Personal interest in the nine newcomers.

My list:

1) Probably Poland. It might kinda generic, but it seems to have one of the most recognizable sets of abilities. I also like Social Policies. I'll be curious to see how they work.

2) Morocco. Work on Trade Routes, and see if I can leverage ridiculous Desert starts...

3) Assyria. I like warmongering with a bonus. I like the Aztecs for the same reason.

4) Brazil. Culture bomb is culture bomb. :)

5) Shoshone. Maybe this is a Native American Civ I can play. (I actively detest the Iroquois for their Forest bias.)

6) Zulu. I want to splice in Monty's War Declaration for these guys. And since I am building a computer simulation model to showcase the Battle of Islandhwana...

7) Portugal. Most likely a Diplomatic powerhouse.

8) Indonesia. The second-most unique Civ in the expansion, I think I'll really like them, but I need work on the updated mechanics before giving them a whirl.

9) Venice. Probably my favorite Civ, but everything I said about Indonesia goes double for them.
 
Viregel said:
You have just reminded me that Venice cannot annex cities. I don't know why they did this, but I doubt that I will be playing Venice often, if at all.
Click to expand...

I suspect they did it to emphasise that Venice is about Venice, the city - that anything it captures is going to be a less valuable city than the capital. Also, gamewise it works quite well to emphasise Venice's distinctiveness - it conquers cities the way city-states conquer cities.

EricTheGreat12 said:
Finally, someone that agress with me that Venice isn't meant to be in BNW as a civ :goodjob:
Click to expand...

Venice in BNW does a clever thing - it's a civ, but it's also - to a large extent - a playable city-state. Like the real entity it's both.

As a choice of civ in isolation, Venice is not ideal (better than the Shoshone, though) - its power as an empire was strictly European, in a time period before European squabbles had global relevance, and it had little distinctive lasting influence in its own right since the Venetian empire was more or less Byzantine in culture to begin with.

But from the mechanics I suspect the designers didn't think "which civ shall we add? Let's go for Venice", instead I suspect they thought "We want a single-city civ that can act like an empire. Which civ fits that bill?" Looked at that way, Venice is both a much more obvious and a much better choice.
 
I'm most interested in Brazil, Morocco, Portugal and Venice for focusing on the cool new culture and trade route systems. Also Poland, partially because of their interesting history but also because of their simple yet versatile UA.

As for the rest... Assyria seems fun to play but I like the atmosphere of Renaissance and Modern civilizations more. Zulus seem like a generic warmonger civilization which doesn't really interest me (except when playing against them!). Indonesia seems a bit quirky with that spice islander ability and the (mostly undisclosed) Kris promotions, so I don't dare say anything of them yet.

Probably my least favorite new civ is the Shoshone. I had never heard of them before the information about them leaked, and they seem to be "token injuns" to me. I want to see their pathfinder in action before declaring my verdict on their gameplay value though.
 
1. Indonesia. I've been hoping they would get in this expansion pack, and they did. They have a real interesting batch of stuff, and I really like their ability, especially if it gives more than nutmeg.

2. Venice. It's really difficult for me to play wide for some reason, so Venice is right up my alley. Being only able to have a puppet empire over a few more cities is a bit of an inconvenience, but Venice being able to buy things in puppet cities cuts off some of that edge paired with their double trade routes.

3. Portugal. They are definitely an economic-focused civ, and those are in my experience some of the best. Their unit and improvement are very interesting, and it will be very fun to be a naval and trade powerhouse.

4. Assyria. They seem really, really fun to play as. For once I can go straight military from the start of the game and not feel inconvenienced.

5. Morocco. I enjoyed playing as Korea, so another turtle civ is nice. Couple that with their economic bonuses, kasbahs, desert folklore, petra (if it's the same), and you have a very appealing civ.

6. Poland. That ability seems immensely useful. The hussars looks really fun, and their color scheme is my favorite.

7. Brazil. They seem rather plain for the most part, but the pracinhas look interesting.

8. Zulus. Those impis look like they'll be monsters. Other than that, standard warmonger fare unless, the ikanda provides some really neat bonuses.

9. Shoshone. I'm not too impressed other than the pathfinder, which seems really cool. Though I do expect I'll be pleasantly surprised when I do play them.
 
The thing I like about Assyria is that they're designed as a warmonger, but you really only need to go to war once to gain huge benefits in science and go for a science victory. Very simply, go for one high level tech early on and ignore all the others. The tech should give you a unit that overpowers all others of the time, then invade one other civ with that unit to get all the techs you skipped. Out of all the warmongers that civ 5 has given us, Assyria might be my favorite for its versatility. I like Brazil, Morocco, and Portugal more, but Assyria is going to become my go to choice for warmonger.
 
iRule said:
I wonder how will the AI deal with Venice. I guess often Venice will be stuck with 2 or 3 cities.
Click to expand...

I guess the designers will have to pay special attention to make it work.

Having a Venice in the game will probably be fun, by the way, even when not playing it oneself. It'll be like a bigger city state one can protect for lucrative trade relations or mercilessly sack for cultural treasures and their cache of florins. The plunder trade route feature is still a bit of a mystery, but I'd imagine Venetian trade routes can be a nice source of extra income as well for a more militaristic nation.
 
1) Shoshone: Seems to be the most diverse and is open for any kind of playstyle. Perfect map adaption.

2) Assyria: Seems to be a promising science powerhouse, perfectly for my preferred playstyle, but it could prove less effective, when you can only steal techs the other civ already had. So it will probably only come down to the library bonus.

3) Portugal: Could probably play in the same league as Siam or Greece, and has a gold bonus, which the others do not have.

4) Venice: I will give this a try once, it seems to be a very painful playstyle, but could be funny, if one can mass spam those merchants. I would try to let the CS conquer enemy cities first before annexing them, so one merchant could probably be used to annex a CS with three or more cities on rare occasions. I just had a game, where I gifted a CS three riflemen, knocked down 4 adjacent American cities with my artillery to 0. And then I just sat there and watched the CS grow. It was hilarious. Best thing is, that it was done on purpose, otherwise I would have razed them all. It will be interesting to see if you are still gifted free settlers on settler difficulty from ruins. As long as I can capture enemy cities, there should not be a problem, with building no settlers. Maybe this civ is even better than I thought.

5) Indonesia: Additional happiness is always good, especially if it is for free - wait... the map is pangea? :lol: The additional Happiness can be easily countered by other civs happiness buildings, for example: Persia, Egypt, the Celts, etc.. so it does not seem to be as powerful. Why not play Persia instead? The 50% golden age lenght and Satrap Courts are better.

6) Morocco: Kasbah and trade bonus sounds nice but overall its not too tempting, I will maybe try this once.

7) Poland: Could be interesting social policy wise, but I am not a fan of mounted units.

8) Zulu: No need for this.

9) Brazil: No need for this.
 
1)Shoshone: I'm really, really happy they decided to do more American tribes, so that's the major reason they're my favourite. Their ability is pretty good for getting your cities going early on, since you'll have a bit more food/production/resources when you settle them. Very flexible Civ, open to any victory type.

2)Morocco: Morocco seems focused on money, and defending their homeland, which fits my playstyle. I can just see myself building their unique improvement all over the desert, protecting myself from enemy armies. Ahmad looks like a bad-ass.

3)Assyria: Science is always useful, and having the ability to wage war in case you start falling behind is like a sort of insurance. Their unit comes a bit too early for that though.

4)Indonesia: They're alright. They have some interesting stuff with the luxury resources and the continents. I never really settled much on other continents though, so I'm not sure how much use I'll get out of their ability. Maybe that'll change when I play BNW.

5) Venice: I think there's definitely more deserving civilizations out there that could've been put in the game, but at least they have interesting abilities and restrictions. I look forward to playing them.

6)Zulu: Having more African Civs is pretty great. I suck at war, so I'm not too interested in playing as them, but it's nice to have them on board.

7)Poland: I like their ability to gain free policies, but other than that, not that special.

8)Brazil: Not really looking forward to playing them too much because of their Golden Age focus, which is a little similair to Persia. Could still be fun playing them though. I like their leader's beard.

9)Portugal: This Civ seems really boring to me. The Feitoria is interesting but otherwise I don't care for their abilities and units. Maria looks like a stuck-up old hag.
 
1) Morocco: When I heard that they would be in Civ 5, my initial reaction was "meh". However, now that I've seen this civ, they seem to fit my economy-oriented play style very well. Besides, I like the 'terrain specialist' civs. The only problem, of course, is that they don't seem to be of much use when there isn't much desert around, and deserts aren't that great to begin with. Still, they'll be the first BNW civ I play as.

2) Assyria: Certainly one of the more interesting martial civs, and I imagine one of the most fun to play as. If I want to play a science game, and fancy a change from the usual Babylon/Korea style of play, these seem like a great choice. The only thing keeping them below Morocco is that they're less suited to my play style, since I'm not a warmonger.

3) Shoshone: The UA sounds like it could be pretty powerful, and the Pathfinder UU is very original, and sounds like it'll be great fun to use. What's keeping them at #3 is their Comanche Rider UU: we don't know the details of it yet, but it doesn't sound that great.

4) Poland: Good to see these guys finally getting represented as a civ. I like their UA a lot, although I guess it remains to be seen how powerful it will be. Their Winged Hussar UU is interesting, but it seems like it could be annoying at times. For me, that's this civ's only real downside.

5) Indonesia: Another civ that has, at long last, received the representation it deserves. As with Poland, the UA is what's attracting me to them, while the Kris Swordsman UU seems interesting, but potentially frustrating. The Candi UB is what's keeping them at #5, as it isn't there early enough for it to really matter. With a more useful UU, I could easily rank them #3 or higher.

6) Portugal: Another economy-oriented civ that suits my play style. They seem to have a few interesting tricks up their sleeve too, especially with that Feitoria UI. However, they don't seem to stand out from the other economy-oriented civs. They could be a lot worse, but I doubt they'll end up as one of my favourites.

7) Brazil: Interesting choice for a new civ. Their UA looks pretty good and should give them a unique flavour, but the Brazilwood Camp UI and Pracinhas UU both seem pretty underwhelming to me, especially since the latter are expected to arrive late in the game.

8) Zulu: I'm happy to have them in, since they're an old fan favourite. However, they only seem to be good at warmongering, so they really don't suit my play style. I'll probably just end up playing them once and never again.

9) Venice: I'm sorry, but this civ just comes across as lame. Even as someone who prefers to play tall rather than wide, their UA seems overly stifling and restrictive, especially in the early game. I would have preferred something that encouraged - rather than forced - players to stay small, such as a Trade Route bonus that diminishes as Venice founds more cities. The Great Galleass UU is the least original in this pack, by a long way; it makes me think they'd just completely run out of good ideas. The Merchant of Venice doesn't win me over either, as I prefer to ally with city-states rather than absorbing them into my empire. I will play as them, and I am open to changing my mind on them if they turn out to be good fun after all - but I'm not excited for them in the least bit. I consider Venice to be just a glorified CS, in much the same vein as I consider the Huns to be glorified barbarians.
 
KyngzIndeyen said:
1) Morocco: When I heard that they would be in Civ 5, my initial reaction was "meh".
Click to expand...

Hmm, odd. I'd say that of all the civs in the expansion, Morocco is the one that most deserved a place (tied with Portugal, but Portugal has at least had prior Civ representation) - even as someone who was keener to see Indonesia included.

Indonesia's absence from past incarnations can at least be explained by the European focus, but there isn't a civ out there with more direct influence on European civilisation (as opposed to the indirect influence of, say, Assyria) and yet hasn't previously been in a Civ game than Morocco.
 
Merciorum said:
Nope, it's two. The others have it as an official language but it isn't spoken as a native language except in Portugal and Brazil.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

With some exceptions, everyone is a native Portuguese speaker in Portuguese Africa. There are bilingual speakers (a great part of Angola and Mozambique), but they learn Portuguese pretty much at the same time they learn their indigenous languages (Bantu, etc.). And (unfortunately) Portuguese is becoming more and more widespread, to the point that in large parts of Angola most people are now only Portuguese speakers (especially in urban areas) because the Angolan government is keen on standardizing Angola's culture, so as not to have tries to split the country, etc. etc.

I would say the situation in Angola and Mozambique is akin to that of English in India. It's the official, governmental language, and it is often associated with the middle-upper classes, but even that is changed.

And then there's Cape Verde and São Tomé e Princípe, where Portuguese is literally the only language spoken (in Cape Verde they also have the Cape Verdean Portuguese patois, but it's pretty much like the Jamaican one when it comes to English-speaking countries).

Portuguese in Macau is (still) spoken by the ruling elite, even if Cantonese has grown because of China's influence, and all governmental officials speak Portuguese, the laws are also still written in Portuguese (and their law system is a copy-paste of the Portuguese civil law in most regards) and so on. Because of the huge influx of mainland immigrants, Portuguese is now only spoken by the European/Chinese-Portuguese in the island and some of the Chinese who lived in Macau before 1999. But here's a Macau police car, with stamps in Portuguese (and the shops also have signs in Portuguese)



Timor speaks Portuguese in a government-level, but it's, by large, the country where what you said is closer to the truth.
 
and dont forget Galiza or Galicia the mother of the portuguese language, where all started (didnt belong to spain at that time), many people in that autonomous region complain about the castillinization (spanish language) being taught by force to forget their native language but that is changing nowadays, the people are more aware of their "portugalician" language as they spoke in the past, and now they are creating moviments and deals with the north of portugal to get their ancient roots back as in the past.
 
7 of the new civs sound really interesting, not too sure about the last 2. Anyway, in order:

1. Poland. I think the UA might end up being too good and nerfed a la Austria, what we're talking 7 Oracles (voted the best WW on this forum lest we forget!) over the game? I know the SP costs may have changed but by and large the effects are the same. I always like to see UA and UB synergy as well.
2. Portugal. The concept of international trading and resource diversity strikes me as interesting and Portugal obviously shines here. A UU and UI unlike anything we've seen before - tick.
3. Shoshone. Early scouting is one of my favourite parts of any Civ game, working out how to factor the scouting advantages into an overall strategy could be interesting. Territory kinda takes care of itself with the UA so you can pass on monuments first off maybe for a double (triple?) Pathfinder start?
4. Venice. Will have to give this a go early-ish just to get my head around it, it's such a niche civ. I can actually see Venice being a good domination civ but only with some strategies wildly different to what we're used to - should be fun!
5. Brazil. Hopefully by now I will have understood Tourism/ Culture enough to play the one truly Tourism-related civ. UIs are usually good value as well, looking forward to trying the BC. UUs may come too late to be much good I fear.
6. Assyria. Have recently been trying a few all-out warmonger games and having a lot of fun (Keshiks rock BTW). Anyway, a civ that provides so much of an incentive to go all-out nasty from the off should be a good'un, also love the fact that you can beeline military techs then fill in the gaps later (if all goes well!!). Siege towers sound fascinating, and the synergy with Honor could be awesome. Don't know enough about the Library UB to figure out how this will work in practise though.
7. Morocco. Diplomatically one of the most interesting civs in the game from the sounds of it. A bit like Sweden (a civ I love), trying to keep the peace and get as many friends as possible to leverage your advantages sounds like a blast. Not overkeen on UU or UI, never quite understood why people get so excited about desert tiles (yes I know about folklore/Petra combo but still....).
8. Zulu. Loved the Zulu in Civ 4 but fear they won't be as much fun here. Seem like a fairly run-of-the-mill war civ.
9. Indonesia. Can I be honest? This civ sounds like too much of a pain to me, what with the different continent requirement and the multiple religions. UU sounds good though, what with unique promotions.
 
It used to be that you could buy a city-state the same turn you allied them. People complained (rightly) about the AI couping a CS ally and buying them out of the game without any chance for retaliation by the player and so it was changed to a five turn wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Two of my allied city-states are at war with each other
Replies
2
Views
327
martindo
M
M
defense treaty
Replies
3
Views
243
martindo
M
foreverlost
Need help to advance to beating the AI Civs
Replies
4
Views
539
foreverlost
foreverlost
M
Triple win
Replies
0
Views
251
martindo
M
mastrude
A couple of early game strategy points:
Replies
8
Views
547
aafritz17
aafritz17
Top Bottom