Brave new World's New Civilizations - REVISED AGAIN!

[blackcatatonic]

I'd like to see Phoenicia, but Carthage's trait being called 'Phoenician Heritage' doesn't give me a lot of hope on that score.

 

[Stonecutter9]

Carthage was a colony of Phoenicia! Saying Carthage equals covers Phoenicia is like saying America equals covers England, or Brazil equals covers Portugal, and this is simply untrue.

 

[Godswood]

So how about you expand on how a Phoenician civ may work in the game?

 

[steveg700]

Carthage was a colony of Phoenicia! Saying Carthage equals Phoenicia is like saying America equals England, or Brazil equals Portugal, and this is simply untrue.

Well, you can certainly have an America and England civ that play very differently from each other. What could be done with Phoenicia that wouldn't wind up overlapping with Carthage's naval focus?

 

[MARDUK80]

I'd like to see Phoenicia, but Carthage's trait being called 'Phoenician Heritage' doesn't give me a lot of hope on that score.

I dunno... to me that doesn't eliminate the Phoenicia. I see it more as a link to the 'mother civ'.

If Pygmalion of Tyre were to be the Phoenician leader he would also have link in personal level to Dido; In Virgil's epic poem The Aeneid, Pygmalion is the cruel-hearted brother of Dido who secretly kills Dido's husband Sychaeus because of his lust for gold.

Well, you can certainly have an America and England civ that play very differently from each other. What could be done with Phoenicia that wouldn't wind up overlapping with Carthage's naval focus?

Well, as Carthage simply gets free Harbors, I see Phoenician ability focused more on the Naval units/promotions like generating Great Admirals faster, unique ability for Admirals or special bonuses with Maritime City-States. Like, for example, these two old UA's would make Phoenicia completely different over Carthage. I think they would be more closer to the Ottomans Barbary Corsairs ability than Carthaginian.

- First Sailors. Science and Happiness boast when meeting a city state on a different continent. Larger Science boost and 4-turn Golden Age when meeting a major civilization on a different continent
- Thalassocracy. In peace time, all naval units contribute +0.5 happiness. In wartime, all naval units gain +2 ranged strength.

 

[Gdown94]

Vietnam and Siam aren't interchangeable - thats a bit like saying France & Germany are interchangeable.

I say that Siam covers Vietnam, not in the sense that they are the same people/empire, but in the sense that that is all we're likely to see from Firaxis in southeast Asia. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that historically, Siam was a larger/greater (subjective, not definitive here) empire/dynasty than Vietnam, the latter of which spent a decent amount of their time as a tributary kingdom to China. Yes, I know that other civs were in a similar situation (US, Brazil, etc), but I just don't see sufficient reason for Firaxis to add Vietnam to the game. Of course, I could be wrong.

Their proximity isn't helping them either. Not that that is a great judge of what Firaxis will put out, as the European civs are all close (I think Hungary should be excluded for this reason, but that's just me). Still, for the reasons listed above, I think that Siam is all we will see from SE asia in Civ V, excluding perhaps Indonesia, which isn't necessarily SE Asia as much as it is an intermediary between SE Asia and Oceania. Again, I'm not saying that historically Siam can exchange for Vietnam. I know history much better than that.

As for Phoenecia, I still think it would be nice to see them as a civ. However, I view them more as a trading/science civ, perhaps getting a science bonus through trade. They did develop the first alphabet (that we know of), one that, as far as we know, is the ultimate source of all other alphabets.

I think it would be interesting as well to see an Etruscan civ, but that's pushing it a bit, perhaps...

 

[cybrxkhan]

I say that Siam covers Vietnam, not in the sense that they are the same people/empire, but in the sense that that is all we're likely to see from Firaxis in southeast Asia. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that historically, Siam was a larger/greater (subjective, not definitive here) empire/dynasty than Vietnam, the latter of which spent a decent amount of their time as a tributary kingdom to China. Yes, I know that other civs were in a similar situation (US, Brazil, etc), but I just don't see sufficient reason for Firaxis to add Vietnam to the game. Of course, I could be wrong.

Their proximity isn't helping them either. Not that that is a great judge of what Firaxis will put out, as the European civs are all close (I think Hungary should be excluded for this reason, but that's just me). Still, for the reasons listed above, I think that Siam is all we will see from SE asia in Civ V, excluding perhaps Indonesia, which isn't necessarily SE Asia as much as it is an intermediary between SE Asia and Oceania. Again, I'm not saying that historically Siam can exchange for Vietnam. I know history much better than that.

Vietnam was under China for 1000 years, but it has been independent long before and long afterwards. I dont think there is much a case for saying Siam was more powerful than Vietnam. Before the French colonization of IndoChina, Cambodia, the former great Khmer Empire, had to pay tribute to both Siam and Vietnam, and had it not been for colonization I'm pretty sure Cambodia woud have been gobbled up by both (as it already had started anyways) whereupon Siam and Vietnam would duke it out (though the two had already fought many times previously). What I mean to say here is that Siam and Vietnam were at least equal in terms of power before European colonization, which changed the ballgame in SE Asia (as it did in other parts of the world anyways). In terms of size, the largest empires in Southeast Asia are either Burma (if you're only counting the continental ones) or one of the Indonesian thassalocracies (forgot which one was the largest). Anyhow, the fact that Vietnam still paid tribute to China long after independence isn't too relevant in judging its power and importance - states like Japan, Korea, Nepal, various Central Asian polities, and Siam (I think) all paid tribute to China. Vietnam, out of all the SE Asian cultures, is probably an oddball - ratherunique - in that it was Sinicized, not Indicized.

Some of us here are banking on a SE Asian civ because we're certain or judge it highly likely that the devs will add in at least one Asian civ in BNW, as they haven't done anything since Korea while more or less all of the other regions of the world have gotten something (even if it isn't enough such as in the case of Africa they still are getting something), so that leads many of us to suspect it would either be Central Asian or Southeast Asian as those two areas haven't seen as much. As for Indonesia, I think in most peoples minds its still associated with Southeast Asia for historical and cultural reasons besides geographical ones, soan Indonesia civ would count as SE Asian in my opinion

 

[AessaSH]

... In terms of size, the largest empires in Southeast Asia are either Burma (if you're only counting the continental ones) or one of the Indonesian thassalocracies (forgot which one was the largest). Anyhow, the fact that Vietnam still paid tribute to China long after independence isn't too relevant in judging its power and importance - states like Japan, Korea, Nepal, various Central Asian polities, and Siam (I think) all paid tribute to China. Vietnam, out of all the SE Asian cultures, is probably an oddball - ratherunique - in that it was Sinicized, not Indicized.

... As for Indonesia, I think in most peoples minds its still associated with Southeast Asia for historical and cultural reasons besides geographical ones, soan Indonesia civ would count as SE Asian in my opinion

The largest one is Indonesia of course..

Yeah, Vietnam and other civs has a reason for paying a tribute to China..
Because in China, the tribute system provide both an administrative means to control their interests, as well as a means of providing exclusive trading priorities to those who paid tribute from foreign regions..
That's why every countries wanting to trade with China had to send “tribute” missions that legitimized China's superiority and suzerainty and in return they could trade for a specified number of days at border points designated by Beijing..
Even the Europeans, who had first entered the Chinese waters as early as the sixteenth century, had submitted to trade within the highly restrictive Chinese system..
^I love to see China's UA reworked to representing this aspect..

Being a sinicized civ is a bit unfavorable IMO if we look at the ratio of "Sinicized civs : Indicized civs" for the sake of cultural diversity..

Yes, Indonesia is clearly a SEA country.. They are politically, culturally, and geographically linked with SEA..
As long as the core of Indonesian civ is from the (ex) Sundaland area, they are clearly member of SEA..

 

[CivilianSam]

Well I might as well chime in and add my preferred civs and reasons why. If I had any money I'd wanna bet someone that these will be the choices

1) Indonesia (Majapahit Empire, 1293-1500). Would work perfectly for the new coffee resource, as others have mentioned. Also the Wikipedia article description - at least - makes it sound Civ-worthy:
"Majapahit was a vast thalassocratic archipelagic empire based on the island of Java (modern-day Indonesia) from 1293 to around 1500....... According to the Nagarakretagama (Desawarñana) written in 1365, Majapahit was an empire of 98 tributaries, stretching from Sumatra to New Guinea.....

....Majapahit was one of the last major empires of the region and is considered to be one of the greatest and most powerful empires in the history of Indonesia and Southeast Asia, one that is sometimes seen as the precedent for Indonesia's modern boundaries."

2) Morocco -- just seems to work, and everyone else seems to like it. I like the idea of Nubia, too, so either one of those for #2.

3) Hungarian Empire: Was a major medieval kingdom for like 500 years, and I don't think the game already has a civ from this geographic region (modern-day Romania, Croatia, Hungary, etc). Austria would be the closest thing in the game so far, but they're by and large a whole separate thing.
This link is the Wikipedia article on this empire

4) Mexico! People don't give Mexico enough credit for this kinda thing.... They're a major modern power with a rich history, rich culture, and would be a needed addition to the sparse New World group of civs.
Many forget that Mexico has been involved in major wars with Spain, France, and the United States over the past couple of centuries. Today, its population is pretty major at 115 million, has large land-area, and massive Mexico City is often called the NYC of Latin America. Their culture, especially their cuisine, has a presence in places all over the world (tho i realize that influence is strongest in the USA/Canada).

Ideally Mexico would enjoy some kind of food-related culture, or food-related happiness bonus.

Their unique building could be some kind of cool food-producing building to replace the regular granary.... Ideally a maize resource would be introduced to the game to compliment an addition of Mexico as a civ (would like to see rice paddies for marshes too, but thats another story)


.... Soooo yeah those are my choices & predictions for BNW

 

[Stonecutter9]

Here's how I'd envision Phoenicia in BNW...

Unique Unit: Bireme. Replaces Cargo Ship. Requires Sailing (or whatever tech unlocks Cargo Ship). Costs 15% less than Cargo Ship. Earns 15% more from trade routes.
Unique Building: Cothon. Replaces Harbor. Requires Optics (not Compass!). +1 food, +1 production from sea resources. Produces naval units 15% faster. Produces Biremes 20% faster.
Unique Ability: Trading Colonies. Earns 15% more from foreign trade routes.
Leader: Hiram I OR Ithobaal I
Colors: Purple and Aqua Blue
Capital: Tyre

 

[phaethon16]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see Mexico as a civ. Today they're relatively important, but for a long time they were just another Latin American country with an agricultural economy, some dictators, and a few lost wars. Mexico is cool, but I don't think they warrant inclusion and besides agriculture, I' m not sure which gameplay options it would offer.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I guess this might be callous but I basically just count the Aztecs as "Mexico." I guess it sort of is because I wouldn't say the Iroquois would count as the USA but I don't know, I'd rather have different areas of geography covered now I guess.

If we had more than 4 slots for Civs left I wouldn't mind a Mexico though theoretically

 

[CivilianSam]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see Mexico as a civ. Today they're relatively important, but for a long time they were just another Latin American country with an agricultural economy, some dictators, and a few lost wars. Mexico is cool, but I don't think they warrant inclusion and besides agriculture, I' m not sure which gameplay options it would offer.

Yeah, I admit it's not the most solid pick. But I still include it in my picks because I think we need another New World civilization. While I do think you're right about pretty much everything you said, I still think Mexico would fit the bill better than other ideas being floated around like the Apache or Cherokee..... or, gasp, even the Iroquois... but thats just me.

AlsoI had forgotten about the Aztecs.... that helps shoot down the mexico idea too :/

 

[Stonecutter9]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see Mexico as a civ. Today they're relatively important, but for a long time they were just another Latin American country with an agricultural economy, some dictators, and a few lost wars. Mexico is cool, but I don't think they warrant inclusion and besides agriculture, I' m not sure which gameplay options it would offer.

Not to offend, but wouldn't this be largely true of Argentina? At least Mexico had the ancient history factor with Mesoamerica and all...

 

[alpha2117]

Not to offend, but wouldn't this be largely true of Argentina? At least Mexico had the ancient history factor with Mesoamerica and all...

Unfortunately that argument makes the case against inclusion because in that case the Aztecs are already in.

Mexico, Canada, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, West Indies and others are all in the same colonial boat. They are recent colonial civs but have steadily grown in importance as the Europcentric version of the world has changed to a more global one. Brazil coming in hurts Argentina or any other latin american civ, the Zulus hurt Sth Africa and the Aztecs hurt Mexico. West Indies was actually part of the driver for the whole expansion of the world and the scramble for Africa but it doesn't seem to ahve much support as a civ. Canada is most likely to get a Native civ if it ever gets a rep. Australia the worlds 12th biggest economy and the only country to cover a whole continental landmass has obvious credentials but it doesn't seem to have the same sort of support as something like a Gran Columbia would as a colonial civ. In the end I think colonial civs are getting Brazil and thats it this time out.

 

[phaethon16]

Not to offend, but wouldn't this be largely true of Argentina? At least Mexico had the ancient history factor with Mesoamerica and all...

Ha, that's actually a good point! The answer to that is that Argentina had a bigger export market for a while, and they owned their own economy, while Mexican agricture for a while lay in the hands of foreigners. Additionally, Argentina has a few more distinctive things like tango, a massive immigrant population, and the Peronist movement that all translate well into game play options. Currently, Mexico is playing catch-up with the rest of the developed world, while Argentina is more established. In other words, the similarities are there, but Argentina has sort of a more mature, distictive history. Good question though, I'm glad someone asked it.

 

[Luziadus]

i think firaxis should have released 5 expansions packs (like the sims), each one related to one continent and its civs/tribes/kingdoms/empires.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Canada is most likely to get a Native civ if it ever gets a rep. Australia the worlds 12th biggest economy and the only country to cover a whole continental landmass has obvious credentials but it doesn't seem to have the same sort of support as something like a Gran Columbia would as a colonial civ. In the end I think colonial civs are getting Brazil and thats it this time out.

I have some problems with a Canadian or Australian civ (I might elaborate later). I think (Gran) Colombia is the most likely candidate for a post-colonial civ, followed by Mexico and then Argentina.

Ha, that's actually a good point! The answer to that is that Argentina had a bigger export market for a while, and they owned their own economy, while Mexican agricture for a while lay in the hands of foreigners. Additionally, Argentina has a few more distinctive things like tango, a massive immigrant population, and the Peronist movement that all translate well into game play options. Currently, Mexico is playing catch-up with the rest of the developed world, while Argentina is more established. In other words, the similarities are there, but Argentina has sort of a more mature, distictive history. Good question though, I'm glad someone asked it.

I think you're being very Argentinian now . Argentina is not more established in the developed world, sorry but it isn't. At early 20th century it was the strongest Latin American economy, that's true. It was also a cultural center, that's true. But Mexico does have a stronger economy and cultural presence nowadays, plus it's history is full of wars with European powers. Argentina's only wars after it's independence were to free the Uruguayans from Brazil (and you didn't even manage to annex them) and to devastate Paraguay. Argentina and Mexico are more or less even, but since the game is made in the USA, I think Mexico has a slight advantage.

I guess this might be callous but I basically just count the Aztecs as "Mexico."

Actually, the Aztecs aren't Aztecs at all. They are the Mexica. That said, Mexico is very different from the Mexicas, and they are deserving of their own civilization.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Ha, that's actually a good point! The answer to that is that Argentina had a bigger export market for a while, and they owned their own economy, while Mexican agricture for a while lay in the hands of foreigners. Additionally, Argentina has a few more distinctive things like tango, a massive immigrant population, and the Peronist movement that all translate well into game play options. Currently, Mexico is playing catch-up with the rest of the developed world, while Argentina is more established. In other words, the similarities are there, but Argentina has sort of a more mature, distictive history. Good question though, I'm glad someone asked it.

To say Argentina has a more "mature" and "distinctive" history is rather condenscending, I think.

Mexico has its uniqueness in terms of history. Its history is much more closely related to that of the US compared to virtually any other Latin American country. I also think you underplay its regional importance. It is and was arguably the most important nation in Central America (not to mention most of Central America used to be part of Mexico for a while anyways). It was important enough that the second time it established a monarchy, the monarch was sent from the Hapsburg dynasty. Also remember that Mexico used to control like a quarter of the current-day US, a region which saw a lot of cultural interchange, including Texas. Mexico's cultural influence on the US (particularly the southwest) is undeniable, and the fact that Mexican culture is what many people think of when they think of stereotypes of Latin America shows the extent of Mexico's influence. Argentina's uniqueness is different - not more unique, I suppose, but different - in that culturally, as a result of its state-sponsored near-extermination of native peoples, it has become a melting pot of various European cultures.

The real thing going against Mexico, in my opinion, as opposed to Argentina, is not so much whether one is more important or more unique, but rather the fact that Mexico is where the Aztecs or Mayans are. Still, I don't think this is much against htem given that we already have geographically overlapping civs like Greece-Byzantium-Rome-Turkey, Assyria-Babylon, Egypt-Carthage-Arabia, Celts-England-France and so on.

Ultimately, remember the game is made in the US, and its biggest audience (so far as I know) is in the US. Mexico would be easily recognizable in terms of uniqueness, much more than Argentina (that's not to say its more unique, but rather that most Americans are more likely to know about Mexico than Argentina)

 

[Asogax the GFM]

Maybe I'm wrong but I have read nothing about Indus Civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_civilization). Just one of the first civilization with Sumer and Egypt....
Even for just a city state (Harappa, Mohenjo Daro).
Strange, don't you think ?

Absolutly a candidate