What will be the remaining civs in Brave New World?

[Art Grin]

To be honest I doubt that the fan-favourite Indonesia will make it. I expect that Firaxis will rather add somebody more well known from that region like Vietnam, they also fit the ideology theme and have a female leader option, and a caravan trade focused Silk-Road civ, maybe the Timurids since Timur is somewhat known.
I also suspect that there'll be three European civs this time, Poland, Portugal and a dark-horse.

 

[sukritact]

To be honest, I doubt Italy will be in now. It's perfect for the expansion, but people make a very fair point that Europe is over-represented.

I expect either Italy or Portugal, and there seems to be much more support for Portugal...

 

[cybrxkhan]

To be honest I doubt that the fan-favourite Indonesia will make it. I expect that Firaxis will rather add somebody more well known from that region like Vietnam, they also fit the ideology theme and have a female leader option, and a caravan trade focused Silk-Road civ, maybe the Timurids since Timur is somewhat known.
I also suspect that there'll be three European civs this time, Poland, Portugal and a dark-horse.

These are my thoughts as well. While I still think Indonesia has a decent chance, Vietnam and a Timur-led civ are somewhat better contenders.

And while I still think the possibility of only 2 European civs is, well, possible (and preferable), 3 European civs is not out of the question - maybe even slightly more likely than 2 to me.

 

[Art Grin]

These are my thoughts as well. While I still think Indonesia has a decent chance, Vietnam and a Timur-led civ are somewhat better contenders.

And while I still think the possibility of only 2 European civs is, well, possible (and preferable), 3 European civs is not out of the question - maybe even slightly more likely than 2 to me.

Wouldn't we all love Timur. This friendly guy in a fancy hat sending caravans to your city all the time, swimming in money and steamrolling every single neighbour of his with his giant army of units he buys every single turn.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Wouldn't we all love Timur. This friendly guy in a fancy hat sending caravans to your city all the time, swimming in money and steamrolling every single neighbour of his with his giant army of units he buys every single turn.

Exactly. I'd guess he'd be sort of like Ashurbanipal, except he's not swimming in sciency clay tablets, he'd be swimming in hard cold cash. Hard cold cash washed with the blood of innocents and all that.

 

[PhilBowles]

These are my thoughts as well. While I still think Indonesia has a decent chance, Vietnam and a Timur-led civ are somewhat better contenders.

And while I still think the possibility of only 2 European civs is, well, possible (and preferable), 3 European civs is not out of the question - maybe even slightly more likely than 2 to me.

I have to say I think the Vietnamese case is somewhat overstated; we know very little about the role "ideology" will play other than that it's one of quite a number of vaguely-defined themes in the expansion. It may or may not be deserving of its own civ, and in any case Poland's social policy UA (which is called, tellingly, Solidarity, plainly after Lech Walesa's socialist movement) suggests that Poland may be the closest we'll see to an "ideology civ".

What we don't have is a clear candidate for a trade civ - Portugal fits much better with the exploration theme, which it seems likely they'll also want to, ahem, explore via new civs since it relates to the headline World Congress mechanic (first civ to make contact with everyone gets the World Congress, which is formed in the Renaissance - itself a thematic link to Portugal and the European Age of Exploration). I can very easily see Portugal as an exploration/diplomacy civ with a UA that gives them an edge in getting the World Congress first.

So that would bring us to civs based on the key expansion themes:

Portugal: Exploration/World Congress
Poland: Social policies/ideology
Brazil: Cultural victory/tourism
?: Trade networks

The Timurids are a good choice for the latter, however what we've seen so far suggests that trade is sufficiently complex to sustain more than one UA. I wouldn't be at all surprised to have a civ that gains bonuses to international trade, and another that gains benefits to its food or production traded domestically. And I could very well see Indonesia as fitting the latter.

I'm leaning towards something like the following overall civ list:

Brazil
Assyria
Poland
Portugal
Zulu
Cherokee
Timurids
Indonesia
Kongo or Ashanti

And while I still think the possibility of only 2 European civs is, well, possible (and preferable), 3 European civs is not out of the question - maybe even slightly more likely than 2 to me.

Realistically they're running out of European civs to use, and they may well consider Brazil an honorary European civ since the leaderhead is of course Caucasian. Unless they take another civ from the Scramble for Africa and go with Belgium or the (Dutch-derived) Boers, we're unlikely to see any more. People have only started pushing Italy seriously since the expansion was announced; it's not got an obvious place in the expansion and doesn't seem to have been a fan favourite at the time when the civs to be included would have been finalised.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I have to say I think the Vietnamese case is somewhat overstated; we know very little about the role "ideology" will play other than that it's one of quite a number of vaguely-defined themes in the expansion. It may or may not be deserving of its own civ, and in any case Poland's social policy UA (which is called, tellingly, Solidarity, plainly after Lech Walesa's socialist movement) suggests that Poland may be the closest we'll see to an "ideology civ".

What we don't have is a clear candidate for a trade civ - Portugal fits much better with the exploration theme, which it seems likely they'll also want to, ahem, explore via new civs since it relates to the headline World Congress mechanic (first civ to make contact with everyone gets the World Congress, which is formed in the Renaissance - itself a thematic link to Portugal and the European Age of Exploration).

The case of Vietnam would be overstated if it weren't for the Sofia CS theory, which basically says that Sofia can only replace Hanoi-Vietnam, Budapest-Hungary, or Almaty-Silk Road civ. Personally I don't think it might necessarily be an ideology civ - I do agree it might be a bit of a stretch - but in terms of the Sofia CS theory, if it is true, then Vietnam's chances are higher IF we assume that one Asian civ will be in, because at this point the only contenders would be Indonesia, Vietnam, or a SIlk Road civ (probably under Timur). The latter two are more widely known (Vietnam and Timur) than Indonesia.

Thus is my reasoning.

 

[PhilBowles]

The case of Vietnam would be overstated if it weren't for the Sofia CS theory, which basically says that Sofia can only replace Hanoi-Vietnam, Budapest-Hungary, or Almaty-Silk Road civ. Personally I don't think it might necessarily be an ideology civ - I do agree it might be a bit of a stretch - but in terms of the Sofia CS theory, if it is true, then Vietnam's chances are higher IF we assume that one Asian civ will be in, because at this point the only contenders would be Indonesia, Vietnam, or a SIlk Road civ (probably under Timur). The latter two are more widely known (Vietnam and Timur) than Indonesia.

Thus is my reasoning.

I wouldn't say that Timur is better-known than Indonesia at all. Leaderwise, sure, Tamerlane is a key figure but most people would be unable to name a Majapahit ruler. And there's also the "fan pressure" theory which posits a place for Indonesia because there's a greater fan desire for it than Vietnam.

I don't find the CS argument compelling - it was also argued that Belgrade was gone based on Riga's inclusion, until Belgrade was spotted in a later shot. And if we do give it credence, I would still suggest Timur has the higher chance than Vietnam. Both Indonesia and north-central Asia are areas that are underrepresented in the "Civ Map", and both have definable roles as civs that at least to me seem less tenuous than a Vietnamese claim based on ideology.

 

[Art Grin]

Spoiler :

I have to say I think the Vietnamese case is somewhat overstated; we know very little about the role "ideology" will play other than that it's one of quite a number of vaguely-defined themes in the expansion. It may or may not be deserving of its own civ, and in any case Poland's social policy UA (which is called, tellingly, Solidarity, plainly after Lech Walesa's socialist movement) suggests that Poland may be the closest we'll see to an "ideology civ".

What we don't have is a clear candidate for a trade civ - Portugal fits much better with the exploration theme, which it seems likely they'll also want to, ahem, explore via new civs since it relates to the headline World Congress mechanic (first civ to make contact with everyone gets the World Congress, which is formed in the Renaissance - itself a thematic link to Portugal and the European Age of Exploration). I can very easily see Portugal as an exploration/diplomacy civ with a UA that gives them an edge in getting the World Congress first.

So that would bring us to civs based on the key expansion themes:

Portugal: Exploration/World Congress
Poland: Social policies/ideology
Brazil: Cultural victory/tourism
?: Trade networks

The Timurids are a good choice for the latter, however what we've seen so far suggests that trade is sufficiently complex to sustain more than one UA. I wouldn't be at all surprised to have a civ that gains bonuses to international trade, and another that gains benefits to its food or production traded domestically. And I could very well see Indonesia as fitting the latter.

I'm leaning towards something like the following overall civ list:

Brazil
Assyria
Poland
Portugal
Zulu
Cherokee
Timurids
Indonesia
Kongo or Ashanti



Realistically they're running out of European civs to use, and they may well consider Brazil an honorary European civ since the leaderhead is of course Caucasian. Unless they take another civ from the Scramble for Africa and go with Belgium or the (Dutch-derived) Boers, we're unlikely to see any more. People have only started pushing Italy seriously since the expansion was announced; it's not got an obvious place in the expansion and doesn't seem to have been a fan favourite at the time when the civs to be included would have been finalised.

Nobody was pushing for Sweden and they still got into G&K.
Ed Beach, the leade designer, makes board games about the renaissance and it seems to be his favourite era, so I wouldn't be surprised if another renaissance civ nobody expects makes it into the game.

I wouldn't say that Timur is better-known than Indonesia at all. Leaderwise, sure, Tamerlane is a key figure but most people would be unable to name a Majapahit ruler. And there's also the "fan pressure" theory which posits a place for Indonesia because there's a greater fan desire for it than Vietnam.

I don't find the CS argument compelling - it was also argued that Belgrade was gone based on Riga's inclusion, until Belgrade was spotted in a later shot. And if we do give it credence, I would still suggest Timur has the higher chance than Vietnam. Both Indonesia and north-central Asia are areas that are underrepresented in the "Civ Map", and both have definable roles as civs that at least to me seem less tenuous than a Vietnamese claim based on ideology.

Vietnam is far more well known in the US, and frankly the rest of the west, then Indonesia. It's a civ that's a lot easier to market to the average player then Indonesia.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I wouldn't say that Timur is better-known than Indonesia at all. Leaderwise, sure, Tamerlane is a key figure but most people would be unable to name a Majapahit ruler. And there's also the "fan pressure" theory which posits a place for Indonesia because there's a greater fan desire for it than Vietnam.

I don't find the CS argument compelling - it was also argued that Belgrade was gone based on Riga's inclusion, until Belgrade was spotted in a later shot. And if we do give it credence, I would still suggest Timur has the higher chance than Vietnam. Both Indonesia and north-central Asia are areas that are underrepresented in the "Civ Map", and both have definable roles as civs that at least to me seem less tenuous than a Vietnamese claim based on ideology.

Personally I would think that since Timur is better-known than any Majapahit leader - or Indonesian leader - for that matter, it gives the Timurids an edge over Indonesia. Civ 5 does place a lot of emphasis on leaders, after all. Anyhow, of all the three, Vietnam has the greatest public recognition if only because of the Vietnam War. (Not to mention given the many Vietnamese-Americans who are involved in Vietnamese-American media, it'd be hilariously easy to find a decent voice actor, though this isn't important)

Additionally, I don't think fan pressure amounts to as much as we'd think - otherwise we'd have seen Israel, several modern civs, and other commonly requested civs in by now. However, it may be a factor - when it is at all. I don't think it really amounts to much since there are several fan favorites anyways, and I doubt we can predict which ones in particular Firaxis would choose. Essentially, that's why I'm basing my reasoning on the Sofia CS theory, which is something concrete (or at least much more concrete) I can base my reasoning on.

The CS argument does have precedent - see the list here. I'd say it's 99% reliable as an indicator. Every time a CS has been added, it was when a DLC or Gods and Kings introduced a city state that would have replaced it. In Gods and Kings things got a little wonky because of the inclusion of two new CS-types, but even then all moved or removed CS were properly replaced; since BNW doesn't seem to add any new CS types, it's safe to assume then that Sofia is a replacement for something, just like how Ur and Riga, being maritime CS, are likely replacements for Rio-Brazil and Lisbon-Portugal, which are both currently Maritime CS. As for Belgrade, Belgrade was originally considered as one of Sofia, not Riga's, possible replacements (since it is also a militaristic CS), and its elimination only increases the chances of the other militaristic CS getting an update.

Lastly, I do agree that Vietnam's archetype as a civ will not rest on ideology. If it is in, I believe it would probably have to do with turtling or some sort of defense. Then again, remember that not all the civs have to have UA's the make 100% sense - look at how China gets stuck with a military UA that would've fit Germany or Mongolia even though China has tons of achievements elsewhere; or how Greece gets a city-state UA when it could have gotten a science or trade one.


Isn't speculation fun?

 

[PhilBowles]

Nobody was pushing for Sweden and they still got into G&K.
Ed Beach, the leade designer, makes board games about the renaissance and it seems to be his favourite era, so I wouldn't be surprised if another renaissance civ nobody expects makes it into the game.

Oh, I don't say that's a particularly good argument either. But then no one pushed for Assyria either - even with Wonders of the Ancient World there was speculation about Sumerian or Hittite civs but the poor Assyrians were basically ignored.

Vietnam is far more well known in the US, and frankly the rest of the west, then Indonesia. It's a civ that's a lot easier to market to the average player then Indonesia.

In the US certainly, sad comment that that is; I wouldn't say it's "far more well known" in the rest of the west (it's very definitely not the case in Australia, in a region where Indonesia is the major political and military power), if only because of the Bali bombings, the highly-publicised independence struggle of East Timor in the 1990s (and prior hostage crises in what was then Irian Jaya), the 2004 tsunami and subsequent focus on Aceh, and because Indonesia is one of the major British dive destinations. In Britain specifically, in the mid- to late '90s there was a big political uproar over the sale of fighter aircraft to Indonesia after they were found to have used them to run intimidation flights over the Timorese. None of that is, sadly, very good press, but then nor is most of what the US focuses on regarding Vietnam.

 

[ferretbacon]

...look at how China gets stuck with a military UA that would've fit Germany or Mongolia...

Can you imagine a Mongolia with this UA:

The Khan's combat bonus is increased by 15%, and their spawn rate is increased by 50%. All mounted units have +1 Movement.

Now that would be a Mongol Terror.

As far as marketability goes, both are fairly well known in the US: Vietnam primarily because of the war we lost there, and Indonesia at the very least because the current President lived there for part of his childhood.

Whether the average American knows more of either beyond those two associations, I don't know.

 

[LordProtector]

I think it would be a shame to have any more European civs than Poland. We're too euroheavy as it is, Africa, Central Asia and Asia Pacific have got a lot of gaps that need filling. On top of Poland, Brazil and Assyria, I would like - though perhaps not expect - to see:

• The Timurids
• Indonesia/Malaya
• Benin
• Kongo
• The Navajo
• The Thule

I think all taken together, these could add be pretty exciting dynamic and flavour.

 

[seancolorado]

None of that is, sadly, very good press, but then nor is most of what the US focuses on regarding Vietnam.

Not to distract from this interesting conversation but: It's unfortunate that's how press works. If something good happens in a foreign country, you don't hear about it. If something really bad happens, that's your only exposure to the news. As a result, the world has developed largely skewed and narrow caricatures of foreign nations. Every country in the world is a culprit, I'm sure, but in my particular region of America the stereotypes are just awful. Thank goodness for the internet for slowly (very slowly) but surely eradicating this type of thinking

Back to the subject matter, I would say Vietnam has a good chance at making it in. Marketable. Ideology fits with what Beach alluded to. Potential for female leader. But who knows

 

[cybrxkhan]

Since we have two threads on the same thing (maybe they can be combined? they both seem a bit redundant), I'll repost what I said on the other civ speculation thread:

I think at this point the important deciding factor concerning which civs will or will not be in is how many European civs we get. We are likely to get anywhere between 2-5 European civs (1 European civ, Poland, is impossible in my opinion because Portugal is 99.99999% guaranteed). For argument's sake, II am not counting Brazil as a European civ despite it having a Caucasian leader, due to the fact that Brazil itself is in Latin America and its culture is mostly a blend of European, African, and native American.

Thus, here's my somewhat revised (or perhaps more detailed) speculation list for the last six civs, based off this one I posted earlier. I am relying on several assumptions here, listed from strongest to weakest:

1. The new Sofia CS will replace an existing militaristic CS - either Budapest-Hungary, Hanoi-Vietnam, or Almaty-some Silk Road civ. There is precedent for CS replacement (see here); new CS have only been introduced when new civs were introduced in DLC or G&K.
2. Portugal will be included because: Brazil is included; it screams of international trade and exploration, which are themes of BNW; it's European; it's been in before
3. Zulus are also very likely to be included because they are the Civ tradition, even more so than Gandhi's nukes
4. The Pueblo civ will be replaced by another Native American civ, as the Pueblo indicates the devs' interest in a NA civ (we also have that odd eastern NA "barbarian" unit floating around)
5. The Scramble for Africa civ will be the basis for at least one civ, similarly to how most of the civs in Gods and Kings were made for scenarios

(Note the below are the six remaining civs - Poland counts as one European civ)

If there are only 2 European civilizations:

• Portugal
• Zululand
• Unknown native American civ - probably eastern Native American, such as Cherokee, Shawnee (Tecumseh), etc.
• Vietnam or Silk Road Civ (probably Timurids)
• Unknown African civ - possibly Kongo, Ashanti, Dahomey, or others
• Dark Horse - IF Vietnam is not chosen, then Indonesia; otherwise, chances split among Indonesia, another Africa civ, another native American civ, or a near eastern civ such as Israel, Hittites, etc.

If there are 3 European civs:

• Portugal
• Zululand
• Unknown native American civ
• Hungary, Vietnam, or Silk Road Civ
• Unknown African civ OR, if Hungary is not chosen above, Italy OR Belgium
• Dark Horse - IF Italy OR either Belgium OR Hungary, then unknown Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, or Silk Road Civ are likely

If there are 4 European civs:

• Portugal
• Zululand
• Unknown native American civ
• Hungary
• Italy OR Belgium
• Dark Horse - likely either possible unknown African civ, Indonesia, Vietnam, or Silk Road Civ

If there are 5 European civs:

• Portugal
• Zululand
• Unknown native American civ
• Hungary
• Italy
• Belgium

I'd say 3 or 4 European civs are the likely scenarios. 2 is too low and 5 would cut out an Asian civ, which I suspect they will put in.

Thoughts? (I'm also not even considering female leaders as a factor at this point, it'd get too complicated. )

 

[steveg700]

Personally I would think that since Timur is better-known than any Majapahit leader - or Indonesian leader - for that matter, it gives the Timurids an edge over Indonesia.

Hard to find unique units though.

Additionally, I don't think fan pressure amounts to as much as we'd think - otherwise we'd have seen Israel, several modern civs, and other commonly requested civs in by now. However, it may be a factor - when it is at all.

It's definitely a factor. They've said as much. We have evidence before us, like Polynesia and Poland.

Oh, I don't say that's a particularly good argument either. But then no one pushed for Assyria either - even with Wonders of the Ancient World there was speculation about Sumerian or Hittite civs but the poor Assyrians were basically ignored.

Assyria has always been popular in the "Civ/Leaders Wanted" thread, and in polls. Many cried that the world's first military-industrial complex had long been overlooked. The prevailing theory was that there was too much conflict with Babylon in terms of city names.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Hard to find unique units though.

It'd be hard to find unique units for Indonesia, too. A Timurid UU will likely be a mounted one, though, that much is likely. Though I don't think whether being able to figure out a UU is much a deciding factor - there's been plenty of odd choices for UU names, such as Siam's "Naresuan's Elephant" (which is as eloquent as "Washington's Musketmen" instead of Minutemen or "Genghis Khan's Cavalry" instead of "Keshik").

It's definitely a factor. They've said as much. We have evidence before us, like Polynesia and Poland.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should say while it is factor, it is not one that can be predicted, or rather, that it is not reliable. We can't predict with any certainty which fan favorites will get in based solely on the fact that they are fan favorites - we can only predict the fan favorites if other factors are considered (such as in my little speculation list in the post above).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think they like to trumpet fan favorites when they do a civ that is one, but I don't think they pick them specifically because they are favorites.

 

[Art Grin]

Hard to find unique units though.

Finding UU for the Timurids is quite easy ihmo. The Timurids can have a knight replacement, a war elephant or a crossbow replacement. The Timurids used a lot of heavy cavalry, foot archer and later war elephants captured in Dehli, it's not hard to find a UU for them.

It's a lot harder finding something unique for Indonesia.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I think they like to trumpet fan favorites when they do a civ that is one, but I don't think they pick them specifically because they are favorites.

You said it much better than I did in my rambling.