Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[SolInvictus]

Sorry, but as a Hungarian yourself (apparently), your post looks a bit biased too.

People are entitled to express their opinions in this threads, even nationalistic opinions, as long as they do it respectfully... Some think a Serbian civ is worthy of inclusion; you don't need to bash them to disagree.

I guess it's true that I'm biased too, at least to some extent
Anyway, I'm not against healthy nationalism at all, that wasn't my point
I'm only against too much nationalism, which results in some misleading nationalistic "facts" or ridiculous claims.
Like Marco Polo was Croatian, Serbia was the main power aganst the Ottomans, or that Romania is the successor state to the Roman Empire...

PS: I'm not even against a Serbian civ actually
It could be a nice historical civilization, altough I think it's not significant enough
To be more exact, there are a lot way more significant civs
In the area Hungary and Bulgaria for example
IMO Hungary is the most deserving left-out civ from Europe, but as you said, I might be somewhat biased.
Hungary is definitely in the very top tier though, even if you want to be absolutely realistic

From a historical point of view I think you could argue that nationalism--ironically including Magyar nationalism--played a complex role in dismantling the lands united under the Crown of St. Stephen. From a historiographical point of view Hungary does tend to be overlooked and neglected in Medieval and Renaissance histories. Even in the civ series itself we have two civs with a unit that originated in Hungary that only developed said units because of the influence that Hungary played through cultural exchanges and dynastic intermarriage.

Hungary, with the possible exception of Bulgaria it is the last major empire in Europe not included. Belgium and its empire are very recent, Italy as a unified state and its empire are also rather recent. For much of European history, Hungary meddled in Italy's affairs not the other way around. So I think a sense of disappointment maybe even a sense of insult really isn't that unwarranted for Hungarians. They certainly aren't the only people excluded in civ, but they are one of the excluded civs that has their exclusion "rubbed in their face" if you will in the way that other civs are designed.

Similarly Serbia is one of the oldest and most enduring countries in Europe which has maintained its independence despite being surrounded with larger empires like Byzantium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, and the Ottomans that constantly meddled in its affairs and threatened its existence. That's a great achievement and not one that is really widely recognized or appreciated.

Civ could easily find over a hundred civs that would work well in the game and have made significant contributions to the world, but the problem remains that civ selection is ultimately a zero sum game. I think this is what leads to acrimony and recrimination over which civs are in and which civs are out.

 

[phaethon16]

Sorry if I missed this in the discusison, but is there rhyme or reason to white and blue colors for Portugal?

Also, those are stereotypical sailor colors.

 

[teriaky]

Like Marco Polo was Croatian, Serbia was the main power aganst the Ottomans, or that Romania is the successor state to the Roman Empire...

I want to know about the theory of Romania being the successor of the Roman Empire!

 

[Option]

Similarly Serbia is one of the oldest and most enduring countries in Europe which has maintained its independence despite being surrounded with larger empires like Byzantium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, and the Ottomans that constantly meddled in its affairs and threatened its existence. That's a great achievement and not one that is really widely recognized or appreciated.

I see your point, but still think that once we're at the point of adding small, local powers - whether successful they were in keeping their independence or not - we're starting to grasp at straws. Like, quite heavily so.

You could make similar cases for many countries, like Switzerland or Bhutan, and frankly, the same goes for the likes of Canada or Australia. And despite the fact a Swiss civ would be really cool to me personally (and it would translate really well into Civ gameplay-wise, in my opinion), I'd never be thinking that they would be a proper or "right" addition to the game. Adding in Switzerland would leave a really bad taste in my mouth. Even seeing Austria as an addition in G&K left said bad taste, but at the very least it was a major essentially global power.

Hell, you could even start adding things like the Teutonic Order, Bavaria, Vijayanagar, Trebizond or the Crimean Tatars - these were regional powers that actually had influence beyond their borders, much more so than Serbia did.

There's many more cultures and even nation-states out there that should be included long before a lot of the smaller ones that have been suggested, such as Serbia, or Australia.

And if I want to play Serbia, Switzerland or the Teutonic Order, I play Europa Universalis, not Civilization.

 

[Skykiller]

From that we can imagine that it's highly unlikely that another civ with a red field is added, unless it's a very different tone of red than Poland, and there are not that many tones of red.... Could be a case against Marocco.

There's still a place for a blue field, maybe they could have Venice with bright blue field and golden winged lion? I think, depending on the tone of blue they choose, it could fit right between Sweden's dark blue and France's pastel blue

Well that's what should happen IMO if Venice is chosen.

For example, EUIII uses light blue for Venice with a golden lion. Of course, it would be nice to have symbole that match the traditional flag of the civ but if you look at China's symbole, i don't think that chinese flag through history contained green elements (yellow with dragon under the Qing rule, red and blue with the Republic and red now).

But more seriously, i don't think that developers choose the new civ according to the potential flag, symbole and colours. There's always a way to avoid colour clash (think of England, Austria, Persia and Spain who contain all red shades).

 

[Option]

China uses jade green, though, and jade green usually was a color associated with the emperors, if I'm not mistaken.

That said, there's already a color palette they could use for Morocco, which is black/white. If I may remind you, they've used the Almohad chessboard as icon for said scenario-based Civ in the Into The Renaissance scenario in G&K.

And golden lion on light blue flag is indeed a historical variation on the classic golden lion on red background for Venice.

 

[OzzyKP]

There are a lot way more significant civs, in the area Hungary and Bulgaria for example
IMO Hungary is the most deserving left-out civ from Europe, but as you said, I might be somewhat biased.
Hungary is definitely in the very top tier though, even if you want to be absolutely realistic

Agreed.

 

[SolInvictus]

I want to know about the theory of Romania being the successor of the Roman Empire!

It's basically a variation on the Third Rome Theory where the Crusader imposed Latin Empire or the Empire of Romania was viewed as the rightful successor to Constantinople which was itself successor to Rome. (Russia is the most famous use of the Third Rome.) Some Romanian nationalist use the name association to claim an association with the Romanian Empire, but the connection is superficial as Wallachia is the culture that we today call Romania.

I see your point, but still think that once we're at the point of adding small, local powers - whether successful they were in keeping their independence or not - we're starting to grasp at straws. Like, quite heavily so.

You could make similar cases for many countries, like Switzerland or Bhutan, and frankly, the same goes for the likes of Canada or Australia. And despite the fact a Swiss civ would be really cool to me personally (and it would translate really well into Civ gameplay-wise, in my opinion), I'd never be thinking that they would be a proper or "right" addition to the game. Adding in Switzerland would leave a really bad taste in my mouth. Even seeing Austria as an addition in G&K left said bad taste, but at the very least it was a major essentially global power.

Hell, you could even start adding things like the Teutonic Order, Bavaria, Vijayanagar, Trebizond or the Crimean Tatars - these were regional powers that actually had influence beyond their borders, much more so than Serbia did.

There's many more cultures and even nation-states out there that should be included long before a lot of the smaller ones that have been suggested, such as Serbia, or Australia.

And if I want to play Serbia, Switzerland or the Teutonic Order, I play Europa Universalis, not Civilization.

I view Civ as not only a history game but also a what if game, so I'm quite open to Serbia and Switzerland as civs. My point about a hundred civs is that the game could reach that number before we began facing down the mighty Andorran Empire. I mean we will have 43 civs now, if we added Sioux, Hittites, Sumer, Mali, Khmer, HRE, would almost bring us to fifty. Given the nature of civ construction in CiV you could easily reach a hundred civs. Also Serbian nationalist provoked WWI and Swiss mercenaries were used throughout Europe and Swiss banking through out the world. So I'd hardly think of them as bottom of the barrel civs.

 

[Gucumatz]

Do you really think Hungary has high odds of getting into this expansion though?

We are already at possibly 5 (possibly if we include Morocco), likely a 6th will be Native American, leaving only 3 civs left.

We haven't had an Asian civ (outside of the Middle East) since Korea. Odds are we may have at least one more Asian civ then. With 2 slots left, what gameplay could Hungary provide that would be unique that the developers would want to include? It wouldn't probably be connected to a new resource, trade, world congresses, etc. It probably wouldn't get in on ideological grounds or for its mounted unit history because of Poland already getting in. Odds don't seem high to me. (Maybe ~2-5% if I had to estimate)

 

[Liex]

That said, there's already a color palette they could use for Morocco, which is black/white. If I may remind you, they've used the Almohad chessboard as icon for said scenario-based Civ in the Into The Renaissance scenario in G&K.

Dark grey icon, light grey background; that's basically the Germany's colors.

 

[Imalich]

There's still a place for a blue field, maybe they could have Venice with bright blue field and golden winged lion? I think, depending on the tone of blue they choose, it could fit right between Sweden's dark blue and France's pastel blue

I would prefer - in the remote case of Venice included - that they had it's own colors. Swapped, if need be. I think a red lion in a "french yellow-ish" field would look really good.

 

[SolInvictus]

Do you really think Hungary has high odds of getting into this expansion though?

We are already at possibly 5 (possibly if we include Morocco), likely a 6th will be Native American, leaving only 3 civs left.

We haven't had an Asian civ (outside of the Middle East) since Korea. Odds are we may have at least one more Asian civ then. With 2 slots left, what gameplay could Hungary provide that would be unique that the developers would want to include? It wouldn't probably be connected to a new resource, trade, world congresses, etc. It probably wouldn't get in on ideological grounds or for its mounted unit history because of Poland already getting in. Odds don't seem high to me. (Maybe ~2-5% if I had to estimate)

I don't think there will be a NA, I think we lost that with Pueblo since they were fairly along in developing it. I stand by my Denmark/Sweden and Austria/Hungary parallel, I think its a clue that has really been underestimated. I would be very surprised if it meant nothing. Norway was included with Denmark. Finland was included with Sweden. Lithuania is included with Poland. When the Vikings were divided we got Denmark and we later got Sweden. Sweden's cities, even those traditional got with a Viking civ were not included. I think there might be a parallel to Austria/Hungary. It might not get in, the devs leave crumbs of abandoned ideas before. However, the only way to know is when the ninth civ is revealed not to be Hungary. The Black Army has been suggested as an alternative UU and a UB like a Thermal Spa could yield tourism. Obviously I'd like to see Hungary in, but my main reason is the city list parallel. I have other reasons, but I'm tired of debating/explaining them so I hope you'll forgive me.

 

[Option]

I view Civ as not only a history game but also a what if game, so I'm quite open to Serbia and Switzerland as civs. My point about a hundred civs is that the game could reach that number before we began facing down the mighty Andorran Empire. I mean we will have 43 civs now, if we added Sioux, Hittites, Sumer, Mali, Khmer, HRE, would almost bring us to fifty. Given the nature of civ construction in CiV you could easily reach a hundred civs.

I don't oppose you on that point. I just don't think that tiny and/or rather insignificant countries (and I mean that in the bigger picture) should take precedence over those that actually did contribute heavily to global or continental history. I'll take Vietnam, a silk road civ or Kongo over Serbia or Switzerland any day.

Also Serbian nationalist provoked WWI

This again... No, this is not exactly what provoked WW1. It just was the spark that lit the fuse of a powder keg that was about to explode anyway. The relationship between Austria and Hungary due to their conflict of interest in the Balkans was heavily strained, ANYTHING could've provoked a war. The rest was all just the complex system of alliances falling into place.

and Swiss mercenaries were used throughout Europe and Swiss banking through out the world. So I'd hardly think of them as bottom of the barrel civs.

Swiss banking is quite impressive, but it's also very corrupt and heavily built on shady businesses and crimes. There's a reason why several European governments are willing to pay good money to criminals for stolen data from Swiss banks.
And mercenaries - eh, wouldn't say that's a globally or even particularly locally historically pivotal aspect of the Swiss.

Of course, there's even less important "civs" than the Swiss or Serbians. At one point, we'd get to them, of course. But this discussion is going in circles at this point. We can debate ages about why culture X should be included, or why it shouldn't.
I would suggest for the agreement of disagreeing.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I don't think there will be a NA, I think we lost that with Pueblo since they were fairly along in developing it.

Haven't heard this theory yet.

Thoughts anybody?

 

[Kwami]

Haven't heard this theory yet.

Thoughts anybody?

I'd say that the developers are more likely to use the Pueblo assets for a different American Indian civilization than they are to just toss them out.

 

[trexeric]

I think the 9th civ should be Sealand, but that's just me.

 

[OzzyKP]

Do you really think Hungary has high odds of getting into this expansion though?

We are already at possibly 5 (possibly if we include Morocco), likely a 6th will be Native American, leaving only 3 civs left.

We haven't had an Asian civ (outside of the Middle East) since Korea. Odds are we may have at least one more Asian civ then. With 2 slots left, what gameplay could Hungary provide that would be unique that the developers would want to include? It wouldn't probably be connected to a new resource, trade, world congresses, etc. It probably wouldn't get in on ideological grounds or for its mounted unit history because of Poland already getting in. Odds don't seem high to me. (Maybe ~2-5% if I had to estimate)

Two good reasons I think (beyond just the historical importance of Hungary).

First, generally new civs in expansions are a good time to highlight and take advantage of new features. We saw Celts & Byzantines introduced with G&K which took advantage of adding religion. For this one we have Brazil with tourism & Portugal with trade. Another big change in the game is the ideology system. Hungary, as a nation which has experienced facism, communism AND democracy in the last century would be a great candidate to tie in with this new system.

Second, and maybe this is more of a stretch, but I think that scenarios also often are used to highlight various new aspects of a game. It is possible that the two announced scenarios won't be the only ones. How better to show off ideology than to do some Cold War type scenario? Hungary would fit in quite well there. There are limited number of Soviet allies in the game. Poland is added, and together with Hungary it'd even the odds a bit.

Just a thought. Mainly I think it is just because of Hungary's historical importance that it should be included. Will it? I don't know. There is definitely a chance.

 

[Option]

Dark grey icon, light grey background; that's basically the Germany's colors.

No, it's black on white, not dark grey on light grey. Germany is in that scenario as well, and the colors are differentiated. You can check yourself.

I would prefer - in the remote case of Venice included - that they had it's own colors. Swapped, if need be. I think a red lion in a "french yellow-ish" field would look really good.

Personally, I would prefer a historically accurate variation to the Venetian flag (golden lion on blue background) over one that uses distorted colors and inverts them.

In the Italy/Venice speculation thread, I also suggested a color scheme that is essentially a top-down view on Venice; the orange of the city's roofs on the Adriatic Sea's green/blue.
Somewhat similar to how Sumer's color scheme is in the Wonders of the Ancient World scenario.

 

[OzzyKP]

Haven't heard this theory yet.

Thoughts anybody?

I've been thinking that all along. None of the civ games have ever had more than one Native American civ. I don't see why they'd start now. Especially not when there are many more deserving civs out there.

Of course the whole Pueblo thing means they were definitely considering it, so... who knows. I hope they don't.

 

[wilbeard]

I don't think there will be a NA, I think we lost that with Pueblo since they were fairly along in developing it. I stand by my Denmark/Sweden and Austria/Hungary parallel, I think its a clue that has really been underestimated. I would be very surprised if it meant nothing. Norway was included with Denmark. Finland was included with Sweden. Lithuania is included with Poland. When the Vikings were divided we got Denmark and we later got Sweden. Sweden's cities, even those traditional got with a Viking civ were not included. I think there might be a parallel to Austria/Hungary. It might not get in, the devs leave crumbs of abandoned ideas before. However, the only way to know is when the ninth civ is revealed not to be Hungary. The Black Army has been suggested as an alternative UU and a UB like a Thermal Spa could yield tourism. Obviously I'd like to see Hungary in, but my main reason is the city list parallel. I have other reasons, but I'm tired of debating/explaining them so I hope you'll forgive me.

I don't recall them detailing how far into development they got with the Pueblo in that PAX video.

As for your Hungary theory (and I'm sorry if you have explained this elsewhere, I know how annoying it can be to have to reiterate a point endlessly): if the Hungarian cities really were left off the Austrian list so that they could be added in a Hungary civ (in parallel with Denmark/Sweden), why would the devs lump Austria with an explicitly Hungarian UU (the Hussar)? Surely they would have taken extra care to ensure that once Hungary was added, there would be no historic or cultural crossover with Austria?

Again, sorry if you have answered this elsewhere.