Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[ScottMcPwn]

Venetian Empire:

Spoiler :

There were many parts of Venice that weren't Italian.

That still dosn't change anything as Prussia occupied most of Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe.

 

[ImperialChaos]

I see your point. Either way Prussia isn't making it in. Both Poland and Germany are in Civ V. Venice only has the ancient Roman civ that's familiar with it. Seeing as the Venice city-state is seemingly gone, as well, I think it has a good chance.

I wouldn't mind a Prussia with Frederick the Great, however.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Prussia is different because the Prussians were instrumental in the creation of the German state. Venice was not. If Venice had unified Italy and called it Venice, that would be analogous. Venice would be analogous to Austria had Anschluss not been reversed after WWII. It's culturally distinct from other Italian cities, it has a unique political system, it has a different dialect (even if mutually intelligible), and, in no way, can Italy be seen as a direct successor to Venice.

 

[Scaramanga]

Adding Venice in the game over Italy would be like adding Prussia in over Germany.

Adding Piedmont-Sardinia over Italy would be like adding Prussia in over Germany.

 

[phaethon16]

Adding Venice over Italy would be like adding Saxony over Germany.

 

[JFD]

Adding Venice over Italy would be like adding Saxony over Germany.

I don't know about that. Venice has a more evocative image than Saxony. To some that is a positive image, of a highly mercantalistic state with an anomalous government and a reputed military career, as well as being a place of exceptional tourism. To others there is a fallacious image of a city-state. Less people would think much of Saxony, I'd wager.

 

[alpha2117]

Leader =/= head of state.

Are they though? In Civ terms we are not playing a historical sim like one of the Paradox games we are playing a world building game. The Civ designers including the current Firaxis team have clearly shown that when choosing a leader or a civ for that matter they like to choose an iconic figure. This does not necessarily mean a head of state. They chose for India a man who was the driving force in gaining their independence from the British and could have become leader if he wished.

In civ5 Leader has been used for cultural and spiritual figures. I know those choices often cause elements of the community to complain (Arc, Dido, Gandhi, Theodora etc) but those people seem to argue that it should only be heads of state. I understand the argument but since that is not 100% the way civ has ever chosen it's leaders it's not really correct.

For instance if you were choosing a civ that was heavily reliant on religious power and the head of the religion was not technically head of state but was the one wielding all the power then the Head Priest may be the most appropriate choice. There are a few ancient civs and some of the ones from the Americas where that would be a possibility.

Leaders like everything else in civ are used to add flavor to the game - the choices are not necessarily always heads of state (although that is certainly preferable).

If they added Italy and made Leonardo Da Vinci leader it would be the same deal - he was certainly a cultural leader but not a head of state. I wouldn't make that choice design wise but if they did make that choice and they were concentrating on culture and science for Italy then it wouldn't drive me insane. I think there would be better choices (A Medici or Borgia for instance) who better fit as a head of state.

At the end of the day all these design choices are about adding flavor to the game - we may not always agree with the choice but the designers make the choice for a reason and their is no rule in place for them saying a Leader choice has to be a head of state. If they choose a cultural or religious figure it's fine by me.

 

[DeutschDachs]

As for Joan, she was 'just' a general, but then so was Boudicca (she nominally led the Iceni after her husband's death, but all she led them to do was go on the rampage and she continued doing so until she died). She's a far worse choice than any of the previous Civ games' "primary" Celtic leader option.

Well Boudicca is one of the most well-known Celts in history amongst lay people. Possibly even more so than Brennus. She's been in the Civ series 3 times, as much as all other Celt leaders (Brennus 2, Cunobeline 1). I don't think her being the female option in Civ II makes her a "secondary" option like Sacajawea or Elanor Roosevelt.

Then again, Jean D'Arc didn't bother me and neither does Gandhi. Dido does a bit though... Replacing Hannibal for Carthage seems a bit like replacing Alexander the Great... Just for the sake of change

 

[SolInvictus]

Well Boudicca is one of the most well-known Celts in history amongst lay people. Possibly even more so than Brennus. She's been in the Civ series 3 times, as much as all other Celt leaders (Brennus 2, Cunobeline 1). I don't think her being the female option in Civ II makes her a "secondary" option like Sacajawea or Elanor Roosevelt.

Then again, Jean D'Arc didn't bother me and neither does Gandhi. Dido does a bit though... Replacing Hannibal for Carthage seems a bit like replacing Alexander the Great... Just for the sake of change

Spoiler :

Her words are backed with nuclear weapons...

 

[Louis XXIV]

Adding Venice over Italy would be like adding Saxony over Germany.

Are we done with this now?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I don't see why everyone is so against Hitler being a leader, If Civ can have Mao and Stalin which murdered double the people Hitler did, then how is it logical to ban Hitler?

Germany represents an important part of Civ's market.

Although they've lightened up very, very slightly recently, displays of Nazism and anyhting associated with it are banned in Germany, and if not banned, highly, highly scrutinized. Heck, they banned a line of Santa Claus toys one time because the bloke looked like he was doing a Nazi salute or something.

Whenever Germany appears in WWII games, if Hitler made it in, this was always changed in the German version.



And as Louis XXIV said, while Mao and Stalin are terrible people, they did do positive things for their country and left it stronger at their deaths than when they came to power. I'll admit that much, despite how much I detest Mao.

 

[VermelhoRed]

I'm right in the front row for people who are strongly against Gandhi as a leader

I've met my nemesis!

It has less to do with already established fans and more to do the attracting an audience. Saying you can play as leaders such as Napoleon or Gandhi can sound more appealing then playing as Louis XIV or Ashoka. They had one choice for a leader and they went with the more known of the two.

Exactly! I can't possibly play as Gandhi when I play GTA or Pokémon. The only game I can play as Gandhi is Civ. So, Civilization has a civic duty to always have Gandhi.

Edit: Louis XIV certainly has personality to replace Napoleon too. But who I would really want to see as the Leader of France in Civ VI is Charlemagne!

 

[InsanelyApple]

It has less to do with already established fans and more to do the attracting an audience. Saying you can play as leaders such as Napoleon or Gandhi can sound more appealing then playing as Louis XIV or Ashoka. They had one choice for a leader and they went with the more known of the two.

I'd rather have Charlemagne over Louis or Napoleon.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Hitler has come up yet again - sign no. 1829473 that we need more info, preferably a new Civ...

 

[Kerath]

Venice was an independent republic since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (Venice was founded from poeple running away from Aquileia, sacked by the Goths of Alaric) until Napoleon. I agree Venice should remain as a CS, that fit more in her case, but a Venetian civ would be quite a challenge - its UB and UU would probably be something naval, like the dromon.

Florence was an Illuminated republic known almost only for art and culture. Except Pisa and some other places in Tuscany or in its proximity, it had nothing geographically speaking, a lot like the Duchy of Milan under the Sforza dynasty. I think Florence's UB and UU should be more "artistic", like some museum or bonuses on stoneworks.

I support the thesis that if Italy "deserve" a civ, it has to be the modern and united country. And this would mean a Savoy or Cavour or Garibaldi as leader - depending on the flavour they wish to add: an "organized", a "financial" or a warmonger leader (Civ4 speaking ). Except music, art in Italy has dropped dramatically in the last centuries. And yes, Grillo would be another choice as a leader.

P.S.: I wish to have a ticket for that front row too!

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'd rather have Charlemagne over Louis or Napoleon.

I don't think Charlemagne should be the sole leader of France. Calling him a leader of France is a bit anachronistic. It would be like having Augustus as leader of Italy as opposed to Rome. However, if they brought back multiple leaders, he wouldn't be bad as one of several leaders of France.

 

[InsanelyApple]

I don't think Charlemagne should be the sole leader of France. Calling him a leader of France is a bit anachronistic. It would be like having Augustus as leader of Italy as opposed to Rome. However, if they brought back multiple leaders, he wouldn't be bad as one of several leaders of France.

As much as the opinion is hated around these parts, I'd like the Holy Roman Empire to return with Charlemagne as the leader. One could argue he could be the leader of France, Germany, or Austria, but denying the Holy Roman Empire as the one of the main predecessors to the modern France and Germany would be inaccurate.

However, I think Austria in the game is suppose to represent the HRE because of their diplomatic marriage ability and the fact the leader calls herself the Holy Roman Empress.

EDIT: So it seems so far I have said in this thread four empires that I know won't be added until hell freezes over. The Athenian, Spartan, Macedon, and the Holy Roman Empire. I bet by the time the game is released I will have said around 10.

 

[ImperialChaos]

Yeah, Charlemagne was more of a Frankish king. I, too, would love to see the Holy Roman Empire under Charlie but it's unlikely.

edit: Scratch that he was.

 

[InsanelyApple]

Yeah, Charlemagne was more of a Frankish king. I, too, would love to see the Holy Roman Empire under Charlie but it's unlikely (and he wasn't really the founder of the HRE).

Well, my argument would be that he was the Holy Roman Emperor, but for some reason people argue that his empire still wasn't the Holy Roman Empire, but a Carolingian/Frankish Empire.

EDIT: I have a similar problem when people refer to the medieval and Renaissance Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire.

[rant]The citizens of the Empire referred to themselves as Romans, but historians call them something different! What? Remember the joke about the HRE? They weren't Holy, they weren't Roman, and they weren't an Empire. But we still refer to them as what they called themselves, the Holy Roman Empire. But we don't for the Romans? Ugh.[/rant]

EDIT2: I know I probably annoyed a ton of history geeks and historians with my rant.

 

[alpha2117]

Venice was an independent republic since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (Venice was founded from poeple running away from Aquileia, sacked by the Goths of Alaric) until Napoleon. I agree Venice should remain as a CS, that fit more in her case, but a Venetian civ would be quite a challenge - its UB and UU would probably be something naval, like the dromon.

Florence was an Illuminated republic known almost only for art and culture. Except Pisa and some other places in Tuscany or in its proximity, it had nothing geographically speaking, a lot like the Duchy of Milan under the Sforza dynasty. I think Florence's UB and UU should be more "artistic", like some museum or bonuses on stoneworks.

I support the thesis that if Italy "deserve" a civ, it has to be the modern and united country. And this would mean a Savoy or Cavour or Garibaldi as leader - depending on the flavour they wish to add: an "organized", a "financial" or a warmonger leader (Civ4 speaking ). Except music, art in Italy has dropped dramatically in the last centuries. And yes, Grillo would be another choice as a leader.

P.S.: I wish to have a ticket for that front row too!

The issue with Venice or any of the other smaller city based empires is if you bring in any one of them why are you choosing that one over the others? If the devs came up with a really killer game dynamic that made the design incredibly different then we would all be happy. If they didn't then it seems like there would be better choices elsewhere. A unified Italian civ could choose anything from post Roman Italian history design wise. They dont need to just choose elements from after the actual unification. Germany is a good example with a unit from the HRE and abilities from ancient times (co-opting barbarians). Leader wise Italy has so many historical choices if you look at the city state era that it's more a case of narrowing the list down than struggling to find one. If I was choosing I'm tempted to go with a Borgia because of the mix of political intrigue, religious elements, military and culture they really do cover most of the things I associate with that era of Italian history. There are plenty of other viable choices though.