Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[InsanelyApple]

sorry to go off topic, but i have a question about Morocco;what was the height of their empire? xD im sorry i dont know much about them.

I believe that would be the Almohad Caliphate.

 

[cybrxkhan]

You're right, but I was drawing a somewhat facetious comparison with the arguments made for Italy, which aim to co-opt the achievements of independent entities in order to justify an Italian civ.

I see where you're trying to make the analogy, but it doesn't make sense to me.

As I've always said, a better comparison for Italy would be the Mayan city-states - except Italy did unite historically.

 

[alpha2117]

I'm surprised you think that after you read the Wiki. Is it because of Venice appearing to be replaced or do you actually prefer Italy as a whole civ instead of city-states?

I think Italy just inherently offers more design choices. Venice is worthy of consideration but there are two major reasons to not put it in and go with Italy itself are fairly simple.

1) In terms of overall significance Venice on it's own become arguable in comparison to a huge number of potential civs including some other Italian based Civs. Italy as a whole negates that argument. Venice is a trade heavy city so would be designed that way and with Portugal coming in and choices like Majapahit, Australia, Phoenicia etc out there in the ether - Venice seems an odd choice as a trade nation in game.

2) Italy has had a huge effect on the world so a Italian civ representing a very different era to the Roman is not that controversial a choice. Only the city of Rome itself is slightly awkward and as shown by Constantinope/Istanbul and numerous others where slight name differences solve any issue. Roma solves the Rome issue.

Italy offers that cultural peak and given the artist, writer, musician thing being added their abilities basically write themselves design wise.

If Venice was in the only way I can see it being interesting is if they move Austria's ability over to them and make it so that Venice can only create one city but can absorb others through buying allied CS's. That would make them the pro civ talked about and a real challenge.

I'd have been happy if they added a civ from elsewhere but design wise I think Italy makes more sense than Venice. I wont be upset if either gets in.

 

[VermelhoRed]

I think Italy just inherently offers more design choices. Venice is worthy of consideration but there are two major reasons to not put it in and go with Italy itself are fairly simple.

1) In terms of overall significance Venice on it's own become arguable in comparison to a huge number of potential civs including some other Italian based Civs. Italy as a whole negates that argument. Venice is a trade heavy city so would be designed that way and with Portugal coming in and choices like Majapahit, Australia, Phoenicia etc out there in the ether - Venice seems an odd choice as a trade nation in game.

2) Italy has had a huge effect on the world so a Italian civ representing a very different era to the Roman is not that controversial a choice. Only the city of Rome itself is slightly awkward and as shown by Constantinope/Istanbul and numerous others where slight name differences solve any issue. Roma solves the Rome issue.

Italy offers that cultural peak and given the artist, writer, musician thing being added their abilities basically write themselves design wise.

If Venice was in the only way I can see it being interesting is if they move Austria's ability over to them and make it so that Venice can only create one city but can absorb others through buying allied CS's. That would make them the pro civ talked about and a real challenge.

I'd have been happy if they added a civ from elsewhere but design wise I think Italy makes more sense than Venice. I wont be upset if either gets in.

1- Venice is not of arguable importance if we are mentioning stuff like a Norman civilization. Venice was an extremely important commercial power and had a significant empire, and that for a good amount of time. The fact that it was a naval commercial power doesn't mean it steps on Portugal's toes, as there are many ways to translate that in gameplay terms, notice that the previous expansion added 3 civs with naval UUs. Venice could be in alongside Portugal and Majapahit, should it be in. Phoenice is not in, and saying Venice would lose priority to Australia is laughable.

2- Venice also represents a different era from Rome. "Roma" does not solve the issue in any way whatsoever (altought people mentioned having Florence as Italy's capital, that opens up other issues, and I don't really want to talk about it).

Also, why do you think Venice should be able to create only one city? Are you completely unaware of Venetian history?

 

[Nujabes]

Italy fits the Africa scenario, Italy's a better fit for the ideology system. All things considered, I'm surprised Venice has gained the traction that it has here. I'd rather neither were in, but I guess we'll see.

 

[InsanelyApple]

(altought people mentioned having Florence as Italy's capital, that opens up other issues, and I don't really want to talk about it).

To be fair, Turin and Florence were capitals of the united Italy before Rome was.

 

[alpha2117]

1- Venice is not of arguable importance if we are mentioning stuff like a Norman civilization. Venice was an extremely important commercial power and had a significant empire, and that for a good amount of time. The fact that it was a naval commercial power doesn't mean it steps on Portugal's toes, as there are many ways to translate that in gameplay terms, notice that the previous expansion added 3 civs with naval UUs. Venice could be in alongside Portugal and Majapahit, should it be in. Phoenice is not in, and saying Venice would lose priority to Australia is laughable.

2- Venice also represents a different era from Rome. "Roma" does not solve the issue in any way whatsoever (altought people mentioned having Florence as Italy's capital, that opens up other issues, and I don't really want to talk about it).

Also, why do you think Venice should be able to create only one city? Are you completely unaware of Venetian history?

Venice got it's cities through other methods than founding new ones though. Thats my point. If they want to replicate the real Venice it really almost needs to buy cities or conquer rather than found

I'm not saying it steps on anybodies toes in terms of being a trade nation. I'm just saying Majapahit was obviously a mid game trade power, Phoenicia is an ancient trade power, Australia is a modern day trade civ - there are many others. When I see the suggestion of Venice I dont dismiss it outright I just see that there are other trade based civs you could choose.

To me putting Venice in instead of Rome just complicates the region. Why not Milan, Sicily, Savoy, Lombardia any of the various choices that could arguably have the same sort of merit. I see greater Italy as a better choice and it definitly offers more variety design wise.

Roma does solve the Italy issue. If people say you cant have Italy without Rome and Rome is already the capital of the Roman Empire then simply giving it a naming variant (which is the actual real name of the city) solves the one inherent issue with the city list. Constantinople and Istanbul cna exist in game, London and Londinium can exist in game etc etc.

I dont discount Venice nor do I hate the idea - It's just that choice wise I think Italy is less problematic. Personally I wouldn't have picked either but they both have merit and I'm not going to complain if either is in.

 

[codepoet]

To be fair, Turin and Florence were capitals of the united Italy before Rome was.

Venice would work, but I've always preferred the idea of a Florence civ vs. the other two ideas bouncing around in this thread.
I don't truly care what flavor it comes in, but what I want is Renaissance Italy represented rather than modern day Italy.
They may go with precisely modern day Italy to portray the Fascist state for the ideology system; but I doubt they'd put Mussolini as the leader... and I think more of the great works of art and such come out of Florentine Renaissance (Florence commissioned works by Michaelangelo and Da Vinci).
So for me, with all that in mind: an Italian civ, named Florence, is more appealing; led by Lorenzo de Medici.
One of the new wonders, Uffizi, it's in Florence.
I think we'll have a Florence civ that specializes in Museums and Artifacts/Archaeology.

 

[trexeric]

I'd be okay with Italy in the game but I sure hope its capital isn't Roma. The problem is different from Constantinople and Istanbul in that it is basically the same word as Rome's Rome. At least with Constantinople and Istanbul they look like different cities. I'd much prefer Florence over 'Roma'.

 

[Rodfowler]

sorry to go off topic, but i have a question about Morocco;what was the height of their empire? xD im sorry i dont know much about them.

I've done some research and came to the conclusion that, although it was during the Almoravid dynasty that Morocco reached its territorial height, it was during Ahmad al-Mansur's rule that the Moroccan empire thrived, notably sending an envoy to Elizabeth I's court to discuss a possible alliance between the two nations and building the El Badi Palace in Marrakech to symbolise the Moroccan renaissance and power.
In 1591, he sent a 4,000 men army to take advantage of the Songhai Empire's civil strife, remarkably defeating a 40,000 men Songhai army and sacking Timbuktu, Djenné and Gao afterwards.
However, the developers may want to focus on Morocco's Berber culture rather than its Arab culture.

http://d1vmp8zzttzftq.cloudfront.ne...arable-palace-marrakesh-morocco-1600x1066.jpg
El Badi Palace, Marrakech

 

[Louis XXIV]

The Almoravids were Berbers if I'm not mistaken.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The Almoravids were Berbers if I'm not mistaken.

Most if not all of the medieval Moroccan dynasties had Berber origins - and by Berber I mean not the settled, part-Arabicized folks who liked on the coastal regions, but Berber as in way deep in the desert.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, the modern rulers are not Berber, fwiw.

The choice of Morocco and not Berber suggests that the Arabicized Berbers would be the focus.

 

[LonleyStrategos]

Makedonia- Leader: Alexander
Capital: Pela
UA- Hellenistic Culture- Conquered cities have a 50% boost to and tourism production.

This is actually pretty rad... I would love to play a seperate Macedonian Civ. Although I think something along the lines of "Macedonian Hegemony" would be a more fitting UA name XD

 

[j51]

If you're going to take the line that the Greek civ represents Athens and the other independent states, then you have as good (or bad) an argument for complaining about it as the current crop of complaints that Rome shouldn't represent Italy, because the civ portrayed does not represent it well. Modern Greeks consider the Byzantines Greeks too, but I don't know that they've raised a fuss about the inclusion of Byzantium in the game.

All of the Greek city states were part of a particular cultural/linguistic area, in other words a single civilization, not a single state. Now I'm not an advocate for the inclusion of Italy (I'd rather they not for other reasons), but post-Classical Italy is considered a different civilization than ancient Rome. Same goes for ancient Greece, Byzantium, and modern Greece. Whereas, in the usage of the Civ series, ancient Sparta, Athens, Syracuse, Macedon, etc. are considered part of a single civilization, á la the Maya, or formerly the Vikings. The name of the game is Civilization not States.

I presume by Macedon what was meant was the Macedonian kingdom, not modern Macedonia (which is unrelated). Macedon was the name of the first unified Greek state (founded by Alexander's unification, and surviving until the Roman conquest); this is however the Greece already represented in the game.

Yes, Macedon is a common term used to distinguish the ancient Greek from the modern Slavic state. Macedon is part of the civilization that the Greeks represent in game.

 

[Menzies]

Makedonia- Leader: Alexander
Capital: Pela
UA- Hellenistic Culture- Conquered cities have a 50% boost to and tourism production.

The problem with Macedonia is that people will confuse it with the modern Slavic state. The Macedon of Alexander was very much Greek and is well represented as Greece as in the game.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Venice got it's cities through other methods than founding new ones though. Thats my point. If they want to replicate the real Venice it really almost needs to buy cities or conquer rather than found.

The same would be true for the Byzantines, and yet they are in.

To me putting Venice in instead of Rome just complicates the region. Why not Milan, Sicily, Savoy, Lombardia any of the various choices that could arguably have the same sort of merit. I see greater Italy as a better choice and it definitly offers more variety design wise.

Roma does solve the Italy issue. If people say you cant have Italy without Rome and Rome is already the capital of the Roman Empire then simply giving it a naming variant (which is the actual real name of the city) solves the one inherent issue with the city list. Constantinople and Istanbul cna exist in game, London and Londinium can exist in game etc etc.

The problem is Rome is the same name as Roma, it's a cheap move, very cheap. At least London and Londinium sound diferent, and Constantinople / Instambul / Bizantium have (has?) completely different names. Besides, in most languages, Rome is called Roma, which would really harm translation.

Venice would work, but I've always preferred the idea of a Florence civ vs. the other two ideas bouncing around in this thread.
I don't truly care what flavor it comes in, but what I want is Renaissance Italy represented rather than modern day Italy.
They may go with precisely modern day Italy to portray the Fascist state for the ideology system; but I doubt they'd put Mussolini as the leader... and I think more of the great works of art and such come out of Florentine Renaissance (Florence commissioned works by Michaelangelo and Da Vinci).
So for me, with all that in mind: an Italian civ, named Florence, is more appealing; led by Lorenzo de Medici.
One of the new wonders, Uffizi, it's in Florence.
I think we'll have a Florence civ that specializes in Museums and Artifacts/Archaeology.

I think a Tuscany civ is better than an Renaissance Italian one. At least it was a single entity. But a Venetian civ would be more interesting, gameplay-wise.

 

[VermelhoRed]

The problem with Macedonia is that people will confuse it with the modern Slavic state. The Macedon of Alexander was very much Greek and is well represented as Greece as in the game.

I don't think the Greek cities are well represented in the game.

 

[Menzies]

I don't think the Greek cities are well represented in the game.

They're represented a lot better than China or India.

In fact, what is wrong with how Greece is represented?

 

[VermelhoRed]

They're represented a lot better than China or India.

In fact, what is wrong with how Greece is represented?

Athens and Sparta together, when they were sworn enemies more often than they've been allies.

What's the problem with India or China? They represent their modern states and then they go back in time. Unlike Greece, which represents only it's Ancient culture.