What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword? [Archive]

Quagga

Mar 29, 2007, 02:37 PM

If there's a WWII scenario as some are imagining, then Poland would have to be represented (at least in the scenario). I'm imagining the sound-effects for the V-1. (Population bombing was used in this war, but that's not part of CivIV currently.)

Perhaps there's a WWI scenario and an Austria-Hungary.

Maybe Stalin becomes a leader of the Soviet Union (i.e., not Russia).

A Domino Theory or Cold War scenario would include Cuba, E/W Germany, N/S Korea and N/S Vietnam. The UN would be an actor. Don't forget those Short Range Ballistic Missiles for a Cuban Missile Crisis scenario.

snipperrabbit!!

Mar 29, 2007, 02:37 PM

Nope ! Cristo redentor fits Portugal addition. Sorry for Brazil ( remenber : 3-0 )

ulsterman88

Mar 29, 2007, 02:40 PM

-Huns
-Hittites
-Byzantine
-Poland
-Maya
-Israel

redifederal

Mar 29, 2007, 03:30 PM

They need to add the Selucids!!! I would also like to see the Vatican and Byzantine.

PMabey

Mar 29, 2007, 03:52 PM

^^No they dont. And seriously - the vatican, what are u thinking?

Phoenix1595

Mar 29, 2007, 03:53 PM

Given that one of the new world wonders is the Maoi Statues, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Polynesians will be included. Certainly, a cultural and geographic group that has not yet been covered in the game's history.

I agree with snipper re: Cristo Reductor. Given that the Dutch (a colonial power) is given as a "civilization," I think it makes more sense that Brazil will be lumped into the Portuguese "civilization." Also, are we sure that the Sioux are the own distinct civ? The site seems to indicate that there is a general Native American civ, with Sitting Bull (a Sioux) as one of the leaders. I know Sid goes back and forth between the Sioux and the Iroquois... maybe the game developers just lumped them together? Kind of a cop-out, I think.

As for more speculative civs, my guess is probably a southeast Asian civ (Thai, Khmer, etc.), Maya, Hebrews, Byzantines. It is difficult to surmise, because the game is suppose to cover the latter part of history, yet the confirmed list shows that even ancient civs (read: Babylon) are included.

ParkCungHee

Mar 29, 2007, 04:08 PM

-Portugal
-Netherlands
-Sioux
-Babylon
-Maya
-Poland
-Hungary/Huns (Should have dual leaders, Atilla and Stephen I)
-Uyghurstan (Tengri Bögü should be leader)
-Italy
-Khmer

Joebasalt13

Mar 29, 2007, 04:19 PM

-Portugal
-Netherlands
-Sioux
-Babylon
-Maya
-Canada
-Hittite
-Sumeryan
-Byzantine
-Poland

Need, Canada and the Maya those are the two I am hoping most for.

redifederal

Mar 29, 2007, 04:22 PM

The vatican would be a good civ choice especially with the religous aspect that has been added.

snipperrabbit!!

Mar 29, 2007, 04:37 PM

Vatican suck balls ! I think there will be an Apostolic Palace for each seven religion. Upon completion of apostolic palace of your state religion, you will have population (maybe 60% World pop with access to state religion) and diplomatic goal ( share state religion, vote for us to lead state religion, engage crusade with us against the unfaithfull ) to achieve a diplomatico-religious victory.

Corporal P

Mar 29, 2007, 04:37 PM

BorgeoisBuffoon

Mar 29, 2007, 04:38 PM

I'll say what I said in the other topic: there have been 34 civs playable over the various incarnation of the games, perhaps they'll all be back (the four we know of already, Byzantium, Hatti, Iroquois, Mayans, Austria, Sumer). The fact the Sioux are returning really makes me think this way, as well as a lot of the ooold junk files based on Sumer and Byzantium (even then, don't forget a little icon of Sitting Bull was amongst these files...)

ChrTh

Mar 29, 2007, 04:42 PM

I would love to see the Republic of Venice, but I don't see it happening. Polynesia is my second choice.

BTW, Wonders have never (as far as I know) been a determining factor for Civilization inclusion.

Fideel

Mar 29, 2007, 04:47 PM

Kietharr

Mar 29, 2007, 04:50 PM

Portugal
Netherlands
Babylon
Sioux
And the ones I'm rooting for:
Aksum (Ethiopia)
Israel
Iraquois
Maya
Byzantines
Khmer

Second choices:
Poland
Apache
Phoenicians (probably misspelled)
Hitties
Huns (Really more of a 3rd choice, not really a distinct civilization, they have just about the same culture as Mongolia until they begin clashing with Rome)

TheArchduke

Mar 29, 2007, 04:51 PM

If the old Poll at Firaxis.Com is any clue, I guess we see Austria in some sort.

Byzantine striked me as unnecessary, but was in CIV III.

Iroquis are a valid choice, Sioux not really.

Khmer, a big meh on that.

Polynesians, aw come on, CTP was crazy enough with out of the way Civs.;)

snipperrabbit!!

Mar 29, 2007, 04:55 PM

No, the third french leader will be Charles de Gaulle.

I will prefer Menelik as ethiopian leader. IMO, Khmer have better chance than Siam. Sitting Bull will lead Native americans empire. I think Pacal will be up to lead the mayans.

LucyDuke

Mar 29, 2007, 05:01 PM

I expect they'll rehash civs from old versions of civ. That means:

Sumeria
Portugal
Hittite
Maya
Byzantium
Holland
Babylon
Iroquois

from Civ3, and if there are any from Ciw2 or Civ1 that are still missing.

(I realize that the names are inconsistent.)

Julian Delphiki

Mar 29, 2007, 05:02 PM

New civs

- Timur Lenk/Tamerlane (Persia)

Right..

(wiki)

"Timur's legacy is a mixed one, for while Central Asia blossomed, some say even peaked, under his reign, other places such as Baghdad, Damascus, Delhi and other Arab, Persian, Indian and Turkic cities were sacked and destroyed, and many thousands of people were slaughtered brutally. Thus, while Timur remains a hero of sorts in Central Asia, he is vilified by many in Arab, Persian and Indian societies."

Lets make Alexander Indian leader! :crazyeye:

Polietileno

Mar 29, 2007, 05:20 PM

Civs:

Maya - Smoke-Jaguar
Byzantine - Theodora
Sioux - Sitting Bull
Portugal - Henry the Navigator
Dutch - William the Orange
Ethiopia - Melenik II
Austria - Charles V
Israel - Salomon
Babylonia - Hammurabi
Poland - John Sobeski

Leaders:

America - Lincon
Incas - Pachakuti
France - Chalemange
Germany - Barbarrosa
Persia - Xerxes
Egypt - Medes

Vynd

Mar 29, 2007, 05:33 PM

In for sure:
Netherlands
Portugal
Babylon

Good bets:
Iriquois (or other Native North Americans)
Austria
Khmer
Ethiopia

Wild Guesses:
Polynesia
Timurid Empire
Brazil

I'm figuring that most or all of the new civilizations will be ones that were prominent in the Renaissance or later. It's "Beyond the Sword" after all. And I'd bet that they'll try to add civs from as many different regions as possible. Lastly, I disagree with the idea that they're just going to bring back all the civs that have been featured in earlier games. I think it's much more likely that they'll add some new ones, including at least a few they think would be unexpected. Hence Polynesia, Brazil, and the Timurids.

Oh, and I also suspect that they'll try to work in more female leaders, which is an argument in favor of Austria and Polynesia. And they'll probably try to stay away from too much controversy, or else I might have Israel on the list somewhere.

GoodSarmatian

Mar 29, 2007, 05:33 PM

I don't think they will add Israel, Poland or Sumeria.
And I am pretty sure there won't be Seleucids.

But somehow I am pretty sure the Byzantine Empire and the Maya will be in, and most likely Ethiopia.
Maybe even the Holy Roman Empire or the Frankish Empire will be in the game, so they can add Charlemagne as a leader without Germans and French quarreling over him.

Gaius Octavius

Mar 29, 2007, 05:40 PM

-In order to make the leaderhead of Siam, Firaxis would have to ask for permission from the goverment of Thailand who acts on behalf of the king which unlikely that they would be given the permission. And besides, Firaxis wouldn't go that length just to add one CIV to the game.

Therefore, it is unlikely to see Siam in the game. :(

I don't understand. Why do they need permission to make a Siamese LH? This is America, we don't need the permission of a foreign power to do anything! ;)

Okay, I'm kidding, but you get my point. What are they going to do if Firaxis goes ahead and does it? Boycott Civ? Oh, yeah, that'll hurt 'em big time...

Head Serf

Mar 29, 2007, 05:45 PM

Well here are my bets for new leaders:

Portugal - Henrique the Navigator
Netherlands - William of Orange
Sioux - Sitting Bull
Babylon - Hammurabi
Byzantine - Basil the Bulgarslayer
Siam/Khmer - Jayavarman
Maya - Smoke-Jaguar
Iroquois - Hiawatha
Ethiopia - Menelik
Israel - Solomon

America - Abe Lincoln
Persia - Darius
Japan - Meiji
Arabia - Abu Bakr
Greece - Phillip
Rome - Trajan

Gaius Octavius

Mar 29, 2007, 05:46 PM

durfal

Mar 29, 2007, 05:48 PM

New civs
- Dutch (confirmed)
- Portuguese (confirmed)
- Byzantine
- Babylon (confirmed)
- Israel
- Ethiopia
- Khmer or Siam/Thai
- Polynesians
- Native Americans
- Maya

New leaders
new civs:
- William of Orange (Dutch)
- Hendrick the Navigator (Portuguese)
- Justinian I (Byzantine)
- Hammurabi (Babylonians)
- David or Solomon (Israel)
- Makeda aka Queen of Sheba (Ethiopia)
- Jayavarman II (Khmer)
- Hotu Matu'a, legendary first king of Easter island (Polynesians)
- Hiawatha or Sitting Bull or Little Crow (Native Americans)
- Smoke Jaguar (Maya)
existing civs
- Abraham Lincoln (America)
- Charlemagne (French)
- Otto I or Frederick Barbarossa (German)
- Charles I or Philip II (Spain)
- Timur Lenk/Tamerlane (Persia)
- Yongle (China)

I think you have the civs right. Personaly I would switch the Byzantians with a Polish or Hungarian Civ but I think this will be the list too.
Leaders are almost all reasonable. My changes:
Native Americans: Sitting Bull (already confirmed)
Ethiopia/Abbesynia: Menelik II
Polynesia: Don't know who to choose they were spread over so many small islands and all had small kingdoms. Maybe a Hawaiian or a Maori Leader.
Maya: Pacal
Israel/Hebrew: David
The rest are probably correct too.
The 6 for existing civs:
US (known)
France : Charles de Gaulle (sort of confirmed, his picture is recognized on the firaxis site. The big background one on the main announcement page)
Spain : Phillip II
Greece :Pericles
Japan: Meiji
Arabs: Abu Bakr

Julian Delphiki

Mar 29, 2007, 05:51 PM

Well here are my bets for new leaders:
Byzantine - Basil the BulgarSlayer

That name gives me creeps everytime i see it. I wonder how much truth there is in that story where the name came... but he would be in good company in civ with other leaders already in, and Byzantine was thriving during his time.

Gaius Octavius

Mar 29, 2007, 05:52 PM

Yikes! Isn't Justinian a much better choice?

GoodSarmatian

Mar 29, 2007, 06:01 PM

Basileus wasn't actually that bad (for his own people), but I think Theodosius I and Herakleos ( a good candidate for the awkward sounding Protective/Imperialistic combo) would be a good choice.

Wyz_sub10

Mar 29, 2007, 06:06 PM

-Uyghurstan (Tengri Bögü should be leader)

The Uyghurs will be in CIV Gold 4.0. Sorry, don't mean to plug here, but you're the first person I've come across who knows of them, let alone wants them in the game. :)

ParkCungHee

Mar 29, 2007, 06:14 PM

The Uyghurs will be in CIV Gold 4.0. Sorry, don't mean to plug here, but you're the first person I've come across who knows of them, let alone wants them in the game. :)
Glad to hear it! I'll be the first to download.

SwordofStriker

Mar 29, 2007, 07:35 PM

I am hoping to see the ancient Minoans added to a Civ game one day. Many archaeologists and historians have come to the conclusion that the Minoan civilization is the civilization that the stories of Atlantis describe.

Were it not for a volcanic eruption 100 times as powerful as Krakatoa, the Minoan civilization most likely would have influenced western civilization much like the Greeks have. As a matter of fact, it was this same volcanic eruption that gave the Greeks the chance to invade and destroy what little remained of the minoans.

I think the Minoans deserve another shot in Civilization.

Also, in regards to a previous post, lots of people know about the Uyghurs. I have read books with them included, seen movies that mentioned them, and even seen them included in popular strategy/war games on the NES (ever play Ghenghis Khan?).

LucyDuke

Mar 29, 2007, 09:33 PM

Lastly, I disagree with the idea that they're just going to bring back all the civs that have been featured in earlier games. I think it's much more likely that they'll add some new ones, including at least a few they think would be unexpected. Hence Polynesia, Brazil, and the Timurids.

Why do you think that? It's certainly not a "just" situation, as several are already confirmed and most are already in Civ4. Previously-used civs don't fill all the slots, either. Surely the civilizations that were great enough to include in the 1990s are still great enough to include now?

Kietharr

Mar 29, 2007, 10:10 PM

Polynesia - Too broad, it's like making a single Native American civilization, or a single European one.
Brazil - A very modern nation, but actually may be a pretty good pick for a modern latin american civ, 5th biggest country in the world and a cultural powerhouse. UU/UB may be hard to pick though.
Timmurids/Selucids - it's a civ, and was a rival of the Ottomans, but IMO there are better choices. They could just as easily be classified under Persians if we have Alexander as a Greek leader and Catherine as a Russian leader
Minoans - We don't know enough about them, their leaders, military units, all that really remains is buildings.

Corvex

Mar 29, 2007, 10:31 PM

Babylon
Netherlands
Portugal
Sioux

Hopefully there will also be:
-Maya (they should have been in vanilla, frankly)
-Ethiopia (probably too much to ask, especially considering that the Zulus and the Mali are already in the game; not that either of these civs have anything to do with Ethiopia, but hey)
-Iroquois (once again; probably too much to hope if the Sioux are already in the game)
-Poland (it would be nice to have an Eastern European civ besides Russia)
-Byzantium (probably not everyone's first choice, but I enjoyed it in Civ III)
-Siam (Southeast Asia has always been underrepresented)

(I would of course love for Canada to be included, but have pretty much reconciled myself to the fact that that's not going to happen. Then again, I suppose that that is what mods are for)

Junglecutter

Mar 29, 2007, 10:42 PM

Civ needs more Asian civs...Malay perhaps? Siam would be hard to put in the game

Lance of Llanwy

Mar 29, 2007, 10:53 PM

Hmmm...the new civs?

1)Dutch
2)Portugese
3)Lakota/Sioux/Pan-Native American civ
4)Babylon
5)Polynesia-Interesting civ, to be sure.
6)Mayans- A MUST, IMO.
7)Poland- Good medieval power, and allows the Slavs more representation.
8)Ethiopia- The best of the remaining African civs.
9)Khmer- WE NEED MORE ASIANS!!!! And they're really impressive anyways...
10)Vietnam- See above. Ho Chih Minh. Long history of warring with China, distinct culture, fairly influentail.
Honorable Mention: Iroquois.

Byzantines- Questionable, IMO...what truly distinguishes them from Greece and Rome to say they were a distinct civilization?
Austria- Not distinct enough from Germany, IMO.
HRE- See above. In fact, for most of its history, it WAS German.
Vatican- Are you kidding?

New leaders
America- Abe
Spain- Philip II
Arabs- Some one. I dunno...foggy on their history.
Persians- Darius the Great. Or a Sassie...on second that, getting Sassinad Persia some love sounds best...
Greece- Pericles. Because Greece needs some sort of cultural/builder side.
Aztecs- Ahuizotl. Or Tecumseh if the Native American civ is a blanket one...

taillesskangaru

Mar 29, 2007, 11:13 PM

1 - 4 we already know...

5. Mayan
6. A South East Asian civilisation, Khmer is best bet.
7. Maybe another Asian civ.
8. Byzantines is a good bet (though they're not a civilisation in its own right imo. Merely a continuation of the Greek/Roman Empire)
9. Hittites
10. Sumeria

WrathRaptor

Mar 29, 2007, 11:27 PM

PW90

Mar 30, 2007, 12:25 AM

I think the new civs and their leaders will be:
Babylon - Hammurabi
Netherlands - Willem van Oranje
Portugal - Henrique the Navigator
Sioux - Sitting Bull
Iroquoise - Hiawatha
Maya - Pacal the Great
Abbysinians - Menelik
Khmer - Jayavarman
Austria - Franz I. :king:
Poland - Jan Sobieski

I think the last two would be a good addition, mainly for a scenario of europe in the 17th/18th Century, when gunpowder comes up

Watiggi

Mar 30, 2007, 02:26 AM

I don't think they'd have both Iroquois and Sioux in. Besides, I read on one of the screenshots that it is "Sitting Bull of the Native Americans," which tells me that they've lumped all the Indian tribes into one civ. I could be wrong.It makes sense to have it that way - as "Sitting Bull of the Native Americans" as then other native american leaders from other tribes can be added in by modders. Having the Sioux or Iraquois 'empires' would restrict them to having to create another empire for another native american leader. The question would then be: what would the UU and UB then be for all the native american tribes?

snipperrabbit!!

Mar 30, 2007, 02:35 AM

The Totem replacing monuments !

Sabretou

Mar 30, 2007, 03:17 AM

Well, with four announced, that leaves six. Here's my list:

Siam/Thailand
Burma/Myanmar
Maya
Austria
Byzantine
Ethiopia

But I'd also like to see: ;)

Poland
Huns

Martinus

Mar 30, 2007, 03:34 AM

I think people are once again confusing countries with civilizations - both Timurids and Seleucids were you can say stadial forms of the already existent civilizations - Mongols and Persians.

Since the game lets you rule a given civilization from ancient times until the modern era, you need to understand that no single civilization lasted that long and you need to allow for a broader picture, rather than focusing on a single state/dynasty. If we allow for separate Seleucids and Persians, we should just as well have Stalin and Peter rule different civilizations.

Azazell

Mar 30, 2007, 03:34 AM

POLAND or Netherlands

Martinus

Mar 30, 2007, 03:41 AM

Since I like to play on huge world maps, I'd like to see more civilizations in the areas that are currently under-represented.

A Northern American native civilization is a good idea, so are the Mayans. I would also like to see at least one sub-Saharan civilization (Ethiopians/Abbysinians sound like a good idea, both because they aren't completely unknown, and their starting area is presently not covered by another civ).

For East Asia, Khmer, Vietnam, Burma or Thailand all sound like good choices. Some Polynesian/Philppine civilization would be nice to have too.

On the other hand, since the expansion is called "Beyond the Sword", I suppose most civilizations will be the ones that raised to prominence during the gunpowder era and beyond (that's why there are the Portuguese and the Dutch there), so I suppose we will see at least one more European civ.

Tomek

Mar 30, 2007, 03:50 AM

[B]Babylon

-Poland (it would be nice to have an Eastern European civ besides Russia)

Of course it would be nice!
Poland XVI-XVII century cavalry rulez !

A time for Poland!

LDeska

Mar 30, 2007, 03:55 AM

I think that we will have not "the most important" civs, only the civs which are needed by scenarios included in this add-on. I'm also quite pessimistic if there will be Poland, but as our Golden Age occurred exactly in the period 'Beyond the Sword' so, maybe we will be finally in.

My list of civ:
Portugal
Dutch
Native North-Americans (I think it will be one general civ like Vikings)
Babylon (great choice!)
Poland
Austria or Austria-Hungary (rather Austria :( )
Some south-Asian like Khmer, Siam
Some African like Ethiopia
One one native American, I'm afraid, from Central or South America
one is still missing - maybe Hittites?

Tomek

Mar 30, 2007, 04:31 AM

I I'm also quite pessimistic if there will be Poland, but as our Golden Age occurred exactly in the period 'Beyond the Sword' so, maybe we will be finally in.

And if Poland so who will be the leader? Johannes III Sobieski?
Casimir the Great?

My list of civs:
Babylon
Poland
Native Americans
Portugal
Nederlands
Maya
Vietnameese
Some Polynesian nation
Italy
Ethiopia

If it is Beyond the sword then it should be more significant civ from modern times less from ancien times.

Harald500

Mar 30, 2007, 04:52 AM

Tomek

Mar 30, 2007, 05:24 AM

Leif Roar

Mar 30, 2007, 05:26 AM

No comment on the likelihood, but I'd like to see either the Minoan or Phoenician civilization represented (and it would be nice to have a second sea-themed civilization), and also the Olmec or the Vandals.

LAnkou

Mar 30, 2007, 06:22 AM

Mines are:

Portugal: Henry the navigator IMP/EXP (because he really launch the colonisation movement)
Netherland: Guillaume of Orange FIN/CRE (won't be much discussion i think)
Babylone: Hammurabi IMP/PHI
Amerindians: Sitting Bull PRO/PHI (i know amerindians are different tribes, nation and all, but like the celts, they are a common "civ" to me)
Mayas: Smoke-jaguar (AGG/CHA)
Ethiopians/abbyssinians: Queen Sabah? (FIN/ORG)
Khmers: the one with the complicated name CRE/PRO (i know, enough extreme asian protective leaders, but hey "never fight a land war in asia")
Austria: Sissi or Byzantines: doesn't remember her name(need a girl) Cre/Exp

France: Charles de Gaulle IND/CHA
America: Abe CHA/PHI
Arabs: Abou bakr SPI/IMP (but any great "muslim conquerer" could fit)
Grece: Pericles CRE/PHI (i think no one will complain that these two traits fits this leader)
Japan: Meiji IND /IMP(i think there will be no complaints there too)
Persia: Abbas I the great AGG/ORG (this one will be debated i think, but persia isn't only 300!!...)

That leaves two others civ.
possible: Brazil and polynesians, but i don't really believe it.
If there is Brazil, i imagine the UB
Football Stadium (replaces colosseum):idem colosseum +2 happy faces. Create each turn a great footballer (unique names: Pelé, Garincha, Romario, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho...).

snipperrabbit!!

Mar 30, 2007, 06:29 AM

Ronaldinho isn't great, he is just talented.

ChrTh

Mar 30, 2007, 06:37 AM

I just want to say one thing, THE VATICAN! Where on this earth do people figure the Vatican classifies as a civilization. It is a single city-state-church and sits as the sole headquarters of a major religion only. A civilization it is not. Be more realistic. :nuke:

It is now, but not then.

And right now the Vikings (among other groups in the game) sit nowhere, should they not be included? The Papal States were an important part of European history. Granted, not as important as some other states that are not included. But to dismiss the Vatican as a just a single city demonstrates a lack of understanding of European history.

EDIT: The following is quoted from Wiki
"At its greatest extent, in the 18th century, the Papal States included most of Central Italy — Latium, Umbria, Marche and the Legations of Ravenna, Ferrara and Bologna extending north into the Romagna. It also included the small enclaves of Benevento and Pontecorvo in southern Italy and the larger Comtat Venaissin around Avignon in southern France."

Onagan

Mar 30, 2007, 06:41 AM

Netherland: Guillaume of Orange FIN/CRE (won't be much discussion i think)A lot of discusion, i don't know any Guillaume? And i'm dutch.

I think that Charlemagne would be leader of the Germans.

ChrTh

Mar 30, 2007, 06:42 AM

A lot of discusion, i don't know any Guillaume? And i'm dutch.

Guillaume is French for William.

Vynd

Mar 30, 2007, 06:47 AM

Why do you think that? [civs from previous versions will be featured] It's certainly not a "just" situation, as several are already confirmed and most are already in Civ4. Previously-used civs don't fill all the slots, either. Surely the civilizations that were great enough to include in the 1990s are still great enough to include now?

I agree that all of the civs they've used in previous games are strong contenders. Some of them will certainly be in, and maybe it will turn out that they use all of them. But my gut feeling is that they'll want to include lots of new and different civs as well, because people will find that more exciting.

Besides, who wants to make a list of predictions and use only the safest choices? ;)

I find myself very fond of the idea of a Polynesian civ. They could have a UU Trireme replacement that can navigate across Oceans. Or maybe a Caravel replacement that can carry 1 unit of any type instead of just scouts/missionaries/spies.

Vietcong

Mar 30, 2007, 06:57 AM

What we know for sure:

Netherlands
Portugal
Sioux
Babylon

Crossing my fingers for Canada, Vatican, and maybe Australia?

*rolls eyes* not this canada crap agin... whats canada ever done??
thear uu can be the mounty, and ub a maple surpe factory.

The Almighty dF

Mar 30, 2007, 07:06 AM

Or the Canadian Tower.
Which can secretly launch all the nukes in the world! >=D
...And of course nobody watches Canadian Bacon.

As I've seen someone mention, making a USSR civ and moving Stalin to that would be neat. Their starting techs could be Agriculture and Mining (y'know, hammer and sickle? Production and agriculture, man.)

Vietnam could be interesting. Honestly, I wish they had added Vietnam instead of Korea. Come on.

I'd -love- to see some early civilization thing. Like a scenario. Sumeria, early China, etc.

Julian Delphiki

Mar 30, 2007, 07:10 AM

There should be an additional nordic civ, and the natural choice perhaps would be Finland. (The winter war with Soviet Union etc.), but also etnic civs like the Sames could be represented. They still live all over the northern part of north Europe. Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Haha, thats a funny one even if i'm Finn myself :lol:. It would be wierd, but thanks for the support. Imho Firaxis should add more relevant civs.

IMO sweden played much more important role in Europe history than Finland.
Anyway all nordic nations are represented by Vikings

I agree, Finland was part (possession) of Sweden for a long time. Harald500 has valid point about winter war - if we would actually have been invaded by Russia at the time it might have had big impact on 2nd world war. Instead we just got devastatated and 10% our land and lots of industrial capacity was stolen.

Vikings kind of semirepresent us too, but not that much.

mitsho

Mar 30, 2007, 07:13 AM

And if Poland so who will be the leader? Johannes III Sobieski?
Casimir the Great?

I would hope for Taddeusz Kosciusko, we already have enough kings... ;) and he actually deserves the place. Otherwise, I would suppose Sobieski, he suits most into a "Turks vs. Europe"-scenario... ;)

mick

Corporal P

Mar 30, 2007, 07:21 AM

I don't understand. Why do they need permission to make a Siamese LH? This is America, we don't need the permission of a foreign power to do anything! ;)

Okay, I'm kidding, but you get my point. What are they going to do if Firaxis goes ahead and does it? Boycott Civ? Oh, yeah, that'll hurt 'em big time...

I know exactly what you mean and I truely respect your belief in free speech. But, you know how it is with politicians. "Diplomatic issue". ;)

Anyway, I'd love to see Siam in this expansion pack along with other great CIVs. It will bring more variety into the game. :D

Lance of Llanwy

Mar 30, 2007, 07:38 AM

LDeska

Mar 30, 2007, 07:42 AM

Firaxis did it on purpose :) mentioned just few civs to make us beg for more information http://forum.kac.org.pl/images/smiles/niluge1.gif

@mitsho - he's name is Tadeusz Kościuszko (read Taddheush Kosh-t'ushko), he might be the one as he also fought for USA and was even a general of USA army, so Firaxis' employees should know him. In Poland he was a leader of anti-Russian uprising. However we prefer our kings: John III Sobieski, Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir The Great), Władysław Jagiełło as they ruled Polnd in better times.
Polish husaria and John III Sobieski fit into Europe vs Turks scenario, but I'm not too optimistic about it. I think that Firaxis will add 'civilizations' like native tribes of Oceania, Americas etc to keep BtS "culturally diversified" http://forum.kac.org.pl/images/smiles/roulette.gif

I'm still hoping to see Poland in BtS :) http://forum.kac.org.pl/images/smiles/cheerleader.gif

Pratputajao

Mar 30, 2007, 07:59 AM

I wish that Siam could make it to one of the ten CIVs, but in reality it is unlikely for many reasons.

-Between Khmer and Siam, the first was older considering the timeline moreover Khmer culture was more influential during its hight. Unless, Firaxis emphasizes the modern day timeline which Siam or Thailand as we know today has more influence in the region than Khmer or Cambodia today. And the fact that Siam throughout its history survived the onslaught of western colonization might prove that it was one of the major players in SE Asia, which could contribute to its place in the game among the other 10 CIVs.

-In order to make the leaderhead of Siam, Firaxis would have to ask for permission from the goverment of Thailand who acts on behalf of the king which unlikely that they would be given the permission. And besides, Firaxis wouldn't go that length just to add one CIV to the game.

Therefore, it is unlikely to see Siam in the game. :(

Your last point hit me right in the face... you are correct good sir. Thailand is VERY serious about the Kings (any of them) image and representation. This is the BIG reason thjat Siam will not be in...man that hurts, they REALLY deserve it. So Khmer and/or possibly Vietnam will be the Asian contributors. Well those are good too... Siam is just so special to almost everyone who has been there and knows the history....sigh...

Heres to hoping that Firaxis didnt know that the Thai Gov. would flip if they represent a Thai King in their game! ;)

Hero

Mar 30, 2007, 08:03 AM

Too late for Portugal and Netherlands, but I vote for no more European civs. Please stop arguing how historically important your various nations have been. The only reason minor European civs are being added is that there are enough gamers there with enough money to buy the expansion. I vote for some global diversity, and no old-timey civs like Hittites or Phoenicians.

Pratputajao

Mar 30, 2007, 08:11 AM

Well, with four announced, that leaves six. Here's my list:

Siam/Thailand
Burma/Myanmar
Maya
Austria
Byzantine
Ethiopia

But I'd also like to see: ;)

Poland
Huns

You will without a doubt see Vietnam before Burma/Myanmar although the latter would at time eclips all SE asian cutures in pure military power. But Vietnam was much more stable culture. 2000 years of history is a good thing ;)

DutchJob

Mar 30, 2007, 08:13 AM

WE'RE BACK!!! MUAHAHAH!!!

And Hero, we Dutch are not minor. Nations that pick on small non-industrialized states and call that spreading democracy are minor. ass.

Hero

Mar 30, 2007, 08:17 AM

Dutch do not deserve to be included. Except maybe as the Spanish Netherlands.

Tomek

Mar 30, 2007, 08:37 AM

Firaxis did it on purpose :) mentioned just few civs to make us beg for more information http://forum.kac.org.pl/images/smiles/niluge1.gif

@mitsho - he's name is Tadeusz Kościuszko (read Taddheush Kosh-t'ushko), he might be the one as he also fought for USA and was even a general of USA army, so Firaxis' employees should know him. In Poland he was a leader of anti-Russian uprising. However we prefer our kings: John III Sobieski, Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir The Great), Władysław Jagiełło as they ruled Polnd in better times.
Polish husaria and John III Sobieski fit into Europe vs Turks scenario, but I'm not too optimistic about it. I think that Firaxis will add 'civilizations' like native tribes of Oceania, Americas etc to keep BtS "culturally diversified"

Just to make full picture of Polish leaders: a considerable alternative is Pilsudski - Polish leader who beat Russians in 1920 war (famous battle of Warsaw that is considered as a one that changed the worlds history) and lead Polish nation to restore back our independence after 1918.

rgds

snipperrabbit!!

Mar 30, 2007, 08:48 AM

@Haro -If Portugal and Netherlands are minor, your nation is minor as well.

Slaughter

Mar 30, 2007, 08:53 AM

WE'RE BACK!!! MUAHAHAH!!!

And Hero, we Dutch are not minor. Nations that pick on small non-industrialized states and call that spreading democracy are minor. ass.

I concur!!

Elras

Mar 30, 2007, 09:38 AM

My ten

1) Luxemburg
2) Andorra
3) Monaco
4) Liechtenstein
5) Singapore
6) Lesotho
7) Bhutan
8) Sierre Leone
9) Togo
10) Iceland

..what? :)

Hero

Mar 30, 2007, 10:22 AM

@Haro -If Portugal and Netherlands are minor, your nation is minor as well.

If the Netherlands is not minor, then what nation is? Are there 200 major nations in the world?

Fideel

Mar 30, 2007, 10:28 AM

Right..

(wiki)

"Timur's legacy is a mixed one, for while Central Asia blossomed, some say even peaked, under his reign, other places such as Baghdad, Damascus, Delhi and other Arab, Persian, Indian and Turkic cities were sacked and destroyed, and many thousands of people were slaughtered brutally. Thus, while Timur remains a hero of sorts in Central Asia, he is vilified by many in Arab, Persian and Indian societies."

Lets make Alexander Indian leader! :crazyeye:
OK, he might not be as Persian as Cyrus or Xerxes. But in his time he was one of the biggest leaders in the world and the core of what he ruled was now Persia.

Besides, also from wiki:
Mongol/Turkic origin, his culture was heavily Persian.

And how would you put Akbar into Civ? He ruled in India, but was from Turkic origin. Many world leaders rule in countries they're not from. The Orange in William of Orange is a city in south France! Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek. He just conquered the Greek city states. And he was planning to rule his empire from Persia!

I think you have the civs right. Personaly I would switch the Byzantians with a Polish or Hungarian Civ but I think this will be the list too.
Leaders are almost all reasonable.
Thanks.
My changes:
Native Americans: Sitting Bull (already confirmed)
of course
Ethiopia/Abbesynia: Menelik II
Maybe Menelik is more Ethiopian than Makeda/Bilqis. She could be Yemenite. Even North Arabian. But I think we need more female leaders. And the Queen of Sheba is one of the strongest women in African history.
Polynesia: Don't know who to choose they were spread over so many small islands and all had small kingdoms. Maybe a Hawaiian or a Maori Leader.
I had to do some research too, and Hotu Matu'a seems like the biggest name.
Maya: Pacal
Agree. I just said Smoke Jaguar since they used him in CivIII.
Israel/Hebrew: David.
mmmh ... I doubt. Solomon has connections with Ethiopia and might be a bit more convenient.
France : Charles de Gaulle (sort of confirmed, his picture is recognized on the firaxis site. The big background one on the main announcement page)
OK, now I saw it too ... So the other Charles. It's weird there hasn't been a Charlemagne in CivIII or CivIV. He was the biggest king of the early middle ages. But he's too much in the middle German and French. Maybe just a scenario about him would be fine.
Spain : Phillip II
That would solve the problem of Charles being king of Spain or Holy Roman Emperor.
Greece :Pericles
Japan: Meiji
Arabs: Abu Bakr
I all agree too. Yongle and Tamerlane are bit closer to the gunpowder age though. And Germany deserves a more early leader, since Frederick and Bismarck are too 19th-20th century.
But there are so many posibilities for new leaders. History's just too rich! That's why I like it so much.

Fideel

Mar 30, 2007, 10:43 AM

If the Netherlands is not minor, then what nation is? Are there 200 major nations in the world?
you don't know much about history, don't you.
New York was once New Amsterdam.
They had a lot of colonies in the Caribean & East Asia.
Few nations were so powerful in the 17th century, their GOLDEN CENTURY.

Maybe a sign of an Italian civ:
http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=16
It's Il Duomo of Florence in the banner.
Maybe an Italian/Florence civ with Cosimo de' Medici as a leader?

mitsho

Mar 30, 2007, 10:49 AM

@mitsho - he's name is Tadeusz Kościszko (read Taddheush Kosh-t'ushko), he might be the one as he also fought for USA and was even a general of USA army, so Firaxis' employees should know him. In Poland he was a leader of anti-Russian uprising. However we prefer our kings: John III Sobieski, Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir The Great), Władysław Jagiełło as they ruled Polnd in better times.
Polish husaria and John III Sobieski fit into Europe vs Turks scenario, but I'm not too optimistic about it. I think that Firaxis will add 'civilizations' like native tribes of Oceania, Americas etc to keep BtS "culturally diversified"

Hey, I don't need information on poor old Taddeusz, i'm a history student and've been treating him just last semester ;). the way I wrote him is btw. the English way (used by wikipedia) and it's really much more easier writing it without the ` and so on... ;) (it was on purpose).

This is why I chose him: Poland is famous not for saving Europe from the Turks or Russians (which is often thought by themselves, not? We would never allow that ;)) but for being an early nationalistic, liberal "nation" of Europe (1st constitution, just count all the rebellions against Russia, etc. ...) and for being parted three times. I wouldn't define height with power, but it is clear that Poland(-Lithuania) was more powerful when it stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea than when it couldn't even be found on any contemporary map... ;)

But in the end, it is subjective, and Sobieski could get the interesting Chm/Cre combination. So they all would fit, ;) I do think the chances for Poland are quite good this time. We get 6 new at the moment unknown civs, if we add civs that have already appeared once in a civ game (Sumeria, Byzantium, Hittites, Austria, Iroquois) we still have one place left. But they won't bring back all these civs but they need to have some fresh blood in there (hint: Mali). That's why I think Poland actually has a chance this time... ;)

mick

Bongo-Bongo

Mar 30, 2007, 11:12 AM

Personally, I think the Mayans are a pretty safe bet. And I wouldn't be suprised if the Summerians and Byzantines are included as well. Beyond them, I think the other 3 Civs are likely to be Khmer, the Hittites and either Poland or Ethiopia. I think Dacia would be a cool inclusion, but I can't see them making it in.

Onagan

Mar 30, 2007, 11:21 AM

New York was indeed founded as Nieuw Amsterdam.
Cape Town, South Africa was founded as Kaapstad by the V.O.C. (United East-Indian Company)
Abel Tasman discovered New Zealand (named after the dutch province Zeeland) and Tasmania.
Cape Hoorn on the southern tip of America is named after the city Hoorn.
"We" the Dutch sailed across the world and because the small size of the home nation, we could only support coastal strongholds. Other countries like France, Spain & England had enough too control the inland regions.
And where the only european nation that had access to the Japanese market, as others where banned.
Overall we had a period where we a world-power.

Kietharr

Mar 30, 2007, 11:31 AM

If the Netherlands is not minor, then what nation is? Are there 200 major nations in the world?

The relevance of a nation is not purely measured on empire size or military victories. The Dutch owned a trading empire that spanned the renissance world, breaking arab and italian monopolies on spices and coffee. They also were major players in the slave trade. However, calling the United States a minor nation is also a falsehood on any scale, as we're currently the most powerful and 4th largest Nation in the world, we're 3rd in population and we were the first nation founded on Democratic ideals.

Anyways, I hope they don't do somthing dumb like giving portugal or the netherlands a naval UU unless it is MUCH better than normal era ships, maybe a galleon with 5 slots but 1 lest strength for the Dutch? Given a frigate escort, it would be a fitting and useful UU. Whatever they do, they can't make it much worse than the Man'o'War from civ3, although the dromon was pretty tight.

gettingfat

Mar 30, 2007, 12:05 PM

Gladi

Mar 30, 2007, 01:34 PM

Bright day
I read that Sitting Bull was actually Lakota... Anybody knows better?

Oh, I would to see Mkongo or Mutapa in game.

mitsho

Mar 30, 2007, 01:46 PM

Lakota is just another name for the Sioux (speak: [Sou]), I think.

mick

snipperrabbit!!

Mar 30, 2007, 01:59 PM

Sitting Bull belongs to Hunkpapa tribe. Sioux is short for naddowessioux which means snake.

Koelle

Mar 30, 2007, 02:26 PM

Voice from an Asian:

New civs:

Vietnamese: A civ that defeated Mongolians and Americans,
Siamese: the only South East Asian civ not colonized by Europeans, still strong

New leaders:

Vietnamese: Ho Chi Minh (organized/protective or organized/charismatic), like him or not, there is a city using his name
Siamese: King Mongkut (creative/philosophical or creative/organized), forget his actual contribution, just his presence in the King and I (or Anna and the King) makes him a worthwhile leader candidate :P
Chinese: Tang Taizong (creative/financial), time to put in the leader agreed by most Chinese historians to be the gold standard of ancient Chinese emperors. Chinese don't called themselves "Tang people" for no reason.
Japanese: Oda Nobunaga (aggressive/charismatic) or Toyotomi Hideyoshi (imperialistic/aggressive). These two legends probably contributed more to Japan unification than Tokugawa. Indeed, there are Japanese PC game series devoted to each of them.

New Wanders:

Kiyomizu-Dera , Leshan Giant Buddha

P.S. time to stop making every East Asian leader protective, PLEASE

Very nice choice. Since the expansion will focus on the late-game time periods after the invention of gunpowder and during that brief period of time, the Vietnamese had been involved in alot successful wars with other great civs like America, France, China, ... Vietnam is an ancient civ too(4000 years old if IRCC). Their nation wonder should be "Temple of Literature: a confucian temple but functioned as the national university, one of the oldest universities in the world. I would also be nice to see Vietnam and Siam fighting at the battle of Angkor Wat. The Khmers surely wont complain about this choice as their wonder has been in the game for a while

durfal

Mar 30, 2007, 05:22 PM

Many world leaders rule in countries they're not from. The Orange in William of Orange is a city in south France!

Actually the French "Orange" region was only an inheritance in which he got a lot of his money too. He originated from Nassau which is in nowadays Germany.
The "Familyname" of our royal family is still "van Oranje-Nassau"
(of Orange-Nassau), so actually he is of German blood. (which is a line from our national anthem)

I have only two concerns.
One is if this time Firaxis uses the corrrect leaderhead. Last time they used the wrong reverence of another William, namely the one who was King of England (and stadholder of Holland at the same time) and who was also known as William of Orange (almost all our male rulers are called William of Orange, inluding the nowadays Crown Prince will be named that way when he is crowned). The correct William was also called William the Silent (Willem de Zwijger).And his title should be Stadholder and not King because we became a kingdom only in the 19the century.
We were at his time during the 16th century the first "modern" republic.

And secondly I hope they use a serious citylist. In civ 3 it was a joke:sad: with "cities" almost nobody even heard about here.:confused: After some reseach we found out they used hamlets with less then 50 inhabitants as cities just because there is nowaday a ferry there to one of the Waddenisles in the North of the country:( . And they totaly forgot historic ports and cities from the 17th century. :mad:

DutchJob

Mar 31, 2007, 01:59 AM

Yes indeed Gettingfat (great name), NO MORE protective Asians. pfff. All of them that trait is too much.

Hope they introduce the Vietnamese one day. beautiful people who can be tough when they want. VC-infantry as UU. Out in the open you won't recieve a defensive bonus or anything like that against these guys. No ideas about traits now.

Curious about the traits for the Dutch. What Holland do they want to see? That of V. van Gogh or from De Ruyter (Dutch war hero)?

deanjack

Mar 31, 2007, 02:28 AM

Aswell as the ones that we know are going to be in it i would like to see (At least an option) for Britain. My case for it is that it was the largest empire ever seen and probably ever will be seen. Some people might say Britain is England but is not true Britian is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not just Scots like me that want at least an option for this, many people from all across the UK and abroad would like this even if it is just to see America beat britain:)

Lacaixa

Mar 31, 2007, 03:26 AM

Andy_Candy

Mar 31, 2007, 03:53 AM

If they want to fill out the world map better they should go for these:

The ones known:

The Netherlands
Portugal
Dacota indians
Babylon

(Some changes done to Europe, and perhaps middle-east to fit em in)

The rest:

America:

Maya

Africa:

Ethiopia or Nubia

Asia:

Khmer
Polynesia
(You could go Australia, but I think its against the Civ trd, it's a too modern country, like Canada. You may argue it's the same for America, but they have had their independence longer, and has been a super power the last 60 years)

Europa:

Austria and Poland (or perhaps Hungary?)

With a few tweaks in Europe, this would give a very cool Earth map indeed!
The Byzantines and Hittites are to close to the Ottomans.

mitsho

Mar 31, 2007, 04:13 AM

Well, the Britain problem could be avoided by making the "English-civ" be called England when it's lead by Elizabeth, and "Britain" when Victoria or Churchill lead it (which would on the other hand call for Henry VII or another English king to even out.. ;)). But nevertheless it is a minor question...

Why are the Hittites too close to the Ottomans and Byzantines? If it's geographically, then I'd propose you try RFC (Rhyes and Fall of Civilization, it's a big mod) where a timeline is added (Ottomans appear in 1260 AD, Hittites would do much more early). In any case, geographical nearness should not be a viable criteria at all.

I personally hope for
Poland [There are enough reasons listed for them in this thread alone]
Austria(-Hungary) [I know they are two different civs, but both deserve implementation and if combined, you can nearly cover all of the Balkans in a city-list... ;)]
Assyria
[b]Maya [should be clear, fill up the three Great Civs from Ancien America]
Khmer [Either them or Indonesians, Malayans]
Vietnam [This thread convinced me that they deserve introduction]

mick

taillesskangaru

Mar 31, 2007, 04:29 AM

@mitsho Austria-Hungary don't rule in the Balkans until the late 19th century when Ottoman Empire decayed. Even so they only cover Croatia and Slovenia and parts of Transylvania. Plus, Austria-Hungary only exists as a political entity after 1848 when the duel monarchy was established.

Also by the time Babylon rise as a major power (circa 1800BC) most Sumerian cities have been abandoned or destroyed. Assyria, on the other hand, rise to prominance around the same time that the Old Babylonian kingdom declined. Therefore, there's a greater chance the Assyrian city list could overlap with the Babylonian than the Sumerian!

Final point, Vietnam as a civilisation is too influenced by China. Their customs, religion, architecture, system of government, etc, all taken from Chinese models. Khmer, Siam or Burma are much better choices when it comes to representing south east asia imho. (plus the memories of the Vietnam war is still fresh.)

mitsho

Mar 31, 2007, 05:31 AM

Ah god, can't you guys read my posts, NEARLY = POSSIBILITY, neither REALITY nor HISTORICALITY, just the fact that you could bend it that way... Going on, what you said on Assyria, I said too. Go read it.

:rolleyes: mick

Koelle

Mar 31, 2007, 06:09 AM

Final point, Vietnam as a civilisation is too influenced by China. Their customs, religion, architecture, system of government, etc, all taken from Chinese models. Khmer, Siam or Burma are much better choices when it comes to representing south east asia imho.

You can say the same about Korea, but they are in. Why shouldn't Vietnam? And for that matter, Khmer, Siam and Burma are too influenced by India. It is also believed that they are descendants of the once powerful Hundred Viet, who ruled most of Southern China and Nothern South East Asia.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8920/1xarzhouum6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Since there're probably 2 places for Asia, i think Viet - Siam/Khmer would be better than Siam - Khmer or Siam - Burma (they are almost the same). And if you dont know, the the Great Viet empire (aka Annamese Empire) covered most parts of the modern day Laos, Cambodia, and some big parts of Thailand and Burma

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9360/282286910c0cbe33860ozj9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

(plus the memories of the Vietnam war is still fresh.)
I dont think anyone would take it seriously, otherwise there would be no Persia/Iran either. Plus, Vietnam has no lack of supporters in their push for a place in Civ series. Like those guys :D

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/4497/1031340clintonflag300apsw0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8731/2817503095fr1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Hitti-Litti

Mar 31, 2007, 07:19 AM

It's great that Netherlands, Babylon and Portugal are included. Sioux wouldn't be my first choice, but it's better than for example Canada.

6 other civs could/should be:

Khmer/Siam/Burma/Viet: SE Asia needs some filling. Now.
Poland: Reasons given in the Poland petition thread.
Ethiopia: Has existed for centuries, was never a colonial part of an empire.
Austria: Fought back against the Ottoman Empire, which is already included. Also fits well for the gunpowder era.
Brazil: Biggest of the South American nations. Gunpowder era nation.
Sweden: A major player in Europe, was involved for example in the 30 Years War. Different from Vikings.

So IMO 3 more nations could be included to Europe. With them BtS should have a world map with larger Europe so all could fit.

Scaramanga

Mar 31, 2007, 08:48 AM

I believe the Sioux with Sitting Bull as leader is in because that was the setup from Civ II; they're playing up the nostalgia factor :D.

I can't think of any civs from previous civ games that had their names or leaders changed dramatically (Cleopatra to Hatshepsut is one I guess) so that's why I think it will be Sitting Bull of the "Sioux", not "Native Americans" or "Dakota."

mythmonster2

Mar 31, 2007, 09:56 AM

My picks-
Portugal
Netherlands
Sioux
Babylon
Austria
Ethiopia
(Wild Guess) Aborigines
Siam
Phonencia(Are they in warlords?)
Mayans

potatokiosk

Mar 31, 2007, 10:42 AM

Personally, for the other six I would advocate:
Maya
Austria
Poland
Ethiopia
Byzantines
Khmer (or some other southest Asia civ, I don't know much about the area)

None of these silly suggestions like Polynesia.

Atticus

Mar 31, 2007, 10:47 AM

Poland or Lithuania would be very good. Especially in world at that region there seems to be too much space (compared to western Europe). Asian civilizations would be very nice also, as well as Phoenicia, Ethiopia and Israel.

I don't thinkk any Scandinavian civilization can co-exist with Vikings. Or else vikings should be renamed to Danish or Norweigian. Brazilia, Canada and Finland are all too anonymous to be in the game, unless if there would be another expansion pack, which would include minor nations. Maybe they would have no unique unit nor leader traits. Maybe barbarian cities could evolve in to these minor civilizations. I'm kind of hoping that instead of making civ 5 they would make civ 4 more and more complex and overwhelming.

Truronian

Mar 31, 2007, 10:57 AM

I'm hoping for Israel, or the Hebrews. Especially given that Judaism in one of the religions.

LightSpectra

Mar 31, 2007, 10:58 AM

1. Israel (King David)
2. Holy Roman Empire (Charlemagne)
3. Ethiopia (Menelik II)
4. Byzantine Empire (Constantine)
5. The Huns (Atilla)
6. Italy (Garibaldi/Mazzini)

Though I doubt having three Roman empires would happen.

Hitti-Litti

Mar 31, 2007, 11:28 AM

Truronian, because the religions aren't "flavoured", religion shouldn't be a reason to add a nation. So no Israel.

*runs away from the angry mob*

Armor King

Mar 31, 2007, 12:03 PM

Portugal
Netherlands
Huns
Sioux
Hittites
Serbia
Bulgaria
Avar

potatokiosk

Mar 31, 2007, 12:06 PM

marioflag

Mar 31, 2007, 04:18 PM

I can't agree with adding the Huns, roaming barbarians simply don't count as a civilization. I'm not too big on nomadic tribes like the Sioux either, but it might be too late to stop that train.

I mean, what's the one thing the game always centers around? Your cities. It's very awkward to include as civs nations that did not build cities.

They were "roaming barbarians" but they had a deep impact on european history.We also have some other civs which were like Huns, Vikings for example were known not only as good sailors but also because they were raiders.Being roaming barbarians doesn' mean they weren't a great civilization.

potatokiosk

Mar 31, 2007, 04:42 PM

They were "roaming barbarians" but they had a deep impact on european history.We also have some other civs which were like Huns, Vikings for example were known not only as good sailors but also because they were raiders.Being roaming barbarians doesn' mean they weren't a great civilization.

Now, I don't think that the Vikings can be compared to the Huns like that. The Vikings founded numerous influential cities.

sourboy

Mar 31, 2007, 04:46 PM

The official expansion page refers to a "Native Americans" civ... whether or not that will be officially named "Sioux" or not isn't a given. I could see them grouping Amerindians...

With the 'beyond the sword' approach, the unknown Civs are more likely to be along the lines of a 'Poland' than a 'Maya' -- so expect more European Civs, especially since they will be used in gunpowder-timeline war scenarios that dominate European lands.

Julian Delphiki

Mar 31, 2007, 05:05 PM

They were "roaming barbarians" but they had a deep impact on european history.We also have some other civs which were like Huns, Vikings for example were known not only as good sailors but also because they were raiders.Being roaming barbarians doesn' mean they weren't a great civilization.

Vikings were founders of Russia and scandinavian kingdoms (and had lots of effect on British Isles/Normandy). They were much more than raiders and sailors.

LucyDuke

Mar 31, 2007, 08:23 PM

The official expansion page refers to a "Native Americans" civ... whether or not that will be officially named "Sioux" or not isn't a given. I could see them grouping Amerindians...

I can see it happening, too, but that really bugs me. It's a lot like having a "European" civ, or an "Asian" civ. Especially with the Aztecs in place, it's just a bad, bad way to do it.

Lord Sandwich

Mar 31, 2007, 08:54 PM

Here's my list:

Portugal
Netherlands
Native American (I realize this one is "disputed"; I'd pick the Iroquois.)
Babylon

My first 3 suggestions are easy:
Sweden a dominant power in the post medieval period
Austria ... ditto
Poland ... ditto

My next 3 are harder, and I strove for geographical balance:
Mughals/Moghuls ... I'll let others argue over spelling
Ethiopia ... only African nation to successfully resist colonization
Sioux ... I think another Native American civ would be cool

Lord Sandwich

Mar 31, 2007, 09:02 PM

whenever Canada,Australia etc get a mention as possible Civs to be included they usually get shot down by people saying they are simply an extention of the English civ. Fair enough. But on this basis isn't the USA just an extention of the English civ ? Pretty much all the Founding Fathers were of British descent or even born there.George Washingtons own brother was a loyalist for heavens sake . The whole framework of the USA is clearly British inspired from the Common Law onwards not to mention the language that we are all using on this forum. So I vote that if other British offshoots can't get in then by the same logic the USAs inclusion is suspect at best.

But there is the slight issue of the US being a Superpower, putting a man on the moon and all that. Also, the US has a much larger population than either Canada or Australia. Plus, by your logic we could even rule out India and Egypt since they were British colonies once.
On the other hand Mel Gibson and Mounties would be awesome UUs for the Australians and Canadians respectively. :lol:

Gaius Octavius

Mar 31, 2007, 09:09 PM

Ah yes, an Australian civ with a Mel Gibson UU whose state religion is Judaism. I like Mel, so I won't say one word, not one word...

Suspiria

Mar 31, 2007, 09:31 PM

I dont care what people say, I want to see Australia in this expansion.

Gaius Octavius

Mar 31, 2007, 10:11 PM

Actually, it would be an interesting choice. That part of the world is always underdeveloped in Earth map games, and this would fix it. Very good for scenarios, too.

ParkCungHee

Mar 31, 2007, 11:10 PM

If they make an Australian civ, it should be Aboriginal.

volkanbadem

Mar 31, 2007, 11:52 PM

we may see Hector as the leader of Trojans.but Paris might be a better leader with interesting traits.

Armor King

Apr 01, 2007, 12:32 AM

we may see Hector as the leader of Trojans.but Paris might be a better leader with interesting traits.

paris....oh nooo!!!
he is coward,ı think hector is the best leader for trojans..

Armor King

Apr 01, 2007, 12:39 AM

Now, I don't think that the Vikings can be compared to the Huns like that. The Vikings founded numerous influential cities.

do you think that you know a lot about Huns history.ı advise you to read Huns complete history..
ı agree with my friend.Huns have deep impact on Euopean History..all countries on Europe emigrate their place by huns impact..Dont forget..Huns were a great civ..

Watiggi

Apr 01, 2007, 01:02 AM

Since the game lets you rule a given civilization from ancient times until the modern era, you need to understand that no single civilization lasted that long and you need to allow for a broader picture, rather than focusing on a single state/dynasty.China's lasted that long.

I'd love to see the Huns and Assyria. I don't expect it though.

Q regarding Charlemagne: If Charlemagne is a french leader and there appears to be the Charlemagne Mounted unit, then what happened to the Musketeer? Maybe the Charlemagne Mounted unit is for a scenario.

I can see it happening, too, but that really bugs me. It's a lot like having a "European" civ, or an "Asian" civ. Especially with the Aztecs in place, it's just a bad, bad way to do it.No it's not. Then modders could add other leaders to the Native American tribes without having to create a whole new civ. I think comparing that to boxing all the europeans into one group is a little extreme.

Corporal P

Apr 01, 2007, 03:22 AM

You can say the same about Korea, but they are in. Why shouldn't Vietnam? And for that matter, Khmer, Siam and Burma are too influenced by India. It is also believed that they are descendants of the once powerful Hundred Viet, who ruled most of Southern China and Nothern South East Asia.

Since there're probably 2 places for Asia, i think Viet - Siam/Khmer would be better than Siam - Khmer or Siam - Burma (they are almost the same). And if you dont know, the the Great Viet empire (aka Annamese Empire) covered most parts of the modern day Laos, Cambodia, and some big parts of Thailand and Burma

I dont think anyone would take it seriously, otherwise there would be no Persia/Iran either. Plus, Vietnam has no lack of supporters in their push for a place in Civ series. Like those guys :D

I'm thinking the same about the two CIVs you've mentioned, Siam and Viet. They should be in to represent SE Asia together, maybe we can experience the major battles in the region again. :)

Tavenier

Apr 01, 2007, 03:32 AM

-Portugal
-Netherlands
-Sioux
-Babylon
-Byzantine
-Siam
-Maya
-Hittite
-Sumeryan
-Huns

These would be my choices

I don't think they'll add Babylon and Sumeria in one expansion. Too much alike, the two. It will sooner be the Phoenicians then. And Austria instead of Huns.

Lacaixa

Apr 01, 2007, 03:47 AM

Lord Sandwich:

The Egypt/India thing isn't a good comparison at all. These were distinct civilisations that were conquered and pretty much exploited . The cultural influence was negligable in Egypts case but quite strong with India though . The 'White Dominions' were completely different being foundered from scratch in the mother countries own image. At the end of the 19th century OZ,NZ and Canada would have been described as 'Greater Britain'.
I love the idea of a Mountie UU . Mel Gibson would have a pandemic effect though and reduce cultural influence with his crap films.

marioflag

Apr 01, 2007, 03:59 AM

I don't think they'll add Babylon and Sumeria in one expansion. Too much alike, the two. It will sooner be the Phoenicians then. And Austria instead of Huns.

Babylon and Sumeria flourished in two different periods.If they will pick new civs based on their influence through history, Sumeria is a must considering that it is among the first great civs.I agree that this could make Mesopotamia area a bit crowded, but in Ancient times Mesopotamia was like Europe in Mondern times.Phoenicia would be also a good choice but it could be partially represented by Carthage which is already in.It's not certainly historical but if Alexander can be leader of Greeks in civ4,Carthage can easily represent Phoenicians.Assyrians are least known but certainly wouldn't be also a bad choice.

Lacaixa

Apr 01, 2007, 04:07 AM

BTW My choices would be,

Portugal
Netherlands
Sioux
Babylon
Poland ( Fill the area between Germany and Russia on world maps)
Israel/Israelites ( Jews and Judaism have had a profound effect on world history )
Magyars ( Ditto Poland )
Ethiopia ( Need another African civ )
Moiri or Australia (Got to fill up that vacant area on world maps )
Brazil (Using the logic that it's a post gunpowder expansion)

Watiggi

Apr 01, 2007, 04:19 AM

Mel Gibson would have a pandemic effect though and reduce cultural influence with his crap films.I don't think Mel would like being associated with Australia though. I believe he dislikes being considered Australian as he considers himself American.

Tavenier

Apr 01, 2007, 04:23 AM

Babylon and Sumeria flourished in two different periods.If they will pick new civs based on their influence through history, Sumeria is a must considering that it is among the first great civs.I agree that this could make Mesopotamia area a bit crowded, but in Ancient times Mesopotamia was like Europe in Mondern times.Phoenicia would be also a good choice but it could be partially represented by Carthage which is already in.It's not certainly historical but if Alexander can be leader of Greeks in civ4,Carthage can easily represent Phoenicians.Assyrians are least known but certainly wouldn't be also a bad choice.

Yes, that's true. But I am not saying that they must not ever put Sumeria in, but I just don't think they will add them together in one add-on.

And comparing Carthage and Phoenicia is like comparing Britain and the USA. They both have close historical ties, but also have been really important. Phoenicians practically invented the alphabet and were very important explorers, seafarers and colonizers. Carthage has been important for the rise to power of Rome, of course, but also they have made some inventions and developments that were important. And Hannibal was IMHO one of the best generals of ancient times and maybe of all times.

Hitti-Litti

Apr 01, 2007, 04:35 AM

Mughals/Moghuls

Forgot about them completely. Great suggestion. :goodjob:

MusX

Apr 01, 2007, 04:55 AM

I really would like that could be Poland in the ten added.
There is even petition for this: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/224875277?ltl=1175424853
:D

Gladi

Apr 01, 2007, 05:14 AM

paris....oh nooo!!!
he is coward,ı think hector is the best leader for trojans..

How? Yes he is not best with sword, but I think being raised as a herdsman instead of prince has more to do with that then any of his personal qualities.

On the next African civilization people see to favour Ethiopia greatly... hmm.

tantaluss

Apr 01, 2007, 07:15 AM

As we already know Portugal, Holland, Babylon and Souix my votes go for;
Sumeria
Isreal
Syria
Italy
Byzantium
Austria

If I could I would take out the Souix and Zulus, as these were not civilizations and replace them with the Etheopians and the Maya.

It's stupid having non-civilized non-urban peoples such as the Souix or the Zulus, or asking for people such as the Aboriganies.
It's equally stupid to say that cultures should be included on the basis of geography.

The game is called civilization, not 'countries-on-different-continents' or 'who-won-what-war' therefore cultures should be measured in terms of their contributions to civilization, not any other factor. It's stupid complaining that there is a bias towards civilizations from one area or another, beacuse its pointless to put a less worthwhile civilization on in place of another only because the more worthy civ was from a continent where many civilizations had already existed.

Kietharr

Apr 01, 2007, 07:24 AM

So now you have the absoulute power to define what a civilization is, tantaluss? Just because they didn't develop like other civilizations dosn't make them barbarians. They had a power structure, society, politics, and war, how is THAT not a civilization? Just because they didn't make any big buildings to become ruins for us to study?

Hitti-Litti

Apr 01, 2007, 07:29 AM

^^

With that definition most of world's nations would be civilizations...

Scaramanga

Apr 01, 2007, 11:15 AM

Corporal P

Apr 01, 2007, 11:40 AM

My bets?

I think they're going to put in pretty much all the remaining civs that have been included in previous Civilization games (I,II,III) but are not yet featured in IV. The number happens to equal exactly 10:

Portugal
Netherlands
Babylonia
Souix
Hittites
Byzantines
Austria*
Sumeria
Maya
Iroquois

*Austria wasn't officially in Civilization III but the unit and leader head artwork was included in C3: Conquests.

It seems logical to me, and it is likely the case that Firaxis would go along that line of adding good old CIVs, once featured in previous games. And the fact that they add up to exactly 10 CIVs. Hmm, very interesting. I guess all we can do now is wait for the next press release.

sourboy

Apr 01, 2007, 11:50 AM

I really would like that could be Poland in the ten added.
There is even petition for this: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/224875277?ltl=1175424853
:D

Signed....

mitsho

Apr 01, 2007, 11:54 AM

But, and that's the big point, Firaxis has always put in new fresh blood as well (hint: Mali). So they are likely to do that again, with one or two civs:
Poland and a South East Asian one...

mick

Pratputajao

Apr 01, 2007, 11:59 AM

Since there're probably 2 places for Asia, i think Viet - Siam/Khmer would be better than Siam - Khmer or Siam - Burma (they are almost the same). And if you dont know, the the Great Viet empire (aka Annamese Empire) covered most parts of the modern day Laos, Cambodia, and some big parts of Thailand and Burma

Yes I agree with Koelle on this. As Siam and Khmer are quite similar in respect to culture. I think a good representation of SE asia (after gun powder) would definately be Vientam and Siam- 2 very differant cultures almost next door to each other. If you can have what, 6+ european civs two for SE asia isnt a stretch.

Cool map Koelle. Is that yours? Is it an original? I have never seen a map like that, I mean with An annam empire like that. I would guess that was made for a very specific time- between 1833 and 1845 for that is only time Vietnam held Cambodia uncontested. Ater 1845 Cambodia was considered part of the Siamese empire (until the French took it) Most maps I see from the era look like this--

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/57814/8c_007.jpg

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/57814/16c_014.jpg

What era was that map from? (I cant really make out details on it too well)

And for that matter, Khmer, Siam and Burma are too influenced by India. It is also believed that they are descendants of the once powerful Hundred Viet, who ruled most of Southern China and Nothern South East Asia.

Also AFAIK Thai people are not related to Vietnamese in any way that I know of? (If I read your statement above correctly? If not sorry) Thai People are thought to have originally come out of a region near Tibet thousands of years ago. HOWEVER they may have mixed with Vietnamese decedants when many (thai) were in Nan Chao (Non zhao chinese). Where did you read that Thai/Burman/Khmer decendend from the 100 Viet? Like I said I have never seen this

Very interesting. Please take this post as it is intended, as an honest interest in the Vietnamese Country and people as I have studied it/them only briefly

thanks

Antilogic

Apr 01, 2007, 12:03 PM

Hmm...I don't know much about Southeast Asian history. Although they could be a candidate.

For some reason, I have that strange feeling that we'll be seeing Theodora of the Byzantines again...

Frodawg

Apr 01, 2007, 12:03 PM

I'm thinking the Franks will finally be in based on concept art
I'd love to see
Byzantines
Iroqouis
Ethiopia
HUns
And my curveball Timurids though Mughals is more likely

CiverDan

Apr 01, 2007, 12:07 PM

I would expect to see Babylon, Hittite, Byzantines & Maya again. Austria is a possibility, although less so. I myself dont want to see Sumer again..At least no enkidues (please have a different UU if Sumer is in the game).

sourboy

Apr 01, 2007, 01:30 PM

Well, as bad as it is in terms of etiquette, I don't see the need for 2 Amerindian tribes, as they weren't huge in terms of Civs... They were big enough to note (in a region that is otherwise unrepresented), but not enough to break them down into various Civs -- at least while there are so many other potential Civs who could be added.

I just really hope they spread them out some, adding like Poland, Khmer, Maya, another African Civ, etc

Pratputajao

Apr 01, 2007, 02:22 PM

Hmm...I don't know much about Southeast Asian history. Although they could be a candidate.

For some reason, I have that strange feeling that we'll be seeing Theodora of the Byzantines again...

Yeah most folks dont know much about SE asia- Vietnam war, Angkor war, The king and I.... Its too bad becouse there is a veried and interesting history. It is as interesting in many ways as European History at a corrasponding time. Also it was quite wealthy. Ayuthaya (former capital of Siam) was reported by many visitors as A city of more wealth and people than either Paris or london at the same time (16th centuary) and the city of Hue (Vietnam) was one of the most populous cities in the world and quite wealthy as well.

I think if more people knew the history there would have been a much larger outcry for their inclusion. Right now I would much rather see Vietnam or Siam in then Khmer simply becouse of the fact that the sequel focuses on a more modern time. Since Siam became a kingdom (13th cent) the Khmer state rather rapidly faded and was controled from Ayuthaya or Hanoi for most of the time

LucyDuke

Apr 01, 2007, 03:58 PM

No it's not. Then modders could add other leaders to the Native American tribes without having to create a whole new civ. I think comparing that to boxing all the europeans into one group is a little extreme.

So, wouldn't having a European civ allow modders to add leaders of other European nations without creating a whole new civ? That might pacify the Poland warriors. I'm very surprised that you can't see the diversity of America as well as the diversity of Europe. Making it easy on modders is not a very good reason.

Fuzzz

Apr 01, 2007, 04:17 PM

To all those who are pro-Vatican: which cities will this civilization be having?
*Vatican City 1
*Vatican City 2
*Vatican City 3
*...

GoodSarmatian

Apr 01, 2007, 04:25 PM

For some reason, I have that strange feeling that we'll be seeing Theodora of the Byzantines again...

Please not Theodora :rolleyes: . There were much better rulers who actually ruled.

Gaius Octavius

Apr 01, 2007, 04:38 PM

To all those who are pro-Vatican: which cities will this civilization be having?
I would be pro-Vatican in the sense of the "apostolic palace," which I'm told is supposed to work like the U.N. However, as a Civ, this would not do well at all. The Vatican is better left to be implemented some other way.

Thedrin

Apr 01, 2007, 05:00 PM

The Vatican is better left to be implemented some other way.

Takes in money from around the world and has an eye in the cities in which its present. Rename the Church of Nativity to the Vatican.

Jabarten

Apr 01, 2007, 05:45 PM

Good entertaining reading...everyone has their opinion...

from my standpoint...obviously I would hope the Babylonians appear. They virtually invented the concept of civilisation:crazyeye: ...

I would suspect alot of the past civs would reappear, such as the Dutch and Portuguese, along with perhaps the Sioux, Mayan or Iroquis....

But who knows. I just hope for a few things back from previous versions of Civ. I really miss "You have discovered an advanced tribe" and a free city...

I also loved the suspence of AIs immediately declaring war on me or on another AI.....like in CivII

I miss the barbarians boating in on another city (like in CivII) and ruining it (backed by history of course....bring them back!!)....

I miss volcanos....

And I miss a really good WWII scenario....

PS I noticed this later though, but why do the wild animals NEVER attack the barbarian warriors or archers...Do they have some kind of special language in communicating?

Just my views....Jason

Antilogic

Apr 01, 2007, 08:14 PM

Yeah most folks dont know much about SE asia- Vietnam war, Angkor war, The king and I.... Its too bad becouse there is a veried and interesting history. It is as interesting in many ways as European History at a corrasponding time. Also it was quite wealthy. Ayuthaya (former capital of Siam) was reported by many visitors as A city of more wealth and people than either Paris or london at the same time (16th centuary) and the city of Hue (Vietnam) was one of the most populous cities in the world and quite wealthy as well.

I think if more people knew the history there would have been a much larger outcry for their inclusion. Right now I would much rather see Vietnam or Siam in then Khmer simply becouse of the fact that the sequel focuses on a more modern time. Since Siam became a kingdom (13th cent) the Khmer state rather rapidly faded and was controled from Ayuthaya or Hanoi for most of the time

My historical focus is on North America and Europe. Sadly, I have little time to study the Far East (although I have picked up some knowledge of Japan, China, and Mongolia...).

I'm pretty sure Vietnam isn't even being considered, but Siam or Khmer might be in the pool. However, as I focus on the West, I'm more interested in seeing Civs like Austria in. I've already gotten three of my wishes (Portugal, Babylon, and Netherlands). Let's see if the Maya don't pop up in another two weeks. :)

@Jabarten: The AI does randomly declare war. Put Monty and Shaka in more of your games, then you'll get the idea.

@GoodSarmatian: I agree with you--I'd rather see Constantine, Justinian, or Basil II for the Byzantines if they are included. But for some reason, I have that strange feeling that Theodora will be making a second appearance. I can't explain it.

@sourboy: I believe that the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca all built up unique enough civilizations (massive monuments, things like aqueducts and large pyramids, good engineering skills) to be warranted representation in the game. Beyond that, I don't have a significant opinion, and I'm not pushing the Plains Indians tribes, but the Maya are more than deserving of a slot.

taillesskangaru

Apr 01, 2007, 09:05 PM

HUns

Funny you should mention that. The Huns are just about the opposite of the definition "civilization"

myself dont want to see Sumer again..At least no enkidues (please have a different UU if Sumer is in the game).

A concept art for Gilgamesh and a Sumerian UU (Vulture) actually came with the vanilla Civ4. If Sumer is to be in the xp I would expect they'd use the Vulture instead of the Enkidu Warriors.

Anyway, Sumer is one of the forerunners of Civilization. Why shouldn't they be included?

Please not Theodora . There were much better rulers who actually ruled.

Actually, I don't like the idea of Byzantines in the game at all. To me they're continuation of Roman and Greek traditions, not a full fledge "civilisation". And there's other civilisations that would be better choice for the xp than the byzantines.

Since there're probably 2 places for Asia, i think Viet - Siam/Khmer would be better than Siam - Khmer or Siam - Burma (they are almost the same). And if you dont know, the the Great Viet empire (aka Annamese Empire) covered most parts of the modern day Laos, Cambodia, and some big parts of Thailand and Burma

The Annamese Empire never covered Thailand and Burma. They're limited only to the areas of present Vietnam and some parts of Laos and Cambodia. Siam, Burma and Vietnam are quite different in cultural terms: Vietnam is for a large part influenced by China, whereas Siam and Burma though both are influenced by Indian traditions they developed in different ways.

Kushluk

Apr 01, 2007, 10:11 PM

I hope I dont see any stupid "civs" like American Indian tribes or African tribes. I'd much rather see real stuff than politically correct nonsense.

Plus I support the Byzantines. They had an important role in history. So either start adding them as a Civ or start adding their rulers. I want to play as Alexius Comnenus. How can we continue to ignore Constantine?

I actually think that your Civs should "evolve" through time, so if you play as Romans you can become Italians or Byzantines etc, and that changes how your civ works.

Others that should be added or considered: Tibet, Vietnam, Etheopia, Mayans, Cambodia(?), Thailand(?), Trojans (XXL please) Huns (people argue against them but they had an empire and an impact on history). Those are all better than barbs like iriqouis who hardly had any impact on history.

Harald500

Apr 02, 2007, 12:18 AM

IMO sweden played much more important role in Europe history than Finland.
Anyway all nordic nations are represented by Vikings

Yes, I agreed with you on the part that Sweden has played a more important part in European history than Finland, also post viking age, but Finland is not represented through the vikings in the same way as Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Norway are. I don't think the people of Finland feel assosiated with the vikings in the way the Scandinaviens do!?

Have you ever seen a sports fan from finland with a viking helmet on his head?

Some Sisu in the game would be nice, but maybe there are more "important" civs to include, wich is not represented at all.:dunno:

Harald500

Apr 02, 2007, 12:51 AM

Haha, thats a funny one even if i'm Finn myself :lol:. It would be wierd, but thanks for the support. Imho Firaxis should add more relevant civs.

I agree, Finland was part (possession) of Sweden for a long time. Harald500 has valid point about winter war - if we would actually have been invaded by Russia at the time it might have had big impact on 2nd world war. Instead we just got devastatated and 10% our land and lots of industrial capacity was stolen.

Vikings kind of semirepresent us too, but not that much.

There are several countries that have been part of another countries empire for some time, but I think there would be wrong to say that they are represented by them.

I do not disagree that there may be other civs that are more relevant in world history.:lol:

People from Finland are closer to russians than scandinavians, regarding genetics. Actualy the scandinavians are closer to africans, than we are russian regarding genetics. Yes, I know there is a differance in skin colour.

No, I do not recall the scource of this statment, but I think it might have been from a DNA project documantary on National Geographic.
Please arrest me if I'm wrong!:confused:

Watiggi

Apr 02, 2007, 01:20 AM

So, wouldn't having a European civ allow modders to add leaders of other European nations without creating a whole new civ? That might pacify the Poland warriors. I'm very surprised that you can't see the diversity of America as well as the diversity of Europe. Making it easy on modders is not a very good reason.The problem with having an European civ is that there couldn't be different UU's and UB's which, considering the enoumous distinctions between European civs, would make it near difficult in representing them. Having an individual tribe with a sole notable leader with each tribe, with each UU and UB - while it would be interesting - it might be a bit much: 5 civs that are specific to Native American civilizations. That's like having a different civ, complete with their UU and UB, for all the tribes in the Stepps (Mongol's being one of them). A little too much I would think - especially considering that the UU and UB's would be similar. Also, by creating the Sioux and having Sitting Bull as leader, modders (and Firaxis) cannot then make their favourite tribal leader without having to create a whole new civ. To me it makes more sense having one UU and UB with one 'Native American empire' that allows people to add their favourite tribal leader. Create a 'Native American empire' and then you can have Sitting Bull and the other tribal leaders rather than just being stuck with the one.

[Wow! Who knows, maybe they HAVE made two Native American leaders and that is why they have named it the Native American empire!]

I am strangely surprised that no one is interested in Assyria.

Koelle

Apr 02, 2007, 01:21 AM

My historical focus is on North America and Europe.
I'm pretty sure Vietnam isn't even being considered, but Siam or Khmer might be in the pool. However, as I focus on the West,

It's ignorant and laughable what you said since you dont know anything about the region. What kind of historian are you?

I'm more interested in seeing Civs like Austria in. I've already gotten three of my wishes (Portugal, Babylon, and Netherlands). Let's see if the Maya don't pop up in another two weeks. :)

Austria, LMAO. Surely they are great, but in Europe they are just a midget

Koelle

Apr 02, 2007, 01:52 AM

The Annamese Empire never covered Thailand and Burma. They're limited only to the areas of present Vietnam and some parts of Laos and Cambodia. Siam, Burma and Vietnam are quite different in cultural terms: Vietnam is for a large part influenced by China, whereas Siam and Burma though both are influenced by Indian traditions they developed in different ways.

You could be right. But see the map. It was not drawn by the Vietnamese, it was drawn by westerners. Probably after they destroyed Champa kingdom and made other neighbors tribute vassals by force. Vietnam was at time the biggest (and the strongest) empire in the region

Koelle

Apr 02, 2007, 02:44 AM

Yes I agree with Koelle on this. As Siam and Khmer are quite similar in respect to culture. I think a good representation of SE asia (after gun powder) would definately be Vientam and Siam- 2 very differant cultures almost next door to each other. If you can have what, 6+ european civs two for SE asia isnt a stretch.

Cool map Koelle. Is that yours? Is it an original? I have never seen a map like that, I mean with An annam empire like that. I would guess that was made for a very specific time- between 1833 and 1845 for that is only time Vietnam held Cambodia uncontested. Ater 1845 Cambodia was considered part of the Siamese empire (until the French took it) Most maps I see from the era look like this--

What era was that map from? (I cant really make out details on it too well)

No the map is not mine. It's supposed to be photographed in a museum in Malaysia. I dont know when it was made. Anyway, it proved that the story of the mighty Khmer empire is just a myth.

Also AFAIK Thai people are not related to Vietnamese in any way that I know of? (If I read your statement above correctly? If not sorry) Thai People are thought to have originally come out of a region near Tibet thousands of years ago. HOWEVER they may have mixed with Vietnamese decedants when many (thai) were in Nan Chao (Non zhao chinese). Where did you read that Thai/Burman/Khmer decendend from the 100 Viet? Like I said I have never seen this

Very interesting. Please take this post as it is intended, as an honest interest in the Vietnamese Country and people as I have studied it/them only briefly
thanks

Ok, that's my mistake. I mean the Vietnamese are descendants of the Hundred Viet (or Hundred Yue). The Thais are just Thais and The Khmers are Khmers while Burmese are a bunch of diffenrent people. they are not related but may have mixed with each other at some point in the history