Brave New World's 9 new Civs

[Sonereal]

Yay for off topic discussion..

Btw seriously, ther IS penalty for shrinkage, you lose beakers, meaning less beakers, meaning longer research times, meaning a good chance that you begin to be outtech by AI/other players.

There is a penalty for shrinkage. No one argued that. I argued that once you're on top, there is really nothing stopping you. In every Paradox game, there is stuff you have to worry about that uniquely exists on the top, and Crusader Kings is the best example of that. The only possible drawback is unhappiness and social policies, but even those can be overcome by sheer scale.

Hopefully, BNW will fix this by increasing interdepency, something that does not exist in Civilization V on a meaningful level.

 

[tmt393]

I think Civ V is definitely due for a Native American civ. The Sioux have already been used in previous games so I would put my money on them. Although, so have the Apache.

 

[Merciorum]

Still, greek was the official language of Byzantium. One could think the Anatolian holdings as territories held under the rule of the greek majority. Under the rule of the greek civilization, if you would like to say..

Every time someone says that Byzantium=Greece, a little more of me dies inside. They were a fusion of Roman structure and tradition with the Greek language and a mostly Greek populace, and a culture which was a mix of Greek and Roman. They were very definitely a civ in their own right, even if they were technically Roman right until the very end, and would always consider themselves thus.

 

[otaman1]

Saying Greece is Byzantium is like saying Greece is Ottoman ... Byzantiums spoke Greek, and partially Latin but were not Greeks. They were (correct me if I'm wrong) Romans. Like the Ottomans, they are Turks not Greeks. They did not speak Greek but Turkish (though very little Turk descendants spoke Greek) and Arabic? I'm not sure about that one

 

[Art Grin]

They were (correct me if I'm wrong) Romans.

Not really.
The Byzantines were Greeks pretending to be Romans.

 

[Xandinho]

I would love to see the Toltecs game
although they have not built a civilization large enough to have many cities to be included in the game

 

[Merciorum]

Not really.
The Byzantines were Greeks pretending to be Romans.

They were Romans. They were the direct continuation of the Roman state.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Not really.
The Byzantines were Greeks pretending to be Romans.

Pretty much sums them up. They were one civ (Greeks) wearing the skin of another civ (Romans). Presumably while listening to Goodbye Horses and asking "Would you sack me? I'd sack me."

Joking aside though, they're still culturally different enough due to this odd hybrid culture they had going on, and they still had their own quirks that didn't really come from Greek -or- Roman culture.

 

[fuzzatron717]

Art Grin is right they were Greek but they were also Bulgarian, Serbian and Armenian the Latin people were stuck in what's now Italy. Even the emperors were Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Armenians.

 

[Melo-Franco]

I'm glad Menzies has not enough decision-making power to implement his follies (I hope so).

 

[cybrxkhan]

The Byzantines have every right to be a civ, in my opinion - they are neither the classical Rome or Greece as represented in-game. The issue is not so much them, in my opinion, it's the Eurocentrism. If we have the Byzantines, then why shouldn't India be at least split between the north and the south? Heck, why shouldn't we have Nepal, Bengal, the Kushans, Mughals, etc. instead of the India blob, for instance? Stuff like that. That is why I would see the hesitancy for having the Bbyzantines as a civ.

 

[DonStamos]

I'd love to see India and China done a whole lot better than they have been, but I'm betting they're just blobbed together because the average American (the main market) has no idea what Vijayanagara or Xi'an meant, who Ashoka, Qianlong, Shihuangdi, the Mughals, the Rajputs, etc are, or even that India and China weren't united for the longest time.

 

[Gali]

Why can people not understand that the Byzantines, an empire that lasted a 1000 years with a unique culture deserves to be in. Also Byzantium is not European. Their heartland was Anatolia and they had holdings in Africa, Europe and Asia. They lost most of Greece for 200 years because it wasn't important to them. The Balkans became important because it was a heartland safe from their biggest threat, the Turks. Go read Anna Comnenus' description of the Crusaders to see how European they were. They viewed the crusaders as boorish barbarians and aliens, and felt greater kinship with the Turks.

The Roman civ represents the Republic and the height of the Empire. Byzantium is different culturally, religiously, militarily and politically from that civ. Same for the Greeks. They represent classical Hellenistic civilization that was conquered by the Romans. The Byzantines looked back to that time but were very different. This is not HRE and Austria or Mali and Songhai where the second state is clearly a continuation of the first and maintains the same general structure. As for the Ottomans if they overlap with the Byzantines than either Rome is in or pretty much all of Europe is out. The Ottomans were different religiously, militarily, ethnically, politically and culturally than the Byzantines.

As for the desire to spread other civs out that becomes a question of limited resources.

 

[DiogenesK9]

Anatolia wasn't just a holding, they were the people of Anatolia at the time, the Turks came much later. That would be like saying that Gaul was merely a "holding under Celtic majority". They were a unique people and culture in their own right being being wiped out, and whilst they have to an extent mixed with what we'd now call "Greece" in a modern sense, they aren't the same as the Ancient Greece that is within the game. This is one of those grey areas though, where they are "Greek" enough, at least in the modern sense, to be potentially be Greece, while themselves being unique enough, and their effect being large enough, to justify being a Civilization in their own right.

Very true about Byzantium, in fact, for much of its history, most of the army and aristocracy was Armenian. Armenians even ruled the empire at its height, though they're called the Macedonian Dynasty for some reason (though i may be late to the conversation, I didn't want to miss the opportunity to share that. I think this may be the first time its been relevant to bring up since I learned that in school).

 

[Gucumatz]

I would love to see the Toltecs game
although they have not built a civilization large enough to have many cities to be included in the game

Not true at all, their Empire spread from Mexico to the Maya world conquering and establishing famous cities like Mayapan. Remember, the Toltecs are the home of Quetzalcoatl/Kukulcan/Topiltzin/Gukumatz the God/King that created the largest Empire in Mesoamerican history and sailed east promising to return to his people one day [And although the Aztecs mistook Cortez as Quetzalcoatl, Topiltzin is far from the only possible leader for the Toltecs either]

Toltec city list:

Capital: Tula


Mayapan
Xochicalco
Calixtlahuaca
Malinalco
Chapultepec
Tepozitlan
Tetzmoliuhuacan
Tzintzuntzan
Hueyapan
Mazatepec
Atlacomulco
Chichen Itza
Itztepetl
Cuauhnáhuac
Cuernavaca
Zacatollan
Teul
Petatlan
Tamuin
Teayo
Xocotitlan
Quemada
Atazta
Tetela
Balankanche
Apatzinga
Cacaxtla
Tzinapecuaro
Xiuhquilpan
Tollantzinco

Etc...

There are plenty of Toltec sites around, 0 problem with a city list

 

[DiogenesK9]

Saying Greece is Byzantium is like saying Greece is Ottoman ... Byzantiums spoke Greek, and partially Latin but were not Greeks. They were (correct me if I'm wrong) Romans. Like the Ottomans, they are Turks not Greeks. They did not speak Greek but Turkish (though very little Turk descendants spoke Greek) and Arabic? I'm not sure about that one

I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying the Byzantines were Turks?? Cause the Byzantines are kind of the opposite of the Turks.

 

[fuzzatron717]

Saying Greece is Byzantium is like saying Greece is Ottoman ... Byzantiums spoke Greek, and partially Latin but were not Greeks. They were (correct me if I'm wrong) Romans. Like the Ottomans, they are Turks not Greeks. They did not speak Greek but Turkish (though very little Turk descendants spoke Greek) and Arabic? I'm not sure about that one

How dare you sir accuse such things against the Byzantines. As a honorary Byzantiphile I know my Byzantine history the people were primarily Greek, Armenian, Serbs, and Bulgars they were not Turks. Turks came from the east such as central asia and from western Siberia. They came with Seljuk's and various different groups from the east they started settling in Anatolia in between 1250-1350 Ad. They only became known when the Muslims were revolting against the Christians. The Turks were not always there they were Balkan peoples plus the Armenians.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Why can people not understand that the Byzantines, an empire that lasted a 1000 years with a unique culture deserves to be in. Also Byzantium is not European. Their heartland was Anatolia and they had holdings in Africa, Europe and Asia. They lost most of Greece for 200 years because it wasn't important to them. The Balkans became important because it was a heartland safe from their biggest threat, the Turks. Go read Anna Comnenus' description of the Crusaders to see how European they were. They viewed the crusaders as boorish barbarians and aliens, and felt greater kinship with the Turks.

The Roman civ represents the Republic and the height of the Empire. Byzantium is different culturally, religiously, militarily and politically from that civ. Same for the Greeks. They represent classical Hellenistic civilization that was conquered by the Romans. The Byzantines looked back to that time but were very different. This is not HRE and Austria or Mali and Songhai where the second state is clearly a continuation of the first and maintains the same general structure. As for the Ottomans if they overlap with the Byzantines than either Rome is in or pretty much all of Europe is out. The Ottomans were different religiously, militarily, ethnically, politically and culturally than the Byzantines.

As for the desire to spread other civs out that becomes a question of limited resources.

This post is just so full of errors...
My favourite one:
"This is not HRE and Austria or Mali and Songhai where the second state is clearly a continuation of the first and maintains the same general structure."
Wrong on so many levels...
Byzantium is somewhat the continuation of Rome, that was the main point of some of the posts previously yours. HRE and Austria are totally different structures, and Austria is by no means continuation of the other. Mali and Songhai are 2 completely separate states/nations, which were at some point of their history dominated most territory of the other. Not really different than France and Germany for example

 

[j51]

Remember in almost all historical migrations the genetic stock remains almost completely the same and the majority of people simply adopt the language, faith, and culture of the new occupiers.

Edit: Culture is a very mutable property and the people occupying the same political entity or geographic space would have little in common with those 1000, even 500 years before. There is never a clear dividing lines for these things. These arguments will just go in circles.

 

[AbsintheRed]

How dare you sir accuse such things against the Byzantines. As a honorary Byzantiphile I know my Byzantine history the people were primarily Greek, Armenian, Serbs, and Bulgars they were not Turks. Turks came from the east such as central asia and from western Siberia. They came with Seljuk's and various different groups from the east they started settling in Anatolia in between 1250-1350 Ad. They only became known when the Muslims were revolting against the Christians. The Turks were not always there they were Balkan peoples plus the Armenians.

The dominant culture in Anatolia was greek (or as a mixture of greek-roman, as others pointed out), up until the Seljuk invasions started in 1077.
The cultural structure of Anatolia slowly shifted to Turkish in the upcoming centuries, that's why the Ottoman's had such an easy job a couple centuries later