Civilization V: Brave New World

[Turgon9357]

A new expansion pack was announced just a few days ago. It looks like it will incorporate expansions to cultural and diplomacy victory, as well as nine new civilizations (Poland has been confirmed) and some other interesting additions.

What new civilization(s) are you hoping to see?

[Bling Cat]

I'm honestly kind of interested to see what other civilizations they manage to find. I guess the Zulu could fit, and I think the Holy Roman Empire is different enough from Germany to merit inclusion, but I can't think of six more civs to put in.

[Cikomyr]

I am more interested in the new gameplay changes. Gods and Kings was a VERY solid expansion for that specific purpose; it changed and made the game more interesting. I rarely care about the new civilizations.


Btw, am I the only one who often gets Quebec as one of my city-states?

[OrcusMcP]

With an American Civil War scenario as well as a Scramble for Africa once, civs like Zulu or Sioux would be likely.

And cultural victory being tied to international trade routes? Yes please!

[Terraoblivion]

Btw, am I the only one who often gets Quebec as one of my city-states?

Hmmm, for me it tends to be Brussels, Warsaw and the Vatican.

Also, I hope it expands and deepens the gameplay as much as Gods and Kings did. I'm just about ready for something to shake up the game, especially since my games tend to turn out samey as I shun war like the plague due to how screwy the micromanagement gets.

[Ellye]

O Brave New World, that has Trade Routes on it!
I'm interested to see how they'll implement it.

Archeology seems like an interesting gimmicky mechanic too.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I'm honestly kind of interested to see what other civilizations they manage to find. I guess the Zulu could fit, and I think the Holy Roman Empire is different enough from Germany to merit inclusion, but I can't think of six more civs to put in.

Seriously? Civ5 already has Germany, Netherlands, England, America, Denmark, Austria and Sweden. That last thing we need is more Germanic language speaking Civilisations.

South east asia and Oceania, east africa, east and southern South America, there are tons of empty space on the map to fill.

Poland was much needed as a second Slavic civilisation, about the only other European Civilisations we might possibly have space for are Portugal or another in the Balkans (Austria has Hungarians as a special unit, so either Serbia/Yugoslavia, Bulgaria or an ancient Ilyrian or Thracian civilisation). I wouldn't say no to a Baltic state but there's none you could really use except for the modern countries assuming Poland is going to have Lithuanian elements (its capital has already been shown as Warsaw which was the Polish-Lithuanian capital while before 1918 Krakow was the traditional Polish capital).

[Bling Cat]

Seriously? Civ5 already has Germany, Netherlands, England, America, Denmark, Austria and Sweden. That last thing we need is more Germanic language speaking Civilisations.

South east asia and Oceania, east africa, east and southern South America, there are tons of empty space on the map to fill.

Poland was much needed as a second Slavic civilisation, about the only other European Civilisations we might possibly have space for are Portugal or another in the Balkans (Austria has Hungarians as a special unit, so either Serbia/Yugoslavia, Bulgaria or an ancient Ilyrian or Thracian civilisation). I wouldn't say no to a Baltic state but there's none you could really use except for the modern countries assuming Poland is going to have Lithuanian elements (its capital has already been shown as Warsaw which was the Polish-Lithuanian capital while before 1918 Krakow was the traditional Polish capital).

Eh, The HRE idea was born more out of me an a friend compiling a list of possible civs not yet in the game rather than civs that needed to be added. Portugal also came up I believe.

Thrace was one I hadn't considered, but it could work. I guess for me it's also about what fits the theme of a civilisation that 'stands the test of time', but then I'm generally too strict. I still give the Celts funny looks in the menu screen.

[Turgon9357]

I'd like to see more out of Africa. The Kingdom of Kush would be a cool addition, as they tend to get neglected in other history-based games (as far as I know, anyway).

I really hope that the changes to diplomacy work out well. It always strikes me as odd that a kingdom I have counter-attacked and nearly destroyed but am prepared to spare thinks they can extort me for all of my luxury resources in order to establish peace.

[Fargazer]

Word on the street is that Assyria is one of those nine civilizations.

Really, at this point its virtually a given, judging from that one screenshot.

[Terraoblivion]

I kinda hope they'll go at least somewhat off the beaten path. I especially hope they throw Central Asia a bone. The place was so important as the source of immigration, empires and trade for so long, yet the closest they ever get to it are Persia and Mongolia. Why not the Timurids or the major centers of trade there?

Vietnam seems like a sensible thing to add at some point, as well as something from Malaysia or Indonesia. Lots of big things down there too, as well as smaller things that are still as big as a lot of the smaller picks they already have.

[Starsign]

Definitely excited here about the new gameplay changes for Diplomacy. As for new civilizations... I'm in a Humanities class atm that's taken focus on the history of the Western world. To be honest, I'd really like to see the Abbasid dynasty as a new one for Civ V.

Aside from that, I would also like to see something from Africa. I kinda wish for a Canadian or Inuit civilization too, but somehow I doubt those will be there.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I kinda hope they'll go at least somewhat off the beaten path. I especially hope they throw Central Asia a bone. The place was so important as the source of immigration, empires and trade for so long, yet the closest they ever get to it are Persia and Mongolia. Why not the Timurids or the major centers of trade there?

Timurids aren't a civilisation, they're a dynasty. A Mongol dynasty too, if you want to separate central Asia from the Mongols you have to go before the 13th century or the short period before Russian domination. You also have the whole 'another horse archer civilisation' problem.

Parthians have the problem of essentially just being Persia, but Ottomans, Greeks, Byzantines and any possible Hittites have that geographical problem too.

Yuezhi/Kushan Empire are too obscure and only known from Chinese and other Asian sources.

Arians are mostly associated with India and Persia and their central asian days are obscure.

The Scythians kind of vanished.

Bactria would feel a bit generic compared to the more country based civs.

A generic Turk civilisation wouldn't please everyone but I'd be able to cope with it.


Vietnam seems like a sensible thing to add at some point, as well as something from Malaysia or Indonesia. Lots of big things down there too, as well as smaller things that are still as big as a lot of the smaller picks they already have.

Vietnam would be cool, but then they'd really have to just give everyone war elephants already. Another war elephant unique unit would be silly.


To be honest, I'd really like to see the Abbasid dynasty as a new one for Civ V.

Dynasty based civ ideas annoy me the most for some reason. They're okay in scenarios or for the Ottomans, but the Abbasids were not a culture or a people like the Ottomans were. Just play Babylon or Arabs and rename your capital to Baghdad.

[Terraoblivion]

Timurids aren't a civilisation, they're a dynasty. A Mongol dynasty too, if you want to separate central Asia from the Mongols you have to go before the 13th century or the short period before Russian domination. You also have the whole 'another horse archer civilisation' problem.

A generic Turk civilisation wouldn't please everyone but I'd be able to cope with it.

The Timurid dynasty was a Turkic dynasty, though, ruling in the Turkic parts of Central Asia. The very Turkic founder of the Mughal Empire was a part of it as well. Avoiding being another plain horse archer civ could be handled by making Ulugh Beg the ruler and giving them a science oriented power. A unique building reflecting the trade significance of the region would help distinguish them further. And going with a dynasty rather than a civilization, I find the distinction pretty uninteresting, especially given how Northern European Christians speaking Germanic languages are already vastly overrepresented despite being far less diverse than some of the civilizations already there. Besides, the Timurids were a dynasty ruling a pretty defined, well-known and distinct civilization that has no representation yet.


Vietnam would be cool, but then they'd really have to just give everyone war elephants already. Another war elephant unique unit would be silly.

Not sure war elephants would be the most fitting for Vietnam anyway. I'm no expert on the country, but I do remember it having far closer ties to China than its western neighbors in Cambodia and Thailand. The country has a long history as a political and cultural entity, so it should be possible to find something unique about it other than elephants even if they did employ them.


Dynasty based civ ideas annoy me the most for some reason. They're okay in scenarios or for the Ottomans, but the Abbasids were not a culture or a people like the Ottomans were. Just play Babylon or Arabs and rename your capital to Baghdad.

That seems to be splitting hair, especially given how ridiculously long histories and diverse identities some of these civilizations have and how short and specific others are. The Dutch civilization represents a splinter of what was historically the borderland between France and Germany in a period that mostly covers the period from the late 16th through the 17th century. Splitting China up into several dynasties would be just as big a claim to distinct cultures as this, I mean the sacrificial Shang dynasty centered around producing lavish burial gifts probably doesn't have as much cultural continuity with modern PRC as the Netherlands does with Germany or France.

In general, the entire concept of civilizations as discrete entities is quite problematic from a taxonomic sense, due to the question of how much change a civilization can sustain while being itself, as well as when a separate state becomes its own civilization. Sumer is treated as a civilization, but was never a unified state, on the other hand Northern Europe is treated as distinct civilizations even as it was closely tied political with states breaking off and being swallowed up by their neighbors. So really, there is no good way of saying whether something is a civilization and something isn't other than how it feels, which has a tendency to divide more unfamiliar regions up in bigger chunks and calling it a day.

Also, another idea for a civ. Muslim Persia. It shares a name with the ancient civilization in western terminology, but is separated from it by centuries, religious beliefs and external cultural influences. Arab Spain is pretty distinct from middle eastern Arabian culture too, for that matter. Both also tend to get ignored in favor of Saladin and the Ottomans. I imagine there is also more ground to work with in Africa than just Mali, the Songhai and the Zulus. Maybe the trading ports on the eastern coast.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The Timurid dynasty was a Turkic dynasty, though, ruling in the Turkic parts of Central Asia.

The very Turkic founder of the Mughal Empire was a part of it as well.

Mughal, eg 'mongol'.

Not 'turkic Empire' like the Egyptian Mamlukes or Ottomans described themselves.


Besides, the Timurids were a dynasty ruling a pretty defined, well-known and distinct civilization that has no representation yet.

Hardly defined. Timur didn't even consider himself a ruler, just a general in servitude to the Chagatai Khanate, which while also Turkic had a definite branch of Gengis Khan's family on the throne (as opposed to the Timurids who were dubiously descended from Gengis but always stressed themselves as Mongols). His language is sometimes called the Chagatai language (also called 'old Uzbek), so maybe the Chagatai would make a better Civ that the more well known Timurids, but as I said, they're even more 'just a bunch of Mongols'.

Timur spent most of his time reconquering Persia in the name of the Mongol hegemony, whose representative in Persia, the Ilkhanate, had recently splintered.

Timur's descendants were more openly independent rulers, but they were rulers of warbands and small splinter states. In general they were just another Persia dominating steppe people like the Parthians, Sejuks and Ilkhanate before them. Then they got disposed by the next bunch and nobody cared. Their written language was also Persian.

Persian cultural hegemony was in general strong enough that anyone who conquered Persia was Persian after a generation anyway and was probably Persian before they got there. The Arab conquest wasn't any different, Persia already had a monotheistic religion. Arab culture owes more to the Persians than the conquest changed Persia.

Ultimately its just semantics in that I'd be happy with a Uzbek Civ led by a Timurid but angry if it was named Timurid or Shaybanid or Durrani or any of the equally badass alternative dynasties.

I don't honestly think the Dutch or Austrians were very good choices either, with their short histories. In the end they're in for the same reason the USA is, certain scenarios would be unworkable without them.

Civilisation is a game that lasts 6000 years, so I'd prefer ones that make sense on that time scale. So it doesn't matter to me how different Muslim Persia is to classical Persia or how distinct various Chinese dynasties could be, I think the game should be able to show cultures evolving over millennia rather than having 8th century Germany fighting 19th century Germany during the bronze age. Muslim Persia should be Persia that's adopted new policies, been converted to a foreign religion and discovered new technologies, not something that can duke it out with other versions of Persia. I like that Civ5 Germany is led by Bismark, has Landsnechts and a power based on barbarian tribes, it lets the civilisation represent the Germanic peoples over a long time period. Having Denmark and Sweden both in the game, with Norwegian and Finnish unique in a representation of what was just historical chance in dominating a neighbour, doesn't have the same kind of elegance.

Civilisation has always been a series with a nonsensical hodgepodge of factions and buildings. It would 'ruin the joke' if they chose things sensibly. What a 'civilisation' is in this sense has always been abstract because you can't have a game on a six millenia time scale without heavy abstraction.


Not sure war elephants would be the most fitting for Vietnam anyway. I'm no expert on the country, but I do remember it having far closer ties to China than its western neighbors in Cambodia and Thailand. The country has a long history as a political and cultural entity, so it should be possible to find something unique about it other than elephants even if they did employ them.


Without Vietnamese war elephants we can't have elephant riding warrior women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C6%B0ng_Sisters).

[Cikomyr]

I personally say; if the Americans count as a civilization, then anything is fair game.

[Terraoblivion]

Mughal, eg 'mongol'.

That's not really a good measure of the ethnic make-up of a group. The Central Asian conquerors who founded the Mughal Empire were overwhelmingly of Central Asian, Turkic descent, spoke a Turkic language and were Sunni Muslims. Sure the name might relate to Mongols, but there wasn't really much of anything Mongolian to their culture.


Timur's descendants were more openly independent rulers, but they were rulers of warbands and small splinter states. In general they were just another Persia dominating steppe people like the Parthians, Sejuks and Ilkhanate before them. Then they got disposed by the next bunch and nobody cared. Their written language was also Persian.

You mean small splinter states like the Mughal Empire, the political entity with the second largest population in the mid-18th century? :smalltongue:

Also, Ulugh Beg ruled almost all of what is today the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia for 38 years. That's a rather large territory, with a population that could hardly be considered insubstantial. Not just that, under his rule Samarkand became one of the centers of learning of the entire Muslim world, while also being a noteworthy scientist himself.


Persian cultural hegemony was in general strong enough that anyone who conquered Persia was Persian after a generation anyway and was probably Persian before they got there. The Arab conquest wasn't any different, Persia already had a monotheistic religion. Arab culture owes more to the Persians than the conquest changed Persia.

So Persia was such a strong cultural hegemon that they abandoned their own written script to adopt Arabic? Similarly, they adopted Muslim architecture and art, such as abstract geometric patterns, garden motifs as dominant in figurative art and the domes. This kind of wholesale change of fundamental pillars of art and writing are generally held by linguists, art historians, cultural historians and anthropologists to signify major cultural changes and influences.


Ultimately its just semantics in that I'd be happy with a Uzbek Civ led by a Timurid but angry if it was named Timurid or Shaybanid or Durrani or any of the equally badass alternative dynasties.

Then why make such a big point out of it?


I don't honestly think the Dutch or Austrians were very good choices either, with their short histories. In the end they're in for the same reason the USA is, certain scenarios would be unworkable without them.

Austrian history is almost as long as German history. The real problem with Austria is that they're pretty much just Germans who didn't end up part of the German state that formed in the 19th century. They were a German speaking part of the Holy Roman Empire throughout its existence and in the 19th century, it was considered just as much part of what a unified Germany should be as, say, Schleswig or Pomerania. It was pretty much just political happenstance that left them out. Denmark is only slightly more distinct from Germany, really. And if you take history back into the triple digits, the distinction between Germany and France grows awfully fuzzy too.


Civilisation is a game that lasts 6000 years, so I'd prefer ones that make sense on that time scale. So it doesn't matter to me how different Muslim Persia is to classical Persia or how distinct various Chinese dynasties could be, I think the game should be able to show cultures evolving over millennia rather than having 8th century Germany fighting 19th century Germany during the bronze age. Muslim Persia should be Persia that's adopted new policies, been converted to a foreign religion and discovered new technologies, not something that can duke it out with other versions of Persia. I like that Civ5 Germany is led by Bismark, has Landsnechts and a power based on barbarian tribes, it lets the civilisation represent the Germanic peoples over a long time period.

But there are several other Germanic people in the game. If you go far enough back, essentially every single European civ would be German, Slavic or Greek, unless you move back to ones that were conquered and subsumed by German, Slavic or Greek people. Spain and Portugal are the only real exceptions, but that's due to Arabs and Berbers having just as valid a claim to the ancestry. So why should Germany represent the aspects of the ancestry that only really make sense around the fall of Rome, rather than France or Spain or England by that logic?


Having Denmark and Sweden both in the game, with Norwegian and Finnish unique in a representation of what was just historical chance in dominating a neighbour, doesn't have the same kind of elegance.

On the other hand, you can just as well say what is so distinct between the Scandinavian countries that they deserve to be treated as separate civs. They have been closely tied politically, ethnically, linguistically, religiously and economically since prehistory, after all. Of course, taking that long a perspective raises the question of why Russia is a separate civ, given that the earliest Russian states, Novgorod, Kiev and Rus, were founded by Swedish vikings. Really, Europe is a mess of overlapping, interconnecting cultures, none of which have the kind of scope you're looking for and trying to distill them is bound to be entirely arbitrary.

Also, just kinda curious...What about civs that were destroyed and died out? Last time I checked the Romans were destroyed quite a long while ago and unless you want to declare all of Europe just Roman derivates, something that would be quite problematic due to the heavy Germanic influence on post-Roman Europe, there really aren't anybody who could be claimed to be Romans. Same for the Greeks, even if you deny that the Roman conquest was a fundamental change to the culture, you'd also have to explain away the even more transformative time as part of the Ottoman Empire. Both left significant amount of thought to be carried by several different cultures, both European and middle eastern, but they really didn't carry on on their own. Other examples can of course be made, but I decided to go for the big ones.

Of course, this is all just pointing out the fundamental flaw of an essentialist conception of culture as something that transcends history and carries a core of Germanness or Chineseness or Arabness through the ages, regardless of outside influences. Because really, when does a culture stop being itself? The answer to that ties heavily into what a culture is in the first place.


Civilisation has always been a series with a nonsensical hodgepodge of factions and buildings. It would 'ruin the joke' if they chose things sensibly. What a 'civilisation' is in this sense has always been abstract because you can't have a game on a six millenia time scale without heavy abstraction.

In that case, why try to argue that some civilizations would be more logical or appropriate than others, especially while upholding the entire mess of slightly different European civilizations as valid, while being willing to paint other parts of the world with far broader strokes.

Without Vietnamese war elephants we can't have elephant riding warrior women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C6%B0ng_Sisters).[/QUOTE]

[Artanis]

Frankly, it seems that the Civ series' only criteria for whether a civilization is distinct enough for inclusion is whether it has a name that enough people would recognize (for varying degrees of "enough").

With that said...


Assyria would certainly make sense. They were kinda a big deal in their day, after all :smalltongue:

I'd like to see Phoenicia. They were a trading powerhouse, among the greatest of their time (hell, maybe even one of the best ever). Although they seem to have already been folded into Carthage, so I'm not holding out much hope on that one.

Another Native American civ would also be nice, preferably the Cherokee (though the Sioux would admittedly be far more likely, especially since there's already the Iroquois from Eastern North America).


After them though, I honestly don't know what would make the cut, so to speak. The Harappans would be at the top of the "worthy" list, but not terribly recognizable to most people, so its chances are slim. The Etruscans and Nubia both come to mind as well.

[Closet_Skeleton]

That's not really a good measure of the ethnic make-up of a group. The Central Asian conquerors who founded the Mughal Empire were overwhelmingly of Central Asian, Turkic descent, spoke a Turkic language and were Sunni Muslims. Sure the name might relate to Mongols, but there wasn't really much of anything Mongolian to their culture.

Ethnic make up is irrelevant to empire building games. The Mongol Empire, as an alliance of various tribes was never ethnically anything in the first place.

Plenty of Mongols were Sunni Muslims.

They called themselves Mughals because to them, speaking Turkic or Persian was irrelevant. They saw themselves as Mongols because of their Mongol inheritance and the shadow the functionally irrelevant Mongol Empire still held over Central Asia.



You mean small splinter states like the Mughal Empire, the political entity with the second largest population in the mid-18th century? :smalltongue:

Mughals are arguably already in the game. We have a population focused Civ with Mughal forts and Delhi as its capital.

Are you seriously saying that a Timurid Civ would cover the Mughals too?


So Persia was such a strong cultural hegemon that they abandoned their own written script to adopt Arabic? Similarly, they adopted Muslim architecture and art, such as abstract geometric patterns, garden motifs as dominant in figurative art and the domes. This kind of wholesale change of fundamental pillars of art and writing are generally held by linguists, art historians, cultural historians and anthropologists to signify major cultural changes and influences.

Islamic Persia never rejected figurative art, especially not in Shiite communities.

Domes are Roman, as is most of Arab architecture in descent since it was Roman masons who were around when Arabs started building big projects like the Dome of the Rock. Persia also had a tradition of domes long before the Arabs conquered them.

Gardens are an ancient Persian tradition, something the Arabs with their water conservative background couldn't develop on their own.

So no, Persia did not adopt Islamic architecture, Islam adopted Persian architecture. Most traditional features of Islamic architecture even have Persian derived names.


In that case, why try to argue that some civilizations would be more logical or appropriate than others, especially while upholding the entire mess of slightly different European civilizations as valid, while being willing to paint other parts of the world with far broader strokes.

When did I say the entire mess of slightly different European civilisations were valid?


After them though, I honestly don't know what would make the cut, so to speak. The Harappans would be at the top of the "worthy" list, but not terribly recognizable to most people, so its chances are slim. The Etruscans and Nubia both come to mind as well.

Problem with Harappans is that we have no idea what they called themselves or who their leaders were. That would be like having a 'Clovis culture' Civ or a 'La Tene' Civ.

[Terraoblivion]

Ethnic make up is irrelevant to empire building games. The Mongol Empire, as an alliance of various tribes was never ethnically anything in the first place.

Plenty of Mongols were Sunni Muslims.

The actual Mongols were a pretty clearly defined ethnic group, one that in its eastern branches managed to keep its cultural identity without getting significantly sinnified during their time as the Yuan dynasty. It's true they also had a lot of Turkic groups fighting for them, as well as substantial amounts of Chinese people, Arab bureaucrats and Tibetan monks, but that kind of ethnic variety is common to major empires.


They called themselves Mughals because to them, speaking Turkic or Persian was irrelevant. They saw themselves as Mongols because of their Mongol inheritance and the shadow the functionally irrelevant Mongol Empire still held over Central Asia.

And the Ottomans, Germans and Russians all claimed to be the successors to Rome. So are you claiming that they were all really just Romans? Really, what people claim heritage from to bolster political prestige is pretty much the least interesting form of establishing identity there is.


Mughals are arguably already in the game. We have a population focused Civ with Mughal forts and Delhi as its capital.

Are you seriously saying that a Timurid Civ would cover the Mughals too?

No, I'm pointing out that the very definitely Turkic founders of the Mughal Empire were descended from the Timurids.


Domes are Roman, as is most of Arab architecture in descent since it was Roman masons who were around when Arabs started building big projects like the Dome of the Rock. Persia also had a tradition of domes long before the Arabs conquered them.

Can you decide whether domes are Roman or Persian in origin? Because you're currently claiming both. Also, I did say that the Arabs had major Roman and Greek influences, which is something that's very hard to deny. Really, all you're proving here is that cultural exchanges are an absolute mess and talking about cultures as discrete entities over prolonged periods makes no sense. You're doing a pretty good job of pointing out how much of an interconnected mess Central Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and the Mediterranean region is after all and how none of the cultures there can be easily separated from their neighbors.


When did I say the entire mess of slightly different European civilisations were valid?

Well, for one thing you chose to use Germany as an example of a proper civ, despite it being at the heart of that mess. For another, you've never expressed any problems with heavily conditional European civs like England or France and only with some of the minor ones that seem derived from Germany. The point is that the big, European mess is more similar for the period where it even existed than India or China were for their history. Especially India as a single unified civ is ridiculous, it's an entity created by the British in the 19th century. Before that it was neither politically, linguistically or culturally unified, just like it had a major split between a Muslim dominated north, a more fully Hindu south and Buddhists off the mainland on Sri Lanka since the middle ages. Really, until the British conquest India was as diverse or more so than Europe, with no cultural tradition in the region for viewing it as one region.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The actual Mongols were a pretty clearly defined ethnic group, one that in its eastern branches managed to keep its cultural identity without getting significantly sinnified during their time as the Yuan dynasty.

The Yuan dynasty was incredibly sinnified as far as the other Mongol khanates saw things.


And the Ottomans, Germans and Russians all claimed to be the successors to Rome. So are you claiming that they were all really just Romans? Really, what people claim heritage from to bolster political prestige is pretty much the least interesting form of establishing identity there is.

If you use the same criteria Chinese dynasties get held to, the Ottomans and the Holy Roman Empire were just Romans.


No, I'm pointing out that the very definitely Turkic founders of the Mughal Empire were descended from the Timurids.

The Timurids could do that because they were a dynasty, not a civilisation.

Making a Timurid faction for Civilisation would be like adding a Hapsburg civilisation with Spanish and Hungarian themed powers.


Can you decide whether domes are Roman or Persian in origin? Because you're currently claiming both.

No I can't, because its too hard to say.


Well, for one thing you chose to use Germany as an example of a proper civ, despite it being at the heart of that mess. For another, you've never expressed any problems with heavily conditional European civs like England or France and only with some of the minor ones that seem derived from Germany. The point is that the big, European mess is more similar for the period where it even existed than India or China were for their history.

Do I have to? Does saying I think there are too many Germanic Civs means I think there being lots of latin Civs is fine?

I'd rather have Britain ruled by a Stuart, someone mythical like King Arthur or Queen Victoria, than have England which really makes little sense. Calling it England makes about as much sense as calling Spain 'Castille' would.

Before Netherlands and Austria got released I didn't consider Germany to necessarily be a representation of the modern state. No more than I consider Siam to just represent the short lived Sukothai Kingdom its ruler came from.


Especially India as a single unified civ is ridiculous, it's an entity created by the British in the 19th century. Before that it was neither politically, linguistically or culturally unified, just like it had a major split between a Muslim dominated north, a more fully Hindu south and Buddhists off the mainland on Sri Lanka since the middle ages. Really, until the British conquest India was as diverse or more so than Europe, with no cultural tradition in the region for viewing it as one region.

I never said I thought India should be unified. Though the religious aspect you brought up really was the most unified part of India, even if that's because Hinduism is more of a broad category than a faith.

[Fargazer]

I took the time to look up the sources now.

The guess for Assyria is based on a combination of this screenshot from the Civ5 website
http://downloads.2kgames.com/civilization/bravenewworld/images2/pic4.jpg
put together with this picture, as taken from wikipedia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Assyrian_Attack_on_a_Town.jpg/800px-Assyrian_Attack_on_a_Town.jpg

[Turgon9357]

I took the time to look up the sources now.

The guess for Assyria is based on a combination of this screenshot from the Civ5 website
http://downloads.2kgames.com/civilization/bravenewworld/images2/pic4.jpg
put together with this picture, as taken from wikipedia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Assyrian_Attack_on_a_Town.jpg/800px-Assyrian_Attack_on_a_Town.jpg

Nice investigative work!

[Fargazer]

Nice investigative work!

I can't take any of the credit, it was the guys over at civfanatics. I just couldn't find the original thread of the person who posted it. :smallwink:

It does seem like an purposeful hint, especially given the random siege engine in combat with Polish hussars.