Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[phaethon16]

Me?
Nope, I'm pretty sure they won't add any more non Native American civs from the Americas.
Just pointing out that Gran Columbia is as valid a candidate as any other modern civ from the Americas.

The thing is though, Gran Colombia would probably have to be a military civ, and since they're so short lived both their UUs would be from the same era. I know Sweden is like that too, but Sweden's ability is not militaristic. Besides, Eva Peron is just as good a leader choice as Simon Bolivar, but her civ is more important. Not that Gran Colombia isn't cool, but Argentina makes more sense gsme-wise. Also, the Huns indirectly caused the fall of the Roman Empire, which is pretty significant. What did Gran Colombia do? To answer someone else's question, I'm not counting native civs because we will probably have a North American native civ, and I question the relevance of a South American native civ.

 

[Loaf Warden]

I think Gran Colombia should get in because I think Simon Bolivar should get in. It's certainly true that Gran Colombia did not exist very long before fragmenting into a number of nations and probably would not be worthy of inclusion in and of itself. But Bolivar is. He essentially broke the back of the Spanish Empire in the New World and brought a permanent independence to a very large area of South America. He's a primary national hero in several countries today and is easily a prominent enough figure to warrant inclusion in the Civilization franchise. He should certainly be in as the leader of some nation or another, and Gran Colombia, however historically insignificant it turned out to be when judged purely as a nation, would be the logical choice.

Of course, I'm virtually certain Gran Colombia is not in BNW because we've already seen Panama City as a City-State; surely Panama City would be part of Gran Colombia. That doesn't rule out the possibility that they've added Bolivar as the leader of a pared-down "Colombia" or "Venezuela" civ. But I'm not holding my breath for that.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Eva Peron is just as good a leader choice as Simon Bolivar

I disagree. Eva Peron may be a perfectly decent leader choice, and if Argentina were getting in and it was only a question of who would lead it, she'd be a likely candidate. But making it a choice between adding Eva Peron to the game and adding Simon Bolivar, there is no way Eva Peron, or even Juan Peron, can claim the kind of historical importance that Bolivar has.

 

[LastSword]

I didn't know that they have already ready game and occasionally share the screenshots.
Or there is unwritten law that they can't remove something once shown?

To be serious, I believe they did/do not add KoJ for some odd political reasons. However, If I were them I would troll people with showing a City-state and suddenly... "Boom, city-state has evolved in civ".

 

[LordProtector]

Gran Columbia is a perfectly legitimate future Civ. Not for this expansion, but at some point. As a unified nation is may've only existed for a decade or so, but as a civilization it gave birth to much or modern Latin America, which is ultimately a huge area of the planet. Both the Aztec and Alexander's Greece were short lived civs, but no one questions their place in the game.

And taking into account the nature of the Civilization, that it's a 'Whatwould've' hypothetical game, proposing what might have been if these great leaders had been immortal and been able to lead their peoples through all of human history, not just their life times, this puts Bolivar and Gran Columbia in a very interesting position for inclusion.

That said, there's no reason why Argentina and Gran Columbia couldn't both be included. Both very different cultures, histories, achievements, and at different ends of a continent.

 

[Louis XXIV]

If I were them I would troll people with showing a City-state and suddenly... "Boom, city-state has evolved in civ".

Did it level up or did they use a Moon Stone?

 

[doge]

So, I listened to the arguments for different American civs, and while I don't think Argentina is the obvious choice anymore, I still think it's the strongest. I'm immediately going to discount CSA, Cuba, Haiti, and Australia. Australia is a strong option, but it's not in the Americas and wouldn't compete with Argentina. It would compete with Canada, but not Argentina. If there was a third expansion, I could easily see them both getting in. CSA, Haiti, and Cuba are sort of jokes in my opinion, so not them either. That leaves Mexico, Gran Colombia, and Canada. Mexico doesn't really have much going for it, except their agriculture and a few revolutionary leaders who either died or went corrupt. I'm not sure what would warrant its inclusion as a civ or what game mechanics it would use, so I'm discounting it. On the other hand, you have Gran Colombia, whose biggest appeals are that it covers a lot of territory and Simon Bolivar is cool. Gran Colombia didn't have much impact, and it wasn't long lived. It broke up within two decades because the country was too factitious. Simon Bolivar is cool, but that alone does not compensate for his civ's lack of real, lasting impact. Lastly, you have Canada which is the best alternate choice. Canada is really cool and would make sense, but I'm not sure what its unique stuff would be. Argentina on the other hand, has an amazing leader choice, Eva Peron, who also gets the added bonus of being one of the few female leaders who deserves to be included. Also, it has a few, distinctive traits that would translate into abilities really well, like the Gauchos, Tango, the Peronist movement, the caudillos (to a certain extent) and their huge agriculture market (Argentina provided 40% of Allied beef during WWI.) While Canada is a close second, I think Argentina has the best chance of being BNW American Dark Horse.

I agree and let me add
If Brazil is in, I don’t see any problem in adding Argentina, even it would be cool as an antagonist for the South American supremacy and considering that the country was the most powerful in Latin America during the first half of the twenty century. It was even one of the top 10 richest nations in the world. Argentina despite its short existence has influenced global culture through tango, famous people and sports, and played an important role in the South American independence with the campaigns of San Martin, Which were as important as Bolivar campaigns. But personally I think that we will not see Argentina in this expansion.
And now the Pope is from Argentina haha

 

[ehecatzin]

Mexico could use Benito Juarez, or Porfirio Diaz, even Carranza if they wanted to go for a revolutionary leader with an epic beard to compete with the rest of the leaders.

But I dont see it happening in BNW. If we are lucky enough and get a third expansion that includes a colonization mechanic, I can see them adding a bunch of post colonial nations as civs that can pop out of revolts.

By the way, even Yucatan enjoyed some years of independence from Mexico (so it was not purely theoretical), the only reason they got annexed again is because they worn off in the casta war against the Mayans and Santa Anna used the money he got from the US war and marched right into the peninsula.

 

[Frossa]

Mexico could use Benito Juarez, or Porfirio Diaz, even If we are lucky enough and get a third expansion.

Firaxis stated at one point that BNW is the last expansion.

 

[GFNeves]

Even if Gran Colombia as a nation was short lived, what it represents (and what Bolívar represents) is too important to be absent from the game. However, the Panama City argument is a strong one.

P.S.: If we are talking about separatist groups, we might as well talk about the República Rio-Grandense

 

[Louis XXIV]

Firaxis stated at one point that BNW is the last expansion.

To be fair, they've frankly admitted that they didn't even expect to get a second expansion and that, if this one does well, who knows what they'll do next.

 

[Loaf Warden]

To be fair, they've frankly admitted that they didn't even expect to get a second expansion and that, if this one does well, who knows what they'll do next.

Exactly. It's far too soon to tell whether there's going to be a third expansion or not. I don't really expect one--to date, no Civ game has had three expansion packs--but they've gone out of their way to avoid saying that this is definitely it.

Personally, I would be ecstatic if they did a third and made the main focus be on adding mechanics for colonialism, revolution, civil war, and decolonization. But right now, we simply don't know whether there will or will not be a third.

 

[phaethon16]

I disagree. Eva Peron may be a perfectly decent leader choice, and if Argentina were getting in and it was only a question of who would lead it, she'd be a likely candidate. But making it a choice between adding Eva Peron to the game and adding Simon Bolivar, there is no way Eva Peron, or even Juan Peron, can claim the kind of historical importance that Bolivar has.

Eva Peron is as good a leader choice because of how iconic she is to her people and her what she helped put in place eventually led to the Argentina of today. Granted, that's not world wide impact, but she's one of the most well-loved leaders in history. Simon Bolivar was a fantastic general, but that doesn't mean Gran Colombia should be included, just that he should be a great general. Gran Colombia did not create a new South America, Bolivar did. The point I'm making is that Eva Peron is an iconic leader who represented her people and nation, while Bolivar is sort of standalone, because he doesn't really have a nation he can represent.

 

[SnowKomodo]

159 pages...wow

 

[GFNeves]

The point I'm making is that Eva Peron is an iconic leader who represented her people and nation, while Bolivar is sort of standalone, because he doesn't really have a nation he can represent.

Seriously? The official name of Venezuela is República Bolivariana de Venezuela. There is a country named Bolívia.
He is idolized by the people in these countries.

 

[Gucumatz]

And add to the fact that Evita is somewhat controversial...

Bolivar >>> Peron by miles, its no contest

 

[Loaf Warden]

Gran Colombia did not create a new South America, Bolivar did.

I think you'll find that's what I said. I'm not saying Eva Peron does not deserve to be in, and I'm certainly not saying Argentina does not deserve to be in. But I still maintain that if the choice were between Peron and Bolivar, Bolivar would win. Not if the choice were between Argentina and Gran Colombia (in which case Argentina would take precedence), or even between Argentina and Bolivar (which would be a much harder choice to make). I'm saying that to call Peron "just as good a leader choice" as Bolivar is to do Bolivar's legacy a disservice. Going only by the merits of the leaders, I would rank Bolivar far, far higher than Peron.

 

[alpha2117]

As I've said in a perfect world there would be a ton of extra civs but the development effort is difficult. I think Native Nth American civs from the Sth East, Plains and Northwest should all be in and I believe at least one will be in this expansion. Personally I love the Colonial civs Australia, West Indies, Mexico, Gran Columbia, Sth Africa, Argentina would all be in if I was making the call. I dont see any of them making it though.

 

[phaethon16]

Seriously? The official name of Venezuela is República Bolivariana de Venezuela. There is a country named Bolívia.
He is idolized by the people in these countries.

My main point is that Gran Colombia isn't enough of a civ for him to represent.

I think you'll find that's what I said. I'm not saying Eva Peron does not deserve to be in, and I'm certainly not saying Argentina does not deserve to be in. But I still maintain that if the choice were between Peron and Bolivar, Bolivar would win. Not if the choice were between Argentina and Gran Colombia (in which case Argentina would take precedence), or even between Argentina and Bolivar (which would be a much harder choice to make). I'm saying that to call Peron "just as good a leader choice" as Bolivar is to do Bolivar's legacy a disservice. Going only by the merits of the leaders, I would rank Bolivar far, far higher than Peron.

I think that it's pointless to rank Peron and Bolivar against each other, because they both did different things. Did Peron free a huge area from colonial rule? No. But, did Bolivar create a national identity that led to a functioning, stable democracy? Also no. In the way you're defining leader worthiness, Bolivar deserves to be in more. But, if you look at it through my perspective, Peron deserves to be in more. It's sort of like pitting Peter and Catherine the Great against each other; they did different things but are equally great. Bolivar and Peron can't be compared because their accomplishments are different, and I think that together they represent (almost) the complete spectrum of what leaders can accomplish. I think that you're almost doing her legacy a disservice too by not acknowledging that. Thank you though for saying Argentina gets precedence over Gran Colombia if Bolivar isn't factored in.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Firaxis stated at one point that BNW is the last expansion.

I don't believe they have. They said they went into this expansion anticipating it could be the last. They are perfectly open to adding more if a need is perceived for it.