New BNW FAQ!

[ImperialChaos]

Bah. We don't need more Europeans, although the landmass/Euro culture clue is intriguing. That points either to Italy/Venice, Argentina (most European country in South America), or, if they go with Eurasian landmass, maybe the Asian countries or perhaps something like Armenia.

Argentina and Armenia can't be in the game due to the achievement list of the nine civs in alphabetical order: Assyria is the first and Brazil after it; nothing before it or between them .

 

[Uberfrog]

Venice, not Italy. Italy of the form people expect was not known principally as a trading power, but as a cultural one. Including Italy and giving it a non-cultural UA would be as bizarre as, well, including Portugal and not tying it to exploration. Oh, wait...

Except that while mainly known as explorers, the Portuguese were also traders so that does genuinely reflect their civ, just not as well as it might do. "Italy" as a conglomerate, or as a collection of city states, was not especially well-known as a trading power, certainly not enough for it to be a better fit than Venice, Morocco or Indonesia.

A unique caravel replacement with +1 movement is not exactly no exploration benefit, and the Nau's and Feitoria's ability actively encourages seeking foreign city states and civs. It makes the civ more interesting than making exploration the sole focus of their UA.

Another thing to consider is that Venice (or Italy) as a trade civ means two renaissance-era trade-oriented European (Mediterannean!) civs at once. They'll probably be more diverse than that.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

Well, then maybe Romania. Also- they said the next civ they wanted to reveal had the text. They didn't indicate, however, that that civ was the same as the next European civ. Therefore, I'm guessing the next civ is some Indonesian civ (if so, hurray!).

 

[PhilBowles]

I would be seriously insulted if Indonesia becomes a Civ.

It barely is a country for 50 years, and hasnt had a significant impact on history, nor does it have now.

You need to learn more about it. Despite being recent in its modern form, its borders are essentially those of the earlier Majapahit state, which was the boundary used by the Dutch to demarcate their territory, and that had a longer history.

And even outside that heritage, it's myopic to claim that Indonesia hasn't had a significant impact in its short recent history. It was a major Western ally in the Cold War, it has the world's largest Islamic population, it's a major regional power and a founder member of a large number of regional treaty organisations.

 

[Villager720]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you
Cases against Italy:

1. France is getting a UA overhaul involving Great Works, so we don't necessarily "need" a Civ to take advantage of the new Great Works mechanic.
2. This expansion focuses on the Industrial+ game. G&Ks was the Classical-Renaissance. If Renaissance Italy couldn't make it in the Into the Renaissance scenario, why now?
3. Its listed in the Scramble Achieves with the Boers and Belgium. If they're carefully making sure to exclude "spoiler" achievements, why include Italy?
4. Representing Renaissance Italy as a conglomeration, in my opinion, is near heresy. The Italian peninsula during the Renaissance was defined by the competing city states. Sure, Firaxis did the same to Greece, but under Alexander (an apt leader to choose for a Greek conglomerate) they were a unified entity.
5. The absence of city states and their color schemes seem a little too much to run with. The original proposer of that theory has taken other patterns to mean more than they did (BNW announcement date).

 

[wigwam]

But what if it's turn-of-the-century Italy? Basically an Italian version of the Germany we already have?

 

[PhilBowles]

Yes. But why is it on the poster? WHHHYYY? If they were just filling space they could have used the Brazilwood Camp. It haunts me!

Haven't we already seen different art styles for the citadel in BNW? My best guess is that they're adding era-based graphics for GP improvements, and they decided to reuse this graphic. It may also be a generic early improvement new to the game (I don't know if we've seen the early medieval tech tree to rule that out).

With confirmation that there's only one more European civ, I think the Normans' chances went from low to almost nonexistent.

 

[Villager720]

But what if it's turn-of-the-century Italy? Basically an Italian version of the Germany we already have?

What would industrial Italy bring to the table?

 

[PhilBowles]

...with city-states, perhaps?

It could be as basic as "with city-states" or "with other civs", or something specifically linked to the trade route mechanic: "with a caravan", "with a city which has another international trade route" or maybe "with a city which has a domestic trade route", "with an output of 9g a turn" or "with X as a resource in one of the connected cities'...

 

[wigwam]

What would industrial Italy bring to the table?

Getting their asses kicked by Ethiopia? Hell if I know.

 

[altayrneto]

Neither
The obvious answer is Hungary

Or Venice. But I really don't expect Italy, mainly renaissance's Italy, with the city states together.

 

[Calouste]

Wasn't there some pretty strong evidence that Italy was one of the countries in the African colonization scenario? I recall seeing an achievement excerpt that included it. That would make me think it would be a likely candidate to be in the BNW expansion itself.

Considering how strictly 2KGames have been guarding the identity of the four civs that are still undisclosed, the fact that Italy was listed in the scenario achievements is a very strong case against them being a main game civ.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Considering how strictly 2KGames have been guarding the identity of the four civs that are still undisclosed, the fact that Italy was listed in the scenario achievements is a very strong case against them being a main game civ.

At one point that achievement was the strongest point in Italy's favor. Now people are saying it isn't.

Is there a way to get to the bottom of this or are we just left in a cyclical speculation-mobile?

 

[Scaramanga]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you
Cases against Italy:

1. France is getting a UA overhaul involving Great Works, so we don't necessarily "need" a Civ to take advantage of the new Great Works mechanic.
2. This expansion focuses on the Industrial+ game. G&Ks was the Classical-Renaissance. If Renaissance Italy couldn't make it in the Into the Renaissance scenario, why now?
3. Its listed in the Scramble Achieves with the Boers and Belgium. If they're carefully making sure to exclude "spoiler" achievements, why include Italy?
4. Representing Renaissance Italy as a conglomeration, in my opinion, is near heresy. The Italian peninsula during the Renaissance was defined by the competing city states. Sure, Firaxis did the same to Greece, but under Alexander (an apt leader to choose for a Greek conglomerate) they were a unified entity.
5. The absence of city states and their color schemes seem a little too much to run with. The original proposer of that theory has taken other patterns to mean more than they did (BNW announcement date).

Adding to No.1, Brazil's UA is pretty much an ideal Italian UA in BNW's setting. It gives more artistic great people (not just Great Artists, but still) during Golden Ages...

 

[codepoet]

At one point that achievement was the strongest point in Italy's favor. Now people are saying it isn't.

Is there a way to get to the bottom of this or are we just left in a cyclical speculation-mobile?

We each need to cover both sides of the speculation. I plan to link to my correct prediction later so everyone can see how smart I am.
(man, I'm awesome!)

 

[Buccaneer]

The only Italy that would be possible would be Renaissance Italy, incorporating the great traders of Venice, Genoa and Milan (and probably one other I can't think of).

 

[Bonci]

I have this horrible feeling in my stomach that it could be the Normans. That damned Motte and Bailey on the poster haunts me. I don't give it much credence, but it's possible.

Please no

I think that the hint about trade routes hinders italian possibilities and enforces the Venice theory. (but it could also refer to a completely different civ, we don't know)

 

[AbsintheRed]

Why is that obvious? I think it's one of least likely European nation to be included.

Ohh, maybe it wasn't clear what I referred to
Not the obvious civ to be included in BNW. Hungary is much less likely than Italy at this point
But the obvious european power that is left out
(to the question: which european powers are still out of the game?)

 

[Petiscator]

Hey guys, can someone answer this for me? I see that the HRE was mentioned in a few threads regarding simillar subjects, and it seems like everybody hates the idea of including them. Why?

 

[sanpavlos]

Cases against Italy? Huzzah!

2. This expansion focuses on the Industrial+ game. G&Ks was the Classical-Renaissance. If Renaissance Italy couldn't make it in the Into the Renaissance scenario, why now?
3. Its listed in the Scramble Achieves with the Boers and Belgium. If they're carefully making sure to exclude "spoiler" achievements, why include Italy?
4. ...same to Greece, but under Alexander (an apt leader to choose for a Greek conglomerate) they were a unified entity.

#2: I think that actually points to Italy ...if we've settled on Italy & Venice as frontrunners. If Italy seems a weak modern euro choice, surely Venice is far weaker. So then who? Romania? Yugoslavia?

#3: Yeah, that seems like a bad sign for Italy to me, too. But, if you DON'T include the achievement and folks deduce that there's a missing scenario badge, then they'll know that the hidden full civ has to do with the scenario and that really narrows things down a lot. Capisce?

#4: Sure, after he razed Thebes. The bastard!