With the new religion and espionage features we should expect to see some civs that favors those specific traits. Personally I would love to see something like the Palatine State as a civ, I know not your standard civilization as such but still a major religious player that shouldn't be left out, especially if we don't see a new Apostolic Palace (as that would kinda null the civ idea).

It will more likely be a religious City State.
A reason I don't think Israel will be in.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Vatican/Papal State + Jerusalem as Religious City States (maybe Salt Lake too?) [I don't think Mecca will be taken from the Arabs... but it might]

I'm not sure if the Vatican would make a good city-state... I mean, it's not even an actual city, it's a part of Rome.

I'm not sure if the Vatican would make a good city-state... I mean, it's not even an actual city, it's a part of Rome.

Actually, it is an independent country.

But it is situated WITHIN rome! It's not only within the metropolitan area, it's within the city proper!
Plus that it's only been a seperate entity from Rome for about 90 years.

But it is situated WITHIN rome! It's not only within the metropolitan area, it's within the city proper!
Plus that it's only been a seperate entity from Rome for about 90 years.

True.. but then to model its effect properly as a religious City State, you would have to take Rome away form the Romans.

Much better to have it seperate.

We can have Vatican and Rome as seperate cities in the same game if we can also have Instanbul and Constantinople.

I think that most of the worlds holy cities should be represented in the game, what with the religion focus and all, and thus I wouldn't object at all to the Vatican. Though Avignon could probably fill that spot, if the Vatican doesn't make it.

Do you think they'll take away Mecca as well? While I think some Holy Cities might be included, I don't find it all that fruitful to take away major cities from a civilization and turn them into independent city-states.

Baghdad was the Capital of the Abassid Caliphate, to which Harun al-Rashid was a Caliph of, so it would make sense to remove it and move Medina down

There are enough possible religious city states without them taking MEcca away. For Islam I can think of Kerbala, Najaf, Qum of the top of my head. And hey, wikipedia has even a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_city). It's more tricky with Christianity since the Christian Nations are split up on various cities whereas there's only the Arabs (and the Turks, Songhai) for Islam. Qum f.e. would be an important city of a medieval-and-later Persian Empire, the Safwawids for example. Besides Avignon, I could think of Antiochia and maybe Betlehem, but the rest is all in other city lists. Thus I think Vatican works as wel...

Looking at that list, I am looking forward to seeing Salt Lake City as a religious city state. It does fit wonderfully. So my list would probably be:
Jerusalem, Haifa*, Avignon/Vatican, Lhasa, Qufu, Amritsar**, Salt Lake City, Ife***, Qom, Karbala, Varanasi, ....

*Bahai, **Sikh, ***We do need more African Cities (Yoruba),

Did you see this post? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11300341&postcount=30
Jerusalem and Vatican are confirmed as religious city states...

Also, the info on the medieval scenario greatly increases the chances of Hungary as a new civ
Medieval: Grow your medieval kingdom into one of the great nations of Renaissance Europe, fending off outside invasions from Mongols and Ottoman Turks and fighting the religious wars of the Crusades and Reformation!

Because of the Medieval scenario, I think that Prague will be included as a new City State, more mercantile than religious. If Poland isn't included in the expansion as a full Civ, then I predict Kraków will be introduced as a religious City State. Other possibilites include Marienburg as another religious CS. This would be enough for this part of Europe, and at least for the scenario.

I guess the Palantine would also be very fitting as a religious city-state for the Medieval scenario - especially in light of the religious wars of reformation

How long would take to create a civ on ciV?

Im asking this because maybe not even Firaxis knew which civs would be the last 4. Maybe they are reading all the comunity comments (here and on the offical forum) and deciding right now which to choose.

That said, I guess they would change the status of Portugal from a CS to a civ...

What's the Palantine? Wikipedia only gives me a small French Village... I guess what you mean is named differently in English...

And no, I hadn't seen that article, nice find. It was kinda inevitable that they had the Vatican as a Religious City State, nevermind how nonsensical that is from a point of logic, it only exists since the 1960ies after all. But it is the first association for a lot of people...

Marrakesh as a city state rules out Morocco/the Moors as a new civ which isn't really surprising after all (Carthage), but it rules out another (Semi) Africa Contender.

As for the Krakow vs. Prague as a new city state, I guess that largely depends on wether we get Poland or Austria/Austria-Hungary/Hungary as a new civ. Both are good examples for mercantile city states, less so for religious ones imho.

What's the Palantine? Wikipedia only gives me a small French Village... I guess what you mean is named differently in English...

I believe what AbsintheRed had in mind was the Palatinate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Palatine_of_the_Rhine). While not exactly a City State, it played a large role in the Thirty Years War, but more political than religious. Even if politics and religion were the cause of the whole war.


As for the Krakow vs. Prague as a new city state, I guess that largely depends on wether we get Poland or Austria/Austria-Hungary/Hungary as a new civ. Both are good examples for mercantile city states, less so for religious ones imho.

We might get neither of those Civs, so it leaves some possibilities. Prague is a prime proposal for a mercantile city state, though it could easily be also a cultural one. As for Kraków, it is a place of lots of sanctuaries, but you are right that it would be rather mercantile. I just wanted to post it as a counterbalance to nearby Prague (in regard of the Medieval scenario). If there would be a Polish religious city state, it should be Częstochowa, it's the most important in the country. I'd love to see Sankt Gallen and Lourdes as other European religious CSs.

Ah, the Kurpfalz. But they are one of the 7 (later 9) Sovereigns electing the Holy Roman Emperor, so they are an integral part of the German Civ. Not a free city state. If you want to take one of the Kurfürsten (Prince-Electors) as a religious city state, at least take one of the Prince-Bishops.

What's the Palantine? Wikipedia only gives me a small French Village... I guess what you mean is named differently in English...

I guess it's called Palatinate in english, it was in the Middle-Rhine part of the HRE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Rhenish_Circle
I suggested it mostly because it's role in the 30 years war, but on second thought it's not a that good idea

As for the Krakow vs. Prague as a new city state, I guess that largely depends on wether we get Poland or Austria/Austria-Hungary/Hungary as a new civ. Both are good examples for mercantile city states, less so for religious ones imho.

Yeah, Krakow and Prague are both better suited for mercantile city states
Austria isn't really connected to this medieval scenario - at least based on the little info we already know about it
So yeah, the city states will mostly depend on whether we get Hungary and/or Poland in the scenario

Mainz then? Munster? Cologne is already high up the German city list, so it is out of the question. Wittenberg would be good, as it would remind of the Reformation. But a German city as a religious CS is an idea full of specific flavour.

Mainz then? Munster? Cologne is already high up the German city list, so it is out of the question. Wittenberg would be good, as it would remind of the Reformation. But a German city as a religious CS is an idea full of specific flavour.

Yeah, I also like the idea of having a German religious CS, preferably from one of the bishopic states as mitsho said

The Pope is currently searching for Rome,but he can't find it because he already in Rome,meanwhile the Holy See is worried because the pope is lost!

Justinian and Suleiman are fighting about the city name:Constantinople or Istanbul,they are also angry because they have the same city as capital and live in the same palace!
And this irritates me:
Constantinople=Istanbul
Adrionople=Edirne
Nicea=Iznik
Angora=Ankara
Trebizond=Trabzon
Iconium=Konya
...
Houston,we have a problem,Justinian and Suleiman can not have the same cities in their city list!
I dislike civilizations that have cities that have different names.
it's impossible or a city to be at 2 locations at the same time!
This is one of the dissapointments for me:Byzantium is in!

I really don't see this as a problem, if the name of a city should represent the actually city as it is exactly in our history should we then also be forced to build Constantinople/Istanbul at the coast? Should the Egyptians be the only civ that could build the pyramids?

For me the names of the cities just adds a bit of flavor for that specific civ, as the names they would have called their cities were they to found them.

As for Kraków, it is a place of lots of sanctuaries, but you are right that it would be rather mercantile. I just wanted to post it as a counterbalance to nearby Prague (in regard of the Medieval scenario). If there would be a Polish religious city state, it should be Częstochowa, it's the most important in the country. I'd love to see Sankt Gallen and Lourdes as other European religious CSs.

Is Danzig/Gdansk in the game already (I have a bad memory and I'm currently at work)? If not, that could be a good fit as a new Mercantile city-state. Or maybe Maritime to replace an existing CS that is becoming Mercantile/Religous.

I really don't see this as a problem, if the name of a city should represent the actually city as it is exactly in our history should we then also be forced to build Constantinople/Istanbul at the coast? Should the Egyptians be the only civ that could build the pyramids?

For me the names of the cities just adds a bit of flavor for that specific civ, as the names they would have called their cities were they to found them.

Well, yes, but it would be more interesting if the name were as if it were taken if a corresponding city were founded. So, for instance, if Adrianople is founded, both the names "Adrianople" and "Edirne" become taken, and as such won't be randomly chosen at city founding.

So, now we know that Israel, like Portugal, won't be in (as Jerusalem is in the game).

So that further shortens our list of possible civilizations. Here are my guesses (in order of the likeliness I think they have of being in the expansion):

1. Zulu
2. Sumeria
3. Hittites
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. Assyria
7. Sioux
8. Poland
9. Hungary
10. Brazil
11. Khmer
12. Mali
13. Phoenicia

So, now we know that Israel, like Portugal, won't be in (as Jerusalem is in the game).

So that further shortens our list of possible civilizations. Here are my guesses (in order of the likeliness I think they have of being in the expansion):

1. Zulu
2. Sumeria
3. Hittites
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. Assyria
7. Sioux
8. Poland
9. Hungary
10. Brazil
11. Khmer
12. Mali
13. Phoenicia

I'd say Mali is less likely than all of those given that Songhai/Mali is very similar. However, I do like the rest of your list of likely candidates. I'd almost move Khmer up given the focus on religion of this new pack. I think Ehtiopia is now a lock, Khmer is relatively likely.

I also have been thinking that there's one civ that may be coming in given the Gods and Kings title, and that's the Franks. Charlemagne and the Franks would fit the goals of this expansion, and they have two ready UUs (Franciscan Axe Thrower and Halberd infantry).

Did you see this post? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11300341&postcount=30
Jerusalem and Vatican are confirmed as religious city states...

Well, there goes my dream of a Hebrew civilisation led by Joshua, with a UA that links faith and espionage. Firaxis you break my heart.

Though I must admit Jerusalem is much better suited for a city state - but then again, so are most of the Aztec and Mayan cities.

I also have been thinking that there's one civ that may be coming in given the Gods and Kings title, and that's the Franks. Charlemagne and the Franks would fit the goals of this expansion, and they have two ready UUs (Franciscan Axe Thrower and Halberd infantry).

That would be very interesting, but don't you think they might be a bit redundant with Germany in (since the old Germanic peoples are seemingly included within the German civilization)?

About the "two ready UUs", what do you mean, were those two UUs released as part of a scenario?

The Franks, weren't actually German but a mestizo of Roman and Visigoth that settled originally in France and Brittany but under Charlemagne expanded to conquer Italy and Modern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc. The HRE and it's german location were descendants of them. I see it as a Sumeria/Babylon/Arabs thing, a lot of greographic overlap but different ethnicity and culture and different peaks of power removed by several hundred years.

Is Danzig/Gdansk in the game already (I have a bad memory and I'm currently at work)? If not, that could be a good fit as a new Mercantile city-state. Or maybe Maritime to replace an existing CS that is becoming Mercantile/Religous.
There is no Gdańsk/Danzig, and I hope it will be introduced some day, unless Poland becomes a playable Civ. However, the city was always known as a relatively free city, not only during the interbellum of the 20s. It was a valuable member of the Hanseatic League and, while under the sovereignty of the Teutonic Order or the Polish King, it was governed by strong local authorities and had special privileges when under any superior regime - therefore I think that even if Poland is introduced as a full Civ, Gdańsk/Danzig could well become a commercial CS.


Franks with Charlemagne (or Charles Martel) would make more sense than Civ4 HRE. Good idea, but I sense it might be confused with France, although those are two entirely different entities.

I think something from the Hanseatic League would be cool (not sure if it had to be Danzig/Gdansk (and the fact that we're using both suggests there still might be some controversy there ;) ).

I think something from the Hanseatic League would be cool (not sure if it had to be Danzig/Gdansk (and the fact that we're using both suggests there still might be some controversy there ;) ).
A lot of Hanseatic cities - at least those most famous - are already represented in other Civ city lists. Lubeck, Cologne, Bremen, Hamburg, London, Novgorod, the Dutch cities are also going to be represented. Not sure if there is Wismar already, but if not, then it could compete with Gdańsk/Danzig, Tallinn/Reval, Riga and Brugge as the most important Hanseatic candidate from the cities that are left. Besides, logic suggests that when mercantile city states are going to be introduced into CiV, the Hansa is an instant win for the devs ;)

Is Lubeck actually in the German city list?

So, now we know that Israel, like Portugal, won't be in (as Jerusalem is in the game).

So that further shortens our list of possible civilizations. Here are my guesses (in order of the likeliness I think they have of being in the expansion):

1. Zulu
2. Sumeria
3. Hittites
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. Assyria
7. Sioux
8. Poland
9. Hungary
10. Brazil
11. Khmer
12. Mali
13. Phoenicia

I would also add Sweden, Kongo, the Khazars and Majapahit to your list
And of course change the order in some places ,)
Oh and I guess - and absolutely hope - that they will leave the remaining mainstream civs (Sumer, Zulu and maybe the Sioux) for later DLCs or a possible second expansion, alongside Portugal
But otherwise pretty much agree with you, almost all of these would be great additions

I'd actually like Jews as a civilization, I mean, Judaism, hello :P If there's Huns and Tengriism, then Jews are to be expected. Israeli Commandos with UZIs would just be badass! :crazyeye:

I'd actually like Jews as a civilization, I mean, Judaism, hello :P If there's Huns and Tengriism, then Jews are to be expected. Israeli Commandos with UZIs would just be badass! :crazyeye:

I don't think the Huns would make it either...

The Franks, weren't actually German but a mestizo of Roman and Visigoth that settled originally in France and Brittany but under Charlemagne expanded to conquer Italy and Modern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc. The HRE and it's german location were descendants of them. I see it as a Sumeria/Babylon/Arabs thing, a lot of greographic overlap but different ethnicity and culture and different peaks of power removed by several hundred years.

I'm not sure what you mean about them being a Romano-Visigoth hybrid? They spoke a West Germanic language, while the Visigoths spoke a East Germanic language, and as far as I know they aren't related to neither the Romans nor the Visigoths.

I would guess that Austria is one of the added civilization. The reason for this is the fact that we have a medieval and a Victorian scenario. Austria was very important during the Victorian era, the medieval scenario is supposed to feature the Reformation and Austria was among the main enemies of the Reformation. I think the chances of Austria being included are quite good.

I'd actually like Jews as a civilization, I mean, Judaism, hello :P If there's Huns and Tengriism, then Jews are to be expected. Israeli Commandos with UZIs would just be badass! :crazyeye:

They have already announced Jerusalem as a city-state so Israel is out. Maybe it will come in a DLC?

They have already announced Jerusalem as a city-state so Israel is out. Maybe it will come in a DLC?

Just because Jerusalem is a city-state, does not mean that Israel is out. Many country across the world do not recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel, (they recognize the pre-67 borders) and recognize Tel-Aviv as the capital. If they were to implement modern Israel there is still a chance, but for Judea, not as much.
I do think it would be a great addition to add Israel with the religion/espionage aspect, but the controversy might be preventing it from being in Civ5.

I would be absolutely ecstatic if they made MALTA one of the new CS :D

A military CS would probably suit it best considering it endured two of the most awful sieges in history.

Just because Jerusalem is a city-state, does not mean that Israel is out. Many country across the world do not recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel, (they recognize the pre-67 borders) and recognize Tel-Aviv as the capital. If they were to implement modern Israel there is still a chance, but for Judea, not as much.
I do think it would be a great addition to add Israel with the religion/espionage aspect, but the controversy might be preventing it from being in Civ5.

And you dont think there will be massive outrage from the jewish community (and particular the Israelis) if they include Israel as a civ and Jerusalem is NOT the capital?

I think this is a hornets nest that Firaxis will gladly avoid.

And you dont think there will be massive outrage from the jewish community (and particular the Israelis) if they include Israel as a civ and Jerusalem is NOT the capital?

I think this is a hornets nest that Firaxis will gladly avoid.

This is what I've been saying...

Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since the days of King David (who established it!). There's no way Israel can be in the game if Jerusalem exists as a City-State (which, by the way, is a great idea - it's the only way you can have such a politically-loaded city as Jerusalem in Civ at all without treading on someone's toes.)

I would be absolutely ecstatic if they made MALTA one of the new CS :D

A military CS would probably suit it best considering it endured two of the most awful sieges in history.

Wouldn't Valletta be the CS? Since Malta isn't a city.

Wouldn't Valletta be the CS? Since Malta isn't a city.

It's small enough to work as a CS :)

1. Zulu
2. Sumeria
3. Hittites
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. Assyria
7. Sioux
8. Poland
9. Hungary
10. Brazil
11. Khmer
12. Mali
13. Phoenicia

There are literally dozens of good recommendations for new civilizations in this thread, including Androrc's above list, nearly all of which would make for fun and exciting new games. However, I strongly suggest that any further expansions or downloadable content to CIV5 should consider one or more relatively new entities and do so for regions of the world with significant territorial coverage gaps. In prior posts I’ve separately mentioned most of my preferred civilizations, but decided it might be helpful for the discussion to assemble the following combined wish list organized by region:

(1) North America: Anasazi (Ancient Pueblo), or Mississippian
(2) South America: Brazil
(3) Europe: Austrian Empire, or Austro-Hungarian Empire, or Minoan
(4) Africa: South Africa, or Zulu
(5) Middle East: Israel (modern state), or Israel (ancient state)
(6) Asia: Indus River Civilization (Harappan)
(7) Oceania: Australia, or Indonesia

I would be absolutely ecstatic if they made MALTA one of the new CS :D

A military CS would probably suit it best considering it endured two of the most awful sieges in history.

Yeah, I'd love Malta. Plus, you have the Knights Hospitaller time period.

Here's my thought. Add Malta as a military city-state. Change Tyre to a maritime one (as it should be). Maybe change another maritime to mercantile to make up for it (or Tyre can be mercantile).

I have not put much thought into this. I want to see my favourite civilization added, the Inuit. I have a thread just for discussing the Inuit. We have already worked out all the details, however it is good to get the input of others. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11173421#post11173421

It could look like this.
Zulu
Assyria
Ethiopia
Inuit

I have criticism of the Inuit's inclusion (essentially, if the Polynesians are just above the threshold, the Inuit are well below it). It's not a knock against them. They show humanity's tremendous ability to adapt and survive in the harshest of conditions. However, those conditions cut precisely against establishing the type of civilization represented in this game.

Nevertheless, I support modding in all sorts of peoples, so I'll go comment on that thread and see if I can give any feedback. :)

Austro-Hungarian Empire, Zulu, Israel, Brazil. No more USA INDIANS FGS!

I'd like to see primitive civilizations represented better by barbarians. Sort of like how they developed into rogue city states in Civ IV. Maybe give them unique resources and units to make exploration and colonization of their lands worth while. You don't really negotiate with them or do missions for them but you can buy them out with gold or something if you don't outright kill them. Think it would be a good representation for native people in largely unexplored lands in the mid game.

I'd like to see primitive civilizations represented better by barbarians. Sort of like how they developed into rogue city states in Civ IV. Maybe give them unique resources and units to make exploration and colonization of their lands worth while. You don't really negotiate with them or do missions for them but you can buy them out with gold or something if you don't outright kill them. Think it would be a good representation for native people in largely unexplored lands in the mid game.

This isn't at all that bad of an idea.

Actually, in a way, I'd suggest the opposite. Similar end goal: Beef up barbarians, but I'd like to return the Horde to Barbarian Horde. That means barbarian migrations and large barbarian surges. I'd also like them to have their own cavalry units rather than just spears, warriors, and archers. I don't like having them settle cities because that seems to blur things too much.

Barbarian uprisings should return.

But similar to the revolutions mods in Civ IV, I don't feel the number of CS's should be fixed at the start of the game. Maybe encampments can spawn settlers after 10 or so turns (quick pace) and become a CS. And peace would be blocked until you discover writing, which you certainly will by the time they settle.

I believe you should be able to raze CS's as well (if you can't already, I forget). Liberation should not be an option unless the CS has developed to a certain point. Like until a certain tech or era is reached.

I miss the Barb cities from IV, but I'm ok with not having them. The city-states have somewhat filled the gap. It annoys me how much AI civs get riled up when you start taking C-Ss, even when they aren't allied with anyone.

No more USA INDIANS FGS!

But Zulu are OK?

Barbarian uprisings should return.Let your unhappiness drop below 20 and voila:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=302009&d=1316280009

But Zulu are OK?

Yes. The Zulu empire will represent Africa which i think needs more representation. If you think about representation North America already had US and Iroquois and in my opinion its good enough.

Yes. The Zulu empire will represent Africa which i think needs more representation. If you think about representation North America already had US and Iroquois and in my opinion its good enough.

I agree that Africa needs more representation--just not with Zulu. I'd actually say that (if you're talking Geographically) North America, South America, and Africa ALL need something.

Zulu would be the 4th civ in Africa: Songhai, Egypt, Carthage..

Compared with only two from North America, I'm not surprised a lot of people share the opinion that another native American civ wouldn't hurt. Personally I'd like to see a tribe from the southwest like the Navajo or Apache, there aren't many good desert civs.

There may be some bias involved given the number of players in North America vs. Africa, but Africa is not that badly represented IMO.

I'd like to have both ideally.

I agree that Africa needs more representation--just not with Zulu. I'd actually say that (if you're talking Geographically) North America, South America, and Africa ALL need something.

Indeed. May i suggest South America, Africa and North America (in that order)? :lol:

cheers!

I think that when people say they want more African civs, they actually want Sub-Saharan civs. Completely understandable. It's a big area and the Songhai are quite close to being a Super-Saharan civ.

I'd still like to see a North American tribal civ as well. Navajo, Apache, Pueblo, or Comanche.

Zulu would be the 4th civ in Africa: Songhai, Egypt, Carthage..

Compared with only two from North America, I'm not surprised a lot of people share the opinion that another native American civ wouldn't hurt. Personally I'd like to see a tribe from the southwest like the Navajo or Apache, there aren't many good desert civs.

There may be some bias involved given the number of players in North America vs. Africa, but Africa is not that badly represented IMO.

I'd like to have both ideally.

Sub-Saharan Africa, though. In my mind (at least) Egypt and Carthage are more Mediterranean than African. Ethiopians or Nubians would be cool.

I would like another NA civ, but I haven't heard one yet that I really like too much. The suggestions all sound like they're trying much too hard. For SA, Brazil might work for a modern age Civ. Ancient might be possible.

Indeed. May i suggest South America, Africa and North America (in that order)? :lol:

cheers!

Best to worst in each region:

South America: 1. Chachapoya (arguably the most important Pre-Colombian civ to be neglected with a good city list, culture, language, and leaders. Huge cities, huge impact, and its a shame that the most people know of them is from Indiana Jones), 2. Brazil, 3. Gran Colombia, 4. Tupi, or maybe 5. Nazca for a Desert Civ

Africa: 1. Ethiopia, 2. Kongo, 3. Moors/Morocco, 4. Zulu, 5. Zimbabwe, 6. Benin

US + Canada: (Since it seems we are excluding Central America), 1. Pueblo/Anasazi, 2. Comanche, 3. Inuit, 4. Cherokee, 5. Navajo, 6. Sioux 7. Seminole, 8. Illinois 9. Tuscarora (and re-editing info from Iroquois)

Morocco's out, we have confirmation of Marrakesh as a CS

Morocco's out, we have confirmation of Marrakesh as a CS

Well at least some representation is nice. Pity, I feel like they could have made a nice surprise addition.

Sub-Saharan Africa, though. In my mind (at least) Egypt and Carthage are more Mediterranean than African. Ethiopians or Nubians would be cool.

I would like another NA civ, but I haven't heard one yet that I really like too much. The suggestions all sound like they're trying much too hard. For SA, Brazil might work for a modern age Civ. Ancient might be possible.

Sure, I agree. Ghana, Mali, Ethiopea, Zulu - I would be pretty shocked actually if at least one of these doesn't make it.

My point was more that North America is also underrepresented, not that Africa isn't.

Sure, I agree. Ghana, Mali, Ethiopea, Zulu - I would be pretty shocked actually if at least one of these doesn't make it.

My point was more that North America is also underrepresented, not that Africa isn't.

I agree with that. I just haven't fallen in love with any of the options yet (though I'm thrilled to hear that Maya is back in).

I'd love to see some kind of relative geographical/cultural balance, but deep inside my heart I know it's not going to happen... Nevertheless, right now I’d say South America is the least represented region, while Sub-Saharan Africa is not represented at all:

Europe: 6 (+2 in DLC; +3 in G&K) (*Counting the Byzantines in)
Asia: 4 (+ 2 in DLC)
Middle-East: 3 (+1 in DLC) (*Counting Persia in)
Northern Africa: 2 (+1 in G&K) (*Counting Songhai in)
North America: 2
Mesoamerica: 1 (+1 in G&K)
Oceania: 0 (+1 in DLC)
South America: 0 (+1 in DLC)
Sub-Saharan Africa: 0

Keep in mind I’m talking about “relative balance”. We all know that some regions are more interesting than others to the game’s purpose, so it’s not like we’re expecting Oceania and South America to get the same amount of Civs as Europe and Asia. But I think it’s fair to expect the addition of a Sub-Saharan Africa people (Kingdom of Kongo and the Zulu being great choices) and a South American State (I believe that post-colonial nations like Gran-Colombia and Brazil - Republic or Empire - are more likely to be chosen than any native people) over everything else.

Has anyone said Canada yet? They haven't been in Civ so far AFAIK, but why would that be so ridiculous? They hold a pretty big chunk of land right now and were involved in plenty of major wars. Why not Canada? Have any of their CSs been seen in GaK screenshots? Is there anything ruling them out aside from the fact that they haven't been done yet?

Has anyone said Canada yet? They haven't been in Civ so far AFAIK, but why would that be so ridiculous? They hold a pretty big chunk of land right now and were involved in plenty of major wars. Why not Canada? Have any of their CSs been seen in GaK screenshots? Is there anything ruling them out aside from the fact that they haven't been done yet?

Quebec City is a city state. I doubt they'll be included in G and K.

Quebec City is a city state. I doubt they'll be included in G and K.

Yes, but CSs in the past have been changed for new civs. Which is why I ask if any Gods and Kings screenshots have shown Quebec or anything else in Canada. The fact that they're currently a CS means nothing.

previously city states have been made into civ cities, Seoul comes to mind. So I don't think they are "ruled out". In fact they probably have a pretty good chance just due to the video game market there. The suits aren't dumb.

If Canada is in though, that kind of opens the gate for the likes of Australia & Brazil. I think it's more likely to see those kind of civs bundled in a DLC.

True, they have been changed in the past. I just doubt Canada would be a civilization for Gods and Kings. There's been precious few in the way of GK screenies, so I doubt anyone's seen a GK picture of Quebec City, however that was one of the more recent updates.

Has anyone said Canada yet? They haven't been in Civ so far AFAIK, but why would that be so ridiculous? They hold a pretty big chunk of land right now and were involved in plenty of major wars. Why not Canada? Have any of their CSs been seen in GaK screenshots? Is there anything ruling them out aside from the fact that they haven't been done yet?

The problem is that Canada is two civilizations (Quebec should really be it's own civ rather than be bundled together with Canada), and I'm not sure whether the English portion of Canada is distinct enough from America to warrant being a civilization.

Best to worst in each region:

South America: 1. Chachapoya (arguably the most important Pre-Colombian civ to be neglected with a good city list, culture, language, and leaders. Huge cities, huge impact, and its a shame that the most people know of them is from Indiana Jones),


Have you considered making a mod that adds the Chachapoya as a civilization? I'm sure many people would appreciate it, specially since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about them and could properly explain their relevance.

I'd love to see some kind of relative geographical/cultural balance, but deep inside my heart I know it's not going to happen... Nevertheless, right now I’d say South America is the least represented region, while Sub-Saharan Africa is not represented at all:

Europe: 6 (+2 in DLC; +3 in G&K) (*Counting the Byzantines in)
Asia: 4 (+ 2 in DLC)
Middle-East: 3 (+1 in DLC) (*Counting Persia in)
Northern Africa: 2 (+1 in G&K) (*Counting Songhai in)
North America: 2
Mesoamerica: 1 (+1 in G&K)
Oceania: 0 (+1 in DLC)
South America: 0 (+1 in DLC)
Sub-Saharan Africa: 0


The more traditional way they've divided it up has been
(Base game + DLC + G&K)
European 4 + 2 + 2
Mediterranean 4 + 0 + 2
Mid-East 3 + 1 + 0
Far-East 4 + 3 + 0
America's 3 + 1 + 1

North and South America have probably the most similar histories of any two geographical continents. Makes sense to group them (Along with Meso-America)

If you think about the land area of Oceania, it's tiny comparatively speaking. And if you're counting Australia well, we have such an amazing history :rolleyes:

Every civ from Africa falls into either the mid-east category or mediterranean (North Africa). The Sub-Saharan category, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Fulani, Kanem were all Islamic. Ethiopia is Christian but is also located geographically close to the middle-east anyway. That leaves a bunch of really, very small African states that we don't know much about (Zimbabwe, Lunda, Luba, Bachwezi) that seem to fit the definition of "city-state". The remainder is what, the Kongo kingdom (Which again is quite small) the Ashanti and the Zulu, both known probably more for fighting the British than anything else.

The problem is that Canada is two civilizations (Quebec should really be it's own civ rather than be bundled together with Canada), and I'm not sure whether the English portion of Canada is distinct enough from America to warrant being a civilization.

It would be kinda cool if they did Canada and it had a two-level UA to reflect it's duality. Like there was a general bonus to forests and strategic resource tiles and then every fourth city has a bonus to culture.

And the leader says his lines in English and then repeats them in French.

The problem is that Canada is two civilizations (Quebec should really be it's own civ rather than be bundled together with Canada), and I'm not sure whether the English portion of Canada is distinct enough from America to warrant being a civilization.

No Canada is one nation/civilization. Quebec should not have it's own civilization anymore than Texas.

I think you are confused about Canada with your "the English portion" comment. The province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual, also there are many towns and city districts outside of Quebec that are french/bilingual. As well as there are tons of Aboriginal reserves with own respective languages. Aside from most Canadians not feeling that Quebec is separate from the rest of Canada. It's typically the vocal minority that people hear.

"the English portion" of Canada isn't distinct from America, since it is part of North America. If you meant The United States of America, then it is very distinct. Universal health care, peace keepers, not committing genocide against our first nations peoples, multiculturalism vs melting pot, Canada's whole Government structure is different from the USA (we are part of the British monarchy) and general politeness. USA citizens when traveling around the world have been known to put Canadian flags on their luggage to get better treatment. However it doesn't work as many people in the hospitality industry can easily distinguish a Canadian from someone from the USA.

No Canada is one nation/civilization. Quebec should not have it's own civilization anymore than Texas.

I think you are confused about Canada with your "the English portion" comment. The province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual, also there are many towns and city districts outside of Quebec that are french/bilingual. As well as there are tons of Aboriginal reserves with own respective languages. Aside from most Canadians not feeling that Quebec is separate from the rest of Canada. It's typically the vocal minority that people hear.

"the English portion" of Canada isn't distinct from America, since it is part of North America. If you meant The United States of America, then it is very distinct. Universal health care, peace keepers, not committing genocide against our first nations peoples, multiculturalism vs melting pot, Canada's whole Government structure is different from the USA (we are part of the British monarchy) and general politeness. USA citizens when traveling around the world have been known to put Canadian flags on their luggage to get better treatment. However it doesn't work as many people in the hospitality industry can easily distinguish a Canadian from someone from the USA.

I don't think that poaster was confused at all. I'm from BC, not a drop of Quebecer in me, and I absolutely believe they are a "distinct society" and in very real ways, their own nation. In fact, the more time I spend in History classes, the more I learn, the more I'm convinced Quebec really should go their own way.

Don't take my word for it: google "Quiet Revolution" and learn about Quebec's modern roots.

I don't think that poaster was confused at all. I'm from BC, not a drop of Quebecer in me, and I absolutely believe they are a "distinct society" and in very real ways, their own nation. In fact, the more time I spend in History classes, the more I learn, the more I'm convinced Quebec really should go their own way.

Don't take my word for it: google "Quiet Revolution" and learn about Quebec's modern roots.

learn more before speaking about 'history class' information.

It's kinda sad when classes are being used to change 'history', and use things like 'distinct' society in relation to former french colonists.

A small point: go find out how many different cultures actually immigrated to Canada across the years before splitting it into 'english' and 'quebec'.

Canada might be a good idea,but I think that there's other better civilizations on American continent to represent and there's almost no good scenario where you can insert them,which isn't a problem to other civilizations on American continent .

I think Zulu's are a must, hope they are one of the civs. Poland as well, and I'm hoping some native american civs, I would personaly love to see the Anazasi or the Missisipians in North America, and the Mapuche in South America.

Oh and by the way, the art for Pacal is freacking awesome, a bit too Apocalypto, but the clothing shows they did their research, I can only hope they will get Moctezuma right in another Civ, they always make him look like a modern day prehispanic dancer rather than Aztec Emperor.

I have criticism of the Inuit's inclusion (essentially, if the Polynesians are just above the threshold, the Inuit are well below it). It's not a knock against them. They show humanity's tremendous ability to adapt and survive in the harshest of conditions. However, those conditions cut precisely against establishing the type of civilization represented in this game.

Nevertheless, I support modding in all sorts of peoples, so I'll go comment on that thread and see if I can give any feedback. :)

How exactly are the Polynesians above the Inuit? If they are credible enough to be included, than so are the Inuit.

No Canada is one nation/civilization. Quebec should not have it's own civilization anymore than Texas.

I think you are confused about Canada with your "the English portion" comment. The province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual, also there are many towns and city districts outside of Quebec that are french/bilingual. As well as there are tons of Aboriginal reserves with own respective languages. Aside from most Canadians not feeling that Quebec is separate from the rest of Canada. It's typically the vocal minority that people hear.

Au contraire, Quebec is widely considered in Canada to be culturally distinct - it was even recognized as a nation by the Canadian legislative.


"the English portion" of Canada isn't distinct from America, since it is part of North America. If you meant The United States of America, then it is very distinct. Universal health care, peace keepers, not committing genocide against our first nations peoples, multiculturalism vs melting pot, Canada's whole Government structure is different from the USA (we are part of the British monarchy) and general politeness. USA citizens when traveling around the world have been known to put Canadian flags on their luggage to get better treatment. However it doesn't work as many people in the hospitality industry can easily distinguish a Canadian from someone from the USA.

Those aspects which you mention are mostly superficial - sure, the Canadian government may have different policies, but is the culture distinct enough from the American one? Would Venezuela warrant inclusion if Colombia were already in?

A small point: go find out how many different cultures actually immigrated to Canada across the years before splitting it into 'english' and 'quebec'.

It's not relevant: they assimilated into the local cultures of the provinces they immigrated to, as immigrants very often have in the Americas.

How exactly are the Polynesians above the Inuit? If they are credible enough to be included, than so are the Inuit.

The Polynesians were responsible for the greatest migration in human history. Their reach spread from Taiwan to Hawaii. They did this through technological innovation that surpassed anything else in the world for the next 1000 years. Some Polynesian Kingdoms (e.g., the Tui-Tonga) formed Empires with tributary states. Others (e.g., Hawaii) formed complex societies with a civil service bureaucracy, hereditary leaders, and state-organized engineering projects. They also had developed an Empire among the Hawaiian peoples.

The Inuit were always isolated with small cities that never progressed into complex societies. They lived in villages that filled a niche where they didn't have to compete against other more complex societies south of them. This led to a mostly subsistence society that did not provide for significant division of labor or stratification of society. In many ways, they are analogous to the Bushmen in Africa not the Polynesians.

not committing genocide against our first nations peoples, multiculturalism vs melting pot... USA citizens when traveling around the world have been known to put Canadian flags on their luggage to get better treatment. However it doesn't work as many people in the hospitality industry can easily distinguish a Canadian from someone from the USA.

Thanks for the facts from the magical realm of misinformed stereotypes.

Please stay on topic of what the new civs may be. Using stereotypes to make points is trolling.

Why don't we look from previous civ games to guess the new civs

missing fom Civ II:

The Sioux (they are highly famous and Civ could use anothe horse-based nation)

The Zulu (because its not right without Shaka)

Missig from Civ III:

Austria (one of greatest renaissance empires, though I'm not sure if thier inclusion in Civ III is accurate, I owned all of that incarnation and didn't see them)

The Hittites (great ancient empire; three-man chariot instead of horse archer would be nice)

Portugal (confirmed as CS; bummer because trading posts that do the same as citedels would be cool)

Sumer (literally the worlds first civilization; nuff said)

Missing from Civ IV:

Ethiopia (Zara Yaqob make a great religious leader)

Holy Roman Empire (considered by many people as the First German Empire, please 2K never again)

Khmer (I don't know enough about this region to be sure, but I think it overlaps with Siam, plus Suryavarman II creeped me out)

Mali (simply impossible due to Songhai)

Native America (I guess they could use various tribes as cities, bt that might step on too many toes)


So taken all the info above, my guesses are:

The Sioux
The Zulu
The Hittites
Sumer

I'm guessing:

Zulu
Popular, fan favorite Civ that would also fit well to the Smoky Skies scenario.
Plus Africa might use more Civs.

Poland
Strong Civ fanbase in Poland, I bet they make their debut on Civ V. I'd like to have them.

Sioux
One of the religions in G&K seems to be native american, so maybe we'll get another one besides Iroquis.

Khazars
A surprising one, but been in many topics about Civ wishes. Also had Judaism as religion so could cover that part well. Don't know actually anything about this civilization!

It's not relevant: they assimilated into the local cultures of the provinces they immigrated to, as immigrants very often have in the Americas.

no actually, they didn't. It's called 'multi-culturalism' for a reason (unlike the US melting pot plan). And it's hard for 'assimilation' to occur when the population is made up of only immigrants! (see Eastern Euro pop migrating to Saskatchewan/Manitoba, or Scot/Irish/etc migrating to the east coast).

And if you think that the populations of Canada and US are 'basically' the same, then you're rather misinformed. Aside from the primarily Euro immigration/expansion, things are different in our outlooks on the world/etc. And yes, some of those items that were listed by HalfBadger point to cultural differences between the two.

And I don't know where you're getting the silly idea that it's 'widely' thought that 'Quebec is distinct' by other Canadians. That concept got rejected a few times.

By the way, the push for 'distinct' is actually more commonly viewed by non-franco quebecers as 'we think we're more special than you' by everyone else, who tend to disagree with that concept.

and well, 'Harper' pandering for votes (his 'distinct' reference) is just that: Pandering for votes (edit: which by the way failed horribly).

I'm guessing:

Zulu
Popular, fan favorite Civ that would also fit well to the Smoky Skies scenario.
Plus Africa might use more Civs.

Poland
Strong Civ fanbase in Poland, I bet they make their debut on Civ V. I'd like to have them.

Sioux
One of the religions in G&K seems to be native american, so maybe we'll get another one besides Iroquis.

Khazars
A surprising one, but been in many topics about Civ wishes. Also had Judaism as religion so could cover that part well. Don't know actually anything about this civilization!

I'm also more and more inclined on the Khazars, they would be a rather interesting civ to play with/against. Eventful history, very well fitting in the new religion scheme with Tengriism and Judaism, culturally distinct from the other civs

So my current wish-list for GK is: Hittite, Ethiopia, Hungary and the Khazars

With Portugal, Zulu, Sumer, Sioux, Phoenicia, Assyria, Kongo, Poland, Khmer, Mali, Sweden, Austria, Apache or Navajo, Zimbabwe or Swahili, Majapahit or Srivijaya (Indonesia), Morocco or Al-Andalus (Moors) released later as DLC or in a possible future expansion. 50 civs in total, would be awesome ;)
Even if it's unlikely that all of these civs make it, due to being too "close" to some of the already released ones

Hate-list: HRE, Native America, Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, etc...
In my opinion this is not the correct way to represent a civ

From the other seemingly popular suggestions, I'm also not fond of Israel or the Inuits being a full civ, mostly because of the reasons already discussed in the last few pages.
Jerusalem as a religious city-state is perfect for representing Israel IMO

I would think that Portugal is a really obvious candidate for DLC. I'd like to point out that after the first DLC and G+K we'll have 34, same as BtS. (People already said this.) My point is that will they do another expansion or more DLC after they have 34? I would love for there to be 40+ civs total.

My Civ predictions are Zulu, Sioux, Sumer, and something else...Poland is possible, as is something out of left field. Also Ethiopia.

Further DLC could be Portugal, Hittites, Kongo, Brazil (or another South American civ), Israel (I can dream), and whichever doesn't make it, Poland or Ethiopia.

Have you considered making a mod that adds the Chachapoya as a civilization? I'm sure many people would appreciate it, specially since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about them and could properly explain their relevance.

Sadly I am not a modder and have little to no experience with modding.

I have to say though there are some pretty good mods out there, the Pre-Colombian modder and his mod is one of my favorites (Inca, Caribs, Tupi, Chibcha, Sioux, Maya) but there are others that are pretty good and better. The Caribs and Taino were interesting people and good to fill up a scenario/mod but never to make the full scale game. Same with Chibcha and arguably the Tupi.

Sadly I am not a modder and have little to no experience with modding.

I have to say though there are some pretty good mods out there, the Pre-Colombian modder and his mod is one of my favorites (Inca, Caribs, Tupi, Chibcha, Sioux, Maya) but there are others that are pretty good and better. The Caribs and Taino were interesting people and good to fill up a scenario/mod but never to make the full scale game. Same with Chibcha and arguably the Tupi.

I have some experience with modding... if you know where to find images use as icons, as the leader of the Chachapoya and etc., we could work together to bring such a mod into fruition.

I have some experience with modding... if you know where to find images use as icons, as the leader of the Chachapoya and etc., we could work together to bring such a mod into fruition.

Or, as we invited earlier, you may come join us at Terra Novus.

The Polynesians were responsible for the greatest migration in human history. Their reach spread from Taiwan to Hawaii. They did this through technological innovation that surpassed anything else in the world for the next 1000 years. Some Polynesian Kingdoms (e.g., the Tui-Tonga) formed Empires with tributary states. Others (e.g., Hawaii) formed complex societies with a civil service bureaucracy, hereditary leaders, and state-organized engineering projects. They also had developed an Empire among the Hawaiian peoples.

The Inuit were always isolated with small cities that never progressed into complex societies. They lived in villages that filled a niche where they didn't have to compete against other more complex societies south of them. This led to a mostly subsistence society that did not provide for significant division of labor or stratification of society. In many ways, they are analogous to the Bushmen in Africa not the Polynesians.

The Polynesian migration was impressive, as was the migration of the Inuit. Polynesians had to travel over enormous areas of open water. The Inuit may not have needed to cross near as much water, but they did cross over enormous areas of some of the most hostile land on earth.

The Inuit did have to compete frequently against other peoples, including the Vikings for a time. The Norse were a more complex society, and yet the Inuit prevailed. You also should not ignore modern political achievements, as the Inuit did gain back a decent sized chunk of their original territory. The Inuit are a much older people than the Polynesians, with a history dating back about 5000 years. Notably the Inuit still make up around 90% of the population of the North American Arctic, including Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland).

The Bushmen are survivors, but they do not measure up to what the Inuit have achieved. You are correct that Polynesian groups formed more complex societies, however I insist that if the Polynesians are good enough for Civilization V, than so are the Inuit.

I have some experience with modding... if you know where to find images use as icons, as the leader of the Chachapoya and etc., we could work together to bring such a mod into fruition.

Ok well I can do that quick here are some images:

Possible Buildings/Improvements:

http://www.fertur-travel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revash3-300x225.jpg

http://www.fertur-travel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revash3-300x225.jpg

A picture of a Chullpa: (A Cliffside Mausoleum). Very important and distinct, mumification appears at its earliest in the Andes in these Mausoleums. They tended to be built on the edges of cliffaces/rugged terrain and are extremely hard to reach.

The Chachapoyan burial places are quite exquisite.

Here is a picture of Chachapoyan Sarcophagi which show both their Amazonian and Andean roots:

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/latinam/chachapoya1.jpg

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/latinam/chachapoya1.jpg

====================================

The Chachapoya were also famous for their forts/city construction. Their forts allowed them to fight against both northern invaders and the Inca for centuries. Their round forts can be seen easily via a google search, but here are some links/pics too.

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3468476-Kuelap-Chachapoyas.jpg

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3468476-Kuelap-Chachapoyas.jpg

http://images.travelpod.com/users/keelaurow/thumbnail.xlarge.1.1309707848.artist-rendering-of-what-kuelap-looked-like.jpg

http://images.travelpod.com/users/keelaurow/thumbnail.xlarge.1.1309707848.artist-rendering-of-what-kuelap-looked-like.jpg

Now Chachapoyan unique units will/would be harder to implement. They however were famous for their maces and slingers. (Their slingers were more feared than Incan Slingers ever were) The problem is slingers are already in game.

That leaves us forced to use something with their maces.

I can't give you any great pictures for a Chachapoyan Mace Warrior (Or give you a better name really) but here are some pictures from a couple of documentaries:

http://www.natgeoprogramming.com/images/categoryimages/file/inflightimp-1909.jpg

http://www.natgeoprogramming.com/images/categoryimages/file/inflightimp-1909.jpg

http://tabulorasa.info/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298189748_e64a1601-7cd2-458a-ab99-082672503ec8.jpg

http://tabulorasa.info/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298189748_e64a1601-7cd2-458a-ab99-082672503ec8.jpg

==========

And here is a picture that could be used for the Chachapoyan Standard/flag/Symbol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Abisco_or_Pajaten.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Abisco_or_Pajaten.jpg

===========

Some pictures that could help I hope if you did want to make a mod of them in the future.

============

Some possible cities could include but are not limited to:

Kuelap, Revash, Huancas, Purun Llacta, Yalape, Olan, Leymebamba, Chilchos, Gran Vilaya, Condors Lagoon, Congona, Jalca Grande, Macro, Yamon, Rentama, Iyacyecuj, Meseta, Chachapoyas, and not all cities are listed here (While I know some about their culture, I am still by no means an expert).

The leader would be limited to one of their latter leaders before their end at the hands of both Incan revenge/Smallpox/Spanish conquest; Blas Valera.

http://tabulorasa.info/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298189748_e64a1601-7cd2-458a-ab99-082672503ec8.jpg
Are these guys okay?

Now I have to admit that I've never heard of this Chachapoyas before (even as South American and student of humanities), which is a shame. Their burial customs and city building looks so interesting - to say the least - and surely would make up for a nice and unique civ.

Just wanted to add, all of Canada is officially bilingual, not just certain provinces ><

Officially all of New Zealand is bilingual as well, yet I know very few people who know Maori

Why don't we look from previous civ games to guess the new civs

missing fom Civ II:

The Sioux (they are highly famous and Civ could use anothe horse-based nation)

The Zulu (because its not right without Shaka)

Missig from Civ III:

Austria (one of greatest renaissance empires, though I'm not sure if thier inclusion in Civ III is accurate, I owned all of that incarnation and didn't see them)

The Hittites (great ancient empire; three-man chariot instead of horse archer would be nice)

Portugal (confirmed as CS; bummer because trading posts that do the same as citedels would be cool)

Sumer (literally the worlds first civilization; nuff said)

Missing from Civ IV:

Ethiopia (Zara Yaqob make a great religious leader)

Holy Roman Empire (considered by many people as the First German Empire, please 2K never again)

Khmer (I don't know enough about this region to be sure, but I think it overlaps with Siam, plus Suryavarman II creeped me out)

Mali (simply impossible due to Songhai)

Native America (I guess they could use various tribes as cities, bt that might step on too many toes)


So taken all the info above, my guesses are:

The Sioux
The Zulu
The Hittites
Sumer

Actually agree with everything about this list except the Khmer part. Khmer is culturally completely distinct from Siam and ruled a much larger portion of SE Asia. Picture Siam to Khmer as US to Great Britain, a former vassal that broke off and did interesting thing from a larger empire with a different cultural tradition.

EDIT: OH, AND THE FINAL FOUR! I THINK ETHIOPIA, HITTITES, SIOUX, ZULU is the most likely, but I'd rather have the Khazars than Hittites.

Just wanted to add, all of Canada is officially bilingual, not just certain provinces ><

Although some parts are less enthusiastic about it than others.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Polish or Austrian civ. I think both could include aspects of neighboring nations/peoples. Poland with a Lithuanian UU, UB, or UA. Austria with a Hungarian UU, UB, or UA. Firaxis uses Denmark's UU Ski Infantry to represent Norway, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same with Poland and Austria.

Would I be completely off my rocker to suggest a South African civ that included aspects of Zulu, Xotho, Afrikaans, etc culture in it? Would be interesting to see Impis and Boers as UUs with Mandela (of Xhotho heritage) as the leader. It is probably too modern, some Zulu fans may be disappointed, and it would be mixing quite a few peoples and cultures together in one civ to ever be included, but I think it would be interesting none the less.

The Zulu are a standard of the series. But you never know, firaxis may throw us a curveball.

My list:
Poland
Ethiopia
Comanche/Sioux
Zulu

So everyone has spoken about how European focused and how minimal the focus on Africa is. I personally would like to point out that the entire Southern Hemisphere only has two civs! Now that is some serious imbalance no? :mad:

So everyone has spoken about how European focused and how minimal the focus on Africa is. I personally would like to point out that the entire Southern Hemisphere only has two civs! Now that is some serious imbalance no? :mad:

Considering the Southern Hemisphere has only 10% of the world's population, no.
Not that I wouldn't like the Zulu :)
I stil think the Kongo would be better though.

Given that all the announced civs are series regulars, there is a good chance the some (maybe all) of the other four are new comers to the series.

I think there is a good chance of at least one more civ from the far east. A good a candidate would a representative of the of the Indonesian Archipelago. This could be Indonesia, or one of the historic kingdoms of the region like the Srivijaya, or a more generic representation of the various Malay speaking people as a Malesian civ.

Just wanted to add, all of Canada is officially bilingual, not just certain provinces ><

In fact, only one province is (officially) bilingual, and it's not the one most would think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_brunswick)

So everyone has spoken about how European focused and how minimal the focus on Africa is. I personally would like to point out that the entire Southern Hemisphere only has two civs! Now that is some serious imbalance no? :mad:

Yeah the lack of African civs is a major annoyance. Also, the fact that they tend to include native American civs that the US fought before other, more historically significant choices (Iroquois before Inca and Maya in both III and V, the Sioux in Civ II).

Well, the vast majority of people live in the Northern Hemisphere, and this was even more true in history. Short of adding the Australian Aborigines (who fall far, far short of being a civilization), South Africa, Brazil, or South American tribes, there really isn't much they can do about that.

And we need two civilizations for canada as much as we need two for belgium (ie: could do very well with 0 for both)

Yeah the lack of African civs is a major annoyance. Also, the fact that they tend to include native American civs that the US fought before other, more historically significant choices (Iroquois before Inca and Maya in both III and V, the Sioux in Civ II).

The Iroquois' significance wasn't really so much that America fought them. By that point, they were beyond their heyday. Instead, it's about the French fighting them, the Susquehannock fighting them, the Dutch using them as a power broker, the English using them as a power broker. Other tribes using them as a power broker. The Iroquois using their status as British allies to their advantage to gain influence and domination over other tribes. The Iroquois using their status to claim an Empire that stretched to the Ohio river valley (even if, in practice, this was overstated).

If you wanted to bring up the Sioux in Civ2, I'd agree. They are essentially the American equivalent of the Zulu. Famous for getting a few military victories against the far more dominant power before being defeated and fading into history.

Ok well I can do that quick here are some images:

Possible Buildings/Improvements:

http://www.fertur-travel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revash3-300x225.jpg

http://www.fertur-travel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revash3-300x225.jpg

A picture of a Chullpa: (A Cliffside Mausoleum). Very important and distinct, mumification appears at its earliest in the Andes in these Mausoleums. They tended to be built on the edges of cliffaces/rugged terrain and are extremely hard to reach.

The Chachapoyan burial places are quite exquisite.

Here is a picture of Chachapoyan Sarcophagi which show both their Amazonian and Andean roots:

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/latinam/chachapoya1.jpg

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/latinam/chachapoya1.jpg

====================================

The Chachapoya were also famous for their forts/city construction. Their forts allowed them to fight against both northern invaders and the Inca for centuries. Their round forts can be seen easily via a google search, but here are some links/pics too.

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3468476-Kuelap-Chachapoyas.jpg

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3468476-Kuelap-Chachapoyas.jpg

http://images.travelpod.com/users/keelaurow/thumbnail.xlarge.1.1309707848.artist-rendering-of-what-kuelap-looked-like.jpg

http://images.travelpod.com/users/keelaurow/thumbnail.xlarge.1.1309707848.artist-rendering-of-what-kuelap-looked-like.jpg

Now Chachapoyan unique units will/would be harder to implement. They however were famous for their maces and slingers. (Their slingers were more feared than Incan Slingers ever were) The problem is slingers are already in game.

That leaves us forced to use something with their maces.

I can't give you any great pictures for a Chachapoyan Mace Warrior (Or give you a better name really) but here are some pictures from a couple of documentaries:

http://www.natgeoprogramming.com/images/categoryimages/file/inflightimp-1909.jpg

http://www.natgeoprogramming.com/images/categoryimages/file/inflightimp-1909.jpg

http://tabulorasa.info/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298189748_e64a1601-7cd2-458a-ab99-082672503ec8.jpg

http://tabulorasa.info/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298189748_e64a1601-7cd2-458a-ab99-082672503ec8.jpg

==========

And here is a picture that could be used for the Chachapoyan Standard/flag/Symbol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Abisco_or_Pajaten.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Abisco_or_Pajaten.jpg

===========

Some pictures that could help I hope if you did want to make a mod of them in the future.

============

Some possible cities could include but are not limited to:

Kuelap, Revash, Huancas, Purun Llacta, Yalape, Olan, Leymebamba, Chilchos, Gran Vilaya, Condors Lagoon, Congona, Jalca Grande, Macro, Yamon, Rentama, Iyacyecuj, Meseta, Chachapoyas, and not all cities are listed here (While I know some about their culture, I am still by no means an expert).

The leader would be limited to one of their latter leaders before their end at the hands of both Incan revenge/Smallpox/Spanish conquest; Blas Valera.


Thank you for posting this. Very interesting!

The Iroquois' significance wasn't really so much that America fought them. By that point, they were beyond their heyday. Instead, it's about the French fighting them, the Susquehannock fighting them, the Dutch using them as a power broker, the English using them as a power broker. Other tribes using them as a power broker. The Iroquois using their status as British allies to their advantage to gain influence and domination over other tribes. The Iroquois using their status to claim an Empire that stretched to the Ohio river valley (even if, in practice, this was overstated).

If you wanted to bring up the Sioux in Civ2, I'd agree. They are essentially the American equivalent of the Zulu. Famous for getting a few military victories against the far more dominant power before being defeated and fading into history.

True, I wasn't being specific enough, but even still it points to the same bias - native groups relevant to US history get more shrift than those not. In 1400, North America, excluding Meso-America, held roughly 2% of the world's population. Compare this with 6% each for Meso-America and South America, and 10% for Africa.

I hope they add some mesoamerican City States as well, right now there are pretty much ignored despite the rich history of city states in the area.

-Tollan
-Teotihuacan
-Cholula
-Tilantongo
-Monte Alban
-Tajin
-Tzintzuntzan

just to name a few.

Computer games, like history, are written with the perspective and bias of the writers. It's no surprise that Europe (particlarly Western) and the various groups that Europe (particularly English-speaking) came into conflict with have an undue representation. A historian tends to tell his/her own story bigger and upsell the significance of his/her foes.

Computer games, like history, are written with the perspective and bias of the writers. It's no surprise that Europe (particlarly Western) and the various groups that Europe (particularly English-speaking) came into conflict with have an undue representation. A historian tends to tell his/her own story bigger and upsell the significance of his/her foes.

Agreed. thats why i hope for more African/Latin American civs.

Agreed. thats why i hope for more African/Latin American civs.

It's why we have the Iroqouis (and Sioux in the past) instead of more South American tribes and why previous iterations of the game have had Zulu rather than Kongo. Your standard educational history books in the US are more likely to mention a tribe like the Apache than that one from farther up the thread with a long name that was contemporary to the Inca. Thus the game writer is more likely to include the Apache, due to familiarity and the magnified significance on their own story.

The profit of thousands of americans/europeans consumers must be added in this equation!

Agreed. thats why i hope for more African/Latin American civs.

Hard to have "more" when there isn't a single Latin American civ :p

Hard to have "more" when there isn't a single Latin American civ :p

lol True! but geographic speaking we have The Aztecs.

The profit of thousands of americans/europeans consumers must be added in this equation!

Dont complain about capitalism. If brazilian players are significant on steam sales, I bet that we will see very soon our country on ciV.

Dont complain about capitalism. If brazilian players are significant on steam sales, I bet that we will see very soon our country on ciV.

Not a complain, just a fact! I see Brazil in civ soon from some DLC.

Not that I think Europe needs another Civ in the game, but I'm not so sure it's set in stone that Portugal won't be a new addition. I'm sure they didn't create all the new stuff for the expansion in one day. They had to have worked on it over a significant period of time and might have even been broken up into multiple development teams (Religion team, Espianage team, New Civs team, New Units team, Combat Mechanics team, etc.) that had minimal knowledge of what each other was doing. So it's possible that the following sequence of events may have happened:

1) Lisbon is added as a new City-State
2) Screenshot showing Lisbon in the game is taken for future press release photos.
3) Devs decide to add Portugal into the game and remove Lisbon from City-States.

We know for sure that Jerusalem and Marakech have been added based on an article, but we only think Lisbon is a CS based on a screenshot which could have been taken at any point in the XP's development (and possible susequent change).

Officially all of New Zealand is bilingual as well, yet I know very few people who know Maori

Are all street signs in both languages? Can you walk down the aisle at the grocery market and see the required bilingual names of the various foods? French is very much a part of everyday life in Canada, not just Quebec and New Brunswick. Anyways, this is off track for the thread, other than to say that no, Canada wouldn't be considered 2 nations, despite the animosity between the west and Quebec.

We know for sure that Jerusalem and Marakech have been added based on an article, but we only think Lisbon is a CS based on a screenshot which could have been taken at any point in the XP's development (and possible susequent change).

By that logic, we don't know Jerusalem and Marakech have been added because they could have told that information to gaming websites and then changed their mind.

Development and testing of civilizations is the most difficult and time consuming parts of the game. Not only do they need to create the artwork, compose the music, and record the voice actors of, ideally, a native speaker, they have to design the civ's traits and playtest them for balance. By contrast, they can call a new city-state "City-State X" until the very end of the game if they are uncertain if a new civ is yet to be added.

Are all street signs in both languages? Can you walk down the aisle at the grocery market and see the required bilingual names of the various foods? French is very much a part of everyday life in Canada, not just Quebec and New Brunswick. Anyways, this is off track for the thread, other than to say that no, Canada wouldn't be considered 2 nations, despite the animosity between the west and Quebec.

Ummm...I live in BC. Good luck finding French anywhere except the packaging on your cereal box. I would bet Maori is more relevant to New Zealand than French is to British Columbia.

I would agree with that. Maori culture is definitely very relevant in New Zealand. However, that doesn't mean we aren't very much one nation and one people.

I doubt Canada would be in in any form anyway; the only reason a nation even as modern as America is in (IMO) is that the game was developed in America, mainly for an American market. Modern nations are great in mods and such, but that's not what the base game is designed for.

Development and testing of civilizations is the most difficult and time consuming parts of the game. Not only do they need to create the artwork, compose the music, and record the voice actors of, ideally, a native speaker, they have to design the civ's traits and playtest them for balance. By contrast, they can call a new city-state "City-State X" until the very end of the game if they are uncertain if a new civ is yet to be added.

Well, I tried to give the Pro-Portugal fanbase a little bit of hope, but I see what you're saying. I know next to nothing about developing video games, so I was pretty much in over my head to begin with. I just thought it could be a case of "one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing" and that whoever decided to hypothetically add Portugal as a new civ didn't know that the decision was made to add Lisbon as a CS (or vice versa).

Well, I tried to give the Pro-Portugal fanbase a little bit of hope, but I see what you're saying.

I don't think this is an issue
The most popular remaining civilizations (by remaining I mean that they already appeared in previous civ games) - such as Portugal, Zulu, Sumer and probably the Sioux and the Hittite as well - will definitely be released in some form, even if they don't make it into this expansion pack

Dont complain about capitalism.

:lol:

I'd hate to burst a lot of bubbles, but the Moors are not a civilization. They aren't even a distinct people. "Moor" is a term that medieval Europeans used to describe the Muslim Arabs, Berbers, and West Africans of Al-Andalus (the term given to Iberia by it's Arab/Muslim conquerors in 711CE). You could argue that later Berber dynasties such as the Almoravids or the Almohads were culturally and ethnically distinct, and this is who you are referring to when you say "Moors," but you'd be wrong.

Removed this part because some of it was trolling as it is your judgement on this group of people.

The modern State of Israel is not to be confused with the Kingdom of Israel, a united monarchy that may or may not have existed in the southern Levant for a period of less than 100 years, some 3,000 years ago. As far as I know, the only evidence to support the existence of such a kingdom is found in the Hebrew Bible. I suppose you could make a case for the Kingdom of Israel being included as a playable Civ, but it will never happen. It's capital would have to be Jerusalem, which would be highly controversial, since present day East Jerusalem (i.e., Jerusalem proper) was illegally annexed by the modern State of Israel. It is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territory.

...The modern State of Israel is not to be confused with the Kingdom of Israel...

Yeah, there's a distinction between the adjectives Israeli and Israelite. Many people on the boards are asking for an Israeli civ, then include in that discussion ancient Israel. Israeli specifically refers to the modern state. Israelite, on the other hand, although it can be used as a general all-inclusive term, Israelite when used in this context specifically refers to ancient Israel.

I'm not against an Israelite civ, although I think it's unlikely for the reasons you mentioned among others, but I don't really feel and Israeli civ should be added at all.

Edit: @ Swerv

I fail to see how that makes Isreal ineligible to be a civ. So they do some nasty things to people living within their bounds. Many, if not all the civs in the game have been guilty of countless crimes against a myriad of victims. Our fine shining example of enlightenment, the USA, cleansed the frontiers of inconvenient Native Americans and had Africans systematically imported and enslaved for half of its duration on the planet.

None of your reasons speak to why Isreal shouldn't be included. A reason should be something to the effect of: a lack of cohesive culture, lack of regional/global influence, or a lack of long-term impact. The last one is the only one that might apply. Modern Isreal has only been in place for 3 generations. The jury is still out on how long they will really last.

Thank you for posting this. Very interesting!

Yes as a civ the Chachapoya were EXTREMELY important for centuries controlling the majority of trade in the region. Their cities were large (like Maya City State large), were important militarily (fighting the Inca for hundreds of years/along with trade, the Huari, Spanish, etc.). A lot of the mountain fort styles from the Inca are believed/theorized to have been borrowed from the Chachapoya.

The only reason the Chachapoya are so unknown despite former accomplishments, former influence, population, religious center (bodies from all over the Andean region were carried to Kuelap to be buried), architecture, etc... is because their sites were almost never excavated.

Only recently has real excavation been happening on the Chachapoyan sites. The sites are also far more remote than any Incan site limiting excavation. The writings about the Chachapoya from the Spanish were often times gotten from Incan sources and focused primarily on their wars and final destruction. They have also never been popularized in public (except via a rolling boulder in Indiana Jones).

====

Hopefully with the new wave of excavation of some of these Chachapoyan sites, the "People of the Clouds" will become better known to the public.

I'd hate to burst a lot of bubbles, but the Moors are not a civilization. They aren't even a distinct people. "Moor" is a term that medieval Europeans used to describe the Muslim Arabs, Berbers, and West Africans of Al-Andalus (the term given to Iberia by it's Arab/Muslim conquerors in 711CE). You could argue that later Berber dynasties such as the Almoravids or the Almohads were culturally and ethnically distinct, and this is who you are referring to when you say "Moors," but you'd be wrong.
in t

Removed this part above.

The modern State of Israel is not to be confused with the Kingdom of Israel, a united monarchy that may or may not have existed in the southern Levant for a period of less than 100 years, some 3,000 years ago. As far as I know, the only evidence to support the existence of such a kingdom is found in the Hebrew Bible. I suppose you could make a case for the Kingdom of Israel being included as a playable Civ, but it will never happen. It's capital would have to be Jerusalem, which would be highly controversial, since present day East Jerusalem (i.e., Jerusalem proper) was illegally annexed by the modern State of Israel. It is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territory.
Swerve: Every last word of what you said (about the Moors and Israel) I was about to type. It makes me happy to know that there are people in the world that know about the situation in Israel.
More on topic: Eagle Pursuit...
I fail to see how that makes Isreal ineligible to be a civ.
Yes he does. They are not a civilization. They are a modern state that has achieved nothing positive of note. Ignoring all the controversy, the simple fact is that their is no reason to include them. What have they done? What have they accomplished? You say that they should be included on the grounds that the US does bad stuff too, but look at the Washington Monument, the Capitol Building, the militaristic victories, the booming economy... They've done something, even if you don't like them very much.

I understand your points, but a Israel civilization could serve to represent the Kingdom of Judea and etc. as well.

Ok well I can do that quick here are some images:

Possible Buildings/Improvements:

http://www.fertur-travel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revash3-300x225.jpg

http://www.fertur-travel.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revash3-300x225.jpg

A picture of a Chullpa: (A Cliffside Mausoleum). Very important and distinct, mumification appears at its earliest in the Andes in these Mausoleums. They tended to be built on the edges of cliffaces/rugged terrain and are extremely hard to reach.

The Chachapoyan burial places are quite exquisite.

Here is a picture of Chachapoyan Sarcophagi which show both their Amazonian and Andean roots:

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/latinam/chachapoya1.jpg

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/latinam/chachapoya1.jpg

====================================

The Chachapoya were also famous for their forts/city construction. Their forts allowed them to fight against both northern invaders and the Inca for centuries. Their round forts can be seen easily via a google search, but here are some links/pics too.

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3468476-Kuelap-Chachapoyas.jpg

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3468476-Kuelap-Chachapoyas.jpg

http://images.travelpod.com/users/keelaurow/thumbnail.xlarge.1.1309707848.artist-rendering-of-what-kuelap-looked-like.jpg

http://images.travelpod.com/users/keelaurow/thumbnail.xlarge.1.1309707848.artist-rendering-of-what-kuelap-looked-like.jpg

Now Chachapoyan unique units will/would be harder to implement. They however were famous for their maces and slingers. (Their slingers were more feared than Incan Slingers ever were) The problem is slingers are already in game.

That leaves us forced to use something with their maces.

I can't give you any great pictures for a Chachapoyan Mace Warrior (Or give you a better name really) but here are some pictures from a couple of documentaries:

http://www.natgeoprogramming.com/images/categoryimages/file/inflightimp-1909.jpg

http://www.natgeoprogramming.com/images/categoryimages/file/inflightimp-1909.jpg

http://tabulorasa.info/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298189748_e64a1601-7cd2-458a-ab99-082672503ec8.jpg

http://tabulorasa.info/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298189748_e64a1601-7cd2-458a-ab99-082672503ec8.jpg

==========

And here is a picture that could be used for the Chachapoyan Standard/flag/Symbol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Abisco_or_Pajaten.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Abisco_or_Pajaten.jpg

===========

Some pictures that could help I hope if you did want to make a mod of them in the future.

============

Some possible cities could include but are not limited to:

Kuelap, Revash, Huancas, Purun Llacta, Yalape, Olan, Leymebamba, Chilchos, Gran Vilaya, Condors Lagoon, Congona, Jalca Grande, Macro, Yamon, Rentama, Iyacyecuj, Meseta, Chachapoyas, and not all cities are listed here (While I know some about their culture, I am still by no means an expert).

The leader would be limited to one of their latter leaders before their end at the hands of both Incan revenge/Smallpox/Spanish conquest; Blas Valera.

Excellent! :D

Do you have any images of their leader that could be used as a static image for the diplomatic screen? I tried searching for "Blas Valera", but didn't find any interesting images. Here are some examples of static diplomatic images used for other civilizations:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1732902/Civilization%20V/CunhambebeScene.png

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1732902/Civilization%20V/SaguaScene.png

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1732902/Civilization%20V/CosijoPiiScene.png

Wow.... talk about hating on Israel. Although I agree with the validity of those points brought up. Then again, if you reside in the Newt Gingrich school of history, I guess the Palestinian peoples is a bit of a grey area as well...

I just hope we get to see some good old fashion crusades. I remember that random event triggering where I had to capture a Holy City in Civ IV to get some big bonus. If the AI controlling that Holy City didn't have a million guys in such a narrow choke, I probably would have went in for the hell of it, just to rekindle that event in history. I am sure the "Faith" CS missions will have something like that.

More on topic: Eagle Pursuit...

Yes he does. They are not a civilization. They are a modern state that has achieved nothing positive of note. Ignoring all the controversy, the simple fact is that their is no reason to include them. What have they done? What have they accomplished? You say that they should be included on the grounds that the US does bad stuff too, but look at the Washington Monument, the Capitol Building, the militaristic victories, the booming economy... They've done something, even if you don't like them very much.

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not endorsing Isreal. I just think that they should not be excluded based on "evil" things they've done. A great deal of civs have skeletons in their closet and they are included in the game. it's not a big deal (in respect to their inclusion).

I'm not hating on any nation. In fact, I have a rather pragmatic view on what it takes to make a mighty empire. "It sucks to be a slave, but someone has to build my pyramids." "I know this has been your home for centuries, but I need to mine iron here, GTFO." That's humanity for you. We are tribal and prone to warfare.

Include or exclude a civ based on these criteria:
cohesive culture
historic or current regional/global influence (military/economic/cultural etc)
longevity
familiarity/popularity to Civilization's player demographic

don't include or exclude a civ based on this:
controversy
subjective morality

Yes, but my point has not been answered with regards to Israel:
What have they done?
I'm not going to judge their morals or behavior (I love that the Aztecs are in the game, and they ripped peoples beating hearts out of their chests). It's just that they haven't done anything other than a few militaristic victories. And even their military is only in its current state due to the billions of dollars that they recieve annually in aid from the US.
And Androrc:
I understand your points, but a Israel civilization could serve to represent the Kingdom of Judea and etc. as well.
The Israelite kingdom has little to nothing in common with the state of Israel currently. What you're suggesting is to put that plot of land in the game, and just incorporate all the people that so happened to live there. (Or I guess just incorporate the kingdom, ignore what happened for the next several thousand years, then pick up in 1948).
And to use Eagle Pursuit's criteria:
They have no longevity, as they have only been around for 70ish years.
They have a current regional influence in that the Arab nations don't like them, but that's not exactly a great accomplishment. Outside of the Middle East, I guess they have a pretty strong lobbying group in the US, but again, that's hardly something that demonstrates greatness.
They have no cohesive culture (European Jews, Sumerians, Muslims, Christians, and more; and none of them get along).
They have no familiarity or popularity to a Civ demographic. They've never been included before, and to my knowledge their is no serious number of Civilization-ers in Israel.

The Israelite kingdom has little to nothing in common with the state of Israel currently. What you're suggesting is to put that plot of land in the game, and just incorporate all the people that so happened to live there. (Or I guess just incorporate the kingdom, ignore what happened for the next several thousand years, then pick up in 1948).

The latter is exactly my suggestion. Saying that there is "little to nothing" in common between the two is false: they have the same state religion, both have Hebrew as the official language, etc.

The modern state of Israel clearly in many ways continues the ancient kingdom; it was formed by the people from that kingdom who had a diaspora, after all, and kept having a distinct culture despite having migrated to other countries.

I fail to see how that makes Isreal ineligible to be a civ. So they do some nasty things to people living within their bounds. Many, if not all the civs in the game have been guilty of countless crimes against a myriad of victims. Our fine shining example of enlightenment, the USA, cleansed the frontiers of inconvenient Native Americans and had Africans systematically imported and enslaved for half of its duration on the planet.

None of your reasons speak to why Isreal shouldn't be included. A reason should be something to the effect of: a lack of cohesive culture, lack of regional/global influence, or a lack of long-term impact. The last one is the only one that might apply. Modern Isreal has only been in place for 3 generations. The jury is still out on how long they will really last.

You make a valid point; all or most civs in the game, and indeed all modern nation-states were founded with a lot of violence and bloodshed, and were likely built on slave labor. However, I did not intend to make my comment a critique of nationalism or the current global system. And while the USA is similarly a modern state founded on war and mass expulsion, there can be no question about the might of its empire or the global reach of its culture. To not include the Americans in a game of empire and global domination would be a striking omission. Israel is not an empire. And, in my opinion, it is nothing more than a client of the United States.

I am a bit puzzled by the rest of your post. I probably should've been more clear, but what I was trying to say is that Israel was founded relatively recently by Ashkenazi (European Jewish) colonists from Poland, Germany, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, etc. In fact, the Mizrahi Jews who emigrated to Israel from parts of the Middle East and North Africa have much more in common, culturally-speaking, with the native Arab population than they do with their Ashkenazi Jewish counterparts. More recently, Israel has allowed (and even subsidized) an influx of Ethiopian Jewish, as well as Russian (Jewish and non-Jewish) immigrants to offset the growing Arab population. So no, there is no cohesive culture to speak of.

Israel certainly has had a regional/global impact in its brief history, and it has been a very negative one, launching countless wars and setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The only reason I can think that people would want such a new (arguably self-destructive) state included in a game alongside historic civilizations and once-great empires is that they might be proud of it. Well, I am here to remind you that Israel is nothing to be proud of, yet.

Please do not discuss moderator actions in public threads. If you have an issue, please send a private message to the moderator

The latter is exactly my suggestion. Saying that there is "little to nothing" in common between the two is false: they have the same state religion, both have Hebrew as the official language, etc.

The modern state of Israel clearly in many ways continues the ancient kingdom; it was formed by the people from that kingdom who had a diaspora, after all, and kept having a distinct culture despite having migrated to other countries.

Except it doesn't.

It's one thing to say there exists a continuation of Judaism between the two, but modern Rabbinic Judaism, not to mention various Orthodox and mystical variations like Hasidism and Kabbalah, are so vastly different from the Temple Judaism that would have been practiced in the Kingdom of Israel that if you put the two side by side they'd be practically unrecognizable as the same religion.

This is also true in regards to the Hebrew Language, as Classical Hebrew was significantly modified in the middle ages due to the the incorporation of Arabic grammar forms and then later with the modern Hebrew revival with the influence of Ladino, Yiddish, and a ton of distinct languages.

Even the continuity of the culture is questionable, due to the huge influence of the Arab world on the Sephardic diaspora, and the European-German influence on the Ashkenazi diaspora, among others.

The continuity that does exist is the concept of the identity of "Jewish". A cultural identity, no matter how unique and interesting, is not a civilization unto itself. The Jewish cultural identity forms a part of the identity, history, and uniqueness of a lot of different civilizations. Modern Israel is a reconstruction of this identity not a continuity from an old one.

I think that an unlikely but very interesting possibility is the Taino civilization of the Caribbean, since there have never been a civ from the Caribbean

Possibilities:
North America/Apache or (wild card) Canada
Central America/Caribbean/Taino?
South America/I like the idea of Chachapoya and or Brazil
Europe: Hun, Poland, Austria, hopefully Scotland w/ william wallace and highlanders
Africa: Moors, Zulu, Ethiopia/Kongo
Middle East: Israel/Hebrews
Asia: Tibet or indonesia

Top 4:
1.poland w/ medival scenario
2.israel w/ religion feature
3.hun w/ fall of rome
4. African civ or se asia

I think that an unlikely but very interesting possibility is the Taino civilization of the Caribbean, since there have never been a civ from the Caribbean

If they were to implement it I think it would be more likely they would be represented as "Arawaks" instead, since that's how they were represented in Colonization and in Civ4Col.

Well, I tried to give the Pro-Portugal fanbase a little bit of hope, but I see what you're saying. I know next to nothing about developing video games, so I was pretty much in over my head to begin with. I just thought it could be a case of "one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing" and that whoever decided to hypothetically add Portugal as a new civ didn't know that the decision was made to add Lisbon as a CS (or vice versa).

I considered it. There's a screenshot of the original game with a natural wonder that didn't make it. However, they also carefully select these screenshots to reveal new information. If they didn't want to reveal Lisbon as a City-State, I think they would have made a map that just used old CS.

I'd hate to burst a lot of bubbles, but the Moors are not a civilization. They aren't even a distinct people. "Moor" is a term that medieval Europeans used to describe the Muslim Arabs, Berbers, and West Africans of Al-Andalus (the term given to Iberia by it's Arab/Muslim conquerors in 711CE). You could argue that later Berber dynasties such as the Almoravids or the Almohads were culturally and ethnically distinct, and this is who you are referring to when you say "Moors," but you'd be wrong.

When I use Moors, I usually use it in the sense of popular terminology. Technically, the Iroquois are the Haudenosaunee. They were called the Iroquois by their enemies, but the name stuck. I usually literally write "Moors (Almoravids)" for clarification. One is the popular name, the other is the actual name. I'd be happy if they're called the Almoravids, but having another Muslim Kingdom on the Mediterranean coast is an uphill battle to begin with, I want to at least have people go "ah, I heard of them."

EDIT: All this is a bit moot. As is this Israel discussion. There's a "Suggest New Civs" thread in the suggestions forum. This was supposed to be about guessing the actually included civs. We know Israel and the Almoravids are not being included because they are City-States. So there's no need to bring in a quasi-historical, quasi-political fight over Israel.

Hopefully with the new wave of excavation of some of these Chachapoyan sites, the "People of the Clouds" will become better known to the public.

Yeah, they look fascinating. I'll have to find some books articles on them. :goodjob:

Excellent! :D

Could you please not quote huge stacks of images.

Could you please not quote huge stacks of images.

more appropriately, please use spoiler tags for large images.

Europe: 6 (+2 in DLC; +3 in G&K) (*Counting the Byzantines in)
Asia: 4 (+ 2 in DLC)
Middle-East: 3 (+1 in DLC) (*Counting Persia in)
Northern Africa: 2 (+1 in G&K) (*Counting Songhai in)
North America: 2
Mesoamerica: 1 (+1 in G&K)
Oceania: 0 (+1 in DLC)
South America: 0 (+1 in DLC)
Sub-Saharan Africa: 0


Thank you for this tally. Its an interesting way to demonstrate geographical holes in the distrubution of the game's civilizations. It might also be interesting to assemble a tally where the civilizations are roughly sorted by the era in which they existed.

Isnt songhai part of sub-saharra africa?

In technical terms, yes. However, I assume he means Black Africa or the Africa that was part of the Bantu migrations. In that case, it isn't.

I guess he put it into Northern Africa because they are Muslim and they may use "middle eastern" skins due to them living in the sahel, and not the jungle. But it is clearly wrong as both Islam and Christianity are really big in Sub-saharan Africa. Also, they are geographically clearly south of the Sahara.

Isnt songhai part of sub-saharra africa?
That is why I made it explicit where I was counting them; it’s an arguably classification, indeed. I could have counted them as a Sub-Saharan civ, but then even more people would point out that it wasn't a good classification - albeit it technically is.

Considering “Sub-Saharan Africa: 1”, I still think my previous point is valid: Sub-Saharan Africa is currently the least represented region.

my guesses:

- In Europe I don't think there is much need for another civ, but wouldn't mind if they add Portugal (even through Lisbon is probably a city-state)
- I would like a Sioux civ, as an horse-focused civ.
- I'm not a big fan of African civs, but won't mind Zulu or Ethiopian civs.
- Any civ will be welcome and help making the game even more interesting :)

BTW, about the discussion about Israel civilization- as an Israeli myself, I have to say some of you were a bit offending. I agree we doesn't have enough history to be a civ in the game (hundred years as a kingdom, then be divided into 2 kingdoms after a civil war, one conquered by Assyria then both by Babylon, Persia and than Greece (Alexander, The Ptolemaic Kingdom and then The Seleucid Empire) won independence for 100 years only to be conquered by the Romans at 37 BC, and in the end win independence 70 years ago), but to be honest, most of the civs weren't a major power from the moment they were founded. America needed 200 years to win independence and another 150 years to become a major power (after WW1), Britannia was (and still partly is) most of its time busy fighting itself (Romans vs Celts, Celts vs Germans) and different invaders such as the Vikings and French (Normans).
My biggest problem is your generalization, not all Israelis hate Arabs (through you'll be surprised how many Arabs who live in Israel want to kick us out, but again not all). We live under a threat of terrorism, and most of our wars at least started as defensive wars before moved to the territory of the attacker (the rising conflict with Iran may change this).
So in the end, maybe for now Israel is not a civ (but definitely not a tyrannical self destructive nation whose only goal is to kill every one in the middle east and give bad name for Jewish people), but in few hundred years, who know maybe we will be a known civilization with a strong impact on the history of planet earth.

If they were to implement it I think it would be more likely they would be represented as "Arawaks" instead, since that's how they were represented in Colonization and in Civ4Col.
yes i agree with you :eek::old::bump:[pissed]

No more Israel discussion. There are lots of other possible topics.

After a hard consideration and some chances in my opinions, my "wishlist" for the last four Civs for Gods & Kings are:

1) Finland (C.G.E. Mannerheim)
2) Khazaria (Ziebel)
3) Kongo (Nkuwu Nzinga)
4) Hungary (Matthias Corvinus)

and the extra Civ for the G&K Deluxe Edition (which I hope will be released with a soundtrack ;))

5) Missisippi (or Cherokee, Apache, Sioux, Comanche)

Possibly (and hopefully) there will be seven DLC Civs later this year, so my prefers for those:

1) Indonesia (Hayam Wuruk)
2) Ethiopia (Menelik II)
3) Vietnam (Lê Thánh Tông)
4) Austria (Franz Joseph I)
5) Hittites (Muwattali II)
6) Kushan (Kanishka)
7) Romania (Vlad Tepes)

After a hard consideration and some chances in my opinions, my "wishlist" for the last four Civs for Gods & Kings are:

1) Finland (C.G.E. Mannerheim)
2) Khazaria (Ziebel)
3) Kongo (Nkuwu Nzinga)
4) Hungary (Matthias Corvinus)

and the extra Civ for the G&K Deluxe Edition (which I hope will be released with a soundtrack ;))

5) Missisippi (or Cherokee, Apache, Sioux, Comanche)

Possibly (and hopefully) there will be seven DLC Civs later this year, so my prefers for those:

1) Indonesia (Hayam Wuruk)
2) Ethiopia (Menelik II)
3) Vietnam (Lê Thánh Tông)
4) Austria (Franz Joseph I)
5) Hittites (Muwattali II)
6) Kushan (Kanishka)
7) Romania (Vlad Tepes)

I would be happy with any and all of that :D Sumeria would be nice too though, the more i hear about it the better it sounds.

Finland could have one man as it's UU though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

He replaces the Giant Death Robot

I would be happy with any and all of that :D Sumeria would be nice too though, the more i hear about it the better it sounds.

Yeah, I had hard time choosing between Hittites, Sumer, Zulu and Portugal for the final slot.


Finland could have one man as it's UU though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

He replaces the Giant Death Robot


Heh, yeah Simo "White Death" Häyhä would be cool. It was just yesterday (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11312612&postcount=959) when I switched Finnish UU idea from WD (Infantry replacement) to Runonlaulaja (Scout replacement). I felt Finnish Civ concept (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10725515&postcount=10) needed stronger link to the past, hence Runonlaulaja, but White Death would have been fun to play as well. Invisible sniper unit with extra range and extra movement --- or the GDR replacement with that kill ratio :D

Hakkapeliitta and Sissi would work as well. But I think Sauna is the essential UB for the Finns. Replaces Garden and has increased Great People birth ratio (Saunas were common place to give birth in older times) and gives happiness. Though Tar Kiln would be exciting UI as well. Gives a bonus to naval units and generates extra gold.

Yeah, I had hard time choosing between Hittites, Sumer, Zulu and Portugal for the final slot.





Heh, yeah Simo "White Death" Häyhä would be cool. It was just yesterday (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11312612&postcount=959) when I switched Finnish UU idea from WD (Infantry replacement) to Runonlaulaja (Scout replacement). I felt Finnish Civ concept (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10725515&postcount=10) needed stronger link to the past, hence Runonlaulaja, but White Death would have been fun to play as well. Invisible sniper unit with extra range and extra movement --- or the GDR replacement with that kill ratio :D

Hakkapeliitta and Sissi would work as well. But I think Sauna is the essential UB for the Finns. Replaces Garden and has increased Great People birth ratio (Saunas were common place to give birth in older times) and gives happiness. Though Tar Kiln would be exciting UI as well. Gives a bonus to naval units and generates extra gold.

Only problem is, Finland will probably be dlc, considering the Danish are already available, if they come at all :( But seeing as they were called the Danish rather than the Vikings this time there is hope :D

I think most of all i'd like to see some really unusual empires that have been really unaccredited though. Thought in reality i'll be happy with any bone i'm thrown at this stage :D

Zulus, Prussia, Phoenicians, Toltecs?, Nubians?

Byzantine leader probably Justinian I ?

Carthage's leader is Dido, Potential new civ "Huns" with city in Screenshot 1: Attila's court

http://ow.joystiq.com/screenshots/civilization-5-gods-and-kings-gdc-2012#/0

Attila's Court....as a city name........

Well I think that's one civ I'll never be playing.....

Attila's Court....as a city name........

Well I think that's one civ I'll never be playing.....

Yeah, what a bummer. Waste of development resources.

Carthage's leader is Dido, Potential new civ "Huns" with city in Screenshot 1: Attila's court


http://ow.joystiq.com/screenshots/civilization-5-gods-and-kings-gdc-2012#/0


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2012/03/leaderdido.jpg

WOW! Queen Dido looks awesome. I have been hoping to see her as the leader of Carthaginians since beginning.


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2012/03/leaderboudicca.jpg

Boudica looks also very cool. Looking forward to meet her Pictish Warriors in my games :)


Slightly disappointed with inclusion of the Huns. I would have rather wanted Khazars from the region. Hopefully the Huns have some amazing uniques to make them fun and interesting Civ to play with...

Will be very sad if they do include the Huns. Still, Attila's Court is an odd city name.

Attilla's Court is a Carthiginian city, look at the icon, an elephant.
Also you can tell by the mouse-over it says 'tile owned by Carthage'.

Could/probably is a conquered city.

It's puppeted, so Carthage isn't its original owner. Still, the name "Attila's Court" doesn't sound very Carthaginian.

One of my (and our) predictions is true: Prague is a new cultural city state (if isn't changed later) ;)

Carthage's leader is Dido, Potential new civ "Huns" with city in Screenshot 1: Attila's court

http://ow.joystiq.com/screenshots/civilization-5-gods-and-kings-gdc-2012#/0

On the next screenshot there is another city from the same civ: Hippo Regius
So the civ is probably Carthage
Not sure how they got a city with the name: Attila's court.
Whatever is the case with the Huns, sounds aweful for a city name...

Over at the screenshot analysis thread we are beginning to be certain of another civ:
It is yellow-orange in colour, think savannah. I lightened up the screenie and could more or less certainly identify two impi units with elongated shields, head dresses and all.

It must be the Zulu, no?

On the next screenshot there is another city from the same civ: Hippo Regius
So the civ is probably Carthage
Not sure how they got a city with the name: Attila's court.
Whatever is the case with the Huns, sounds aweful for a city name...

The owner of the city is definitely Carthage, but as others have said, it's a puppet, so Carthage wasn't the original owner of the city.

Some ideas:

1. "Attila's Court" is a mobile capital city that can be packed up and moved.

2. "Attila's Court" is a barbarian city, which is an unannounced new feature.

Maybe it's a militaristic City State?

Question: what would be wrong with the Huns being in the game? Wouldn't that just presumably offer the chance for some fairly unique gameplay? What would be lost by having them as one of the nine new civs?

I looked up Attila's Court. Here is one quote about it:

"Priscus describes the court of Attila king of the Huns (448)
The Greek writer Priscus actually visited the Huns and conversed with Attila. He received a very different impression of the people from the fearsome pictures given earlier by Ammianus Marcellinus. Priscus...were sent by the Roman government with messages to Attila in 448. Priscus first tells of their long journey from Constantinople to Scythia, the territory then occupied by the Huns north of the lower Danube. After some difficulty the messengers obtained a first interview with Attila. Then, as the king of the Huns was about to move northward, he and his companion determined to follow him. After describing the incidents of their journey and their arrival at a large village, Priscus continues:
Attila's residence, which was situated here, was said to be more splendid than his houses in other places. It was made of polished boards, and surrounded with wooden enclosures, designed not so much for protection as for appearance' sake. The house of the chieftain Onegesius was second only to the king's in splendor and was also encircled with a wooden enclosure, but it was not adorned with towers like that of the king. Not far from the inclosure was a large bath built by Onegesius, who was the second in power among the Scythians. The stones for this bath had been brought from Pannonia, for the barbarians in this district had no stones or trees, but used imported material....

The next day I entered the enclosure of Attila's palace, bearing gifts to his wife, whose name was Kreka. She had three sons, of whom the eldest governed the Acatiri and the other nations who dwell in Pontic Scythia. Within the inclosures were numerous buildings, some of carved boards beautifully fitted together, others of straight planed beams, without carving, fastened on round wooden blocks which rose to a moderate height from the ground."

From the account left by Priscus, translated in J. H. Robinson,
Readings in European History, (Boston: Ginn, 1905), pp. 46-49

Attila's court/palace/big village was thus situated north of Scythia. Perhaps they have merged Scythians and Huns in GK, then this may not even be the Capital. Perhaps the civ is the Scythians, not the Huns?

Question: what would be wrong with the Huns being in the game? Wouldn't that just presumably offer the chance for some fairly unique gameplay? What would be lost by having them as one of the nine new civs?Aren't they too identical to the Mongols?

I was expecting the Huns (Fall of Rome scenario, ding ding), so people don't confuse them with the Mongols. An idea of movable capital is great, but could be, possibly, fairly unbalanced. The city name, however, implies something like that. Wonder what are the remaining three civs.

So, Tyre, Prague and Zanzibar are also city-states
That means no Phoenicia or Bohemia civ - at least for now
This is a better thread for this post

Tyre is already a city state, but apparently it's being switched from military to commercial.

Question: what would be wrong with the Huns being in the game? Wouldn't that just presumably offer the chance for some fairly unique gameplay? What would be lost by having them as one of the nine new civs?

Slightly disappointed with inclusion of the Huns. I would have rather wanted Khazars from the region. Hopefully the Huns have some amazing uniques to make them fun and interesting Civ to play with...


I happy about every new Civilizations, my only disappointment with Huns is that now I don't think we'll see the Khazars (as they occupied pretty much the same region).

Attila the King :king: of Huns surely fits to the Gods & Kings theme and takes his place as a daunting and intimidating leader "feared" (a role I was hoping to go for Vlad Tepes of Romania).


Huns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_Empire)
Leader: Attila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_Hun)
Capital: N/A
Music Theme:
Unique Unit: Javelin Thrower. Replaces Sperman. Cost: 50. Strength: 8. Ranged Strength: 6. Range 2. Movement 3. Both melee and ranged unit.
Unique Unit2: Mounted Archery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_archer). Replaces Horseman. Cost: 80. Strength 10. Ranged Strength: 12. Movement 5. Has a Foreign Lands Bonus: Combat Bonus outside Friendly Territory (20).
Unique Ability: Scorched Earth. Units gain Double Experience from Combat. Also +25 Culture towards Social Policies from every Destroyed City and have unique ability to destroy Capital and City State cities, which gives +50 Culture to the Huns.


That is the current concept idea for the Huns in the list. Worth to check out the links*, but as the Huns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns) did not have a capital, Attila's Court is made up worth the game. That is my other slight problem with the Civ. Though it opens a possibility for Sioux and other Civs which didn't build any cities to be included (for Sioux they could use the names of the tribes).

*Also; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleda
Attila and Bleda responded by renewing their campaign in 443. Striking along the Danube, they overran the military centers of Ratiaria and successfully besieged Naissus (modern Niš) with battering rams and rolling towers (military sophistication that was new to the Hun repertory), then, pushing along the Nisava, they took Serdica (Sofia), Philippopolis (Plovdiv) and Arcadiopolis (Luleburgaz). They encountered and destroyed the Roman force outside Constantinople and were only halted by their lack of siege equipment capable of breaching the city's massive walls. Theodosius admitted defeat and sent the court official Anatolius to negotiate peace terms, which were harsher than the previous treaty: the Emperor agreed to hand over 6,000 Roman pounds (ca. 1,963 kg) of gold as punishment for having disobeyed the terms of the treaty during the invasion; the yearly tribute was tripled, rising to 2,100 Roman pounds (ca. 687 kg) in gold; and the ransom for each Roman prisoner rose to twelve solidi.

Their demands met for a time, the Hun kings withdrew into the interior of their empire. According to Jordanes (following Priscus), sometime during the peace following the Huns' withdrawal from Byzantium (probably around 445), Bleda died (killed by his brother, according to the classical sources), and Attila took the throne for himself. A few sources indicate that Bleda tried to kill Attila first, to which Attila retaliated.

In 448, Priscus encountered Bleda's widow, then governor of an unnamed village, while on an embassy to Attila's court.

Battering rams and rolling towers could be the Hunnic unique units. Giving them a strong place as a siege civ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

I was expecting the Huns (Fall of Rome scenario, ding ding), so people don't confuse them with the Mongols. An idea of movable capital is great, but could be, possibly, fairly unbalanced. The city name, however, implies something like that. Wonder what are the remaining three civs.

I am sure Zulu is one of them (Impi unit can be seen in the Great Prophet screenshot) so that leaves only two unknown civ spots... I believe those will be some new "fresh" Civs never before seen in the series OR (slight disappointment) and they will be Sumer and Hittites with Wonders of the Ancient World DLC abilities + leaders screens, I hope this isn't the case. If it will be, then we definitely need more DLC Civs! :D

Btw, here are a few pics from Attila's wooden castle
Based on the few sources we have, it probably looked something like this:
http://kultura.hu/main.php?folderID=1190&articleID=267667&ctag=articlelist&iid=1

(and here is it included in Civ IV: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10232736&postcount=337)

Battering rams and rolling towers could be the Hunnic unique units. Giving them a strong place as a siege civ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HunsIf the Huns are in (which I personally doubt), then a siege unit would make sense.

One of the things that made the Huns so terrifying compared to contemporary civs like the Goths was that the Huns were able to lay siege to (Roman) cities.

Tyre is already a city state, but apparently it's being switched from military to commercial.

Yep, I only meant that because Tyre is on the screenshots, Phoenicia is out as a new civ for GK
(they didn't "upgrade" Tyre the way they did with Seoul)

but as the Huns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns) did not have a capital, Attila's Court is made up worth the game. That is my other slight problem with the Civ.

Actually they had some sort of capital, it was located in present day Hungary
Probably in Tápiószentmárton (modern Hungarian name), at least there were that palace I posted a few posts above
I found an english article too: http://culture.hu/main.php?folderID=1094&articleID=257302&ctag=articlelist&iid=1
http://kultura.hu/img/upload/200803/Attila_fapalota_latvanyterv_D__ZA20080326008.jpg

Unfortunately we don't know how the Huns called the area, maybe it was something similar, maybe not
In our Hun mod for Civ IV, we called the capital Tapiomart

Over at the screenshot analysis thread we are beginning to be certain of another civ:
It is yellow-orange in colour, think savannah. I lightened up the screenie and could more or less certainly identify two impi units with elongated shields, head dresses and all.

It must be the Zulu, no?

Could still be the Kongo Kingdom, though I doubt it.

Question: what would be wrong with the Huns being in the game? Wouldn't that just presumably offer the chance for some fairly unique gameplay? What would be lost by having them as one of the nine new civs?

Having a city called "Attila's Court" is a bit of a ... lets call it a trance breaker for me. I'm sure if the UA is interesting enough I'll mod it for some other civ to take advantage of.

I can think of plenty of horse based civs I'd prefer before the Huns (mostly, because the Huns have basically no cities).

Having a city called "Attila's Court" is a bit of a ... lets call it a trance breaker for me. I'm sure if the UA is interesting enough I'll mod it for some other civ to take advantage of.

I can think of plenty of horse based civs I'd prefer before the Huns (mostly, because the Huns have basically no cities).

Agreed
The lack of a proper Hunnic city list is certainly an issue

Well at least they've pulled out all the stops in finding two original ideas for civs ...:deadhorse:

Huns
Leader: Attila
Capital: N/A
Music Theme:
Unique Unit: Javelin Thrower. Replaces Sperman. Cost: 50. Strength: 8. Ranged Strength: 6. Range 2. Movement 3. Both melee and ranged unit.
Unique Unit2: Mounted Archery. Replaces Horseman. Cost: 80. Strength 10. Ranged Strength: 12. Movement 5. Has a Foreign Lands Bonus: Combat Bonus outside Friendly Territory (20).
Unique Ability: Scorched Earth. Units gain Double Experience from Combat. Also +25 Culture towards Social Policies from every Destroyed City and have unique ability to destroy Capital and City State cities, which gives +50 Culture to the Huns.

This would be ridiculously OP. The javelin thrower is basically a bowman with 3 movement, and the latter is already a unit that makes winning early really easy (just build 5-6 of em, take your starting warrior and curbstomp anyone). The mounted archer is even worse, a Keshik that comes with HBR is just unstoppable at that point of the game (especially with the foreign legion bonus). And due to the UA they will be at logistics + march in no time (combined with honor they would have a 3,5X XP gain). Winning with this civ would be easier than it was with the horsemen when the game launched.

If the Huns are in (which I personally doubt), then a siege unit would make sense.

One of the things that made the Huns so terrifying compared to contemporary civs like the Goths was that the Huns were able to lay siege to (Roman) cities.

I'd agree with this.

but more generally -

I don't see how another 'horse+mostly mobile' 'civ' is a thing to cry about. It'd be hard to add any of the Steppe/plains civs (even with little 'settled' cities, they're still civs) if the Mongols were the only ones. That actually wipes out a lot of geographic area/history.

Adding more 'Longsword/gunpowder/rifle' civs would actually be 'worse' frankly. We've already got a lot of those.

Carthage's leader is Dido, Potential new civ "Huns" with city in Screenshot 1: Attila's court

Needless to say (from what I've said before), I'm extraordinarily disappointed with Dido. You have Theodra and Boudicca, you don't need Dido too. Plus, the other two were almost certainly real (while Dido, even if I'm being generous, is certainly uncorroborated except for by Roman fiction).

I agree, but wasn't the Celts' Brennus from Civ IV fictional too, or at least semi-mythical?

Needless to say (from what I've said before), I'm extraordinarily disappointed with Dido. You have Theodra and Boudicca, you don't need Dido too. Plus, the other two were almost certainly real (while Dido, even if I'm being generous, is certainly uncorroborated except for by Roman fiction).


Didn't stop the Hanging Gardens from making it in, or the Fountain of Youth, El Dorado, etc.

Hanging Gardens is one of the Seven Wonders of the World. While Herodotus possibly made some things up, he's generally relied upon as a source. Dido was used as part of a propaganda piece for pro-Roman literature so Virgil doesn't have the same credibility. You won't really get any argument for Fountain of Youth or El Dorado except that, with the rarity code, I don't usually see them in the game. I've heard somebody make the argument that the quest to find them is real (although possibly not) and the game is simply simulating that quest (especially, since, in most games, you won't find them, just like real life). Either way, two wrongs don't make a right and a natural wonder is less significant than a leader of one of my favorite civs.

I feel the same way with Brennus. Also with Ragnar. I'd been advocating Boudicca for a long time partially to replace Brennus (I also suggested Vercingetorix, but Boudicca made more sense for gender inclusion). I suggested Cnut instead of Ragnar, but I'm thrilled with Harald. I've also been adamant that Gilgamesh should not be the Sumerian leader and that was at least their own legend instead of a Roman one. Basically, I feel that Civilization was moving in the right direction and abandoning semi-mythological leaders and that this is a step back.

I do agree with you, but I'm not gonna let it get me down. I'm interested to see how they will talk about her in the Civilopedia entry.

My guess is they'll quote extensively from the Aeneid. I'm not going to be overly upset, but it's still a letdown.

I think Theodora was a poor choice but she's at least a real choice. Likewise, if they had selected Cleopatra, I would have felt the same way.

I might start begging modders to see if they're interested in crafting an alternative. However, there's an added complication in that I'll need to see if I can find a male Phoenician speaker (actually, on that note, I wonder if they'll go with Punic, Berber, or Tunisian Arabic).

Dido has more historical sources than just the Aeneid. Going by additional sources, it is entirely possible given the time period that she was the first ruler of Carthage, albeit probably embellished in certain respects.

Theodora decided to give her husband house arrest and become empress regnant of the Byzantine Empire!

Dido has more historical sources than just the Aeneid. Going by additional sources, it is entirely possible given the time period that she was the first ruler of Carthage, albeit probably embellished in certain respects.

There's no Carthaginian stories, though, and I'm pretty sure they do have a documented foundation story. Are there any non-Roman sources? Greeks were enemies too, but that's at least a start.

Pretty sure the units in the Great Prophet screen are no Impi. The icon looks Mayan, they look "lighter skinned", and there are no shields visible.

There's no Carthaginian stories, though, and I'm pretty sure they do have a documented foundation story. Are there any non-Roman sources? Greeks were enemies too, but that's at least a start.


You have Phoenician records, as well as the histories of the Greeks.

EDIT: whoops, wrong thread...

You have Phoenician records, as well as the histories of the Greeks.

I've done some research on this casually over the years, but I've never seen any indication of Phoenician records of Dido or Elissa. Can you provide a source for this?

The problem with the Roman account of the foundation of Carthage (the oxhide story) is that it basically played up every single Roman ethnic/racial stereotype of deceptive easterners. Mixed with that is the tragedy of Aeneas and Dido, which is also fairly insulting to Carthaginians.

Looks like the Huns are confirmed:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/09/civilization-v-gods-kings-interview-with-lead-designer-ed-beach/

PCG: But there are a couple religious scenarios.

Beach: We have one that highlights the religion system and how to mod it. We have another one—the Celts and the Huns and the Byzantines—we’re introducing that set of three new civilizations and we decided that a fall of Rome scenario would be perfect. And then the third scenario we’re shipping with is an interesting departure. We actually have a steampunk Victorian-era science fiction scenario that’s an interesting departure from the usual historical fare.

Looks like the Huns are confirmed:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/09/civilization-v-gods-kings-interview-with-lead-designer-ed-beach/

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Bad news, very bad news
Now I have lost interest in GK...
They should have included Khazaria if they wanted a steppe-horse culture
The bigger problem is that this eliminates the chances of Hungary being included :(
If nothing else, the naming is too similar...
It would have been a much wiser decision to include Hungary as a full civ based on the Medieval scenario, instead of the Huns based on the Byzantine scenario :sad:

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Bad news, very bad news
Now I have lost interest in GK...
They should have included Khazaria if they wanted a steppe-horse culture
The bigger problem is that this eliminates the chances of Hungary being included :(
If nothing else, the naming is too similar...
It would have been a much wiser decision to include Hungary as a full civ based on the Medieval scenario, instead of the Huns based on the Byzantine scenario :sad:

not bad at all to me.

Maybe Firaxis was feeling that nostalgia from Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings. Huns probably had the best campaign in that. And since it is God's and Kings.... might as well throw in Attila the Hun and all that Tarken glory. Might as well give them the bonus for building/city attacks while you are at it.

I love it Huns! Mongol vs Hun who's the better horse barbarians??? :D

I love it Huns! Mongol vs Hun who's the better horse barbarians???
The problem is no one else does. Theres a reason why the mongols have the Keshik and thats it.
Its because the horse archer in any sort of open ground is basically going to own everyone.
If they are going to make the huns some high mobility archer force people are going to start
hating them real fast. I can only imagine this in multiplayer.

Civs that play as pure barbarians are broken to begin with. Makes for one dimensional game play. How can you have CS diplomacy as Mongol if you kill more than two CS's and the rest of em perma-war you?? And if you don't kill them you don't utilize the ability to the fullest, unless you were going for domination from the get go. Not a bad idea but not flexible. It is a terrible UA in other words.

Sometimes you want that style of play. But now with two civs that essentially fall into that? Waste. Absolute waste.

But now with two civs that essentially fall into that? Waste. Absolute waste.

Agreed. They might as well just named them the Mongols 2.

The language should be fun.... since what... Historians can point out to about three words whatever dialect they used??? Hopefully they mean "Hi", "Bye" and "Die" so we can actually tell without reading the dialogue box. I guess they will throw some hybrid mix of Mongolian, Turkic, and whatever else they can dig up. Bulgarian, Hebrew, hell.... whatever sounds about right I guess.

Hmmm, I wouldn't have guessed huns and I would still have preferred Khazars, but I'm okay with it. I enjoy Mongolia games and I think they'll go to some effort to make them truly different.

Huns are an odd choice, and probably not the best choice, but they don't ruin the game for me.

The language should be fun.... since what... Historians can point out to about three words whatever dialect they used??? Hopefully they mean "Hi", "Bye" and "Die" so we can actually tell without reading the dialogue box. I guess they will throw some hybrid mix of Mongolian, Turkic, and whatever else they can dig up. Bulgarian, Hebrew, hell.... whatever sounds about right I guess.

Not even that. No one really knows anything about them other that what was written about them.
There isn't one unbiased source. They could have been 7' redheads or midgets with orange
skin like an oomplaloompa for all we know.

Not even that. No one really knows anything about them other that what was written about them.
There isn't one unbiased source. They could have been 7' redheads or midgets with orange
skin like an oomplaloompa for all we know.

Okay, a 7 foot redhead with skin like an oompla loompa as Attila would be the most awesome leader ever. Hopefully he talks like the Swedish Chef as well...

My god a lot of people must have purchased a Jump To Conclusion mat. How about waiting and seeing what they do with the Huns before claiming it's going to ruin the game?

I have lost interest in this expansion too.
They better chose Khazaria who have real city names.
But,there was a "Hunnic Empire",but how can a empire exist without cities?

The modern State of Israel is not to be confused with the Kingdom of Israel, a united monarchy that may or may not have existed in the southern Levant for a period of less than 100 years, some 3,000 years ago. As far as I know, the only evidence to support the existence of such a kingdom is found in the Hebrew Bible. I suppose you could make a case for the Kingdom of Israel being included as a playable Civ, but it will never happen. It's capital would have to be Jerusalem, which would be highly controversial, since present day East Jerusalem (i.e., Jerusalem proper) was illegally annexed by the modern State of Israel. It is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territory.

The united monarchy lasted about 100 years. But the Israelite kingdom lasted about 600 years, and was preceded by the the reign of the judges, which lasted several hundred years. Even after the Israelite kingdom fell, there was only a 70 year gap before Israelite exiles returned an established an autonomous principality under nominal Persian sovereignty. Eventually, Israel regained full independence under the Hasmonians, which lasted until the Roman era. End-to-end, ancient Israel as a discrete civilization lasted about 1200 years. That's much longer that most civilizations in the game.

[Note: eastern Jerusalem isn't internationally recognized as squat. It was supposed to be a UN protectorate in 1948; since that time, no binding resolution has ever transferred the territory's theoretical sovereignty to either Israel or the Palestinians. Israel annexed it, but to the world it's no man's land]

I don't really get all the Hun hate (besides, yes, the stupidly chosen 'Attila's Court' city name). Are people so mad at the inclusion of a civ that doesn't meet the standard idea of an empire?

The Huns had their own language, their own culture, introduced technological advancements into Europe regarding the compound bow, maintained diplomatic relations with surrounding powerful empires, had a sophisticated administration system, controlled a large amount of territory for a significant amount of time, and impacted world history with their conflict with Rome.

The steppe empires were important. Yes many didn't build cities (although most were to some degree only semi-nomadic), and because of this they don't fit the classic definition of what people think of in terms of an empire. So what? The only real annoyance is that they have to take some liberties to make them fit the gameplay mechanics, but I don't have a problem with them being represented. They weren't uncivilized despite not having cities.

I don't really get all the Hun hate (besides, yes, the stupidly chose 'Attila's Court' city name). Are people so mad at the inclusion of a civ that doesn't meet the standard idea of an empire?

The Huns had their own language, their own culture, introduced technological advancements into Europe regarding the compound bow, maintained diplomatic relations with surrounding powerful empires, had a sophisticated administration system, controlled a large amount of territory for a significant amount of time, and impacted world history with their conflict in Rome.

The steppe empires were important. Yes many didn't build cities (although most were to some degree only semi-nomadic), and because of this they don't fit the classic definition of what people think of in terms of an empire. So what? The only real annoyance is that they have to take some liberties to make them fit the gameplay mechanics, but I don't have a problem with them being represented. They weren't uncivilized despite not having cities.

I mostly am disappointed because I feel Khazaria was a much more powerful, long lived empire that settled down into large cities near the black and caspian seas and practiced Tengriism and Judaism, so this expansion seemed perfect. Huns will be fun, I personally hope they have a very unique UA so they play different from Mongols, also I imagine they will have a composite longbow UU and a ranged horse unit as well.

I mostly am disappointed because I feel Khazaria was a much more powerful, long lived empire that settled down into large cities near the black and caspian seas and practiced Tengriism and Judaism, so this expansion seemed perfect. Huns will be fun, I personally hope they have a very unique UA so they play different from Mongols, also I imagine they will have a composite longbow UU and a ranged horse unit as well.

I agree the Khazars would have been cool and something new (hopefully they can still show up down the road as DLC or in a later expansion), but I don't understand the extreme reaction of the Huns completely ruining the game so I'm not going to buy it now.

The Huns have marketable appeal. Everyone knows the Huns. Maybe they'll help sell the game, which could extend support a little longer and let one more DLC civ slip in...

I don't now whether or not these pictures are already taken into account (the thread is way to long for me to scan it in total) and I don't know whether or not the Huns can be called *confirmed* just because of this city name in the screen shot.

But what do you think about this pictures, taken out of an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGNI8UqN6MA):

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/Hias/Online/Screenshot_01.jpg

and with a better look on the guy to the right:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/Hias/Online/Screenshot_02.jpg

Here, we might have the cover art for G&K. The lady on the left (not the interviewer ;)) probably is Boudicca. But what about the guy on the right? Isn't this a Hun? IIRC, the cap is quite typical.

--

Edit: Oh well, while I prepared the images, this "news" was analyzed in a parallel thread. Too late to be the first... :(

BTW, and I'll put it here. As disappointed as I am that Dido is the leader of Carthage, I love her leader screen with the Cothon in the background. That's quite cool.

I wonder, given the addition of Attila and the Huns, if they're adding a Horse Archer unit (I'm thinking as a generic, although possibly as a Hun UU).

So, if the Huns are in (which I really hope is not the case), I'd wager a unique horse archer and a unique catapult (or some other siege weapon).

PCG: But there are a couple religious scenarios.

Beach: We have one that highlights the religion system and how to mod it. We have another one—the Celts and the Huns and the Byzantines—we’re introducing that set of three new civilizations and we decided that a fall of Rome scenario would be perfect. And then the third scenario we’re shipping with is an interesting departure. We actually have a steampunk Victorian-era science fiction scenario that’s an interesting departure from the usual historical fare.

Sounds like the Huns are definitely in to me.

Needless to say (from what I've said before), I'm extraordinarily disappointed with Dido. You have Theodra and Boudicca, you don't need Dido too. Plus, the other two were almost certainly real (while Dido, even if I'm being generous, is certainly uncorroborated except for by Roman fiction).


With inclusion of Boudica, Dido and Theodora we only have seven female leaders (Catherine, Elisabeth, Wu Zetian and Isabella) and about 25 male leaders. So the seven females definitely aren't too much. Adds some nice flavor and variety. :)


Here, we might have the cover art for G&K. The lady on the left (not the interviewer ;)) probably is Boudicca. But what about the guy on the right? Isn't this a Hun? IIRC, the cap is quite typical.


Very cool cover! Where can I buy a poster of that! :D
Yes, definitely Attila the Hun.

You mentioned spy’s intrigue system, which lets us peek at what the AI is planning. How will that work in multiplayer?

Beach: Yeah, intrigue doesn’t work in multiplayer. You picked up on that.

PCG: Is it completely turned off, or could we use it on AI opponents?

Beach: I think the current plan is just to have it turned off.


For me, this is worse than the Huns civ...I like to play with friends and not having all the possibilities of spionage is disappointing.

The Huns confirmed, 3 left right? Man i really expect that a modern civilization will be included.

No spy in multiplayer? seriously?

They gonna repair the f multiplayer?

just bad news IMO.

They didn't say perse that espionage is out, but that intrigue is out, which is only logical as computers can't read minds :p

The Huns confirmed, 3 left right? Man i really expect that a modern civilization will be included.

No spy in multiplayer? seriously?

They gonna repair the f multiplayer?

just bad news IMO.

No intrigue in multiplayer.

EDIT: Ninja'd by anandus

My bad. Just intrigue out. One of 3 thinks we know espionage does. Now im excited.

Yeah, just intrigue.

But most of the time I play with 2, 3 friends and 5, 6 AI. It would be sweet to know the plans of the AIs.

The Huns confirmed, 3 left right? Man i really expect that a modern civilization will be included.
.

Austria-Hungary or something of that ilk would fit really well with the broadened focus on WWI, but they might have to repurpose some city names from Germany.

Still holding out hope for Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, but pre-modern Europe is getting pretty well-represented now. :(

My guess now:

1- huns (confirmed)
2- Austria, Austria-hungary, Poland (some european power because of the new scenary)
3- Zulu, Ethiopia
4 -I would like to see a south american civ, but I think we will have another asian one like Indonesia, Khmer...

You can't really have any South American Civ without first having Brazil, and you can't have Brazil without first having Portugal. But it's a future DLC possibility - Portugal will be in for sure at some point.

Assuming that steampunk Victorian-era science fiction would try to represent most of the world,instead of being restricted to Eurasia,then I'd assume they would need to include Brazil to represent that huge territory on Eastern south America . There are some reasons to do it:


- They couldn't use Portugal instead Brazil,because Brazil was already separated from Portugal and Portugal is too small to be represented(that why they showed Lisbon as a city state);
- Rio de Janeiro is not big enough to represent ALL the brazilian territory(Brazil isn't just Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo) ;
- Brazil didn't have a strong tech lagging at that time,if compared with other Non-European nations,with the obvious exception of USA and Japan;


For African continent,there might be both Zulu and Ethiopia . Then Fill the gap between the empires with as many city states as you can and you can represent this scenario very well .

You can't really have any South American Civ without first having Brazil, and you can't have Brazil without first having Portugal. But it's a future DLC possibility - Portugal will be in for sure at some point.

I dont see the necessity of Portugal appears first. Yes they "found" Brazil but we need to think that in the new scenario Brazil has a huge influence and Portugal used to be a important mercantile country and now not so important in world scenario.

But i really think that Brazil dont be one of the missing civs.

I'm a little calmed down. Even if it is a fact now that they will include the Huns...
With good UA and UU choices they can be made into a very enjoyable civ after all - gameplay wise

Still pretty upset about a couple consequences though, and the Huns have a couple very big disadvantages compared to other civs:

- The language. Virtually nothing is known about it. I don't see it replaced with anything else either. What would they use for them??
Seriously, I will mod them out if they use a modern and not-too-wellknown european language from the hunnic-controlled territories

- The cities. For Civ IV we made a city list for a Hun mod, and we put a lot of research into it.
No real hunnic cities of course - that's virtually non-existent - only research on the names of the occupied cities.
We got a list in the end, but still, it was very unstatisfiing. There is just not enough info on them...

- It kinda ruins the later chances of 2 much more fitting and important civs
Hungary as a great medieval european power with very rich history and unique culture (also the perfect choice for the Medieval scenario), and the already mentioned Khazaria
The Khazars would have been the best choice by far if they wanted to add a "proper" semi-nomadic civ
Both would have been great additions, now I don't see any real chances for them - not even later as DLCs :(

EDIT: Now I think the last 3 civs will be:
Either Austria (steampunk scenario) or Poland (medieval scenario)
Ethiopia (religion)
Hittite or Sumeria

I dont see the necessity of Portugal appears first. Yes they "found" Brazil but we need to think that in the new scenario Brazil has a huge influence and Portugal used to be a important mercantile country and now not so important in world scenario.

But i really think that Brazil dont be one of the missing civs.

Really? You don't think it would be odd to represent modern, industrialised Brazil, with a Portuguese-speaking leader and Portuguese city names, without representing the country which, though arguably not responsible for their present economic success, had a defining role in shaping their national identity?

I'm not denying that Brazil are a bigger economic power in the modern world than Portugal, or that it shouldn't be in the game ever. But having Brazil without acknowledging their Portuguese origins would be like having the US without England or France, or indeed any Western European power without Rome. It just doesn't work.

- The language. Virtually nothing is known about it. I don't see it replaced with anything else either. What would they use for them??
Seriously, I will mod them out if they use a modern and not-too-wellknown european language from the hunnic-controlled territories


Why not latin? The main diplomatic relations (...if you can call it in this way...) were with the both roman empires, so I guess they used latin in diplomacy. Doesn't sound too unreasonable imho.

Why not latin? The main diplomatic relations (...if you can call it in this way...) were with the both roman empires, so I guess they used latin in diplomacy. Doesn't sound too unreasonable imho.

Not sure if the Huns really went in for diplomacy...

Latin is feasible, as is Gothic, but neither could be considered indigenous languages. My guess is they'll use Bulgar, Old Church Slavonic or possibly (though I hope I'm wrong) Hungarian.

Really? You don't think it would be odd to represent modern, industrialised Brazil, with a Portuguese-speaking leader and Portuguese city names, without representing the country which, though arguably not responsible for their present economic success, had a defining role in shaping their national identity?

I'm not denying that Brazil are a bigger economic power in the modern world than Portugal, or that it shouldn't be in the game ever. But having Brazil without acknowledging their Portuguese origins would be like having the US without England or France, or indeed any Western European power without Rome. It just doesn't work.

Yes Brazil speak portuguese, have portuguese city names etc. But Brazil had immigrations for all over the Europe, Asia and Africa. Im not saying that Portugal had no role, yes they are the metropolis of colonial Brazil but now its important to see Brazil as the g8 member, international influence etc.
Portugal IMO its off cause 2k put Spain in the role of most important Country in mercantile period. IMO they need to put Portugal too, but the idea that they need to put it first of Brazil i dont agree.

Why not latin? The main diplomatic relations (...if you can call it in this way...) were with the both roman empires, so I guess they used latin in diplomacy. Doesn't sound too unreasonable imho.

That would also be very strange IMO
AFAIK all the other civs use their own language, not the one they had to use the most in diplomacy

Also, Hungary had latin as official language too, way into the 19th century
(And I'm pretty sure this was the case for many other european nations as well. Simply latin was the main language of education, religion and even high diplomacy in some cases)
Would this mean if they ever include Hungary, the leader would talk in latin as well?

Assuming that steampunk Victorian-era science fiction would try to represent most of the world,instead of being restricted to Eurasia,then I'd assume they would need to include Brazil to represent that huge territory on Eastern south America . There are some reasons to do it:


- They couldn't use Portugal instead Brazil,because Brazil was already separated from Portugal and Portugal is too small to be represented(that why they showed Lisbon as a city state);
- Rio de Janeiro is not big enough to represent ALL the brazilian territory(Brazil isn't just Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo) ;
- Brazil didn't have a strong tech lagging at that time,if compared with other Non-European nations,with the obvious exception of USA and Japan;

Interesting fact: The Brazilian Emperor of that time (Dom Pedro II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_II_of_Brazil), reigning from 1831 to 1889) was passionate about sciences and technology, and under his govern Brazil oversaw the progressive development of railroads, telegraph lines and overall infrastructure.

If one day Brazil make it into Civ, it'll probably be as the Empire (XIX century) rather than the Republic (XX-nowadays). The Empire had a relatively stable political and economic scenario (specially under D. Pedro II) and was able to maintain the national unity of the Portuguese America. The same wouldn't happen to the republican Hispanic America, and even the USA would see its unity threatened by the Civil War.

My guess is they'll use Bulgar, Old Church Slavonic or possibly (though I hope I'm wrong) Hungarian.

All would be catastrophic decisions. Neither of the languages are even related
I just cannot beleive this is a viable option for Firaxis

Really? You don't think it would be odd to represent modern, industrialised Brazil, with a Portuguese-speaking leader and Portuguese city names, without representing the country which, though arguably not responsible for their present economic success, had a defining role in shaping their national identity?

I'm not denying that Brazil are a bigger economic power in the modern world than Portugal, or that it shouldn't be in the game ever. But having Brazil without acknowledging their Portuguese origins would be like having the US without England or France, or indeed any Western European power without Rome. It just doesn't work.

By this logic, we should have etruscans before Rome and Phoenicia before Carthage...

I would love Portugal and Brazil, but I dont have a problem with just Brazil as a civ.

By this logic, we should have etruscans before Rome and Phoenicia before Carthage...

I would love Portugal and Brazil, but I dont have a problem with just Brazil as a civ.

Same here. Brazil could work for a modern civ. And although Portugal is at least equally likely to get in it might just be Brazil on it's own.

I believe Brazil would not be Brazil without some sort of bonus involving cutting down forests/jungle. However, that is a very very controversial subject.