Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[teriaky]

Well, to be fair, the Neo Babylonian Empire was the more powerful and more famous one. The Assyrians were the ones to basically destroy the Hittite Empire and the Neo Babylonian Empire were the ones to overthrow Assyria, so Babylon kind of trumps them all in the end (until Persia).

Isn't it the sea people who destroyed the Hittite Empire?

 

[turingmachine]

Isn't it the sea people who destroyed the Hittite Empire?

They officially fell during the whole Bronze Age collapse/Sea People thing but they had already lost most of their power and land to Assyria at that point weakening them beyond repair.

 

[phaethon16]

Edit.

 

[ImperialChaos]

And, like clockwork, this turns into another historical debate thread again.

 

[otaman1]

Well, to be fair, the Neo Babylonian Empire was the more powerful and more famous one. The Assyrians were the ones to basically destroy the Hittite Empire and the Neo Babylonian Empire were the ones to overthrow Assyria, so Babylon kind of trumps them all in the end (until Persia).

The only thing I get confuse with is Neo. I mean, what does that mean exactly? We have Babylonian & Assyrian Empire and then there's Neo-Babylonian & Neo-Assyrian Empire. Does it mean like New Empire?

 

[alpha2117]

I'm sorry, but what?
I can understand Kongo and Vietnam, but Australia and the Caribbean? What would they offer that makes Venice inferior in your eyes?

Australia is a modern nation with heavy "Western culture"-influence. There is nothing unique to Australia that isn't already covered by the Americans or the European modern-centric countries. Unless you mean the Aboriginals, but as much as I like them, I don't feel like they live up to the potential of Venice.

For the Western Indies one could argue that they'd bring Latin-American aspects to the game, but there's much better choices for that - Brazil being one of them, there's also Gran Colombia, Mexico or Argentina, which all would make decent additions as well. The Caribbean island nations bring nothing either, and since you already bring up their colonial name, why would the Western Indies be on par with those nations that colonized them in the first place, and whose cultures had been adapted by the Western Indies? They have even less of an argument than Australia because the Indies haven't contributed much to world history - Cuban missile crisis is quite literally the only noteworthy thing, and that was only a fraction of the struggle between 2 greater powers that controlled those island nations.

I sort of understand where you're coming from, but calling Venice out of place in a "worldbuilder" game, and naming the West Indies just makes me scratch my head a lot.



Not liking Brazil obviously means he has a subconscious issue with his sexuality.

Okay the case for Australia that clearly offers uniqueness. They have both the unique aboriginal culture and the fact that they are the only nation to evolve out of penal colonies. Either offers unique options that simply are not available in any other choice. They also offer resources and flora and fauna not found elsewhere. They have had a remarkable effect on science (especially medical science) and cover a huge chunk of the globe.

The West Indies were part of the driving force of expansion and culturally they are very different to other parts of the world. They have minimal Latin American elements as they are much more a mix of English/French/Indian and African cultures. They are the culture that developed out of slavery and much like Australia that offers a unique set of options that simply cannot be replicated elsewhere.

People tend to disrespect colonial civs on these boards sometimes but Canada, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa and Gran Columbia as well as the two above all offer some really nice design elements that developed from a mix of European culture and the factors at play in each of their locations. Lesser sized areas like Cuba and Haiti also have some nice elements.

I'd love a all colonial expansion with those places because in terms of design they offer uniqueness.

All the Euro civs are fine but the time period the devs tend to use has a certain sameness to it. Venice will probably feel like a mix of France and Portugal design wise. It's worthy of being a civ but I dont expect it to feel unique. I'd have rather them go for say Kongo or Vietnam who both fit the expansion elements and offer more design diversity

We see with Assyria that at a certain point a certain sameness creeps in. I call them Angry Babylon because Babylon has Walls and they have Wall smashing devices but other than that flavor wise they seem to be very similar.

I'd be happy to have 100's of civs with all the Euro choices as well as all the other areas but we dont get that option. In the situation we have I'd have preferred the devs to choose cultures that have more uniqueness to them. If we were getting Italy I'd have preferred a unified entity or a expansion/DLC with the various factions (Including neighbors Hungary and Switzerland) that made use of people like the Medici's and Borgia's. To me Venice is a half measure, if they were in they only feel right with their neighbors so I'd have goine Italy instead if they were hellbent on bringing that era of Italy in.

Venice is almost certainly in though so I just hope they use Canals in some way (which hopefully dont feel too much like Polders) and perhaps something to do with politics rather than focusing soley on trade and ending up feeling too similar to the trade civs already in.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Okay the case for Australia that clearly offers uniqueness. They have both the unique aboriginal culture and the fact that they are the only nation to evolve out of penal colonies. Either offers unique options that simply are not available in any other choice. They also offer resources and flora and fauna not found elsewhere. They have had a remarkable effect on science (especially medical science) and cover a huge chunk of the globe.

I think people who are so strongly against certain civs are taking this video game waaaaaay too seriously

I think if Australia were to be included that would be fine for one reason: If the devs one day see a market of Australia lovers. This is a video game that won't survive history, so we must give the people what they want in the now. That would be my philosophy at least. I would stick to all the 'major' civs for the most part but if I saw a fanbase for a Canada or other civ I would include it as the odd DLC every now and then

 

[turingmachine]

The only thing I get confuse with is Neo. I mean, what does that mean exactly? We have Babylonian & Assyrian Empire and then there's Neo-Babylonian & Neo-Assyrian Empire. Does it mean like New Empire?

It's just a shorthand to identify the two major periods. There was one empire centered at Babylon that got destroyed and then another that arose later. So one was the Old(er) empire and one was the later Neo or New(er) empire. They obviously didn't call themselves the Neo Babylonian Empire but just referred to themselves as Babylon, but today calling one Old and one New is a just quicker way for historians to indicate which period they're talking about.

 

[alpha2117]

I'm sorry, a West Indies civ? What have we come to?

I sincerely hope you don't mean post columbus West Indies. That would be tragedy level: Shakespearean.

Name one civ in the game that developed out of slavery? None. The West Indies however did and that offers a truly unique set of design elements.

People disrespect the post colonial options but if you examine them closely they usually offer a uniqueness that isn't found elsewhere.

At this point I would rather avoid the design sameness that is creeping in with Poland and Assyria and the way to do that is by moving away from Europe and Mesopotamia and looking at other options. Mali, Kongo, Ashanti, Sudan all offered some interesting African options and Vietnam, Timurid, Khazaria, Mughals all offered some interesting Asian options. I've also made cases for the various colonial options in other responses.

I'm not anti Europe or Mesopotomaia I'm just pro diversity of design and I see the current Euro and Meso designs replicating themselves in different combos. Assyria and Poland deserve to be civs but design wise they seem very familiar and I fully expect Venice to have similarities with Portugal and France.

West Indies wouldn't be in on sheer weight of what they have acheived but on design choices they offer things that nobody else does. I'd rather have that diversity of gameplay at this point and I think that somethign like West Indies if designed right would offer that.

 

[Pedro P]

The civilizations in the game and their uniqueness don't seems to be related on how far of Europe they are. Let's just compare Austria and Germany for example.

Most of the civs candidates proposed by the users have a unique gameplay, should they be a ancient Asian kingdom, a Amazonian tribe or a serene republic of the Mediterranean sea

The only real significant difference between European and non-European is usually on the aesthetic level.

 

[Yzman]

Name one civ in the game that developed out of slavery? None. The West Indies however did and that offers a truly unique set of design elements.

People disrespect the post colonial options but if you examine them closely they usually offer a uniqueness that isn't found elsewhere.

At this point I would rather avoid the design sameness that is creeping in with Poland and Assyria and the way to do that is by moving away from Europe and Mesopotamia and looking at other options. Mali, Kongo, Ashanti, Sudan all offered some interesting African options and Vietnam, Timurid, Khazaria, Mughals all offered some interesting Asian options. I've also made cases for the various colonial options in other responses.

I'm not anti Europe or Mesopotomaia I'm just pro diversity of design and I see the current Euro and Meso designs replicating themselves in different combos. Assyria and Poland deserve to be civs but design wise they seem very familiar and I fully expect Venice to have similarities with Portugal and France.

West Indies wouldn't be in on sheer weight of what they have acheived but on design choices they offer things that nobody else does. I'd rather have that diversity of gameplay at this point and I think that somethign like West Indies if designed right would offer that.

What do you mean by developed out of slavery?

 

[sendos]

Name one civ in the game that developed out of slavery? None. The West Indies however did and that offers a truly unique set of design elements.

People disrespect the post colonial options but if you examine them closely they usually offer a uniqueness that isn't found elsewhere.

At this point I would rather avoid the design sameness that is creeping in with Poland and Assyria and the way to do that is by moving away from Europe and Mesopotamia and looking at other options. Mali, Kongo, Ashanti, Sudan all offered some interesting African options and Vietnam, Timurid, Khazaria, Mughals all offered some interesting Asian options. I've also made cases for the various colonial options in other responses.

I'm not anti Europe or Mesopotomaia I'm just pro diversity of design and I see the current Euro and Meso designs replicating themselves in different combos. Assyria and Poland deserve to be civs but design wise they seem very familiar and I fully expect Venice to have similarities with Portugal and France.

West Indies wouldn't be in on sheer weight of what they have acheived but on design choices they offer things that nobody else does. I'd rather have that diversity of gameplay at this point and I think that somethign like West Indies if designed right would offer that.

The US had developed out of slavery, but I'm certain that's outside your context. So I refer to Yzman's question.

 

[alpha2117]

What do you mean by developed out of slavery?

The peoples of the West Indies are largely from Slave stock brought from Africa in the colonial era. Part of the reason they produce great sprinters is they share the West African fast twitch muscle propensity but also have better nutrition and healthcare as well as training. Culturally they have a lot of interesting design elements that aren't replicated elsewhere (except maybe Haiti) and thats my point. The unique elements offer design choices that you jsut dont get with the Euro and Meso civs.

Assyria is designed to be angry Babylon - both a science based with one having Walls and the other Wall smashers. Essentially Assyria is design wise Babylon with a few Hunnic traits thrown in.

Poland has been designed as a horse culture so it feels like the Huns and Mongols with some social elements thrown in.

Venice - well we have yet to see the design but we expect trade and culture elements. Again it comes from a certain period of European culture so in all likelyhood it will feel a bit like Portugal and France (with perhaps a bit of Spain)

I dont mind those civs in concept but in execution I'm afraid they dont feel fresh or unique to me in the way say Morocco's desert elements do or Brazil or even Zulu's melee based design. Indonesia is totally fresh design wise and I'm sure we are all intrigued as to exactly what the best way to play as them will be. In the end thats what I am looking for - new fresh ways to play the game.

At this point I just feel that a lot of the Euro and Meso civs are feeling familiar to other civs but the Colonial entities that developed out of Euro expansion offer some unique elements which make design easier. It's not about who is worthy of being a civ because just about anyone is worthy it's more about if they offer the possibility of truly unique gameplay.

 

[alpha2117]

The US had developed out of slavery, but I'm certain that's outside your context. So I refer to Yzman's question.

No the US used slavery and about 10% of their pop come from slave stock but in the West Indies that more like 90%. design wise you dont design the civ based on them coming from that slave background but the West Indies could use that.

 

[phaethon16]

Can I just say that I am not comfortable lumping Haiti, Cuba, and the West Indies in general in the same boat as Argentina and Canada. Some people above have, and while they are all colonial civs, the latter two are much more respectable candidates. My ideal list of new civs would be Israel, Argentina, Vietnam, Kongo, Mughals, Hungary, Canada, Nubia, and Italy (if Venice isn't in.) We may each have different preferences, but I think a future list would look similar, and with all those regions covered. For example, Vietnam and Khmer could be switched.

 

[Option]

The civilizations in the game and their uniqueness don't seems to be related on how far of Europe they are. Let's just compare Austria and Germany for example.

To be fair, Austria has a very long history reaching into the deep Medieval, with some cities even having history as Roman cities (Vienna's Roman name was Vindobona, for instance).
Since the rise of the Hapsburg dynasty, the Austrians had been a major power within Europe, and at the peak of the dynasty's possessions, they, above the Austrian corelands, owned Spain, the Netherlands/Belgium, Slovenia, Croatia, Bohemia and Silesia (which essentially result in the current day Czech Rep., Slovakia and southwestern Poland) several parts of Germany, Austria and France, and big parts of Hungary and Romania, which essentially was about a quarter or so of Europe.
They also played a big role in European history and culture, being one of the first multi-cultural melting pots.

Granted, I was surprised at their inclusion above many other cultures, but I'm not particularly opposed to it, since they played a significant role in history.

 

[Pedro P]

To be fair, Austria has a very long history reaching into the deep Medieval, with some cities even having history as Roman cities (Vienna's Roman name was Vindobona, for instance).
Since the rise of the Hapsburg dynasty, the Austrians had been a major power within Europe, and at the peak of the dynasty's possessions, they, above the Austrian corelands, owned Spain, the Netherlands/Belgium, Slovenia, Croatia, Bohemia and Silesia (which essentially result in the current day Czech Rep., Slovakia and southwestern Poland) several parts of Germany, Austria and France, and big parts of Hungary and Romania, which essentially was about a quarter or so of Europe.
They also played a big role in European history and culture, being one of the first multi-cultural melting pots.

Granted, I was surprised at their inclusion above many other cultures, but I'm not particularly opposed to it, since they played a significant role in history.

I was not questioning Austria in at all, much less questioning the importance of the Hapsburg. I was just showing how two close European states of similar cultures can render a very different gameplays.

 

[Arachnofiend]

The only thing I get confuse with is Neo. I mean, what does that mean exactly? We have Babylonian & Assyrian Empire and then there's Neo-Babylonian & Neo-Assyrian Empire. Does it mean like New Empire?

It's a historical classification. The Babylonian Empire was Hammurabi's and the Neo-Babylonian Empire was Nebuchadnezzar's. They obviously both called themselves Babylon but historians need to differentiate them.

 

[Tavriets]

Let's be honest: The name of the civ is just a label and does not by itself guarantee interesting gameplay. And not always do the UAs, UBs, UIs and UUs reflect the most well known characteristics of the name giving civilisation. Or would you say that India is mostly known for having very few but huge cities?
Having said that, I think Venice could give enough inspiration for a number of interesting uniques:
Canals, naval settlers, explorers, glass blowers, trading ships to name but a few. Maybe they have Great Architects as a UU, which is a GE who always produces a load of tourism, when he contributes to a building project.
And if the Brazilians can have a carnival golden age, then Venice can have something similar.
There are more than enough ideas for interesting gameplay variants if you try.

Yes, correct, just a a label. So why CivV needs yet another one label of trade maritime civ? There already heaps of them and two of them come with BNW (Portugal and Indonesia). Of course, if die is already cast and Venice is chosen, then it is just a matter of imagination to find at least something more or less unique for any civ. Apparently Venice will get some upgraded cargo ship.
As for uniqueness, canals didn't make Venice great, moreover they exist in single Venetian city. Naval settlers? In what way they are different from Greek, Phonetician, Genoan or Polynesian ones? and so on... Just only Portugal already has all the features you mentioned. And the same, why it is necessary to repeat Brazilian carnival within other civ when they could add really different civ instead?!

 

[DonStamos]

No the US used slavery and about 10% of their pop come from slave stock but in the West Indies that more like 90%. design wise you dont design the civ based on them coming from that slave background but the West Indies could use that.

10 percent is rather low. The number was consistently closer to 20 percent until the census of 1850.

Even so, you're greatly diminishing the role slavery played in America through the Civil War.