Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[PhilBowles]

Civ being the kind of game it is, the Aborignees can never be added, and that is a fact. Why? They had no cities. That is not compatible with this game, and they won't have a name-stealing ability like the Huns.

The Polynesians were sedentary and agrarian, but didn't develop many if any city-scale settlements, and their 'city' names in civs are islands. Zulu cities are mostly named after battlefields (didn't they even have Rourke's Drift as a city name in one incarnation?) The Celts cheat - in the period represented Celtic settlements were mostly villages and small towns, but in Civ V their city names are drawn from modern urban centres that have nothing to do with the historical culture represented. Dublin was founded by the Norse, for instance. The Iroquois pull a similar trick, with a number of modern US city names (settlements that were neither founded by nor contain substantial Iroquois populations) in their city list.

The lack of cities isn't a barrier to inclusion. However, at least in theory Civilization represents exactly that. Enshrined in its gameplay mechanics is the definition of this word, as a culture with centralised government, urban settlement and the agriculture to support it, division of labour and - above all - technological progression through time. Aboriginal culture includes none of these trappings beyond a limited division of labour. Beyond the semantic point that "civilization" is an English-language word for a Western concept, and therefore intrinsically "Western" in its definition, the word has a specific, descriptive meaning that has nothing to do with a culture's intrinsic worth. People clamouring to recognise tribal societies as "civilizations" are guilty of the very prejudice they're railing against - the notion that a society has to be considered a civilisation to be considered "worthy".

No one makes the same case for, say, the word "nation-state" - this too is a Western concept, and it is a simple matter to define non-Western societies that never developed this form of social structure. Yet you don't find people railing against definitions of the word that exclude other forms of society as being "prejudiced", it's merely a descriptive term. "Civilisation" is exactly the same. If you're going to make a game about nation-states, you don't populate it with tribal peoples. Why do people apply a different standard to a game called Civilization, other than misunderstood and misdirected post-colonial hangups?

Austalia and Canada have really been independent only something like 50 years. And even during that time they have been under strong British influence. I think two nations having English speaking leaders is enough. Nothing that unique, nothing that interesting...

More than twice that. From recollection, Australia became independent in 1901 (without looking it up). A unified India has only been independent for a little over 50 years; the Songhai lasted barely a century; yet we include those. I don't see any place for Canada or Australia in Civ, but lifetime isn't an argument against it.

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't want to seem mean about this, or discriminatory, just realistic. I wouldn't suggest there be a Papa New Guinea civilization either; they might be cool, heck they probably could have some really cool units, but they simply wouldn't fit. The same way the Aboriginals wouldn't. There's an overwhelming lack of history and progression to make them worth while.

New Guinea would arguably be a better inclusion. The island is one of only four areas of the world with the genuinely independent evolution of agriculture (the others being Mesopotamia/Indus Valley, China and Mesoamerica).

But a point was made earlier that far too many people miss: the Aborigines never developed a civilisation because their environment was not suited to it. If you don't have access to fertile land, long-term agriculture is impossible, and without agriculture you can't develop a civilisation. You have essentially the same group of people in Australia and in New Guinea, over much the same time period, and indigenous agriculture develops on the island with more fertile soil, a less harsh climate, and edible plants that can be domesticated.

The Inca famously never developed wheels for transport, which is often related with the implication "wow, these natives were so thick, they only used wheels on children's toys and didn't realise they were useful". Then you point out that the Inca lived in mountains, where wheels on a cart are about as useful as they are on a fish, quite apart from the absence of domesticatible animals that could be effectively used to pull one.

Neither Australia nor Mesoamerica has many animals that are amenable to domestication, so you don't develop the pastoralist societies you find in much of Africa and that supported sophisticated societies in Mesopotamia.

If you have a hypothetical alien culture that evolves underwater or on a planet without woody vegetation, it isn't going to develop the ability to use fire.

And so on and so forth.

 

[SolInvictus]

New Guinea would arguably be a better inclusion. The island is one of only four areas of the world with the genuinely independent evolution of agriculture (the others being Mesopotamia/Indus Valley, China and Mesoamerica).

But a point was made earlier that far too many people miss: the Aborigines never developed a civilisation because their environment was not suited to it. If you don't have access to fertile land, long-term agriculture is impossible, and without agriculture you can't develop a civilisation. You have essentially the same group of people in Australia and in New Guinea, over much the same time period, and indigenous agriculture develops on the island with more fertile soil, a less harsh climate, and edible plants that can be domesticated.

The Inca famously never developed wheels for transport, which is often related with the implication "wow, these natives were so thick, they only used wheels on children's toys and didn't realise they were useful". Then you point out that the Inca lived in mountains, where wheels on a cart are about as useful as they are on a fish, quite apart from the absence of domesticatible animals that could be effectively used to pull one.

Neither Australia nor Mesoamerica has many animals that are amenable to domestication, so you don't develop the pastoralist societies you find in much of Africa and that supported sophisticated societies in Mesopotamia.

If you have a hypothetical alien culture that evolves underwater or on a planet without woody vegetation, it isn't going to develop the ability to use fire.

And so on and so forth.

There is debate amongst archaeologist about whether Aboriginal Australians developed domestication, villages, and light agriculture before the Younger Dryas. Nowhere near a consensus, but its an interesting debate with interesting evidence summarize rather well here. There are peer reviewed articles on the subject if you have access to something like JSTOR.

 

[Sporally]

What has happened to this thread? Just a new civ picture uploaded and no thought on it yet. Wakie wakie american posters ... unfortunately my knowledge of that old history isn't the best. Could be anything in my eyes.

 

[cybrxkhan]

What has happened to this thread? Just a new civ picture uploaded and no thought on it yet. Wakie wakie american posters ... unfortunately my knowledge of that old history isn't the best. Could be anything in my eyes.

Everybody's busy talking on the thread dedicated to the new civ picture.

 

[Odans]

my bet is still on vietnam

 

[ScottMcPwn]

Martians.
Nuff' said.

 

[SecretGG]

Might as well throw my two cents in ...

The confirmed
1. Poland
2. Assyria
3. Brazil

The I feel they are kind of inevitable
4. Portugal
5. Zulu

Who I want, and am only using that as a yardstick instead of probability, and I'm sorry I know there's some very diehard people against some of the Civs here, but you know ... it's just what I'd like to see! heh
6. Khmer, I know Vietnam is the popular pick for the next Asian Civ but I would prefer the Khmer, and it is nothing against Vietnam of course, but as a personal preference for who I would like to play as I think it would be more fun. Also, an important bed rock for other Southeast Asian Civs.
7. Sumer, again because it was a bedrock for a lot of other Civilizations.
8. Israel, a controversial pick I know, but again I think the play style would be very fun. With King Solomon they could be a more protective, tall Civ with focuses on religion, and science.
9. Italy, I admit there is huge bias here as I am Italian, but I do think there is more to Italy besides Rome.

 

[Bonci]

Might as well throw my two cents in ...
7. Sumer, again because it was a bedrock for a lot of other Civilizations.

It has already been confirmed that Ur is a city state

9. Italy, I admit there is huge bias here as I am Italian, but I do think there is more to Italy besides Rome.

 

[Gali]

Yeah there was more to Italy than Rome. There was the Renaissance which is represented by City states such as Genoa, Milan, Florence, Venice and Vatican city, which stands in for the Papal lands. The rest of the time Italy was a divided mess with North and South having little interaction. That's the way it was before the Romans too, with Gauls in the Po valley, Etruscans in Tuscany and the Greeks in the South. After Rome Italy was never unified or reached the status beyond 3rd rate great power.

In the south there were the Byzantines in the old greek lands, arabs in Sicily, the South Normans, then Aragonese and the Two Sicilies. In the north there was constant struggle against the HRE and then France. In the center were the papal lands. The Italian merchant powers such as Genoa Pisa or especially Venice did great things and made the Crusades possible but they were not Italian. They are also covered by the City-states that represent them.

As for Israel they had the least impressive Empire in the ancient world which is exaggerated because it is the focus of the Bible. They were an insular regional power that bowed to every great Empire that came their way and then vanished for millennia. Their modern state has impressive military credentials but would be very controversial. Israel's impact is in religion and that is represented by the presence of Judaism and its descendants Christianity and Islam. The Jewish civ I want in is the Khazars, but that is just me.

My preference is for Indonesia and Portugal, they just fit the theme far too well. Hittites as a personal favorite, and a Silk road civ to reflect the importance of that historic link. Finally a Pueblo replacement reflecting the settled peoples of the southern half of the US, be it Cherokee or Anasazi or whatever. And Sumer can't be in in because Ur is city-state. Though I agree with SecretGG that since Hittites won't be in another SEA civ should be in though I'd go Vietnam.

There is no way the Hittites are getting in with the Assyrians fulfilling the late bronze age Mid-Eastern warmonger slot. Though the Hittites could be a defensive civ or focused on puppets since they had did not celebrate war or conquer much outside their lands preferring to use tributary states.

 

[DiogenesK9]

Yeah there was more to Italy than Rome. There was the Renaissance which is represented by City states such as Genoa, Milan, Florence, Venice and Vatican city, which stands in for the Papal lands. The rest of the time Italy was a divided mess with North and South having little interaction. That's the way it was before the Romans too, with Gauls in the Po valley, Etruscans in Tuscany and the Greeks in the South. After Rome Italy was never unified or reached the status beyond 3rd rate great power.

In the south there were the Byzantines in the old greek lands, arabs in Sicily, the South Normans, then Aragonese and the Two Sicilies. In the north there was constant struggle against the HRE and then France. In the center were the papal lands. The Italian merchant powers such as Genoa Pisa or especially Venice did great things and made the Crusades possible but they were not Italian. They are also covered by the City-states that represent them.

As for Israel they had the least impressive Empire in the ancient world which is exaggerated because it is the focus of the Bible. They were an insular regional power that bowed to every great Empire that came their way and then vanished for millennia. Their modern state has impressive military credentials but would be very controversial. Israel's impact is in religion and that is represented by the presence of Judaism and its descendants Christianity and Islam. The Jewish civ I want in is the Khazars, but that is just me.

My preference is for Indonesia and Portugal, they just fit the theme far too well. Hittites as a personal favorite, and a Silk road civ to reflect the importance of that historic link. Finally a Pueblo replacement reflecting the settled peoples of the southern half of the US, be it Cherokee or Anasazi or whatever. And Sumer can't be in in because Ur is city-state. Though I agree with SecretGG that since Hittites won't be in another SEA civ should be in though I'd go Vietnam.

There is no way the Hittites are getting in with the Assyrians fulfilling the late bronze age Mid-Eastern warmonger slot. Though the Hittites could be a defensive civ or focused on puppets since they had did not celebrate war or conquer much outside their lands preferring to use tributary states.

This is an interesting post. Except what did you mean by "but they were not Italian" ?

 

[Gali]

I should have said they did not see themselves as Italian. They were Venetians and Genoans and Pisans and saw themselves as such.

Also I feel that Antwerp and Brussels highlight the great city-state power and brilliance of Flanders and Brabant and represent the impact of the city-states of those regions on history the same way Florence and Milan and Genoa do for Italy. Like Italy Belgium remained a tool of Great Powers too long. It was the Spanish Netherlands or Austrian Netherlands or part of the Dutch state and not an independent power like the Dutch. It even replaced Italy as the primary battleground of the HRE and France.

 

[doge]

I should have said they did not see themselves as Italian. They were Venetians and Genoans and Pisans and saw themselves as such.

Greece has the same problem, but it is in the game.

 

[DiogenesK9]

I should have said they did not see themselves as Italian. They were Venetians and Genoans and Pisans and saw themselves as such.

Thats what i thought you meant. I agree with you, but really think the venetians warrant a spot in the game themselves. They were not only a cultural power (see carnivale), but a naval military one. They also play a huge role in reconnecting Europe with Asia (see Armenia) through trade.

 

[PhilBowles]

I should have said they did not see themselves as Italian. They were Venetians and Genoans and Pisans and saw themselves as such.

There's always been an 'Italian' identity, in the same way as the Greeks all saw themselves as Greek in addition to Athenian/Spartan etc, the Danes were Danish but also Norse, the German peoples were all German even when their 'main' identity would be to Prussia or Bavaria.

Modern analogues would be the individual national identities of European nations, which nonetheless perceive themselves (for the most part) as European, or the way that Venezuelans or Mexicans see themselves at Venezuelan or Mexican, but not to the exclusion of also being Latin Americans (indeed to an outsider in the Americas, there sometimes seems to be a stronger Latin American identity than a national identity).

 

[doge]

There's always been an 'Italian' identity, in the same way as the Greeks all saw themselves as Greek in addition to Athenian/Spartan etc, the Danes were Danish but also Norse, the German peoples were all German even when their 'main' identity would be to Prussia or Bavaria.

Modern analogues would be the individual national identities of European nations, which nonetheless perceive themselves (for the most part) as European, or the way that Venezuelans or Mexicans see themselves at Venezuelan or Mexican, but not to the exclusion of also being Latin Americans (indeed to an outsider in the Americas, there sometimes seems to be a stronger Latin American identity than a national identity).

Totally agree, the existence or not of a state unified does not determine the fact that people are a civ, some cultures never had their own unified state and they were civs.

 

[DiogenesK9]

There's always been an 'Italian' identity, in the same way as the Greeks all saw themselves as Greek in addition to Athenian/Spartan etc, the Danes were Danish but also Norse, the German peoples were all German even when their 'main' identity would be to Prussia or Bavaria.

Modern analogues would be the individual national identities of European nations, which nonetheless perceive themselves (for the most part) as European, or the way that Venezuelans or Mexicans see themselves at Venezuelan or Mexican, but not to the exclusion of also being Latin Americans (indeed to an outsider in the Americas, there sometimes seems to be a stronger Latin American identity than a national identity).

I think you're a little too certain about that theory. I'm not saying you're wrong, but its debatable, considering the unified nation state is a fairly new phenomenon. Even today, people in Bavaria identify more with being Bayrisch than German. Same with the other groups in Germany. Italians may have always thought of themselves as belonging to a people that happen to live on the Italian peninsula in common...but I'd say Venetians, Sicilians and Romans haven't always considered themselves to belong to the same people.

My point is that I'd include some of the more prominent ones on their own rather than as a unified nation state. That said...I think Armenia is the most glaring omission in the game.

 

[teriaky]

Since 3 civs are already confirmed and 2 (Zulus and Portugal) are pretty much already in, there is still 4 spots left. I'd like to have:
-Indonesia (Majahapit and stuff)
-Kongo
-Timurids
And most importantly (in my opinion)
-The Berbers! (Al-andalus, Morocco, Moors, Algeria, anything!)

I believe Italy is already well represented by city-states. South America will eventually get new civs, but not in Civ 5. Mesopotamia is already well represented. Finally, I don't think Belgium is important or spectacular enough.

 

[Melo-Franco]

Since 3 civs are already confirmed and 2 (Zulus and Portugal) are pretty much already in, there is still 4 spots left. I'd like to have:
-Indonesia (Majahapit and stuff)
-Kongo
-Timurids
And most importantly (in my opinion)
-The Berbers! (Al-andalus, Morocco, Moors, Algeria, anything!)

I believe Italy is already well represented by city-states. South America will eventually get new civs, but not in Civ 5. Mesopotamia is already well represented. Finally, I don't think Belgium is important or spectacular enough.

Sure thing! Amazigh/Andalus/Morocco/Moors/Algeria/Maghreb/Berbers...
We're talking at least about Iberian history, if people want to obliterate Berber culture as itself. Berber civ now! Kahina, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Battuta, Tashfin, too many outstanding personalities...! Make Kahina their leader!

 

[Gali]

The Greeks also include the Macedonian Empire and should really be called the Hellenes. Its the Hellenistic age that is being represented by them whether it is Athens or Alexander the Great. They probably even include the Successor kingdoms.

Yeah but Germans consider themselves German and Italy is a mishmash. There was German and Greek, arab, Norman and Celtic, even some Carthaginian. North and south had different ethnic backgrounds and pretty separate histories. United Germany was far more influential as well than united Italy. Germany had a period worthy of civ inclusion while united while Italy was not really influential. The periods of Italy which deserve inclusion in civ are the Roman period and the renaissance city-states, and the Vatican. All are in the game. Your great influence on art is also surely coming into the game with Great Works so what important part of Italy is being left out.