Which Civilization do you think Firaxis should have included???

I honestly, take a look at this map, and i see a big blank space between Saladin, Alexander, and Gandhi. I believe that Persia should have been in this game. THis game seems so empty wtihout Persia!!!

I don't know what Sid Meier's was thinking...'

It seems as if I've added Zulu as an option, while they are already a civilization! So please ignore that! :)

Zulu is already in Civ Rev.

Personally I liked Boudica and her Celts from CIV:Beyond The Sword.

Kinda Wish there were more Female Civ Leaders.

Vikings!!!!!!!! :viking:

Ottomans because not only do i love them, but they were a very important part of history.

Native Americans

Also, to keep this post on the first page, you guys should type in what you would like to see. :D

I was also disappointed that the Native Americans were not playable in CivRev

I'm hoping for a DLC that includes the Ottomans, Persians, Mayans or Incas, and someone else...

They should have added Persia, Ottomans, Korea and Babylon, I think.

Since all of them deserve to be in (save the Native Americans, there should be the Iroquois or Sioux), here's my order of which ones deserved it the most:
1. Persia
2. Ottomans
3. Babylonia
4. Maya
5. Korea
6. Vikings
7. Sioux or Iroquois

However, I would prefer the Inca over the Maya, Sioux and Iroquois. Plus, I really would have liked if one of the European civs was replaced by a SE Asian civ - the Khmer or Thais. Plus, the modern Republic of India should not have been in, it should have been the Mughals, Mauryas, etc.

Harun al-Rasheed or Muhammad should have been in instead of Saladin (he never lead the Arab Empire, just the Kurdish-ruled Ayyubid dynasty, which ruled over places ethnically Arab, as well as Egyptians beginning to become Arabized).

I don't see how Persia was more influential than the Ottomons.

I don't see how Persia was more influential than the Ottomons.

Persia is more well known than the Ottomons. Plus, more people like playing Persia...as you can see in the vote :D

I haven't heard which civs ARE included in revolutions, as I dont plan on buying it. But of the ones in the poll, I'd have to say Persia or the Ottomans (probably not both). It's also a tragedy that the Vikings aren't included. Does Scandinavia get no representation at all?

EDIT: Also, it's hard for me to believe that the Zulu are included and the freakin' Persians are not, but I suppose if they're the only African civ that's not asking much...

Also, it's hard for me to believe that the Zulu are included and the freakin' Persians are not, but I suppose if they're the only African civ that's not asking much...

Don't forget the Egyptians!

I don't see how Persia was more influential than the Ottomons.
Well, I guess the Ottomans had a bigger empire, but the Persians have existed for thousands more years and have had many great dynasties - the Ottomans only had one.

Well, I guess the Ottomans had a bigger empire, but the Persians have existed for thousands more years and have had many great dynasties - the Ottomans only had one.

Actually, Persians had a bigger empire than the Ottomans, AND existed longer. :p

AND created the first declaration of Human Rights (Cyrus the Great).

All the Ottomans did was oppress people. :D

Actually, Persians had a bigger empire than the Ottomans, AND existed longer. :p

AND created the first declaration of Human Rights (Cyrus the Great).

All the Ottomans did was oppress people. :D

1. Is true.
3. Is not true - the Ottomans did more than just oppress people :lol:

imho the two most important civilizations most consistently missing from Civ games are the Assyrians and the Israelites.

I'm sure if the game is popular there will be patches coming out that will include new civs.

I'm sure if the game is popular there will be patches coming out that will include new civs.

A non-European civ. All Civ games are pretty Westerncentric, but this game feels particularly stifling.

I didn't know Mongolia, China, Japan, India, Zulu, Egypt and the Aztecs were Europeans.

I dont care civ rev needs a hell of alot more civs:mad:
But my vote is for none of the above but for something brand new not used in any other civ game.

I'm sure if the game is popular there will be patches coming out that will include new civs.

There might be one update for CivRev on the 360/PS3, but they might not want to do it to be fair to DS users.

There will probably be a sequel with more civs too (is it too early to think of a sequel :P?).

EDIT:

I wish that they had the Mughals or Mauryas instead of India.

A non-European civ. All Civ games are pretty Westerncentric, but this game feels particularly stifling.
As it stands now there is:

America
England
Japan
Aztec
China
India
Mongolia
Rome
Egypt
France
Arabia
Greece
Spain
Germany
Zulu
Russia

That's 7 European civs.
1 Central Asian civ.
2 East Asian civs.
1 Southern African civ.
1 Indian subcontinental civ.
1 North African civ.
1 Northern American civ.
1 Mesoamerican civ.
1 Middle Eastern civ.

That's pretty bad...

There should have been at least 3 Middle Eastern civs.

Actually, Persians had a bigger empire than the Ottomans, AND existed longer. :p

AND created the first declaration of Human Rights (Cyrus the Great).

All the Ottomans did was oppress people. :D

The Ottomans conquered and controlled areas the Persians never touched.

Ottomans controlled 4 Wonders of the World, at the same time. Did Persia do that? LOL...

Historically rich, and important, Ottoman wins hands down. Persians are good at what? Rugs? LOL. Ottoman Empire at their greatest might would've dominated Persia... easily.

I don't see how Persia was more influential than the Ottomons.

Well the persians let the greeks kick their butts under alexander, and the helenistic age was pretty influential.

Plus persia came first... that pretty much wins it by default. Its like saying that the Italians have been more influential than the Roman empire... it just doesn't work.

Ottomans controlled 4 Wonders of the World, at the same time. Did Persia do that? LOL...

Historically rich, and important, Ottoman wins hands down. Persians are good at what? Rugs? LOL. Ottoman Empire at their greatest might would've dominated Persia... easily.

1. Okay in real life, owning wonders is not a measure of greatness. Modern Egypt is sitting on a whole museum in 'wonders' terms and they don't seem to be doing so hot.

2. Well duh, of course the Ottomans would of beaten the persians, the empire came 1800 years latter. Thats like saying the modern Americans would of beaten the Romans... of course they would of, they have guns.

3. From the fact your name is 'Ottoman1453' I'm just going to guess you have a bit of a personal bias :lol:

Plus persia came first... that pretty much wins it by default.

Um, no. Using this buttheaded logic, the Indo-European Aryan's of pre-persian Iran would win by default over ancient Persia because they came first. Whatever buddy.

I'm not trying to argue that Persia is insignificant, just that Ottomons are at least equivilent in terms of historical importance.

The Persian empire lasted longer. It had three great dynasties - the Achaemenids, Sassanids and Safavids. They where one of the three great Islamic empires, alongside the Ottomans and Mughals, even in Ottoman times.

The point about it lasting longer was that it lasted longer and REPEATEDLY created empires. It was the dominant power of Iran for thousands of years - the only other Iranians that came close where the Medes and Parthians.

1. Okay in real life, owning wonders is not a measure of greatness. Modern Egypt is sitting on a whole museum in 'wonders' terms and they don't seem to be doing so hot.

2. Well duh, of course the Ottomans would of beaten the persians, the empire came 1800 years latter. Thats like saying the modern Americans would of beaten the Romans... of course they would of, they have guns.

3. From the fact your name is 'Ottoman1453' I'm just going to guess you have a bit of a personal bias :lol:


1. Owning wonders is a measure of greatness. Conquering desert villages is not as important as Cairo/Athens/Constantinople/Jerusalem, etc etc. Yes or no? :)

2. Ottomans fought harder battles, against diverse and advanced enemies. They faced a tougher challenge when it came to conquering nations. Ottomans were almost like a big gang when they first started out, and became a world power very fast. Of course there is a time-gap between 2 Empires, but if you compare military achievements, we win. We scared Europe to sh!t their pants. Even without Europe, we controlled the Middle East/Eastern Europe/Northern Africa, etc etc. Persia stays only in Middle East. Persian Empire was big, but nothing spectacular. Not as diverse population or strategically placed as the Ottoman Empire. Less culture. Less influence on world.

3. Read how Ottomans captured Constantinople, the city that would never get captured, gets captured overnight. No military achievement in Persian history comes as close to this. :)


So... that's why Ottoman Empire was the last world power, and a better empire overall compared to Persian Empire...

Persia, followed by Babylon, followed by Inca. We can say THIS IS SPARTA! but not The thousand nations of the Persian Empire descend on you! Babylon is awesome. South America is empty :(

Firaxis! We Want Persia.

you can play as the zulu . . .

I soooooo want Persia!

Starting: Free Religion Tech
Ancient: -50% Corruption
Medieval: +50% GP rate
Industrial: Free Refining Tech and Fundamentalist Gov't
Modern: +10 Gold per turn if you have oil

Leader: Cyrus
UU: Immortals (Swordsman), Parthian Archer (Archer)

What about Carthage as there are only two African civs on the game.

I was thinking maybe Ethiopia but okay.

Carthage:
Starts: 3 Free galleys
Ancient: +1 Trade from each worked water square
Medieval: +1 attack for melee units
Industrial: Up one level in diplomatic relations with each civ
Modern: 3 Free Battleships :nuke: :run:

I soooooo want Persia!

Starting: Free Religion Tech
Ancient: -50% Corruption
Medieval: +50% GP rate
Industrial: Free Refining Tech and Fundamentalist Gov't
Modern: +10 Gold per turn if you have oil

Leader: Cyrus
UU: Immortals (Swordsman), Parthian Archer (Archer)
Why would Persia have a Parthian as its UU? While Parthia doesn't deserve it over quite a few other civs - it should be its own civ, or not be in the game at all.

Hey, the French have the DUTCH Howitzer as their UU!

Can't wait for a future civ pack!

I thought after all the expansions Civ4 had a good lineup of civs. But I think a good first pack would be the Dutch, Carthage, Persia or the Ottoman Empire, Cambodia, the Incan or Mayan, and the Celts or the Vikings.

Maybe switch things up and include an eastern European civ, like Poland? Their power could be if they get conquered, they will reappear at some point in history :)

i think that romania should be a choice because the leader would be Vlad(Dracula). that would be awsome.

They need Che! It's Revolution, after all! :lol:

I too miss the Native Americans.

They should add Persia, Babylon, Iroquois, Vikings, Celts, Ottomans, Koreans, and Carthage in the expansion pack.

I'd say add the Byzantines but the Romans already have their Unique Unit! :mad:

(Yes I know history buffs, the Byzantines considered themselves Romans, so there is no need for both of them to be in, but regardless, both the Byzantines and Romans have been in previous versions of Civ)

The Mayas and Native Americans wou;d be cool, I think he should of added more civilizations fro the new world or from the americas.

Why not the Sumerians? They had agriculture, allowing them to form cities, temples in those cities, and writing. I do like the idea of Vikings, although I suppose the Mongols are the 'raider' type of civ in this game.

Persia. My world is incomplete without having Immortals and Darius!
Yeah Zulu in the game seemed weird but Shaka just can't be left out.
Ottomans also deserve it and Qin should have been the Chinese Leader.