• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?

What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?


  • Total voters
    403
  • Poll closed .
I see many African civs mentioned, with in the quote another one, but I dont know much about african history and I do think that there are more people here who are unaware like me. For possible African civs I already heard these:
  • Zulu
  • Nubia
  • Moors/Morocco
  • Kongo
  • Ashanti
  • Swahili
  • Madagascar/Merina Kingdom
  • Kanem Empire
  • ...and several others
I think it would be a good idea if someone with more knowledge could summarize what their chances are to get in based on arguments.

I don't know the Ashanti or Kanem, but I'll give it a shot (though African history is something I know less about than European or tropical Asian history).

ZULU

The Zulu are an ethnic group of Bantu-speaking people in part of what's now South Africa. In the 19th Century there was a short-lived unification of Zulu tribes under the warrior leader Shaka. The Zulu are well-known to the British for their surprise victory over colonial forces at the Battle of Isandlhwana; the Michael Caine film Zulu based on this and the story of the costly British victory at Rourke's Drift seems to have popularised them internationally, and is probably responsible for their original inclusion in Civ 1 as the representative of Africa. The Zulus lasted around 30 years as a power; after Shaka's assassination by Zulu rivals they broke up as a unified force.

Chances: Very high. The Zulu have been in all incarnations of Civ and have been the single most-requested returnee. Shaka is a popular leader. Although ultimately of no geopolitical consequence during the Scramble for Africa, the Zulu are seen as synonymous with this period and were in conflict with the colonial powers. If there is at least one civ to derive from that scenario, it will almost certainly be the Zulu - civs like Kongo and Portugal had their heyday a century or two earlier.

Cons: There's some resistance to tribal civs because in principle a tribal culture is not a civilization. However, this 'rule' has already been broken in Civ V (most egregiously with the Celts). There is only one Zulu city, BUlaweyo, which was not part of Shaka's kingdom - older Civ games have got round this by naming Zulu cities after battlefields.

NUBIA

Nubia was a significant civilization of classical antiquity, one of the earliest to develop agriculture in the Nile Valley and a longtime rival and eventual conquest of Egypt. Individual Nubian kingdoms never approached the power or longevity of the Egyptians, however Nubia retained a degree of independence in some form well into the late Middle Ages, resisting Arabisation until the start of the 16th Century. When people think of Nubia it is nevertheless the Nubia of antiquity (Kush) they mean; an often quoted statistic is that Sudan has more pyramids than Egypt, testifying to the longevity and extent of Nubian civilization.

Chances: Indeterminate. They've recently come to prominence as a popular fan suggestion, but a classical African civilisation in North Africa seems an odd addition to BNW. I'd say that at best they're a dark horse candidate.

MOORS

The Moors were the dominant Islamic culture of the Middle Ages; indeed the name was used indiscriminately by Europeans to describe Arabic and Berber peoples generally. They played an important role in European history, and controlled much of Spain and, at times, other parts of the European mainland. Most importantly as a civilization, they (and the Arabs) were the repository of much of Greece's intellectual heritage, from which they developed the modern foundations of mathematics, medicine and astronomy. Morocco itself was an important and wealthy medieval and Renaissance kingdom, and the base of the Almohad dynasty that controlled Moorish territories in Europe.

Chances: Again, indeterminate. The Moors are one of the characteristic major civilisations of Mediterranean history, and among the few not to have been represented in Civ. As the number of civs in the game rises to 43, their omission seems increasingly strange.

KONGO

Kongo was the largest single African state, encompassing much of southern Central Africa. It originated in the late 14th Century and was finally formally dissolved in 1914, so it was roughly as long-lived as the Ottoman Empire, although it was under colonial rule during part of the intervening period. It was an advanced, developed trading state by the time of Portuguese contact, and during the European colonial period Kongo developed an extensive slave trade to supply the Europeans. It variously allied with both the Portuguese and the Dutch, and defeated the Portuguese (both independently and with Dutch help) on several occasions, before eventually being weakened by the end of the slave trade and internecine warfare.

Chances: High. Kongo is one of the most-requested civilizations that has never previously been in the game, and likely has the best chance of any non-Zulu civilization out of all the African candidates. Kongo was never part of the period generally known as the Scramble for Africa, which was mainly Anglo-German-Dutch rivalry in southern and southeastern Africa during the 19th Century, a period when Kongo was first in civil war and later ceded to the Portuguese by European treaty, however it sounds from hints so far as though the scenario will have a wider remit than the 'classical' Scramble for Africa.

SWAHILI

The Swahili are an language group who founded a number of independent trade-focused states in coastal East Africa during the Middle Ages. Their chances for inclusion in the expansion are nonexistent despite the trade focus since their best-known city-state - Zanzibar - is still a city-state in BNW.

MERINA KINGDOM

Madagascar has eight major ethnic groups, most of ethnic Malay descent with an origin in what is now Indonesia. The Merina are the inhabitants of the island's high central plateau; by the 16th Century they had developed a feudal culture while much of the rest of the island was tribal and agrarian; by the time of major European contact (the Portuguese had established trading ports in the north, but it was mainly the British and French who were involved in Madagascar's development) a kingdom was in the process of consolidating the entire island into a single state. European powers facilitated this process and assisted with Madagascar's rapid technological development - the London Missionary Society played a key role in developing the country's education system and creating factories to produce products for export (including firearms). The British of the 18th and 19th Centuries were interested in influencing Madagascar as a regional ally; the French wanted it as a colony. The Malagasy themselves tried to play off the rival powers; when Europeans tried to introduce a written language, the Malagasy queen Ranavalona I decreed that consonants would take on the English sounds, and vowels the French!

Chances: A dark horse, but a credible one. Madagascar was not part of the 'Scramble for Africa' but was active in the right time period and just off the mainland. Ranavalona was a strong, albeit brutal, queen who could provide a female African leader (something Firaxis may want). Madagascar's precolonial history is one of playing major powers off against each other so it may tie well with the expansion's diplomatic theme. Modern Madagascar is known mostly for wildlife tourism.
 
My prediction for European civ: (because I think we need more Eastern European Civ)

Civ : Saka/Schytians/Indo-Scythians
Capital : Tanais (European Schytians) or Taxila (Indian Schytians)
Leader : Maues
UU : Schythian Archers. Replace composite bowman. Have additional strength.
UB : Kurgan. Replace shrine/temple/monument/amphitheaters. Ranged unit built in the city gains additional +15 XP. Cost no gold for maintenance
UA : Golden Hills. Gold and silver produce additional hammers. +25% speed of Ranged units productions in city with gold or silver.

About an esatern european civ, I think it is needed too. Why not hungary (or magyars)?
 
Well, if you think that Greece should not be in civilization...I don't know how to change your mind.

Still its inclusion generates a precedent, and I do not se why we should use two weights and two measures.

That's not what i said at all. I said Greece shouldn't be in WITHOUT Alexander. If alexander hadn't been a great conqueror and united most of the city states, greece would have appeared as city states.

There was no alexander of the italian city states. Not until Garibaldi when they'd all but lost their power.

Therefore, i don't think greece provides precedent, its a different situation. You may want to read my last post again if you're still confused.
 
I see many African civs mentioned, with in the quote another one, but I dont know much about african history and I do think that there are more people here who are unaware like me. For possible African civs I already heard these:
  • Zulu
  • Nubia
  • Moors/Morocco
  • Kongo
  • Ashanti
  • Swahili
  • Madagascar/Merina Kingdom
  • Kanem Empire
  • ...and several others
I think it would be a good idea if someone with more knowledge could summarize what their chances are to get in based on arguments.

Strictly Speaking Scramble for Africa refers to colonization of Africa after Congress of Berlin (1878). In involves, among other: British vs Zulu, British vs Zanzibar, Germans vs Herero, France vs Dahomey, France vs British in Fasoda, Italian vs Ethiopia in Adwa etc.

So my choice of Dahomey is pretty strong because it is one of the last native state subdued by France, with war stretching until 1890s.

We even have photograph of last Dahomey king Behanzin because the lateness of the conflict.



Dahomey is like West African version of Zulu, perhaps even more important as they have centralized kingdom since 1700s.
 
Strictly Speaking Scramble for Africa refers to colonization of Africa after Congress of Berlin (1878). In involves, among other: British vs Zulu, British vs Zanzibar, Germans vs Herero, France vs Dahomey, France vs British in Fasoda, Italian vs Ethiopia in Adwa etc..

Small correction, I think it was the Berlin Conference from 1884-1885 you're talking about here.

Honestly, I'm starting to like the Ashanti as a potential civ (unlikely though they may be) the more I learn about them.

The Ashanti could have a great female leader in Yaa Asantewaa, who is still valorized by the Ashanti and Ghanaians at large. She led the Ashanti Empire during the War of the Golden Stool, which was just one among a number of wars between their Empire and the colonizing British.



Their empire was enormous compared to the Zulu and even to the Kongo, and the devs wouldn't have to stretch too much for city names. Their monarchy still exists, though largely symbolic, and the current king is still influential in Asanteman.



They created a complex theo-monarchical ideology based on the "golden stool," the seat of the ruler and the spirit of the nation. Sounds like a really cool blend of faith and ideology, tying the past two expansions together.



fun fact: Kofi Annan is also an Ashanti
 
I agree. The Ashanti are unlikely, but would be seriously cool. They also were among the first Sub-Saharans to utilize guns in an organized fashion and deployed their military in a very tactically effective manner. They traded gold, ivory, and slaves to the Europeans in exchange for guns.
 
This is just not true. Here is the list of Roman cities:

Rome (Italy)
Antium (Extinct)
Cumae (Extinct)
Neapolis (Now Naples, no cross-over)
Ravenna (Could cause problems)
Arretium (Now Arezzo, no cross-over)
Mediolanum (Extinct)
Arpinum (Extinct)
Circei (Extinct)
Setia (Extinct)
Satricum (Extinct)
Ardea (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Ostia (Extinct)
Velitrae (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Viroconium (Extinct Roman Britain town)
Tarentum (Now Taranto, no cross over)
Brundisium (Now Brindisi, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Caesaraugusta (Now Zaragoza, Spain)
Caesarea (town in modern day Israel)
Palmyra (Extinct, ancient Syria)
Signia (Extinct)
Aquileia (Now a village of 3000, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Clusium (Extinct)
Sutrium (Now a village of 5000, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Cremona (Small town of 70,000. Unlikely inclusion)
Placentia (Now Piacenza, no cross-over)
Hispalis (Now Seville, Spain)
Artaxata (Now Artashat, Armenia)
Aurelianorum (Now Orléans, France)
Nicopolis (Extinct Greek city)
Londinium (Now London, UK)
Eburacum (Now York, UK)
Gordion (Extinct, remains lie in modern Turkey)
Agrippina (Now Cologne, Germany)
Lugdunum (Extinct city in Gaul)
Verona (Could cause problems)
Corfinium (Extinct)
Treveri (Now Trier, Germany)
Sirmium (Extinct, Serbia)
Augustadorum (Bayeux, France)
Bagacum (Bavay, France)
Lauriacum (Enns, Austria)
Teurnia (Extinct, Austria)
Curia (Extinct)
Fregellae (Extinct)
Alba Fucens (Extinct)
Sora (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Interrama (Extinct)
Suessa (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Saticula (Extinct)
Luceria (Now a minor town, wouldn't be included in Italy list anyway)
Arminium (Extinct)
Senagallica (Extinct)
Castrum Novum (Extinct)
Hadria (Now Adria, no cross-over)

So out of these, only 3 are a problem (Rome, Verona and Ravenna). Verona and Ravenna can either be moved over, or just left out. No big deal. Rome can be named Roma, or be excluded from the city list if the Roman civ are present (a la Honolulu), while Florence might be capital (feasible). A lot of the cities aren't even in the Italian peninsula!!

All in all, this is no barrier for inclusion of Italy.

Clearly, the city list is NOT the problem, so I can't fathom why many reason this way. As a note to wilbeard (and :goodjob: on the list!) IIRC Mediolanum was the ancient equivalent of Milan, but that's not a problem game-wise.

Also, many claim that Rome is enough to represent the Italian peninsula and that Italy is the same as Rome. This is pure nonsense. Saying so is like equating Han China with Mao Zedong's PRC, or Ramesses' New Kingdom Egypt with Hosni Mubarak's Arab Republic, and those are some silly comparisons indeed :p .
 
They definitely aren't the same thing, but there is just way too much of the globe that has been neglected in this series for us to have both Rome and Italy. Just my opinion.
 
Clearly, the city list is NOT the problem, so I can't fathom why many reason this way. As a note to wilbeard (and :goodjob: on the list!) IIRC Mediolanum was the ancient equivalent of Milan, but that's not a problem game-wise.

Also, many claim that Rome is enough to represent the Italian peninsula and that Italy is the same as Rome. This is pure nonsense. Saying so is like equating Han China with Mao Zedong's PRC, or Ramesses' New Kingdom Egypt with Hosni Mubarak's Arab Republic, and those are some silly comparisons indeed :p .

Silly comparisons, yes. What we have in civ at the moment, also yes.

We have one China, we have one Egypt, we have one Italy, and its Rome.
 
Clearly, the city list is NOT the problem, so I can't fathom why many reason this way. As a note to wilbeard (and :goodjob: on the list!) IIRC Mediolanum was the ancient equivalent of Milan, but that's not a problem game-wise.

Also, many claim that Rome is enough to represent the Italian peninsula and that Italy is the same as Rome. This is pure nonsense. Saying so is like equating Han China with Mao Zedong's PRC, or Ramesses' New Kingdom Egypt with Hosni Mubarak's Arab Republic, and those are some silly comparisons indeed :p .

In which case, why is no one advocating the PRC or Hosni Mubarak's Egypt? You're right that it's an equivalent situation, which is precisely why Italy is not deserving of any special treatment by being represented by civs from two time periods when no other civ receives this treatment. China was led by Mao in earlier incarnations of Civ, it's led by Wu Zetian this time around, yet most people would consider it nonsense to describe Civ V's China as a new civ for the franchise just because it represents a different dynasty - China is China, Egypt is Egypt, and Italy is Rome, all that's different in the latter case is that the state's had a name change in the intervening millennia. It doesn't even reflect a substantially different cultural structure - both classical and Renaissance Italy were characterised by independent city-states that gave rise to larger regional empires centred on the focal city and adopting its name.

There is an Italian civilization in the game - it's a classical-era one instead of a Renaissance one (the argument that it didn't have consolidated control over all the modern country's borders in the time period depicted - that of Augustus - is irrelevant. It's a civ ruled by Italians, from an Italian capital, speaking a historic Italian dialect, and with the classical culture from which modern Italian culture ultimately derives), but every civ in the game is linked to a specific time period, without that being taken to imply that that is the only period represented.

Even on this thread people have equated the game's Greeks, as a unified state led by Alexander, with the preceding and succeeding Hellenic League states. Ethiopia is represented as the modern-era nation, however it also represents Aksum (hence the stele). Conversely Egypt is understood to represent Egypt as an entity throughout history (and Ramesses even speaks Arabic), despite an almost complete ethnic and cultural turnover in the real country between the period represented and now.
 
In which case, why is no one advocating the PRC or Hosni Mubarak's Egypt? You're right that it's an equivalent situation, which is precisely why Italy is not deserving of any special treatment by being represented by civs from two time periods when no other civ receives this treatment.

Of course the Byzantine and Ottoman empires are contrary to this point. Both share the same core in Anatolia.

As to the rest of your point, in normal circumstances I would agree with you. In the case of Italy; the Italian peoples of the peninsula who came to prominence with the Renaissance, I feel that we are talking about arguably the greatest "culture civ" the world has ever known, and this is simply not represented by Rome, any more than Spain, France and England are. And yes, this might be Western bias, but you only need to look at the civs already included to see that the devs are this way inclined as well.
 
In which case, why is no one advocating the PRC or Hosni Mubarak's Egypt?

Because these don't appeal as distinct from Ancient Egypt or China. Italy has its own appeal, aside from the Roman Empire. That alone warrants consideration.

The clear favourites amongst the community are: Portugal, Zulu, A Native American Culture, Kongo and Indonesia. This leaves one "Dark Horse" Civ. Israel, Italy and another Colonial Civ are the next most expected. Given Brazil, I expect the vote for another Colonial Civ might be a bit lower than they are and there is no way Israel is going to be included, regardless of validity. Italy clearly has appeal.
 
I think they should put the Zulus in. They are a big community favorite and have been featured in every Civ game before Civ 5. I see no reason to leave them out.
 
Because these don't appeal as distinct from Ancient Egypt or China. Italy has its own appeal, aside from the Roman Empire. That alone warrants consideration.

The clear favourites amongst the community are: Portugal, Zulu, A Native American Culture, Kongo and Indonesia. This leaves one "Dark Horse" Civ. Israel, Italy and another Colonial Civ are the next most expected. Given Brazil, I expect the vote for another Colonial Civ might be a bit lower than they are and there is no way Israel is going to be included, regardless of validity. Italy clearly has appeal.

There's no particular reason to expect that all 'fan favourite' civs will be in - these four (Portugal, Zulu, Kongo and Indonesia) were the favourites for G&K as well and none made it into that expansion despite an oft-suggested, albeit tenuous, link between Kongo and the expansion's religious theme. BNW will serve fans well with the Zulu, Poland and Brazil (the latter two of which have been 'second tier' favourites behind the "Big Four" you mention), leaving plenty of room for unexpected additions like Assyria if desired.

I strongly suspect Portugal will make it in - we know there's an exploration subtheme (an Exploration tree, and a World Congress mechanic that's triggered by the first civ to encounter all others also places a premium on exploration) for which the Portuguese are a perfect fit, but that and Civ precedent (and the fact that they're European) probably favours their inclusion more than a vocal fanbase.

It's not impossible that one of Kongo or Indonesia, if not both, will fail to make it in - they may well want an African civ more relevant to the Scramble for Africa timeframe and the expansion's themes, and similarly a desire for a fully modern Asian civ (so far almost lacking in the game) might favour Vietnam over Indonesia.

The idea of a Native American culture probably has a boost partly from the expectation that, since the Pueblo are gone, the replacement is likely to be another Native American culture, rather than reflecting particular fan desire to have a Native American group. That's there, but I suspect it's less pronounced - the speculation at the moment is more along the lines "we're getting Native Americans; which tribe/nation do we think it will be?" Plus we now have a tomahawk-wielding unit graphic with clearly Native American imagery, so it seems highly likely that there is indeed a new Native American civ.
 
There's no particular reason to expect that all 'fan favourite' civs will be in - these four (Portugal, Zulu, Kongo and Indonesia) were the favourites for G&K as well and none made it into that expansion despite an oft-suggested, albeit tenuous, link between Kongo and the expansion's religious theme. BNW will serve fans well with the Zulu, Poland and Brazil (the latter two of which have been 'second tier' favourites behind the "Big Four" you mention), leaving plenty of room for unexpected additions like Assyria if desired.

The difference this time, however, is that there is far less to choose from and, as stated, the developers have been looking over the civ communities for inspiration. Whilst there are certainly no guarantees, Firaxis would be remiss if they did not use these four civs-unless, of course, there are future plans beyond BNW. As the poll dictates, Vietnam does not live up to Indonesia in popularity, nor do any of the African civs other than the Zulu and Kongo.
 
I'm a fan of filling in the map much more than it has been - so Majapahit, Zulu/Sth Africa, Australia, maybe Argentina, Moors, some sort of Western Native Nth American civ all make the most sense to me. All are so significant whether historically or to the modern world.

Portugal is the only euro Civ that is to me notable for its absence. I consider Rome to really be Italy but wouldn't scream if Italy was included. I still think it's way to old world centric so no offence to any Euro civs but I dont think they should be in. Maybe a DLC or another expansion could cover the Middle East, Eastern Euro and western Asian and Indo civs that some people would like.
 
The difference this time, however, is that there is far less to choose from and, as stated, the developers have been looking over the civ communities for inspiration. Whilst there are certainly no guarantees, Firaxis would be remiss if they did not use these four civs-unless, of course, there are future plans beyond BNW. As the poll dictates, Vietnam does not live up to Indonesia in popularity, nor do any of the African civs other than the Zulu and Kongo.

The options debated over on the polls show just how many options there are, and it's not a very different list from G&K. G&K gave us civs that were either returnees from past incarnations, or civs that were below anybody's radar - no one had pushed for the Huns or the Swedes, and not many for the Austrians. And while it's clear they do look at the online Civ community for inspiration, that's clearly not their only consideration (nor should it be; the online vocal community is a tiny fraction of the overall player base). They considered the Pueblo while the Sioux led polls for a second Native American civ (and from the axemen/tomahawk thread, I'm inclined to think the Cherokee are the most likely inclusion). Lots of people wanted the return of Sumer; Firaxis gave us Assyria, which had perhaps the least fan interest of the major classical Mesopotamian civs.

A lot of people, I suspect, would like to see more civs they know little about, and Firaxis will also want to showcase some of the scenario civs and some with expansion-theme relevant abilities. Zulu are essentially certain given the Scramble for Africa scenario; Portugal is very likely given expansion themes. Indonesia could very well be a new trade-focused civ.

Kongo though doesn't fit the Scramble for Africa timeframe and isn't an especially obvious pick for showcasing mechanics (it could be trade-related, and has a better case on those grounds than it did on religious grounds, but no more than many other civs, and a credible suggestion's been made that the Silk Road civs are strong candidates for a 'caravan trade' civ). It wouldn't surprise me much if at all if they decided that - as with Siam vs. Khmer or Assyria vs. Sumer - they went for Ashanti over Kongo, which from the description in this thread shares many of Kongo's characteristic features (a large, long-lasting, developed state, conflict and alliance with colonial powers, slave trading) but is a somewhat better fit for the scenario timeframe.

And yes, I do think they'll probably want to hold over content for later releases - with the widely-expected 5-year lifetime of the game, we have one and a half years left in Civ V's lifetime post-BNW, and they'll probably want to hold some 'headline' civ back for release as DLC (except for Polynesia, all the DLC civs so far have been familiar returnees to the series). Of the remaining, non-Portuguese, non-Zulu civs that have been in the game in the past, there seems to be most support for bringing Khmer and Sumer back, but if they want to add new civs that way they're more likely to want options known to be popular than more obscure civs.
 
Top Bottom