Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[OzzyKP]

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.

It is possible that the unit could be given to Hungary. We see how the French lost their UU and is getting something new. The same could be done with Austria. Honestly, it'd be pretty cool to have some World Congress/Diplomat tie in. Or maybe some culture/tourism thing. There are definitely ideas out there to replace the Hussar if it were given to Hungary.

As for a completely different point, everyone keeps talking about Morocco like it's a done deal. Where are people getting this from? I don't pay super close attention to this thread (since it gets so many posts) and I haven't noticed another thread dedicated to Morocco stuff. Where is this from?

 

[OzzyKP]

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.

To reiterate this point, there seems to be a lot of talk about Vietnam or Cuba as possible civs because of the ideology angle. Hungary fits with ideology better than either of them, plus it has a very long influential history beyond that. Between those three Hungary should be the clear winner.

 

[SolInvictus]

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.

I agree, I'd also take Vietnam and Kongo over Attila any day.

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.

When I say provoked, I mean the spark that lit the fuse. I'm an historian, I've dealt with that wicked cause and effect chain reaction before. I still have nightmares over the many boring primary sources on microfiche I had to delve into.

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.

When I think of their banking, I primarily mean from its beginings before the Fuggers and the Medici, who were wealthier but not as enduring as their Swiss counter parts. The Swiss mercenary was used in virtually every major European war from the Late Medieval period to the early Enlightenment. The Landsknechts and Tercios in game adopted Switzer tactics and equipment.

 

[wilbeard]

It is possible that the unit could be given to Hungary. We see how the French lost their UU and is getting something new. The same could be done with Austria. Honestly, it'd be pretty cool to have some World Congress/Diplomat tie in. Or maybe some culture/tourism thing. There are definitely ideas out there to replace the Hussar if it were given to Hungary.

As for a completely different point, everyone keeps talking about Morocco like it's a done deal. Where are people getting this from? I don't pay super close attention to this thread (since it gets so many posts) and I haven't noticed another thread dedicated to Morocco stuff. Where is this from?

But SolInvictus' hunch seems to rely on the idea that Austria was created with the potential addition of Hungary in mind. They would have been shooting themselves in the foot by giving Austria an Austro-Hungarian UU when Hungary was potentially on the horizon.

Go back a page on the forum to get to a thread with "Morocco" in the title. All the details are in there (basically, the Moroccan name was spilt during one of the developer interviews).

 

[trexeric]

Morocco thing found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=493443

 

[Louis XXIV]

And remember the Polos? Marco Polo and all that? Venice could easily be a generic trading civ.

Marco Polo was partially fictionalized. However, I agree that they would be a trading civ.

 

[OzzyKP]

But SolInvictus' hunch seems to rely on the idea that Austria was created with the potential addition of Hungary in mind. They would have been shooting themselves in the foot by giving Austria an Austro-Hungarian UU when Hungary was potentially on the horizon.

Go back a page on the forum to get to a thread with "Morocco" in the title. All the details are in there (basically, the Moroccan name was spilt during one of the developer interviews).

Well, I don't necessarily agree with SolInvictus' hunch. Even though we reach the same conclusion from different hunches.

 

[Option]

I agree, I'd also take Vietnam and Kongo over Attila any day.

Oh don't get me started on the Huns. Those were the worst inclusion ever conceived. It can't get worse than that, unless they really bring out the Andorrans.

When I say provoked, I mean the spark that lit the fuse. I'm an historian, I've dealt with that wicked cause and effect chain reaction before. I still have nightmares over the many boring primary sources on microfiche I had to delve into.

My mistake. I was having a debate with a Serbia fan (who I presume is actually Serbian himself) earlier in this thread, and he used a wording that implied that Serbia was the sole reason why WW1 started and that it played a super central role in it (which it didn't). I guess I interpreted a similar misconception into your wording.

When I think of their banking, I primarily mean from its beginings before the Fuggers and the Medici, who were wealthier but not as enduring as their Swiss counter parts. The Swiss mercenary was used in virtually every major European war from the Late Medieval period to the early Enlightenment. The Landsknechts and Tercios in game adopted Switzer tactics and equipment.

I knew the Swiss tactics were quite advanced, but I didn't know many other European armies copied them, so I stand corrected. I never took too much interest into Swiss history, to be honest. I started a book on it, but I never was able to finish it because after forming and a few initial wars, nothing happened. Just about as bad as microfiche.

As for the banking, I can see where you're coming from, and do agree that it was big part of Swiss history and culture. IF Switzerland WERE to be included, it would obviously be a no-brainer to use that!
But that doesn't make my point any less valid - morally ambiguous money has existed even before modern times, after all. It just as the modern shady finances is part of Swiss banking history.

Money is powerful, but I can't see Switzerland standing in the same line as Portugal, Assyria or Brazil, if you know what I mean.

 

[JSMCAG]

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

So I went to check, and indeed you are right. If they want to keep something similar, in the very least they would have to change the light gray with actual white - it's still be similar to Germany, but not anymore so than Austria and England (White on Bright Red and White on Dark Red, respectively). But then we'd have a bunch of Civilizations with a white background, and it could get confusing quickly on the minimap (imagine a game with Japan, Greece, The Ottomans, Carthage, The Huns, Assyria, The Zulu, Portugal and the Almohads!! The minimap would be a sea of white!!!)

So we'll see, but the current colors are a no-go...

 

[SolInvictus]

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.

The Pueblo are fairly unique and was their ui. For example, you can't just take the Pueblo UI and apply it to the Navajo. Well you could, but it would be wrong.

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.

They could reassigned it, though I doubt that. They could go with a different UU like the Black Army arquebus or they might have had a specific version of a Hussar in mind such as the Black Army Hussar which is comparable to a Siphai. The Hussar in the game is a rather late version, which while still Hungarian fought for Austria, so in that sense it really isn't specifically Hungarian. However, you raise some valid counter points. It really boils down to three questions:

1. Why is Norway part of Denmark, Finland part of Sweden, and Lithuania part of Poland, and Hungary not part of Austria?
2. If Sweden was lift out of Viking/Denmark civ and we later got a Sweden civ, does the exclusion of Hungarian cities follow that pattern?
3. The union of Austria-Hungary is far more famous than any of the above units, the Austrian civ even moved in the direction of Austria-Hungary. It has a Hungarian based unit, an Enlightenment era UB, and Hungarians were very supportive of Maria Theresa and she of them. So if you wanted to create a unified civ that was unoffensive to Hungarians they came as close as possible. Yet still no Hungary. Why?

 

[PhilBowles]

Oh don't get me started on the Huns. Those were the worst inclusion ever conceived. It can't get worse than that, unless they really bring out the Andorrans.

The Huns are at least, well, the Huns - it's not close to being as bad as the Civ V incarnation of the Celts, a complete invention with their Welsh-accented, Iceni leader with a capital in a medieval Scottish city, Scottish UU, and a city list that includes Norse-founded Dublin and a few modern Welsh settlements to round them off.

The worst thing about the Huns to me is the letdown. I actually quite like the tension evoked by 'X was bullied recently by the Huns' or 'Attila has denounced you' (plus he has a great leader screen and the devs get credit for trying to find a closely-approximate language). But giving them a UU the AI can't use and programming them to conquer cities (which the AI struggles to do in the early game with any civ) means that if the Huns are in play as an AI the player has a substantial advantage compared with games where the Huns aren't involved.

2. If Sweden was lift out of Viking/Denmark civ and we later got a Sweden civ, does the exclusion of Hungarian cities follow that pattern?

Why would you expect it to have been in the Danish civ? That would rather defeat the point of making it a Danish rather than a generic Viking civ in the first place, and there was no "Denmark-Sweden" during the Viking era. The Kalmar Union didn't arise until the 14th Century.

 

[SolInvictus]

Oh don't get me started on the Huns. Those were the worst inclusion ever conceived. It can't get worse than that, unless they really bring out the Andorrans.

Actually, the Huns are still the worst. I had no problem finding a city list for Andorra. I even played as Andorra once as a joke.

My mistake. I was having a debate with a Serbia fan (who I presume is actually Serbian himself) earlier in this thread, and he used a wording that implied that Serbia was the sole reason why WW1 started and that it played a super central role in it (which it didn't). I guess I interpreted a similar misconception into your wording.

No worries, happens to me all the time.

knew the Swiss tactics were quite advanced, but I didn't know many other European armies copied them, so I stand corrected. I never took too much interest into Swiss history, to be honest. I started a book on it, but I never was able to finish it because after forming and a few initial wars, nothing happened. Just about as bad as microfiche.

I read, or pretend to read those books all the time. They are maddening, I've never understood the purpose of a writing an unreadable that teaches the reader nothing. I promise not to write one either.

Money is powerful, but I can't see Switzerland standing in the same line as Portugal, Assyria or Brazil, if you know what I mean.

I'm not sure I'd but Brazil on the historical level of Portugal or Assyria quite yet. They are rising and are going to be a force to be reckoned with in the 21st century and beyond, but I wouldn't but them at that point yet. I mean I wouldn't put the US in Civ if it weren't the most powerful, wealthiest, and technologically advanced civilization in history. That said, I'm a supporter of Brazil having a permanent place in Civ and the UN Security Council.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with SolInvictus' hunch. Even though we reach the same conclusion from different hunches.

You will. Even if Hungary doesn't get into BNW I'll send out drones to assimilate people to my view nonetheless.

 

[SolInvictus]

Why would you expect it to have been in the Danish civ? That would rather defeat the point of making it a Danish rather than a generic Viking civ in the first place, and there was no "Denmark-Sweden" during the Viking era. The Kalmar Union didn't arise until the 14th Century.

My point is that we got Denmark rather than the anachronistic Kalmaresque Vikings with Danish, Swedish, and Norse cities that we were used to and that prefigured a Swedish civ.

 

[Liex]

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.

We're talking about the Medieval/Renaissance scenario, right? Germany isn't there. The shades of grey are a bit lighter and darker, but it's basically the same color for me.

 

[alpha2117]

Marco Polo was a Venetian. He was born in the Republic of Venice

There's evidence to suggest he was probably born on Korcula which is now in Croatia but was part of the Venetian republic at the time ... my line was meant to be lighthearted. When someone mentioned Marco Polo.

 

[VermelhoRed]

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.

That symbol looks great! I think this makes Morocco 10x more likely

I doubt that the colours even cross the minds of developers when deciding who to add. If Portugal had been added earlier it probably would have been Green and Red or something similar, and there are others that would have been very different colours. I highly doubt that colours will play any role at all in a decision. They may be a consequence of the order of adding them, but I doubt they play a role in choosing them.

I'm not saying they choose the civs by their colors. I saying that, from the color choices they have made so far, we can predict the remaining civs. For example, if there were another civ that demanded the color red more than Poland (Hungary comes to mind), they would have given Poland another color. So, it serves as another evidence that Hungary, or other "red" civilizations, are not in.

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.

What are you saying? Civ V already has 4 Native American civs!!

 

[WChrisMullen]

What are you saying? Civ V already has 4 Native American civs!!

I think he means Native North American civ. Most people in North America consider the Aztecs and Mayans to be "Meso-American."

 

[SolInvictus]

That symbol looks great! I think this makes Morocco 10x more likely

Using that logic the Sumerians and Hittites from the World Wonders scenario would also be 10x more likely. However, Morocco is all but confirmed so the point is moot.

I'm not saying they choose the civs by their colors. I saying that, from the color choices they have made so far, we can predict the remaining civs. For example, if there were another civ that demanded the color red more than Poland (Hungary comes to mind), they would have given Poland another color. So, it serves as another evidence that Hungary, or other "red" civilizations, are not in.

Not necessarily, the colors chosen for Portugal weren't the obvious ones despite their historic precedent. Likewise, a Hungarian civ could make use of any color combination of red,white, or green still available (say the inverse of Ethiopia) or like could factor in an more unique color like black from an obscure source like the black army, so you might have green in black. Not to mention different shades. This goes for every possible civ, Benin's flag was red, white, and black. That fact that we have spent up most of those combinations does not mean that Benin couldn't be represented by a dark Ivory from Queen Idia's mask or bronze to represent one of its famous plaques. I think Menzies point about color being a very minor consideration in selecting a new civ stands.

What are you saying? Civ V already has 4 Native American civs!!

When I read that, I thought the context was that he meant the expansions. No more than one NA civ per expansion. Though now that I think about it, I believe Civ III: Conquests added both the Inca and Maya. Nvm

 

[VermelhoRed]

Not necessarily, the colors chosen for Portugal weren't the obvious ones despite their historic precedent. Likewise, a Hungarian civ could make use of any color combination of red,white, or green still available (say the inverse of Ethiopia) or like could factor in an more unique color like black from an obscure source like the black army, so you might have green in black. Not to mention different shades. This goes for every possible civ, Benin's flag was red, white, and black. That fact that we have spent up most of those combinations does not mean that Benin couldn't be represented by a dark Ivory from Queen Idia's mask or bronze to represent one of its famous plaques. I think Menzies point about color being a very minor consideration in selecting a new civ stands.

First, white and blue are the most appropriate colors for Portugal.

Second, my point it's not that color is a consideration in selecting a new civ. The civs are selected already. The point is, they need to spread out the colors for the new selected civilizations. They won't make an expansion with 9 red civs. So, by analyzing the existing choices they made, we can make predictions. If they had chosen both Hungary and Poland, they would give the "red priority" to Hungary and would have made Poland white with red symbol or something like that. That fact that they didn't do that is evidence against Hungary.

Also a reverse Ethiopia color, for either Hungary or Morocco, would still clash too much with Poland. I think no other civs in the expansion are going to have a red field. Maybe if the red is a dark, maroony tone. But in that case, it wouldn't look good with green.

 

[nunor]

When speculating about new civilizations, few people mention Burma.

I'm not too familiar with Burmese history, but as far as I understand they were one of the most important civilizations in South-east Asia and they actually held the largest empire in the history of that region (under Taungoo dynasty), according to Wikipedia:

Spoiler :

Does anyone consider the possibility of Burma being included?