was).

Remember that they can always add civs via DLC...though maybe they've stopped, since the last DLC were all for vanilla Civ V.

 

[Dragonflow]

You realise that pretty much all of these fit the definition of a city state historically right?

The key ones that don't are:

Warsaw - Already replaced with Poland
Sydney - May well be replaced
Quebec City - May be replaced as well

Most of them don't fit the definition of city-states, especially the big countries like Hungary, Serbia, Morocco, Vietnam and Tibet.

 

[nunor]

You realise that pretty much all of these fit the definition of a city state historically right?

The key ones that don't are:

Warsaw - Already replaced with Poland
Sydney - May well be replaced
Quebec City - May be replaced as well

How is Rio de Janeiro a city state?

 

[Imalich]

You realise that pretty much all of these fit the definition of a city state historically right?

Really? Just on the top of my head I can think of a few that don't fill the city-state role quite that well:

Lisbon (Portugal)
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
La Venta (Olmec peoples)

And really, from what little knowledge i have of them, I doubt many of the others do. I have finally reached the conclusion I have no idea what you mean by 'city-state'.

 

[Menzies]

Really? Just on the top of my head I can think of a few that don't fill the city-state role quite that well:

Lisbon (Portugal)
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
La Venta (Olmec peoples)

And really, from what little knowledge i have of them, I doubt many of the others do. I have finally reached the conclusion I have no idea what you mean by 'city-state'.

Pretty much all the central American civilizations were a rough collection of City states (particularly the Mayans and pre Aztec civilizations).

Rio certainly meet similar criteria as Sydney and co. If you really feel that more than half are parts of true civilizations, I'd be happy to discuss them if you're willing to offer explanation for each.

 

[Menzies]

How is Rio de Janeiro a city state?

They aren't, hence the term key, rather than all.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not "arguing against" the inclusion of any particular civ (except a totally artificial one like the Inuit).

Inuit is not artificial...but a conglomorate if you will of "eskimo" peoples. A very worthwhile and unique civilization which would fill a definite need in the game to populate snow and tundra areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While the Lakota/Souix have been a 'traditional' Civ inclusion, I suggest a better fit for a Native American Civ would be the Commanches: similar to the Lakota in possible UA/UB, and during the Civil War they pushed back the frontier in Texas almost 150 miles - better fit for the Civil War scenario if it has any western theater inclusion at all.

Other Native (North) American possibilities would be the Cherokee, Shawnee, Apache, Haina (Northwestern sea raiders, whale chasers - think Vikings with feathers), Blackfoot, or any of the Algonquian tribal groups of the northeast. Trouble is, a lot of them are either watered down Iroquois, or very similar to horse-nomad civs already in the game (Huns, Mongols)

If Poland is certain, and Portugal through 'Civ previous' thinking, then I think another European civ is unlikely, but they've surprised me before (Polynesia?!)
In case of 'more Europe' then Belgium and (modern) Italy are possible, but also as traditional European powerhouses you'd have to look at Holy Roman Empire (again), Lithuania (but 'way too close to Poland), Burgundy, Scotland (No, they're not just another Celt!), or Prussia. Lots of interesting things could be thrown into the game with some of those, but none of them really match up with any campaigns proposed or current.

In Asia, would love to see Khmer and Tibet: both very different from other divs around them.

For Trade emphasis, the Minoan Cretans or Phoenicians were the Great Traders of the ancient world, but they both overlap with existing civs (Carthage, Greece)

Venice, if included as a Trade Civ, pretty much eliminates a modern Italy civ of any kind. Either it or Phoenicians could have a UB of Trading Post which can be established outside of home territory to exploit resources or trade routes, and that would tie in neatly with the Trade emphasis...

So much for Top of the Hat speculation. More evidence eagerly awaited...

 

[Menzies]

Inuit is not artificial...but a conglomorate if you will of "eskimo" peoples. A very worthwhile and unique civilization which would fill a definite need in the game to populate snow and tundra areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

They're more artificial than the slated Polynesian civilization, that's for sure. At least they had cities of some kind. Then again, the Inuits drove the Vikings out of Nuuk.

 

[Haig]

Some people predict/hope Australia or Canada as a new civ.

Wouldn't that mean a civ whose unique units and buildings were able to build at (in game terms) Modern/Atomic era? In a game, some Civs will be conquered before that even!

Aborigines as a unit wouldn't fit right, they were pretty much abused by settlers from Britain like native americans were in America, and weren't never in a proper large scale battle.
The Canadian divisions and Anzac "diggers" themselves were used like elite assault troops of the British empire though.

Seems like BNW gives power for diplomacy and trade in later eras, and indeed Australia and Canada are like that, but is there enough flavor in them to make memorable uniques?

 

[Nujabes]

Here's a question. How many civilizations have wonders in the game but are themselves absent? The only ones that come to mind are CN Tower, Sydney Opera House, and Cristo Redentor, though I'm sure I'm forgetting some. We know Borobudur is coming in, so Indonesia would be on that list, though I see how many of us are expecting them or Majapahit.

 

[Sonereal]

Cristo Redentor was in Civilization IV, and Brazil was never added.

 

[Menzies]

I would predict Australia, but I wouldn't want them in. Australian Aboriginals would not be a unit, at least I'd hope not. Australia historically have not been nice to native groups, and even in modern terms there are great issues, particularly within the Northern Territory that are extremely hard to resolve.

If Australia were chosen it would almost certainly be only with an advantage in the "World Games" with unique building of something like a "cricket oval" and a unique unit as an "ANZAC" or "Digger".

Would much rather something else though, even as an Australian.