Personal interest in the nine newcomers.

1. Brazil - think that I'll like the UI very much. Stopped playing culture games because rationalism is so strong, but now I will probably start playing culture again. Exciting! Though I can imagine that I will struggle to get much use out of the pracinhas.

2. Poland - Love social policies! Don't think the UB or UU is very exciting, but the UA suits me perfectly.

3. Portugal - I like gold. And the feitoria might come perfect for some happiness boost! The nau seems cool too. And it makes you gold! Im often a bit slow with exploring the seas since I always make other priorities, but Nau will pay you back your investment quickly and you'll do it actively. Passive bonuses are almost always boring.

4. Indonesia - Never play Archipelago maps, but now I will try it. Will the unique luxuries increase the profit from your trade routes in those cities? I think the Candi will be exciting to try out. I rarely build gardens otherwise. The Kris will be useless though as I always ignore that tech...

5. Shoshone - I think I'll have to play them first before I know if I'll like them. Think they will be great to go both tall and wide, my only worry is that they might be boring for most of the game. I think the Comanche rider will probably not use a movement point to attack or even gain some to quickly disappear. Only speculation, but if true, I think it could be a fun unit!

6. Zulu - CiV is my first game in the civ series so I've never experienced an Impi rush Though I'm not a warmonger I think I'll like the Impi. The UB seems OK. The UA will encourage to spam units which I never do so might be fun to try. Otherwise, the XP part seems like the strong part of it for me.

7. Morocco - I like the UA. Gold and especially culture is fun. The colour scheme is awful though and so is their UI unless I misread completely. A kasbah worked by a non petra city is like an unimproved plains tile next to a river in G&K. I'd never work one of those... And with that being said, I would probably only get the fun double combat bonus in one city with the UU... and in non-desert tiles i would probably take the Comanche rider any day.

8. Assyria - I'm no warmonger. I like teching fast, so I would have no benefit from the UA. When I do go to war I usually do it a bit later, with x-bows or artillery. I'm afraid I will rarely use the siege tower. The UB seems OK, but wouldn't you rather put a GW in something that yield culture and tourism instead? Very unexciting.

9. Venice - Will probably be playing them once or twice but otherwise I'm a tall player that likes to find the ideal spot for a city. Instead I'll be watching Hiawatha place cities everywhere. Ranging from not in the most ideal location to useless locations. But I wouldnt be able to annex the nice ones anyways and it would be set on gold focus. To be in a position where you have to rely on the AI.. urk Usually doesnt build galleass, but it seems OK and I think I'll like them with Venice since they get a coastal bias. MoV though doesn't excite very much. A very restrictive civ, but it's definitely hypercube!

The order is pretty similar to my post in the 'favourite Civ' thread.

1. Morocco - I love the country, so from a flavour point of view, that's a big plus. I also love the look of their set-up: culture and extra gold from Trade Routes, and with a defensive rather than aggressive focus, which fits nicely with the 'cultural turtle' playstyle I often go for. After New France, they'll be the first ones I take out of the box.

2. Venice - I admit a lot of this might be novelty value, but I'm really excited to play as a Civ that cannot found its own cities. Gameplay-wise, this seems very interesting. I wasn't ever hoping for them to be included, but at this point I couldn't really care less whether they were a worthy candidate as a Civ or not.

3. Indonesia - I've been hoping to see them ever since before G&K was even announced, so I'm very much looking forward to them. They sound like a real challenge to play well, too - and again, very different from anything else out there.

4. Portugal - After the Zulu, the most obvious new Civ. Definitely high time they made it in, and I like the way they've been done, with a strong trade and exploration focus. The Feitorias will be a lot of fun, although I suspect there won't be that many opportunities to build them. I am mildly disappointed at the choice of leader, but I guess it's nice to see another female leader - and one who was actually a queen

5. The Shoshone - flavour or history-wise I know pretty much nothing about these guys. I've commented elsewhere that I've struggled to be interested in Native American culture, but I am genuinely looking forward to playing as the Shoshone, with their unique focus on early land-grabbing and ruin-customisation.

6. Brazil - bumped up by quite a bit from my other list. I'm not too sure how I feel about them, but I have to admit, as someone who finds the new culture victory the most exciting addition in the expansion, I am interested in them gameplay-wise, though the UU just bores me. I think it's nice to have Portugal and Brazil as well. It'll be funny if they don't get along with each other

7. Assyria - not being a military player, I doubt I'll get that much use out of them; however, it's very nice to see them in the game, and I'll enjoy giving the Daleks Siege Towers a spin.

8. Poland - not terribly interested in Poland, but the free Social Policies will be pretty nice. I may bump them up my playing order if I develop an interest in the Ideology Trees.

9. The Zulu - I am not a militaristic player, and I see the Zulu more as opponents than as a Civ I would like to play as. I look forward to meeting him in my games but I think this will be the last Civ I play. I am pleased to see another African Civ in the game, however.

TheKingOfBigOz said:

A lot of civ don't need to do anything to get their bonuses

France in Vanilla and G&K simply had to found a city, and in BNW it kinda remains the same (they just have to get the correct works to get the themeing bonus, which won't be that hard really in the cases where they have to be from the same era)
Russia just has to develop a tile
Japan needs to get injured
Ethophia just has to remain small.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about BNW and a list of SPECIFIC CiVs or about all? Because I thought we were talking about the new inclusions.

But since you want it that way:

France: Has to build towns, thats something and once you get steampower Bye bye UA! Also in BNW thats not the case anymore.

Russia: You have to research certain techs, find the resources and upgrade them-> Time consuming/research priority management.

Japan: Fight at normal Strength but risk your units been wiped out->Strategic choice/play

Ethiopia: Choose your poison: Stay small and play defensive/culture science or sprawl and gain the benefits of sprawl and use your ability.

TLDR: Did never say that old civs were more interesting or less bland but at least you had to use 1/3rd of a brain.

PhilBowles said:

The difference I see with the Shoshone is that their bonus, while free, is still something you only gain a benefit from if you exploit the opportunities it provides. Poland just gets you to social policies you were going to take anyway more quickly - once people work out the new policy balance and optimal choices, the policies you select will be the same game after game irrespective of how quickly you obtain them. So I don't see Poland as meaningfully adding flexibility, or taking any decision-making to work to your advantage (unlike the Maya, who also have an era-based freebie, because Great People are much more context- and timing-dependent than social policies).

Click to expand...

Excuse but: If I am capable of having a headstart at a policy tree for without doing anything, then I simply I am accumulating bonus at faster rate than any other. That means, I will potentially: Grown my cities faster than anyone else, have more gold, explore ancient sites faster, have more science and who knows what else. Nobody argued that the policies will be different than the rest of the players, however do you have a concept of what it means to open lets say rationalism 10-20 turns before anyone else? Without even having to invest in planning/buildings for it?And its not a single policy, its 7. Meaning a whole free tree of bonuses, civ-wide. 7 more policies = 7 more civ-wide bonuses without doing anything.

As for the Shoshone: The scout is going to make his choices situational: But I already see mine: Faith, pop,pop,pop,pop,pop....ad infinity. Talking about making Boudicca semi-obsolete UA wise.
As to their city larger territory: Moar tiles to work and eliminates the "settle on the lux strategy' bonuses!

1. Venice. As a european, I love european civs. Venice will certainly be a challenge but I find the potential strategies interresting. Having a huge city to rule the world with puppets giving all their precious apples and hammers to it.

2. Portugal. The stress put on lux ressources and gold makes it a good colonization civ. I think the trade mechanic will be the most interresting thing to test (in particular see the gpt it provides indifferents situations).

3. Poland. SP is a useful game mechanic and seeing the expansion enable more SP to be unlocked is good. With Poland, I can be more flexible and make the game I want with it.

4. Morroco. Also a trade civ. I think it will be a peacful trader in the opposite of Venice (who will try to aggresively take CS for example). Two elements I like in this game.

5. Brazil. The tourism mechanics will also be a good element to watch. Even if I think that a civ who tries to get the most Golden Age it can has alredy been seen in the middle-east.

6. Shoshone. A good civilization to take large parts of land and so a good civ to make a large empire. The Pathfinder power is a bit OP for me but I will see its interest.

7. Assyria. I'm a warmonger only after a too peacful game when I want to take some action. But seeing the late game being more tense even with a peacful strategy will make me even less warmonger than before. Its UA is interresting because having good tech is a key to make war so I think this civ will be good to take advance in techs.

8. Indonesia. The civilization that made Italy dissapear. Even if it's a peacful civ, I still try to think about something interresting to play with. It has colonial aspects (UA) with religious elements (UB) and even randomness (UU). I don't know how to play it intelligently.

9. Zulu is THE warmonger of this expansion. I think that this civ is a bit too much. We already have Huns and Mongols as civ who will try to play uniquely aggressively and not try to first build an empire. I will play it only for the achievment.

Volkh said:

Let me enlighten you. The history of Poland starts around 966 which gives us 1047 years. Deducting 123 years of partitioning still gives us 923 years of existance. That`s nowhere near your 100 years and clearly shows your ignorance. The Poland`s peak of power as a Commonwealth lasted for around 200 yrs from XVIth until XVIIIth Century.
Also Poland is my favourite civ to play with a very interesting UA. As my personal challenge I intend to unlock as many policies as possible.
After Poland I`ll try to play Venice because it`s so different.
I may try Portugal once on Archipelago map.
I`m not interested in non European Civs so I don`t care about the rest.

Click to expand...

Merciorum said:

No, Poland should have been included a long, long time ago. The only reason people dismiss them is the occident-centrism which permeates the world-view of Americans and Western Europeans. Same reason why most people haven't heard of Byzantium, despite the fact it deserves equal air time with Rome.

Click to expand...

Dear lord, people. I was being facetious. Hence the next line "I may make light of Poland..."

I am well aware of Poland's place in European history. And, yeah, it's nice that they're at least eastern European and not western. The problem is they are European at all and the Devs couldn't seem to find more interesting choices outside of Europe. Not to mention, as it stands they look overpowered. So...bottom of the list.

The ideas and suggestions forums of our community are rife with interesting, non-European choices with a deep and rich history. Look at the Civ Atlas - there are giant holes in Africa and Asia. That's not right. Frankly, if Venice weren't so insane, all three European Civs would be well and at the bottom of my list. I am personally very unhappy to see them after the Euro-fest that was Gods & Kings.

bcaiko said:

The ideas and suggestions forums of our community are rife with interesting, non-European choices with a deep and rich history. Look at the Civ Atlas - there are giant holes in Africa and Asia. That's not right. Frankly, if Venice weren't so insane, all three European Civs would be well and at the bottom of my list. I am personally very unhappy to see them after the Euro-fest that was Gods & Kings.

Click to expand...

Well, western culture is...Western based after all And the company is comprised mostly of West world people.
How could they have done it any other way?

Poland did have a nice piece of territory, but it's really not so much compared to the area controlled by the Kongo or Khmer. I'm struggling to think of more than five major lasting contributions to world culture and science from Poland that one can compare to the contributions of other European civs in the game (and some still not in the game). There's Marie Curie (although the land was then controlled by Russia when she was born), John Conrad (also born when Russia owned Poland), Frederic Chopin (born when France controlled that part of Poland and later ceded to Russia and Prussia), Roman Polanski, Krzysztof Kieślowski (a favorite director of mine, but I don't know how widely known he is) and, I guess, John Paul II. It just seems like more Europe for Europe's sake, rather than the addition of a civ that should take precedence over filling in the rest of the globe. The five people I mentioned, outside of the Pope, I greatly admire, in fact Chopin is my favorite composer, but Poland still doesn't seem an urgent addition. I don't mean this to hate on Poland and I am happy for those who really wanted it in the game, but it is greatly overpowered for what Poland really has been in the grand scheme of things. A free social policy for every new age? That's insane, basically free additions of new UA each time. Give that to Greece, Rome, England, France, Egypt, China, Japan, you know, some civ that really has altered the entire globe.

Well actually does the social policy thingie, reflect anything on their history? Even remotely? Perhaps a citizen of that esteemed country can enlighten us and show us what we cant see.

pilot00 said:

Well, western culture is...Western based after all And the company is comprised mostly of West world people.
How could they have done it any other way?

Click to expand...

Quite easily. All they had to do was not be Eurocentric.

baptismbyfire said:

Poland did have a nice piece of territory, but it's really not so much compared to the area controlled by the Kongo or Khmer.

Click to expand...

It was much bigger than both of them. It was the largest European country for a lot of its history.

I'm struggling to think of more than five major lasting contributions to world culture and science from Poland that one can compare to the contributions of other European civs in the game (and some still not in the game). There's Marie Curie (although the land was then controlled by Russia when she was born), John Conrad (also born when Russia owned Poland), Frederic Chopin (born when France controlled that part of Poland and later ceded to Russia and Prussia), Roman Polanski, Krzysztof Kieślowski (a favorite director of mine, but I don't know how widely known he is) and, I guess, John Paul II. It just seems like more Europe for Europe's sake, rather than the addition of a civ that should take precedence over filling in the rest of the globe. The five people I mentioned, outside of the Pope, I greatly admire, in fact Chopin is my favorite composer, but Poland still doesn't seem an urgent addition.

Click to expand...

The same argument could be made for Sweden, only more effectively. Poland's unique political institutions and political culture alone make it highly interesting.

There's also a lot of people and events you haven't mentioned. Great leaders such as Casimir, Stanislaw Augustus and Jan Sobieski. The second ever constitution. Having a "democratic" state for centuries, with a franchise reaching 10% (which was probably the highest in the world during the early-modern period). Figures you haven't mentioned like Henryk Sienkiewicz, Copernicus, Wisława Szymborska, Irena Szewinska, Lech Walesa... this was the nation which took Moscow, saved half of Europe from the Ottomans at Vienna, created the most tolerant and multicultural state in early modern Europe (other than perhaps the Ottomans), and were a major player for centuries.

There's this horrible western-centrism which always belittles Poland, largely because its history isn't well transmitted after the two hundred years of repression of a Polish identity, coupled with being known for the German occupation in WW2. But even in the last century, we can't forget the debt we owe to the Poles as a result of the Battle of Warsaw. It should have been in in G+K, at least; much more deserving than Sweden.

Merciorum said:

It was much bigger than both of them. It was the largest European country for a lot of its history.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The title of biggest country in Europe (other than Russia) generally doesn't mean much on the global scale. At its maximum, which was only for two years when it took Moscow, it controlled 445,355 sq mi. For most of its history it controlled 314,673 sq mi.

Khmer Empire controlled an area of roughly 463,323 sq mi for its entire 650 year history. Kongo Empire, at its maximum extent in the early 1700s, controlled an area stretching from the Congo River to the Kwanza River and the Atlantic Ocean to the Kwango River. This is almost 600,000 sq mi.

I don't disagree with you about Sweden. I wouldn't have necessarily included Sweden either over many other places. Poland easily has as much right to be in as Sweden, although Sweden is more popularly known as a great power for whatever reason, but that shouldn't be a reason to ignore Poland in its favor.

pilot00 said:

Well actually does the social policy thingie, reflect anything on their history? Even remotely? Perhaps a citizen of that esteemed country can enlighten us and show us what we cant see.

Click to expand...

How about being modern Europe`s first democracy? During the Renaissance, Poland the largest state within Western Christianity, was the most tolerant in Europe and had the most advanced citizen’s rights.
What about the Constitution of May 3, 1791? It was the first constitution of its type in Europe and the world's second oldest codified national constitution after the U.S. Constitution.
It`s represented by advanced social policies and Polish UA.

I totally forgot about Copernicus, my bad. I guess Poland has more of a case than I thought initially.

baptismbyfire said:

I totally forgot about Copernicus, my bad. I guess Poland has more of a case than I thought initially.

Click to expand...

Was just writing up this very response! Poland gave Earth and ego check by letting it know it wasn't the center of the universe

Volkh said:

How about being modern Europe`s first democracy? During the Renaissance, Poland the largest state within Western Christianity, was the most tolerant in Europe and had the most advanced citizen’s rights.
What about the Constitution of May 3, 1791? It was the first constitution of its type in Europe and the world's second oldest codified national constitution after the U.S. Constitution.
It`s represented by advanced social policies and Polish UA.

Click to expand...

I think you're on the right track. It's Poland being the first in Europe to emerge from the era of monarchies and advance to the modern age government systems.

1. Brazil: This civilization fits my playstyle and sums up the expansion pretty well.
2. Poland These guys seem very flexible and I always liked policies.
3. Shoshone Would've preferred the Chinook, but they seem okay. As I am a tall player, I will try learning to go wide with these guys. Will play them on a Great Plains map.
4. Assyria I am a Science player at heart, and these guys will be fun!
5. Morocco A peaceful trader/Culture player that gets bonuses for deserts. What is there not to love?
6. Venice These guys seem fun, but the names for their UU's are kind of dumb, and they seem underpowered. Although I do like their strategy.
7. Zulu These guys have always been included in Civilization and I see no reason to break tradition. However, I am peaceful, and these guys are just another warmonger.
8. Portugal Their UA seems rather boring, but their UI is awesome. They are like Venice's wide twin.
9. Indonesia Like the Zulu, I like them aesthetically, but I don't see an intelligent strategy to play them with.

1.Poland (I'm Polish.. And it's awesome.)
2.Assyria (Ancient... Siege Towers.)
3.Venice (One city, and I can flip others too. )
4.Morocco (They're a desert civ...)
5.Zulu (WAR!)
6.Brazil (Party!)
7.Portugal (Lots of trade, otherwise too generic)
8.Indonesia (Too strange, )
9.Shoshone (Too Generic)

ldvhl said:

Quite easily. All they had to do was not be Eurocentric.

Click to expand...

This. We didn't need 1/3 of the new Civs to be European right after Gods and Kings was almost entirely European. Almost half of the Civs in game now are European, and that's not counting Civs like America and Carthage, which might as well be European for cultural purposes.

Merciorum said:

There's this horrible western-centrism which always belittles Poland, largely because its history isn't well transmitted after the two hundred years of repression of a Polish identity, coupled with being known for the German occupation in WW2. But even in the last century, we can't forget the debt we owe to the Poles as a result of the Battle of Warsaw. It should have been in in G+K, at least; much more deserving than Sweden.

Click to expand...

The history of Industrial and Modern Poland is disasterous. An animated map of Europe will show Poland being destroyed and reconstituted several times. German and Russian occupation of Poland predates WW1, even. Poland's weakness also had a hand in German unification and nationalism in the 1800s.

That's not to say Poland was never important (even though modern Europe used it like a punching bag, and denying that is just silly). The problem isn't Poland, but what Poland represents. Poland's inclusion - and Portugal's and Venice's - marks a larger problem that is irritating to fans of world history. The developers choices seem to indicate there's little value in the world outside of Europe, and a long view of history shows that's miopic.

1. Shoshone. When they were first leaked, I thought "why them?" but after I realized that they were meshing all the Shoshone tribes into one, like their cousins the Comanche, I started to like them. Their UU and UA, if they go unchanged fits into my style of play perfectly, as I love to explore and have massive borders. Though I still think the Cherokee are more deserving of the title of civilization, the Shoshone will do just fine.

2. Morocco. For some reason I always end up with desert! It doesn't matter what Civ I play, 90% of the time I start in the desert. Now I can play with someone that utilizes the desert.

3. Indonesia. For some reason I really like the Kriss swordsman, and the uniqueness of the UA. Also It is about time we get a half naked fat guy as a leader!

4. Venice. At first a was completely against the inclusion of Venice, for personal reasons. But the way it seems like they made it looks very interesting. I think I might like playing as them.

5. Assyria. Glad to have stealing techs back.

6-9 All the rest.
I probably will not play much with the rest but I know that Shaka is going to be a pain the the rear to play against.