Let's wait and see.

While her background seems more Scottish, it also seems continental (it looks like a Dun in the background).

Just as a note of clarification: I don't think it's true to suggest that a dun would be specific to continental Celts. The word was used even by insular Celts, as exemplified by the number of Scottish towns and cities (Dundee, Dunfermline,...) whose names derive from it, not to mention latinisations like Camulodunum.

I personally hadn't heard them called duns until Civ IV, but forts and hill-forts of the kind are common all over Celtic Europe, including the British Isles. There are a good number a stone's throw from where I live.

Obviously, we don't have the full city list or even the second unique component, but so far it does seem like Firaxis have taken a more insular amalgamation of cultures to represent the Celts. Which is fair enough, in my view. As you say, even if Boudicca was to speak Gaelic, it'd be a damn sight closer than Ramesses and his Arabic. :P

I just thought of a civ for the 9th slot bulgaria cause the bulgarian empire always rivaled byzantium. before the kiev rus. and they should add troy as a city state militaristic add troy:king:.

Technically, Boudicca would have spoken a Brythonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brythonic_languages) rather than Gaelic language, and Welsh would be the most widely spoken modern example of those. (Interestingly, Pictish may well also be an example of Brythonic Celtic language, with Gaelic being established in Scotland once the Scots came over from Ireland).

But since Boudicca's kingdom as seen in her leader screen would appear to draw more from the Scottish glens than the frankly horizontiginous fens of her native East Anglia, I wouldn't be surprised if she spoke Irish or Scots Gaelic.

It seems increasingly unlikely that Celtic in the islands had divided until the post-Roman period. Meaning, essentially, that Boudica spoke the same language as Irish or Scottish Celts. In fact, as Welsh is highly innovative (transformed through intense contact with Latin 100 to 400), Scottish Gaelic may be closer to the language Boudica spoke than Welsh.

Just as a note of clarification: I don't think it's true to suggest that a dun would be specific to continental Celts. The word was used even by insular Celts, as exemplified by the number of Scottish towns and cities (Dundee, Dunfermline,...) whose names derive from it, not to mention latinisations like Camulodunum.

I personally hadn't heard them called duns until Civ IV, but forts and hill-forts of the kind are common all over Celtic Europe, including the British Isles. There are a good number a stone's throw from where I live.

Obviously, we don't have the full city list or even the second unique component, but so far it does seem like Firaxis have taken a more insular amalgamation of cultures to represent the Celts. Which is fair enough, in my view. As you say, even if Boudicca was to speak Gaelic, it'd be a damn sight closer than Ramesses and his Arabic. :P

Yes, dun just means a kind of fortress. The name is most common in Scotland today. Edinburgh is a dun name too, though not in English.

Camulodunum is probably pretty close to the Celtic form. Celtic had grammatical endings similar to those in Latin (like -um here, representing a probable Celtic -om), which were lost in the Roman period/early middle ages.

Technically, the Picts were not Scots, so that's not Scottish. Second, the Celts also have decidedly non-Scottish cities like Cardiff and Dublin. Finally, I suspect that part of their traits will involve druidism (likely the UA, which grants faith related to forests), which is not typically associated with predominantly with the Scots. While her background seems more Scottish, it also seems continental (it looks like a Dun in the background).

'Picts' is really just a name used for 'Scots' before 900. They never called themselves Picts or Scots of course, but Albanaich or some variant meaning, etymologically, "Britons".

Dublin makes no sense as a Celtic capital, as it is a Norse foundation important as the centre of the English lordship of Ireland (ancestor of modern Irish republic). Tara (Temair) makes better sense for an Irish place. Sseems to have functioned as a kind of Celtic delphi in the Roman era ... lots of Romano-British findings there, left by British pilgrims. Emain Macha is another, centre of the Ulster cycle legends, seems to be the great centre known to Ptolemy as Isamnion (usually identified with Navan Fort, might also be at Downpatrick). Hill of Allen (Cnoc Almaine) another great centre.

If the devs need help with a Celtic list, PM me. If I'm given some guidelines, I could easily do one that be historically good and what is looked for with too much dissonance.

This is true, but having Edinburgh as the capital firmly places the emphasis on Scotland and Scottish culture.


so civ4 celts had an emphasis on france, then? gallic leader, gallic unit, capital in french gaul?

This is true, but having Edinburgh as the capital firmly places the emphasis on Scotland and Scottish culture.

They presumably have to have a capital, and it's going to be a settlement that's located in one or other Celtic or former Celtic country, so surely this would be true however they worked it?

I agree it would make most sense for the Iceni capital to be the Celtic capital, as they did with matching a Hawaiian leader to a Hawaiian capital for Polynesia.

I thought Boudicca came from Welsh areas and not Scottish :/

Does anyone else consider Bulgaria here the 2nd Bulgarian empire which nearly destroyed the Byzantine Empire. Add Troy as city state militaristic Add Troy:king:

Does anyone else consider Bulgaria here the 2nd Bulgarian empire which nearly destroyed the Byzantine Empire. Add Troy as city state militaristic Add Troy:king:

Well to be frank no. In Eastern Europe if we were to have a civ at all it would be Poland/Hungary due to more popularity and awareness.

And Troy is in the Ancient World Scenario already. It would be an ok choice for a city state but ultimately there are more cities/city states out there that could/should be better choices.

I thought Boudicca came from Welsh areas and not Scottish :/

She came from neither. Eastern England, near Colchester.

Land of the Iceni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceni)

However, the people in that area obviously have been disrupted by both Anglo-Saxon and Danish migrations since then so it's not like you can really draw from that area for inspiration.

Well to be frank no. In Eastern Europe if we were to have a civ at all it would be Poland/Hungary due to more popularity and awareness.

And Troy is in the Ancient World Scenario already. It would be an ok choice for a city state but ultimately there are more cities/city states out there that could/should be better choices.
well let's have everyone else's opinion on what they think so everyone give your opinion on what you think on this matter. thank you.

IMO There are only four qualifications for civilizationdom.

1: having a complex civilization (Maya)

2: Being a factor in a key event Huns and (hopefully Zulu)

3: Being an important empire

4: Being romanticized

With that I say The Khmer, Ethiopia, and Sumer

i'd prefer bulgaria over poland and hungary, but i don't think any of them will be added any time soon (i'd also probably prefer sealand over poland and hungary, but we don't need to start that again). i don't expect to see khmer in this game, either. ethiopia's one of my guesses because of religion and sumer and zulu are definitely possibilities. sumer and babylon are probably another example of someplace where close borders and overlap are acceptable, but i'd probably still be careful about that.

I think Bulgaria has a decent, but not great shot. They have the history, they are just lacking somewhat in the awareness/pop culture front.

IMO There are only four qualifications for civilizationdom.

1: having a complex civilization (Maya)

2: Being a factor in a key event Huns and (hopefully Zulu)

3: Being an important empire

4: Being romanticized

With that I say The Khmer, Ethiopia, and Sumer

Well,the problem with Khmer is the proximity with Siam,which is the similar reason why Mali won't come into G&K expansion . For Sumer,I think they had better chances to return when they released "Wonders of Ancient world" DLC,which didn't happen .
.
.
.
.
I guess the devs' planning about this expansion was to reveal the "veteran civilizations(that had been in civ series before)" first,then reveal civilizations that have their first time in Civ series later . The main reason to sustain this is the fact that the first 5 civs were already veterans and one of the last 4 remaining civs which had been spoiled unintentionally(huns) is a new Civilization .

3: Being an important empire

I would change this to "Having significant impact or lasting influence." It doesn't require a unified state or else the Mayans would fail to qualify.

Well,the problem with Khmer is the proximity with Siam,which is the similar reason why Mali won't come into G&K expansion . For Sumer,I think they had better chances to return when they released "Wonders of Ancient world" DLC,which didn't happen .
.
.
.
.
I guess the devs' planning about this expansion was to reveal the "veteran civilizations(that had been in civ series before)" first,then reveal civilizations that have their first time in Civ series later . The main reason to sustain this is the fact that the first 5 civs were already veterans and one of the last 4 remaining civs which had been spoiled unintentionally(huns) is a new Civilization .

I'm not sure why you feel the Huns were "spoiled unintentionally" - they were in a publicly released screenshot, and it's been suggested that that was a mockup due to oddities with it. It was just done as an "Easter egg" - give the fans a lot of handout info, then something they can feel they worked out for themselves. I doubt it was ever intended to be a secret.

IMO There are only four qualifications for civilizationdom.

1: having a complex civilization (Maya)

2: Being a factor in a key event Huns and (hopefully Zulu)

3: Being an important empire

4: Being romanticized

With that I say The Khmer, Ethiopia, and Sumer

I would change this to "Having significant impact or lasting influence." It doesn't require a unified state or else the Mayans would fail to qualify.

As would the Greeks in the sense used in Civ, as classical Greece was likewise not unified. Likewise Carthage - it was just a city-state that's well-known simply for a long-running war with Rome; complex society (check), involved in an important event (check), romanticised (check), important empire - well...no. By the logic that makes Carthage a civ, so would Syracuse qualify.

I don't think either the Khmer or Ethiopia have been romanticised particularly; by contrast Siam was, and that only just got its turn in the spotlight.

One classical civ that seems to fit most or all of the above would be the Nabateans.

That's factually incorrect about Carthage. Lilybaeum and other cities in western Sicily were founded as military outposts to defend Carthage's maritime and mercantile empire. While some other cities were independent settlements initially, they had been substantially controlled by Carthage by the time of the Punic Wars (especially in Sardinia and North Africa). Between wars, Carthage directly settled Spain as well as conquered other cities. Treaties with Rome recognized cities with Carthage's sphere of influence. They were, for all intents and purposes, as much an Empire as most at the time. Certainly as much as the Athenian Empire (the Delian League).

so civ4 celts had an emphasis on france, then? gallic leader, gallic unit, capital in french gaul?

Yes - but all the elements were consistent, which was the main thing. They had Boudicca too, which didn't fit, but I didn't mind as much because there was an alternative leader.

They presumably have to have a capital, and it's going to be a settlement that's located in one or other Celtic or former Celtic country, so surely this would be true however they worked it?

Obviously. It's not the choice of the Scottish capital per se that troubles me - it's having a Scottish capital together with a Scottish unit, a Scottish-looking leader screen and an East Anglian leader.

We haven't really seen enough of the game to be sure of exactly how the Celts are being portrayed, but I am getting an overwhelmingly Scottish vibe from them, which doesn't fit with having Boudicca as the leader...

It seems increasingly unlikely that Celtic in the islands had divided until the post-Roman period. Meaning, essentially, that Boudica spoke the same language as Irish or Scottish Celts. In fact, as Welsh is highly innovative (transformed through intense contact with Latin 100 to 400), Scottish Gaelic may be closer to the language Boudica spoke than Welsh.


That's a very interesting point, that I wasn't aware of, thanks! I did know that Welsh includes a lot of latin (ffenestr/fenestra - window) and even French (ysgol/école - school), but not that the Brythonic/Goidelic split may have happened post-Romans. Perhaps Gaelic would be more appropriate for Boudicca.

I am getting an overwhelmingly Scottish vibe from them, which doesn't fit with having Boudicca as the leader...

That's almost certainly due to her recognition more than anything else. I'd say she was probably the most well-known Celtic leader, more so even than Vercingetorix, at least in the UK. Scottish leaders are less-well known, even if you start taking them from the later Kingdom of Scotland (which I'd like to see represented, at least in giving the Celts a medieval or later unique unit to avoid a complete ancient/classical focus).

Maybe its gilgamesh I mean he was in the ancient world scenario

That's almost certainly due to her recognition more than anything else. I'd say she was probably the most well-known Celtic leader, more so even than Vercingetorix, at least in the UK. Scottish leaders are less-well known, even if you start taking them from the later Kingdom of Scotland (which I'd like to see represented, at least in giving the Celts a medieval or later unique unit to avoid a complete ancient/classical focus).

Yeah, Boudicca is undeniably the most famous Celtic leader, so I guess it was inevitable that she would get picked. It would have been great to have a medieval Scottish Civ with Robert the Bruce or David I as leader, but I guess that's off the cards now. Oh well.

^ When you get to Robert the Bruce, it's clear you are no longer talking about the Celts but the Scots. In the Classical era, the lines were blurry enough that Scots were Celts, but I think things tended to separate after that.

Yes - but all the elements were consistent, which was the main thing. They had Boudicca too, which didn't fit, but I didn't mind as much because there was an alternative leader.

I think the goal is similar to the Polynesians. Since they were never a unified people, it's best to sample things from all over the Celtic world. I wouldn't read too much into the topography of her background. That's just someone from Baltimore trying to represent what he thinks Celtic Britain should look like.

Maybe its gilgamesh I mean he was in the ancient world scenario

I know we have Dido, so I'm beyond the point where I should complain about semi-mythological rulers of cities, but I still hope they abandon Gilgamesh. They abandoned Brennus and Ragnar. They should do the same for Gilgamesh and replace him with a ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur.

Sumerian is prolly way harder to write sentences for than Akkadian. It's an isolate (not related to any known language). Still, it can be done.
How about Gudea as leader (was he Sumerian or something else?) or maybe Ur-Nammu?

Boudicca's language is called British/Brythonic by linguist. I don't know how much influence Welsh has from Latin, but I still think it would be more accurate than a Goidelic language. It's likely she going to speak Scottish Gaelic or Irish Gaelic though and in a modern form too.

I still have no idea what Attila is going to speak. Hungarian????? I would like to hear what a Uralic language sounds like, though Hungarian is only distantly related to Finnish.

Gods and kings comes out june 19th yes:D but I still have to wait and that means:aargh::wallbash: so we only have a limited time to guess I stick to Bulgaria Zulu and Hittites. Bulgaria because it fits in the fall of rome Zulu 1 because it was one of few known great south african civ's and it was in the past civ's. and the hitties had a very large empire and I know nothing else about them all I know they made a lasting impact.

eannatum would be a pretty good pick for a sumerian leader. he's the stele of vultures guy.
you could also maybe use sargon the great, but i think he was actually akkadian and he'd probably end up looking a lot like darius or nebuchadnezzar.

Sumerian is prolly way harder to write sentences for than Akkadian. It's an isolate (not related to any known language). Still, it can be done.
How about Gudea as leader (was he Sumerian or something else?) or maybe Ur-Nammu?

I usually go with Ur-Nammu or Shulgi, since they are from Ur. Gudea is probably Sumerian, although I'm not sure where he was from. He ruled Lagash, though, so that works.

Sargon is famous. He concerns me because he's more or less an outsider to the Sumerian world (the southern cities). Akkad is essentially next to Babylon. He'd blur the line between the two too much.

I still have no idea what Attila is going to speak. Hungarian????? I would like to hear what a Uralic language sounds like, though Hungarian is only distantly related to Finnish.

I personally think he should speak Gothic since that was an official language of the Hunnic Court and is at least known. Hungarian is wrong.

I think Troy should be a new City state. Militatistic so it replaces Tyre which is being switched to mercantile, and if you think about it, Troy was one the first well known city states except for the greek city states.:king:

^ When you get to Robert the Bruce, it's clear you are no longer talking about the Celts but the Scots. In the Classical era, the lines were blurry enough that Scots were Celts, but I think things tended to separate after that.


Indeed - which is why I was suggesting that a Scottish Civ ought to be medieval-focused. I see no reason why there shouldn't in theory be a Scottish Civ, an English Civ and a Celtic Civ, though it's obvious that the Celts as they will be introduced in G&K won't be able to co-exist with Scotland.

Brazil still needs more influence in this world, but I think has a decent shot

I think of all the modern civs people suggest, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, Isreal; Brazil is perhaps the most worthy to be included. It was an empire, after all...

Canada suffers from a crowded North America, Israel is too controversial, Australia and Indonesia are each comparably young, despite filling out a unfilled portion of the map.

Tupi would be a good civ to add, I think if they don't add Brazil. If the Iroquois can make it in, why not the Tupi?

I think of all the modern civs people suggest, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, Isreal; Brazil is perhaps the most worthy to be included. It was an empire, after all...

Canada suffers from a crowded North America, Israel is too controversial, Australia and Indonesia are each comparably young, despite filling out a unfilled portion of the map.

Indonesia isn't young,if you consider them as a descender from Majahapit empire . They seem a good choice of Civilization and despite their importance,they never have been represented in Civ series before .


Tupi would be a good civ to add, I think if they don't add Brazil. If the Iroquois can make it in, why not the Tupi?

Tupi would be a really bad choice,because unlike the North American native tribes,they were just a bunch of hundreds of tribes,who didn't leave nomadic style of life and neither found cities . And unlike Iroquois,they fought each other even before the Portugueses stepped in Brazil .

With 9 new Civs, and we know the 5 below:
Byzantium
Carthage
Celts
Netherlands
Maya


Here are my gueses for the last 4
Hittites
Zulu
Ethiopia
Srivijaya

Here are additional others that would be nice, but probably unlikely.
Great Moravia
Magyars
Khmer
Manchu
Khazars
Israel
Philistines
Majapahit
Apache or Navaho

Well, aleast there are still so many to choose from, in other Civ Expansions.

What about the Huns? We know Huns are in too.

[QUOTE=Suppiluliuma 1;11393948]With 9 new Civs, and we know the 6 below:
Byzantium
Carthage
Celts
Netherlands
Maya
Huns


Here are my gueses for the last 4
Hittites
Zulu
Majapahit

Here are additional others that would be nice, but probably unlikely.
Great Moravia
Magyars
Khmer
Manchu
Khazars
Israel
Philistines
Srivijaya
Ethiopia
Apache or Navaho

Thanks, forgot about the Huns. :)
Made the necessary adjustment.

yeah, we know 6 now, including the huns. and even though the name indonesia is modern, most people base it on majapahit. the people who don't, base it on srivijaya. pretty much the only nod towards modern indonesia is the name.

When it comes to the modern civs (Poland, Brazil, Indonesia to some extent) the smart thing would be to release them as DLC. G&K seems to have picked up some additional press in the Netherlands for including them, and the Korean press hyped their own DLC quite a bit. It'd appeal to a lot of the series fans to have THEIR country represented, the expansion pack will more or less sell itself and Carthage, the Celts probably wont be quite such a draw on their own.

from the PAX demo: (someone actually there, and texting a cousin, who's posting it here (http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?119093-Civ-V-Gods-amp-Kings-at-PAX))

Ethiopia and Austria.

Plus the Hun/Carthage UAs:

Carthage: Can cross mountains. Free harbors in their cities.

Huns: Raise cities at double speed. Start with Animal Husbandry. +1 production from pastures.


plus:

Destroyers are melee. Battleships are ranged.


...


Though, no 'official' confirmation.

from the PAX demo: (someone actually there, and texting a cousin, who's posting it here (http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?119093-Civ-V-Gods-amp-Kings-at-PAX))

Ethiopia and Austria.

Plus the Hun/Carthage UAs:

Carthage: Can cross mountains. Free harbors in their cities.

Huns: Raise cities at double speed. Start with Animal Husbandry. +1 production from pastures.


plus:

Destroyers are melee. Battleships are ranged.


...


Though, no 'official' confirmation.

The streaming is not until 8th right?.. But the booth is still present.. right? I'm getting confused.

Austria, not a bad choice if you ask me, they SHOULD finally get their spotlight since they were half-involved in C3C, they had their data in, but nobody used them. But that still leaves out 1 nation?

AWWW crap, there was an interview I missed D: I hate myself xD

The streaming is not until 8th right?.. But the booth is still present.. right? I'm getting confused.

Austria, not a bad choice if you ask me, they SHOULD finally get their spotlight since they were half-involved in C3C, they had their data in, but nobody used them. But that still leaves out 1 nation?

AWWW crap, there was an interview I missed D: I hate myself xD

the interview (today) with Dennis is about to start, it hasn't been missed yet.

PAX is 6th-8th, so the demo is on the floor already.

Austrians surprise me, but in a good way. Yes, the game is going to be very Eurocentric, but I think they can still be fun.

ETA: Maria Theresa, not a surprise there.

Austria is confirmed and has a UA that lets her marry into a city state and acquire them.

The Austrian UA sounds very good for a pacifist player like me :)

He threw a name out there with the intrigue thing, but I couldn't quite make it out.

Byzantine dromon confirmed

This is the guess the civ thread, not the PAX thread :p

However, I will point out that, as expected, the Byzantines have a Dromon. My guess is Dromon and Cataphract.

ETA: Ninja edit, well played.

One of the things I hate in the Civilization series is Eurocentrism.
5 civs of Europe!
Only in this expansion!
While Asia is even important and influental as Europe and has far lesser civs.

Where can I post complaint(s) to the makers?

So Ethiopia and Austria are in!

Leaves one more to go!

Austria and Ethiopia are nice choices IMO. Finally Africa gets some more civs and I'm not really surprised Austria is in considering there is a focus on religion and a Victorian era scenario.

Huns capital Attila's Court. Can steal city names.
can steal city names. Interesting...
source: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?119093-Civ-V-Gods-amp-Kings-at-PAX

Austria fits a couple things. The Renaissance scenario, the Victorian scenario, another female leader.

Austria fits a couple things. The Renaissance scenario, the Victorian scenario, another female leader.

And focus on WWI units.

I would have liked to see someone like Poland in, but Austria's a reasonable choice too.

Would have been fun to see Metternich as the Austrian leader. Having both Bismarck and Metternich in a game would have been great.

And focus on WWI units.

I would have liked to see someone like Poland in, but Austria's a reasonable choice too.

Well, I don't suspect they'll give them a WWI UU considering how poorly Austria performed in the war. But I could be wrong.

I think they overdo it with the female leaders. We have in this expansion alone Dido, Boudica, Theodora and Maria Theresia, this make 4 out of 9 civs have definitively female leaders. In Austrias case they at least picked a women who was actually very important, but Metternich or Franz Joseph could have been nice as well.

Austria is in. Just watched the live feed. More info on the next interview and we also get to watch the demo too (tomorrow or sunday). :)

I swear Dennis said Theodore and not Theodora. Unless I've been mispronucing her name all along.

They're not exactly experts on pronunciations of ancient names.

The Byzantine leader is changed to Theodore?

Maybe he mispronounced it?
The problem with the name Theodore is that there were no Byzantine emperors named Theodore, the only thing coming close are two Emperors of Nicaea. Maybe they decided to use a medieval Byzantine leader?

I would have liked to see someone like Poland in, but Austria's a reasonable choice too.

Don't get your hopes down. I'd not be surprised if the 9th Civ is European as well.

But now I'd guess we're going to get something from Ancient Middle-East.

Don't get your hopes down. I'd not be surprised if the 9th Civ is European as well.

But now I'd guess we're going to get something from Ancient Middle-East.

Haha, I should have said "if they're putting in another European Civ, I'd like to be . . . "

Ethiopia is good. I'd be interested in what their thoughts are for another Asian civ, too. I have been saying Tibet, but I undertand that that's a longshot.

The leader is Theodora. I'll trust written versions of the name over an off the cuff spoken version when the video quality wasn't clear.

Don't get your hopes down. I'd not be surprised if the 9th Civ is European as well.

The last civ will almost definitely be Asian. It could be Middle Eastern if they count the Huns as Asian, but I doubt it'll be anything west of Constaninople.

I'll modify it to: I doubt it will be both west of Constantinople and north of Gibraltar. I'll leave open the possibilities of Americas and Africa.

It might be fruitful to consider how the Civs fit the scenarios and guess if they want to do more like that:

Fall of Rome:
Byzantines
Celts
Huns

Medieval/Renaissance:
(Byzantines)
Netherlands
Austria

Smokey Skies:
(Netherlands)
(Austria)

None:
Carthage
Mayans
Ethiopia

So I could see one more for the Middle Ages, which would mean European. But I could also just see another non scenario civ.

Ethiopia could fit with both the fall of Rome and the Smokey Skies scenario. (If the maps extend that far south.)

Maybe the next expansion (if they will make another one) will have more Non-European civs.
Unless they put countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Finland...
Europe is pretty jam packed already.
Africa is barely filled out.
Asia has a decent amount (but needs another Southeast Asian country, Siam doesn't cover that area fully enough)
Oceania has one and a combined one at that
Americas have the civs considered to be the most "advanced" in the Americas, and the Iroquois

Ethiopia fits the Medieval scenario - it fought with Muslim-ruled Egypt during the time of Crusades, and resisted as a bastion of Christianity into the Renaissance.

What kind of role will the Celts play in the Fall of Rome scenario?

Will they be renamed into something like the Franks?

Or will they represent Ireland, Scotland (Picts), Wales?

What kind of role will the Celts play in the Fall of Rome scenario?

Will they be renamed into something like the Franks?

Or will they represent Ireland, Scotland (Picts), Wales?

I have a strong feeling that it will be similiar to the Fall of Rome in Civ 3 Conquests.

Ethiopia fits the Medieval scenario - it fought with Muslim-ruled Egypt during the time of Crusades, and resisted as a bastion of Christianity into the Renaissance.

It fits a Medieval scenario. I don't know if it fits the "Into the Renaissance" medieval scenario that seems to build up to the Reformation and 30 Years War.

ETA: I suspect the Celts will represent the Picts in Scotland and the Scots in Ireland from the era. Then you'll have one or more Goths, the Vandals, the Huns, the Franks, and the Parthians in the east. Maybe a couple I'm missing. The problem is there were so many tribes that it's hard to choose which ones you want.

Marrying a city state as Austria. Very interesting; I'm wondering how it will work. Obviously it will require an allied state, a large sum of gold and possibly a happiness hit.

I was thinking maybe full alliance with adjacent borders and a road connection to your capital.

wait how do you know austria is in? oh if there is a new interview tell where i can find it. thank you.

wait how do you know austria is in? oh if there is a new interview tell where i can find it. thank you.

The 2k stream confirmed Maria Theresa of Austria, along with their Unique Ability.

wait how do you know austria is in? oh if there is a new interview tell where i can find it. thank you.

http://www.twitch.tv/2k/b/314130733

I think the interview is in this video at around 1h and 6min.

Still not feeling the Huns. UU at spearman and horseman? What other civs have two UUs basically in the same era?

And regarding the city names...

UA doesn't sound too bad, for what is basically a super barbarian civ.

Still not feeling the Huns. UU at spearman and horseman? What other civs have two UUs basically in the same era?

And regarding the city names...

UA doesn't sound too bad, for what is basically a super barbarian civ.

Just to clarify, their city names isn't their UA, their UA allows them to raise cities faster (or something like that)

Still not feeling the Huns. UU at spearman and horseman? What other civs have two UUs basically in the same era?

And regarding the city names...

UA doesn't sound too bad, for what is basically a super barbarian civ.

Greece; Spearman and Horseman replacement :goodjob:

Greece; Spearman and Horseman replacement :goodjob:

Whatever, companion cavalry blows hard as it is. I would rather save my gold to purchase CSes.

But yeah, it was just an ill conceived concept all together having another pure miltary civ that has to kill everything. At least Mongols only cater to CS's. I want civs with some range. Not one dimensional mass and destroy civs.

I thought they could have just revamped barbarians in they wanted a legitimate threat to players. That would have suffieced for the Huns.

Still not feeling the Huns. UU at spearman and horseman? What other civs have two UUs basically in the same era?

Rome, Greece, Korea, Ottomans, and Spain.

Marrying a city state as Austria. Very interesting; I'm wondering how it will work. Obviously it will require an allied state, a large sum of gold and possibly a happiness hit.

Lets hope it will not be like marie antoinette

Lets hope it will not be like marie antoinette

Yes, some cake should do it :p

I'm just gonna come out and say it, Sumer. Because if being one of the 1st civilizations in the world (don't hold me to that, I'm only a sophmore in High School) isn't a good civ choice then what is?

http://www.twitch.tv/2k/b/314130733

I think the interview is in this video at around 1h and 6min.
thank you very much this is great:goodjob:

Yes, some cake should do it :p

Oh that is such a lie

ethiopia will be in too I just found out. YAY.

Whatever, companion cavalry blows hard as it is. I would rather save my gold to purchase CSes.

But yeah, it was just an ill conceived concept all together having another pure miltary civ that has to kill everything. At least Mongols only cater to CS's. I want civs with some range. Not one dimensional mass and destroy civs.

I thought they could have just revamped barbarians in they wanted a legitimate threat to players. That would have suffieced for the Huns.

As I've been saying... no need to spend a good chunk of early time researching the tech that gives you pastures, PLUS can see horses, PLUS get a bonus from them = early worker can make Attila's Court very productive very fast, lending itself well to an unorthodox early wonder rusher.

The horse archers will lose their abilities as you go through it, so they're limited in influence time... but upgrading the battering ram will take you through the standard rifleman > infantry path, keeping its city bonus right through the game as well as picking up the pikeman's 100% vs horses.

Plenty there that can be used well throughout the game, the production bonus alone could be on a par with or even better than Russia's UA with the abundance of sheep and cattle.

you know instead of an austria civ they should have done austria-hungary but same ability

Austria-Hungary was the Austrian Empire slowly fracturing but desperately trying to stay together. Why is that better?

Austria-Hungary was the Austrian Empire slowly fracturing but desperately trying to stay together. Why is that better?
I really don't know.

so, now i'm guessing that the last civ will be sumer, though it's possible that it's going to be portugal, since it seems like they want massive amounts of europeans.

As I've been saying... no need to spend a good chunk of early time researching the tech that gives you pastures, PLUS can see horses, PLUS get a bonus from them = early worker can make Attila's Court very productive very fast, lending itself well to an unorthodox early wonder rusher.

The horse archers will lose their abilities as you go through it, so they're limited in influence time... but upgrading the battering ram will take you through the standard rifleman > infantry path, keeping its city bonus right through the game as well as picking up the pikeman's 100% vs horses.

Plenty there that can be used well throughout the game, the production bonus alone could be on a par with or even better than Russia's UA with the abundance of sheep and cattle.

It's still an all or nothing civ... you have to commit to expansion and war right from the get go. If you have those resources and get the UU's early on, you will win. If the terrain is not right or you start off slow, you lose. No chance of gaining ground.

so, now i'm guessing that the last civ will be sumer, though it's possible that it's going to be portugal, since it seems like they want massive amounts of europeans.
lisbon a city state. mercantile most likely that is.

I am guessing Australia is the ninth civ.

:hmm::lol:
That would be crazy!
If we are going to represent modern nations that did not much and did not have much unified history(great empires) then the world is really upside-down!
One of the rare things that I like about the makers that they never chose modern nations (1750-present).
If we are going to add modern nations then the world will end.

:hmm::lol:
That would be crazy!
If we are going to represent modern nations that did not much and did not have much unified history(great empires) then the world is really upside-down!
One of the rare things that I like about the makers that they never chose modern nations (1750-present).
If we are going to add modern nations then the world will end.

America?
India can be seen as a representation of its modern self, rather than the more ancient empires.

The simple fact is there are only so many great empires left. They've done most of the real world spanning empires, the only real exception is Portugal.

So now we have:
Netherlands (William I)
Celts (Boudicca)
Mayans (Pacal)
Byzantines (Theodora)
Carthage (Dido)
Huns (Attila)
Austria (Marie Theresa)
Ethiopia
So we only need to guess one more civ, right? Or is Spain the ninth civ?

So we only need to guess one more civ, right? Or is Spain the ninth civ?


Spain is one of the civs avaliable,because of the "Medieval scenario",but there will be a new civilization . It's very possible that this civilization will be avaliable on "Empire of Smoky Skies" Scenario . Guessing which parts of the world would be avaliable on this scenario would help to find out what is the last civ remaining .

Spain isn't part of the 9, they said in the interview "9 brand new civs, 10 if you haven't bought Spain's DLC yet"

EDIT: I think Empire of the Smoky Skies isn't going to have any existing civs, it'll be pure fantasy. I think maybe someone with a rather large and steampunkey moustache

Okay, thought so, but wasn't sure.

So we only need to guess one ...

Well, we can be quite sure it won't be a European civ.
Probably an asian civ when I look at the spread. There are lots of European civs, one American civ, one middle-eastern civ and one African civ.
And the Huns. Don't know what continent they'd belong to :p

Edit:
Oh, and do I get a cookie? :p

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).

Okay, thought so, but wasn't sure.

So we only need to guess one ...

Well, we can be quite sure it won't be a European civ.
Probably an asian civ when I look at the spread. There are lots of European civs, one American civ, one middle-eastern civ and one African civ.
And the Huns. Don't know what continent they'd belong to :p



Does Carthage is an African or Mediterranean civ? I'm pretty sure Huns is an European Civilization .

Does Carthage is an African or Mediterranean civ?If I had to choose between those two I'd go for mediterranean. But one could also make an argument that it's a middle-eastern civ.

Well, the Huns could have a unique city art style, like Polynesia. Yurts and such. Yurt-scrapers in modern age! :D But if not, they should have European city models, it just seems fitting. They didn't have pagodas, even in the far East.

:hmm::lol:
That would be crazy!
If we are going to represent modern nations that did not much and did not have much unified history(great empires) then the world is really upside-down!

Which it technically is (at least the Northern Hemisphere is), from an Australian point of view :lol:

I'm psyched about Austria and Ethiopia. Great choices, and Austria's UA sounds very good. I'm now even more certain that the Zulu will appear as a post-expansion DLC, given that including them as the 9th Civ now would detract from Ethiopia, which is IMO one of the best inclusions.

So, assuming that there's no Zulu in the xpac, and we already know there won't be Portugal, who will the final slot go to?

I'd really like to see the Hittites, but given that with the Celts, Carthaginians and Huns they are already adding 3 Ancient/Classical era Civs, another one seems unlikely. The main geographic regions missing from the xpac so far are North America and Asia, so my guess is a Civ from one of those two regions. Most likely Indonesia or possibly the Khmer, or the Sioux, if they can make them different enough from the Iroquois. I wouldn't rule out the Inuit either - gameplay-wise, I think it would really add something to see a Civ with snow and ice-related bonuses.

so, now i'm guessing that the last civ will be sumer, though it's possible that it's going to be portugal, since it seems like they want massive amounts of europeans.

It won't be Portugal, but I think you're right about Sumer. I'm a bit disappointed though. I really wanted the Zulu back in the game, and Sumer is entirely uninteresting to me. It is too similar geographically to Babylon. The game really needs to include more than one more African civ at this point.

Australia, as some have mentioned as a possibility, would also be entirely uninteresting to me too. Although Polynesia is silly, it also provides the opportunity for an extremely unique ability. Australia does not do that. What would make Australia so unique? It's a modern nation without any claim to any status of a super power or anything close to it, nor anything that makes it even unique. They might as well add Canada to it then.

I think another possibility would be another Native American civilization or South American civilization, but still thinking that it's going to be Sumer.

So now we have:

So we only need to guess one more civ, right? Or is Spain the ninth civ?

Spain is free it would be the tenth civ. In for the penny and in for the pound.

So technically Maria Theresa is a peaceful warmonger o.O? She can't go for a Diplomatic Victory because of her ability.

So technically Maria Theresa is a peaceful warmonger o.O? She can't go for a Diplomatic Victory because of her ability.

Maria will probably go for cultural and scientific victory. Although warmongering could suite the Austrians as well.

I think Kongo or Tupi would be good choice. We dont have civs that get UA bonus from jungles - these civs could be good "jungle civs".

Australia or Canada would be just horrible. They are represented well enough with England, France and Celts. They would be very uninteresting civs. They dont have unique language or culture and their own history is very short. Even if we had 50 civs in the game I would not include Canada or Australia.

When we are talking about India I would like to have Asoka as their leader.

I think that they (should) have Brazil be the ninth civ. it's a modern civ, becoming a global powerhouse, ex colony of Portugal (which would make for interesting games versus the city state), and would be the first South American civ that exists today (to my knowledge).

So technically Maria Theresa is a peaceful warmonger o.O? She can't go for a Diplomatic Victory because of her ability.

Unless she gets the votes from her married city states. That'd seem overpowered, so if not, sounds like she can stop others (Greece, Siam) from winning diplomatically, which is equally important.

Who do you suppose will be the leader for Ethiopia?
Haile Selassie might be relevant, what with religion founding and all ;P
(I know he didn't actually found rastafarianism, but he is a key figure in their faith)

EDIT: though, he might be a bit too modern for Civ V standards

I think Haile Selassie or Menelik II could be good leader choices for Ethiopia, unless they decide to give Ethiopia a female leader as well.

Hopefully its Portugal and not Sumer. Sumer would be dreadfully boring to me. They would be even worse than say Australia or even Canada. At least Australia and Canada would be something new and interesting. Both of these had their parts to play in WWI and WWII. Canada would also be an interesting contrast to America. Then again so would Mexico.

Another idea would be to add Israel into the game. King David as the leader, again something interesting. At least Israel would fit in with the religion concept. How can you have a religion based expansion without Jerusalem? And Portugal for sure should be a part of the "Into the Renaisscance" scenario. Then again if it starts in the Middle Ages, so should Venice.

I just can't wait to hear Boudicca's music ^o^
I am a fan of Irish music and hope it'll sound something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFlKx3YPL5I

Hopefully its Portugal and not Sumer. Sumer would be dreadfully boring to me. They would be even worse than say Australia or even Canada. At least Australia and Canada would be something new and interesting. Both of these had their parts to play in WWI and WWII. Canada would also be an interesting contrast to America. Then again so would Mexico.

Another idea would be to add Israel into the game. King David as the leader, again something interesting. At least Israel would fit in with the religion concept. How can you have a religion based expansion without Jerusalem? And Portugal for sure should be a part of the "Into the Renaisscance" scenario. Then again if it starts in the Middle Ages, so should Venice.

Both Portugal and Israel won't be the 9th civ because Lisbon and Jerusalem are one of the new city-states . The problem with Australia and Canada are the fact that their culture doesn't differ so much from their mother Civs . And the problem with Mexico is the geographic overlapping with Aztecs .

Hopefully its Portugal and not Sumer. Sumer would be dreadfully boring to me. They would be even worse than say Australia or even Canada. At least Australia and Canada would be something new and interesting. Both of these had their parts to play in WWI and WWII. Canada would also be an interesting contrast to America. Then again so would Mexico.

Another idea would be to add Israel into the game. King David as the leader, again something interesting. At least Israel would fit in with the religion concept. How can you have a religion based expansion without Jerusalem? And Portugal for sure should be a part of the "Into the Renaisscance" scenario. Then again if it starts in the Middle Ages, so should Venice.

I believe Lisbon is a confirmed city state in this game (maybe?) and Jerusalem is also a confirmed city-state of the religious type. But I agree on the Canada and Mexico, they aren't great but the game does need a new civ not seen before.

Hopefully its Portugal and not Sumer.Lisban is a city state, so Portugal isn't in.
Sumer would be dreadfully boring to me.Why? There's a lack of ancient civs in Civ 5. I'd actually like something like Sumeria. They weren't bad in the WOTAW-scenario. I believe they had early cataphracts and some sort of pseudo-amphibious UA, if I'm correct.
How can you have a religion based expansion without Jerusalem?I believe Jerusalem is in the game.

I think Haile Selassie or Menelik II could be good leader choices for Ethiopia, unless they decide to give Ethiopia a female leader as well.

While I could see the Queen of Sheba, that would probably be worse than Dido. At least Dido has a name (technically, two names ;) ). I suspect they'll cap the number of female leaders at four.

I'd actually like something like Sumeria.

Another ancient civ like the Assyrians, Akkadians, or Hittites for instance, would be much more interesting to me than Sumer. The Akkadians would not be much different either, but they have not been used before. Its just that playing Sumer in civ 3 and 4 to me was boring. Anyway, we already have Babylon we don't really need Sumer. I hope they suprise us with something new and interesting.

Israel is never going to happen. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to be there - an ancient Judea-based incarnation would be great fun - but there's too much political baggage. Having Jerusalem in as a CS is a masterstroke on the part of the devs - finally, one of the most historically and culturally significant cities in the world gets to have a role in the game rather than being an insignificant Roman city, without them having to give it to a Hebrew, Christian or Islamic Civ. Everybody wins. Genius.

Hopefully its Portugal and not Sumer. Sumer would be dreadfully boring to me. They would be even worse than say Australia or even Canada. At least Australia and Canada would be something new and interesting. Both of these had their parts to play in WWI and WWII. Canada would also be an interesting contrast to America. Then again so would Mexico.

Sorry to say, but your world view seems to be a little bit Anglo-American-centered. I also fail to understand what interesting Mexico, Canada or Australia could bring to the came. We have Spain, Aztecs and Mayans in the game so having Mexico as a Civ would be just plain weird to me. Mexico is a young country that is pretty much just mix between Spanish culture and native cultures.

So lets take Assyrians for example. They had an Empire that lasted almost 2000 years, they had unique mythology, religious practices, art, literature, ways of waging war, own language and they still exist as a distinct people.

Another ancient civ like the Assyrians for instance, would be much more interesting. We alsready have Babylon we don't really need Sumer. I hope they suprise us with something new and interesting.Sumeria, Hittites, Assyria, etc. any of them would be nice :) One ancient civ just isn't enough for me.

Although the Babylon in the game is New Babylon, which is more like Assyria than like Sumer, if i remember correctly.

About Ancient Middle Eastern Civs,I wonder why they didn't released any one of them as a dlc with the WOTAW .

Israel is never going to happen. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to be there - an ancient Judea-based incarnation would be great fun - but there's too much political baggage. Having Jerusalem in as a CS is a masterstroke on the part of the devs - finally, one of the most historically and culturally significant cities in the world gets to have a role in the game rather than being an insignificant Roman city, without them having to give it to a Hebrew, Christian or Islamic Civ. Everybody wins. Genius.

Jerusalem did change hands quite often in history. The obvious choice for a religious CS. Then they should add Venice as a civ if Portugal is out, anything but Sumer. I like Sumer as much as most people on here like the Zulus, which is not very much. I would not mind the Zulus added. :D

Sorry to say, but your world view seems to be a little bit Anglo-American-centered.

I am American, what do you expect? :lol: Actually, I was just throwing things out there. Brainstorming!:)

Maria will probably go for cultural and scientific victory. Although warmongering could suite the Austrians as well.

Austria only went to war when it suited them. They where usally allies with the country where they had a marriage with.

Austria only went to war when it suited them. They where usally allies with the country where they had a marriage with.

And as far as I remeber world war 1 started because a austrian prince was shot?

That's why I suggested that Austria will prefer culture and science rather than be completely focused on warmongering.

About Ancient Middle Eastern Civs,I wonder why they didn't released any one of them as a dlc with the WOTAW .

Probably because it requires money and effort and they used that time to design Korea and the wonder art instead. Plus, it requires finding someone who can speak Sumerian and Hittite and an independent person to write a script in those languages. Then it requires composing and recording music that would be relevant to these cultures. I think they decided they were already working on Korea and it wasn't worth their time to do both.

That's why I suggested that Austria will prefer culture and science rather than be completely focused on warmongering.

Proparly diplomatic because of their unique ability

Anybody thinx it could be gilgamesh as last new leader ?

Jerusalem did change hands quite often in history. The obvious choice for a religious CS. Then they should add Venice as a civ if Portugal is out, anything but Sumer. I like Sumer as much as most people on here like the Zulus, which is not very much. I would not mind the Zulus added. :D


Yeah, I'm sure the Zulus will appear as a DLC after the expansion. Possibly even Sumer. I just wonder whether they've already added so many Ancient/Classical era Civs in the expansion the last one might be something totally different...

Proparly diplomatic because of their unique ability

Anybody thinx it could be gilgamesh as last new leader ?

But their Unique Ability conflicsts with Diplo Victory

Their unique ability is peacefully conquering City States. But then again if you have to mention it liek somebody said earlier on, it's useful against countering-enemy votes (i.e Siam's alliance with Jersualem for example, Austria could conquer Jersualem)

The more and more I find about this expansion the more I start to think that there will not be another expansion after it. They added all the major features and did their fixes, all that's really remaining is other civs to added - most likely through DLC

The more and more I find about this expansion the more I start to think that there will not be another expansion after it. They added all the major features and did their fixes, all that's really remaining is other civs to added - most likely through DLC

Just how a lot of people thought there wouldn't be an expansion at all.

lisbon a city state. mercantile most likely that is.

It won't be Portugal,
yeah, i was only about half serious about portugal, but i did forget about lisbon being a city-state, so thank you.

but I think you're right about Sumer. I'm a bit disappointed though. I really wanted the Zulu back in the game, and Sumer is entirely uninteresting to me. It is too similar geographically to Babylon. The game really needs to include more than one more African civ at this point.

Australia, as some have mentioned as a possibility, would also be entirely uninteresting to me too. Although Polynesia is silly, it also provides the opportunity for an extremely unique ability. Australia does not do that. What would make Australia so unique? It's a modern nation without any claim to any status of a super power or anything close to it, nor anything that makes it even unique. They might as well add Canada to it then.

I think another possibility would be another Native American civilization or South American civilization, but still thinking that it's going to be Sumer.
yeah, sumer's always been kind of bland in these games, but i thought the same thing about russia until this incarnation, so anything is possible.
agreed on australia.
i'd like another native american civ, but i'm thinking sumer.
I think Kongo or Tupi would be good choice. We dont have civs that get UA bonus from jungles - these civs could be good "jungle civs".

Australia or Canada would be just horrible. They are represented well enough with England, France and Celts. They would be very uninteresting civs. They dont have unique language or culture and their own history is very short. Even if we had 50 civs in the game I would not include Canada or Australia.

When we are talking about India I would like to have Asoka as their leader.
do we know the mayan ability? if not, they could fit with jungles. and to be fair, jaguars get a jungle bonus, even though they're a uu and not a ua.
again, agreed on australia and canada.
and agreed on india.
The more and more I find about this expansion the more I start to think that there will not be another expansion after it. They added all the major features and did their fixes, all that's really remaining is other civs to added - most likely through DLC
i don't know, i'm sure there will still be some things they can add. ui fixes, etc. you may be right and everything else can just be added in patches, but i don't know.

Im thinking they could make more Scenario focused expansion that would also add more stuff to the future era. There are lots of possibilities for scenarios. They could also add more leaders to existing civs. Random events could also be added allthough I doubt it.

What I would like to have is mercenaries and/or unique units for militaristic city states.

yeah, i was only about half serious about portugal, but i did forget about lisbon being a city-state, so thank you.


yeah, sumer's always been kind of bland in these games, but i thought the same thing about russia until this incarnation, so anything is possible.
agreed on australia.
i'd like another native american civ, but i'm thinking sumer.

do we know the mayan ability? if not, they could fit with jungles. and to be fair, jaguars get a jungle bonus, even though they're a uu and not a ua.
again, agreed on australia and canada.
and agreed on india.

i don't know, i'm sure there will still be some things they can add. ui fixes, etc. you may be right and everything else can just be added in patches, but i don't know.

I believe the Mayans get Calendar related bonuses, not sure what it exaclty does.

IMO There are only four qualifications for civilizationdom.

1: having a complex civilization (Maya)

2: Being a factor in a key event Huns and (hopefully Zulu)

3: Being an important empire

4: Being romanticized

With that I say The Khmer, Ethiopia, and Sumer

Another ancient civ like the Assyrians, Akkadians, or Hittites for instance, would be much more interesting to me than Sumer. The Akkadians would not be much different either, but they have not been used before. Its just that playing Sumer in civ 3 and 4 to me was boring. Anyway, we already have Babylon we don't really need Sumer. I hope they suprise us with something new and interesting.

Not sure why, but I have a feeling that civs that have been featured as cameos in scenarios probably won't be in the main game (possibly because it would conflict with their abilities/units in those scenarios). That rules out the Normans, Norwegians and Saxons (1066), Hittites and Sumeria (Wonders of the Ancient World), Hiva, Tonga and Samoa (Paradise Found), or the Jurchens (Samurai Invasion of Korea).

Having said that, checking the Wiki Byzantium was in the Mongol scenario (which makes sense), so I could well be wrong. And admittedly, of the above only the Hittites, Sumerians and possibly the Normans are plausible civs to add to the game.

I believe the Mayans get Calendar related bonuses, not sure what it exaclty does.

Do they have to end the game by 2012 rather than 2050, I wonder?

(Yes, I know the Mayan calendar really does include dates post-2012, but that would spoil the joke).

Im thinking they could make more Scenario focused expansion that would also add more stuff to the future era. There are lots of possibilities for scenarios. They could also add more leaders to existing civs. Random events could also be added allthough I doubt it.


I'm disappointed there aren't more scenarios included. I'd eventually like to see scenarios representing each of the civs in the game, though that's unlikely.

What I would like to have is mercenaries and/or unique units for militaristic city states.

Unique units would be a good idea and tie in well thematically with the unique luxuries from mercantile states. I doubt it will happen in the expansion, though - the new unit roster seems pretty likely to be filled with new general units and at least 9 UUs, without space left for a UU for each of (presumably, although Tyre is turning mercantile and Edinburgh, and possibly Dublin, will have to be replaced by a new state) half a dozen militaristic CSes.

do we know the mayan ability? if not, they could fit with jungles. and to be fair, jaguars get a jungle bonus, even though they're a uu and not a ua.

The trouble is, jungles are poor tiles to work until Education - it would penalise a civ to give it a bonus that's reliant on settling near lots of jungle. And giving them a major resource boost for using jungle would go too far in the other direction (particularly since getting a science bonus from working them later in the game is a boost that needs to be compensated for by low production in other respects).

well to replace all these militaristic city-states one could be troy another if they don't add kongo. kongo could be a city-state. angola for sure fyi angola has largest military of africa. maybe colombia not sure on that one:undecide: the philipinnes maritime, um i guess the ukraine as maritime. oh and the grand duchy of lithuania as the last major civ.

i don't remember the capital of the kingdom of kongo off the top of my head, but i know it's in angola, rather than congo.
and i really don't want more leaders for civs, but that's a discussion for another thread.

If I remember correctly, the capital was MbanzaKongo, the people were the BaKongo, the ruler was the ManiKongo

yeah, that's it. i'm not expecting a kongo civ, as much as i'd prefer it over zulu, but having it as a city-state would be nice, especially since the only other one in africa is cape town.

I think the duchy of lithuania should be the last civ that or the zulu. You why not sumer the voicing as far as I know we only know the written language, and the final interview is tomorrow. Can't wait:D I think it's the final interview tell if i'm wrong.

yeah, that's it. i'm not expecting a kongo civ, as much as i'd prefer it over zulu, but having it as a city-state would be nice, especially since the only other one in africa is cape town.

And Marrakech and Zanzibar, now.

Yeah, I think they should add something in western Africa as a City-State (either mercantile or militaristic). But they've at least increased it to three.

Dakar could be a good merchantile

The last civ has to be Asian.
I hope Indonesia or Tibet,but Burma,Vietnam or Khmer would be good too.

i just thought of a great west african city state how about ghana it was the first african country to secede from europeon rule. i don't know what it would be though

Well, that's the area I'm thinking of. But I was thinking pre-colonization, the great slave, ivory, and gold ports.

Lagos is a good example.

Well, that's the area I'm thinking of. But I was thinking pre-colonization, the great slave, ivory, and gold ports.

Lagos is a good example.

Kumasi, Benin: Cultural or Mercantile

Bonny, Calabar: Mercantile or Martime

Abomey, Oyo: Militaristic

Ife: Religious

Ooh, Ife as a religious city-state would be interesting. Kumasi is another good example (Benin is one that constantly came up when I was looking into this). There's only need for one, though, of course.

But their Unique Ability conflicsts with Diplo Victory

Their unique ability is peacefully conquering City States. But then again if you have to mention it liek somebody said earlier on, it's useful against countering-enemy votes (i.e Siam's alliance with Jersualem for example, Austria could conquer Jersualem)

I have a feeling that it will either not be a permanent process and will perhaps involve a large amount of added influence over the city. I do not expect this to tie the city to Austria indefinitely, but rather to make them better friends.

If it is somehow permanent, which I really doubt, then it will have a very limited re-use.

They aren't going to add something like this and not balance it well.

I, for one, would love the inclusion on the Minaoans. Pretty significant Ancient civilization with a lot of different directions they could go with it. Obviously the language would be just a bit of an issue though.

Some cities not often mentioned.
Mercentile: Tallin and Riga. Was part of the Hanseatic League.And also Gdansk or Danzig; as a tribute to Lech Walesa and Solidarity. Rostock, Brugge, and Lubeck was important cities within the league

How about the Principality of Sealand :D :D

Some cities not often mentioned.
Mercentile: Tallin and Riga. Was part of the Hanseatic League.And also Gdansk or Danzig; as a tribute to Lech Walesa and Solidarity. Rostock, Brugge, and Lubeck was important cities within the league

Lubech is considered the capital and, to the best of my knowledge, isn't in any other city list. I definitely think that should be a mercantile city-state.

I think we need more religious city states the only one's are jerusalem and the vatican city.

The only ones that we know thus far, correct.

Yeah, part of the original discussion was to see if any current city-states could be moved. I suggested Lhasa, since it's the heart of Tibet. The problem is many of the most important religious sites are inside other civs, usually Arabia or India.

I could see Ur as a religious city-state just to throw another one out there.

I think warsaw should be switched to religious back in the middle ages so 1200ad-1650ad guessing they were pretty gruesome to those who um did not believe in christianity. but i could be wrong

I realize I posted that in the wrong thread, I'll move it to the other one. I could see Warsaw as religious. Poland happens to be a very Catholic place. The problem is they aren't religious centers but religious followers.

Like already mentioned by an earlier poster, there are good potential Mesoamerican City States as well.

Tula/Tulum/Tulan being my favorite for a Religious city state because it was treated as the religous equivalent of a Babylon in the Mesoamerican world.

I think it's safe to assume that the last Civ will be a total curveball. They first announced 5 returning civs, then leaked the Huns, Austria and then, admittedly, Ethiopia. I could see something like Tibet, Inuit or another completely new civ.

Among old civs, the most likely are Sumer and the Zulu. New civs are possible, but you can never tell. Of course, the curveballs have all been in Europe, for what it's worth.

Back in March, I've heard a rumor that the remaining new civs are Ethiopia, Austria and "probably Nordic, like Sweden".

Now that Ethiopia and Austria have been confirmed, there is a chance that the rumor is true, although those 2 were still pretty easy to guess. So the last civ could be Sweden.

Even if it's true, I think there's still the possibility that Sweden is a scenario-only civ for the Into the Renaissance scenario. After all, 3 new European civs and no new Asian civ seem a bit unbalanced.

However, the intention with G&K scenarios seems to be using the scenarios to showcase new civs rather than creating scenario-only civs, which means all scenario civs are from the main game. If so, it's only natural to have Sweden.

I, for one, would love the inclusion on the Minaoans. Pretty significant Ancient civilization with a lot of different directions they could go with it. Obviously the language would be just a bit of an issue though.

I suggested Crete as a city-state for that very reason.

I realize I posted that in the wrong thread, I'll move it to the other one. I could see Warsaw as religious. Poland happens to be a very Catholic place. The problem is they aren't religious centers but religious followers.

How about Yerevan? Armenia was the first officially Christian country, so its capital makes sense as a religious state.

I think it's safe to assume that the last Civ will be a total curveball. They first announced 5 returning civs, then leaked the Huns, Austria and then, admittedly, Ethiopia. I could see something like Tibet, Inuit or another completely new civ.

I'm fairly sure (and hopeful) that it will be a tropical Asian civ - we have lots from temperate Asia, but Siam and India are all we have for that region, and it's one that's always been represented by India alone in Civ games past. The obvious candidates are Indonesia, the Khmer, or Burma for that region.

However, the intention with G&K scenarios seems to be using the scenarios to showcase new civs rather than creating scenario-only civs, which means all scenario civs are from the main game. If so, it's only natural to have Sweden.

I'd expect the scenarios to use only official game civs in G&K, yes, but do we know what states are represented in those scenarios? Is Sweden one of them? And where would Ethiopia (or the Celts) fit in it that was the plan, since neither is likely to be featured in any scenarios? In the popular min, Nordic = Viking, and we've got that covered (and as for the Swiss Vikings, they ended up founding Russia and becoming mercenaries for the Byzantines) - what was distinctive about late-medieval Sweden that would justify their inclusion?

I thought about Sweden. They fit the scenario well. However, as much as I'd like them, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be annoyed at yet another European civ.

If they are added, I pray it's Gustavus Adolphus and not Christina.

Re: Yerevan. That could work. The Armenian church has a long history. Historical Armenia was bigger than modern Armenia so I want to double check that city was just as important back at the height of Armenia (but I do see it's one of the oldest continually inhabited cities, which is a plus).

As has been said many times, adding Denmark rather than a generic "Vikings" makes perfect sense if Sweden is in the pipeline.

While I agree, I don't believe they planned it that way. I think the Danes were added long before they planned out the civs for the expansion.

Back in March, I've heard a rumor that the remaining new civs are Ethiopia, Austria and "probably Nordic, like Sweden".

Now that Ethiopia and Austria have been confirmed, there is a chance that the rumor is true, although those 2 were still pretty easy to guess. So the last civ could be Sweden.

Even if it's true, I think there's still the possibility that Sweden is a scenario-only civ for the Into the Renaissance scenario. After all, 3 new European civs and no new Asian civ seem a bit unbalanced.

However, the intention with G&K scenarios seems to be using the scenarios to showcase new civs rather than creating scenario-only civs, which means all scenario civs are from the main game. If so, it's only natural to have Sweden.

As has been said many times, adding Denmark rather than a generic "Vikings" makes perfect sense if Sweden is in the pipeline.

Do not feed my fears, people. Nothing against Sweden, but 6 European civs out of 9 isn't a very interesting scenario, to say the least. Is the 9th Civ going to be revealed today (Sunday), for sure? I have to get ready for disappointments...

It'll be revealed tomorrow. I certainly don't know what it will be. If you need help lowering expectations, I will point out that the "Into the Renaissance" scenario seems to lead to the 30 Years War, where Sweden was a central player. It certainly could be logical to include them. I don't know if they will, just something to think about.

yeah, i'm not expecting sweden. i wasn't expecting austria, either, but that's neither here nor there.

ok 5 europeon civs 2 african and 1 north american europeons:austria, netherlands, byzantines, celts, and finally huns. africans: carthrage, and ethiopia. north american: Mayan's and the last ? who knows for sure.

In as much as I respect the need for a greater variety, I've been holding out for Sweden in a civ game, even if it was a bit hopeful. If she is included because of her involvement during the Thirty Years War, it's bound to be Gustav. They could also be the civ to take advantage of the influence of social policy choices in the later game, and they could have a unique cannon replacement, which I don't think there is at the moment. But I doubt Sweden would be included, nonetheless. Frankly, I guess the Zulu, though I would hope not - if they include the Zulu, chances for future DLCs is slim, and an expansion slimmer, IMO. Then again, to not have Portugal might suggest that they may have plans for the future after the expansion, and you'd think they'd take advantage of the Zulu as a DLC, or at least announce them amongst the first civs revealed.

ok 5 europeon civs 2 african and 1 north american europeons:austria, netherlands, byzantines, celts, and finally huns. africans: carthrage, and ethiopia. north american: Mayan's and the last ? who knows for sure.

About the last one,I just hope it'll be a civilization that never have been represented as a civ before . My guess are either Brazil or Majahapit . Both of them had Monarchies and a pretty good religion influence,which fits for the name of the expansion "Gods & Kings" .

Well, if we look at the two historical scenarios:

Fall of Rome: Byzantines, Huns, Carthage, Celts
Medieval: Austria, Byzantine?

I think we're getting another Medieval civ, It'd be awesome if they were Moorish / Mamluk, but I don't see either of them happening.


PS. JFD, you've got it wrong. It's The Republic of New Zealand XD

PS. JFD, you've got it wrong. It's The Republic of New Zealand XD

Lol. Remember what Mr. Key said, "not on my watch." If you want this country to be a Republic, at least call it something different - do we really need to be like the hundreds of The Republic ofs out there? And just get ready for some excess bacon without trade from our mother country, and being a Chinese dominion.

Would the Byzantium even be in the Medieval scenario as well as the Fall of Rome one? Wasn't the Medieval scenario based around the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation?

I hope they come out with the Zulu soon, because I don't like the idea of using the Ethiopians to replace them for very long. That would suck but in the meantime what other choice do I have. Ethiopian civ is wimpy. :lol: I wonder if that will rattle some cages, I may possibly get some multiplayer challenges for those statements. Of course one would be my brother, who thinks he can beat me playing as Ethiopia! What a laugh! :lol: He got mad because I told him they will be my temporary Zulus. :lol:

Lol. Remember what Mr. Key said, "not on my watch." If you want this country to be a Republic, at least call it something different - do we really need to be like the hundreds of The Republic ofs out there? And just get ready for some excess bacon without trade from our mother country, and being a Chinese dominion.
Mr. Key has many policies which are not beneficial to the country (Mining in Conservation land, Fracking, SOE Sales etc.). It would still be called 'New Zealand' - we're still called The Dominion of New Zealand, aren't we?

Would the Byzantium even be in the Medieval scenario as well as the Fall of Rome one? Wasn't the Medieval scenario based around the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation?

There's been mentions of Holy wars, a la Crusades, many of which were called by the Byzantines, so I would imagine they'll be in there

I hope they come out with the Zulu soon, because I don't like the idea of using the Ethiopians to replace them for very long. That would suck but in the meantime what other choice do I have. Ethiopian civ is wimpy. :lol: I wonder if that will rattle some cages, I may possibly get some multiplayer challenges for those statements. Of course one would be my brother, who thinks he can beat me playing as Ethiopia! What a laugh! :lol: He got mad because I told him they will be my temporary Zulus. :lol:

We'll see if Carthage can beat Ethiopia! Your going down man! :p :splat:

Nice to hear about Sweden possibly being in the game. As a Finn I expect one of their UUs being Finnish light cavalry. After all Sweden was waging constantly war when it had Finns as her cannon fodder. When Sweden lost Finland it has not had any wars. Wonder why? :rolleyes:

Mr. Key has many policies which are not beneficial to the country (Mining in Conservation land, Fracking, SOE Sales etc.). It would still be called 'New Zealand' - we're still called The Dominion of New Zealand, aren't we?



There's been mentions of Holy wars, a la Crusades, many of which were called by the Byzantines, so I would imagine they'll be in there

The Thirty Years War might be considered a Holy War - but I might be trying to justify Sweden, because that might be bit far for a Medieval scenario.

We are the Realm of New Zealand (which includes the Cook Islands and other places that we are sovereign over - including the Ross Dependancy, which, interestingly enough, the US rejects), the Dominion of New Zealand was the name we had before Her Majesty acceded.

Mr. Key certaintly has some policies that might not be good for the land, but his defence of the Constitutional Monarchy is in the best interests of the country, at least for now, whether you like it or not. I don't want to get into a political argument or anything, and I accept, even respect, that you don't agree, but this is certaintly not the place for politics - especially when people looking on might be going - "wait... New Zealand? Isn't that Australia?" or worse - "wait... New Zealand? isn't that Middle-Earth?"

So... back on topic? What do you think will be the last civ? I support the idea that it'd have to do with the Medieval scenario - after seeing something about the existence of DLCs after the expansion on another thread, or on the 2k Forums, I think the Zulu look unlikely. If not Sweden, and to do with the Crusades, what about Venice? Maybe they will be able to purchase mercenary units from allied City-States...

I think Venice would be interesting given that Rome has a limited use of modern Italian cities; however, it probably duplicates too much territory.

Another European civ would be my worst nightmare.
If they release an Asian civ as Indonesia or Tibet,then I may buy it.
But if they go for another European civ then they can forget my loyalty to Civilization V.

I think Venice would be interesting given that Rome has a limited use of modern Italian cities; however, it probably duplicates too much territory.

And its perfect as a City-State - a lot of its other important cities got snapped up by Hungary. I don't suppose Hungary is a possibility - having Austria and the Huns probably eliminates that. Other than Poland, I can't think of any other possibilities that might fit in the Medieval Scenario. If only the Moors weren't precluded by their City-State.

Another European civ would be my worst nightmare.
If they release an Asian civ as Indonesia or Tibet,then I may buy it.
But if they go for another European civ then they can forget my loyalty to Civilization V.

Even if it offers a very unique playstyle? I'm pretty sure a lot of people hesitated when they saw Austria, but its city-state assimilation seems popular. But I do have to agree - Tibet would be great; its non-European and it offers an opportunity for a very unique UA. But isn't Lhasa already confirmed as a City-State, or is that just speculation which has gone on so long its become considered fact?

I think the last civ will be Asian, probably Burma, Khmer or Indonesia. Or they might do something completely different and add Bactria/Afghanistan. But I really doubt they will add another European civ, as much as I like European civs there is no need for having 6 European civs in one expansion.

No matter if it has a special playstyle.
We need an Asian civ in this expansion,otherwise I hate the producers.

No matter if it has a special playstyle.
We need an Asian civ in this expansion,otherwise I hate the producers.

That's probably a bit too strong of a reaction.

I think Asia is perhaps still likely, maybe we're overthinking the role of the scenarios at this point. I think I would personally be most interested in Vietnam out of the Asian options, but Indonesia would have the ability to perhaps sell more copies with the higher population.

That's probably a bit too strong of a reaction.

I think Asia is perhaps still likely, maybe we're overthinking the role of the scenarios at this point. I think I would personally be most interested in Vietnam out of the Asian options, but Indonesia would have the ability to perhaps sell more copies with the higher population.

I know and can imagine very little about the South-East Asian possibilities, except for Vietnam with some sort of Guerilla warfare bonus. But Indonesia is quite interesting - who would be their leader, I wonder, or would they draw from the Majapahit? Maybe they'll decide to leave the Majapahit/Indonesia for a DLC which has Portugal alongside them.

Their leader would be most likely Hayam Wuruk.
But Dharmasetu,Samaratungga,Tribhuwana or others are also possible.

No matter if it has a special playstyle.
We need an Asian civ in this expansion,otherwise I hate the producers.Well, the good news is that future DLC are somewhat confirmed (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11399233&postcount=35), so even if there wouldn't be (which I doubt), than there's still plenty of chance there will be in the future :)

I think Asia is perhaps still likely, maybe we're overthinking the role of the scenarios at this point. I think I would personally be most interested in Vietnam out of the Asian options, but Indonesia would have the ability to perhaps sell more copies with the higher population.

Not exactly . I guess adding Majahapit or not wouldn't influence so much in the sellings on Indonesia . What most of the people want is that the 9th civ will be a non-european civ and a Civilization that never have been represented before as an Civilization(just being represented as a city-state) .

Well, the good news is that future DLC are somewhat confirmed (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11399233&postcount=35), so even if there wouldn't be (which I doubt), than there's still plenty of chance there will be in the future :)

Wait what? England is losign James Bond as their extra Spy o.O?

You can't add Indonesia as Indonesia. This is not a civilization, but a modern state which is nothing but what the Dutch happened to collect in the region plus some minor post-colony acquisitions. I'd generally oppose the inclusion of states like Canada, Brazil and Australia, which are likewise no more than post-colonial states (though all are neo-colonial in themselves in relation to the native people still subjugated, particularly Indonesia).

DLC though sort of encourages these. That's why, I guess, we have Denmark rather than Scandinavia now, cause you can sell the other two Scandinavian countries later on DLC.

You can add Indonesia as "Indonesia",we can't add individual empires,these are not civilizations.
Indonesia has a rich history of unification and partitation.
But if we are going to name Indonesia Nusantara or another name then some people may not know what that is.

You can't add Indonesia as Indonesia. This is not a civilization, but a modern state which is nothing but what the Dutch happened to collect in the region plus some minor post-colony acquisitions. I'd generally oppose the inclusion of states like Canada, Brazil and Australia, which are likewise no more than post-colonial states (though all are neo-colonial in themselves in relation to the native people still subjugated, particularly Indonesia).


Well,USA is a post-colonial state . And unlike other post-colonial countries,Brazilian culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Brazil) has the influence of many cultures and Portuguese culture is just one of them,instead being the main source of culture(even Japanese people have left their print (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilian) on Brazilian culture) .

You can add Indonesia as "Indonesia",we can't add individual empires,these are not civilizations.
Indonesia has a rich history of unification and partitation.
But if we are going to name Indonesia Nusantara or another name then some people may not know what that is.

Indonesia is an invention of Dutch colonialism, my friend. Its territory is otherwise arbitrary and it is in no sense a coherent "civilization".

Well,USA is a post-colonial state . And unlike other post-colonial countries,Brazilian culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Brazil) has the influence of many cultures and Portuguese culture is just one of them,instead being the main source of culture(even Japanese people have left their print (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilian) on Brazilian culture) .

Well, every state is in some sense post-colonial and every culture is "multi-cultural" in origin. I buy America as a modern civilization because of its modern power and distinctiveness. It differs in this sense from Brazil, and other smaller less independent English offshoots like Australia and Canada are obviously nothing like comparable.

What most of the people want is that the 9th civ will be a non-european civ and a Civilization that never have been represented before as an Civilization(just being represented as a city-state).

That is your view. I dont have anything against having more European civilizations and I could almost bet that the last civ is Sweden.

Im happy that the people actually making the game have more sense than most Civ fans. Surprisingly many people want "Civs" like Inuit, Sioux, Canada and Australia - I really hope Firaxis is not listening.

I think Venice would be interesting given that Rome has a limited use of modern Italian cities; however, it probably duplicates too much territory.

Well, everyone in Europe duplicates too much of Rome's territory :p

Venice's cities were essentially in northern Italy, modern Croatia and other Balkan states, Crete, etc. There's a nice little gap on the other side of the Adriatic where their cities are not yet done. I don't think they'll be added, but they can be unique.

I think the biggest knock against them is there might actually be too many naval civs at the moment.

Another European civ would be my worst nightmare.
If they release an Asian civ as Indonesia or Tibet,then I may buy it.
But if they go for another European civ then they can forget my loyalty to Civilization V.
I am sorry but are you taking the Civilization inclusion of this game that seriously. I am sure they will add more Asian civs as time goes on. As someone else said the reason why Europe has more civs is because of the continous shift of land power while still remaining a world influence. Through and through civ 5 is still a great game that you should continue playing, do you really want to miss out on some of the new features?

Well, everyone in Europe duplicates too much of Rome's territory :p

Venice's cities were essentially in northern Italy, modern Croatia and other Balkan states, Crete, etc. There's a nice little gap on the other side of the Adriatic where their cities are not yet done. I don't think they'll be added, but they can be unique.

I think the biggest knock against them is there might actually be too many naval civs at the moment.

Meh, Venice is better represented as a mere city-state. Pisa and Genoa also had overseas lands, hell, even Ragusa had a strip of land in India, but they were not really world changers were they? They didn't have any big participations in great wars or anything...

I'd like to see the Majapahits as the ninth civilization, their inclusion would be most interesting as people don't really know much about them, even though they had quite an empire... :P

Venice did have participation in major wars. They were an economic and naval powerhouse and fought against the Ottoman Empire. I personally think they are better candidates for a mod, I just wanted to defend the idea that they were actually more than just a city-state.

Venice's power was checked in the 1500s though. Pope Julius II made a Holy League of jealous Italian States, Austria, France, Holy Romans, and Hungarians to finally knock Venice out of its power. From then on out it remained unconquered, but weakened till 1796 when the Austrians took controll

I agree. Still, they had a decent time period of success starting around 1000 AD.

Venice is small-fry. Sure it appears important if you focus on the eastern Med in late middle ages/early modern period, but this game is global in scope and broad in chronological coverage. Venice as a potential full civilization is surely preposterous. Venice is more like a sub-Byzantine corporation ruthlessly exploiting the disappearance of its state's power than something like Russia or the Egyptians.

Yeah, but the game has always focused on relative powers of civilizations in their respective "known worlds" at the time. Like I said, I don't think they're high on the list, but I wouldn't put them on the bottom either.

So, just for those who wanted to know (Sorry if this has been done already), these are the Civilizations from previous games and expansions that are not yet present:


Holy Roman Empire
Portugal
Sumeria
Mali
Zulu
Hittites
Khmer
Sioux

For the record, my money's on Zulu.

Venice did have participation in major wars. They were an economic and naval powerhouse and fought against the Ottoman Empire. I personally think they are better candidates for a mod, I just wanted to defend the idea that they were actually more than just a city-state.

They were that, and those six galleases at the Battle of Lepanto sent many Turks to the other world in October 7, of 1571. I would say from 1000-1100 on they were on there way to have huge influence trading in the Med. Not only that they were one of the most advanced civilizations in Europe. Look at how citizens in Venice lived in their normal everyday lives compared to the rest of Europe at the time. Its really quite a disparity. I would to see Venice as a civ, if not now at some point.

For the record, my money's on Zulu. You might get some heat for saying that. There are some big Zulu haters on here.:lol: As for me I would not mind. I have always been interested in the Zulus.

Though lately, I have been reading up on Sumer, so they are my choice. At first, I thought they'd be boring or insignificant. I have changed my mind about that. :)

So, just for those who wanted to know (Sorry if this has been done already), these are the Civilizations from previous games and expansions that are not yet present:


Holy Roman Empire
Portugal
Sumeria
Mali
Zulu
Hittites

For the record, my money's on Zulu.

Also, Khmer.

I would say, of those, Sumer and Zulu are the most logical. Going back to my initial analysis, Holy Roman Empire, Khmer, and Mali are unlikely. Portugal is out. While it could be the Hittites, Sumeria and the Zulu have strength of multiple inclusion.

Venice did have participation in major wars. They were an economic and naval powerhouse and fought against the Ottoman Empire. I personally think they are better candidates for a mod, I just wanted to defend the idea that they were actually more than just a city-state.

Hm, true, true, but... I just can't see it as a civilization, more like just a powerful city-state... I don't know... Kind of like Athens & Sparta in ancient Greece etc.

I forgot Khmer.

Here's how I see it:

Khmer and Mali are out from far too similar existing Civs, that is, Siam and Songhai.

HRE is most likely out, as with Austria in, I think that will be enough central Europe in Firaxis's mind.

Portugal is out, as the Dutch and Carthaginians effectively fill the naval void.

That leaves Zulu, Hittites, and Sumeria - and let's be honest here, who do you think 90% of consumers are going to find most exciting? ;)

Hence my bet on the Zulu. I, personally, would love to see the Sumer, but I think Zulu are a more realistic, and probably more fun, option.

That leaves Zulu, Hittites, and Sumeria - and let's be honest here, who do you think 90% of consumers are going to find most exciting? ;)

Not sure that helps. If anything, those are better kept for DLC. There's enough already to sell the XP.

Well,but from the 8 already revealed civilizations,there are only 2 civilizations that have never been represented as a civ before(Austria and Huns) . I think It'd be more interesting if the 9th civ is also in the similar situation from these two .

Maybe a never before represented Civ outside of Europe too? :p

Not sure that helps. If anything, those are better kept for DLC. There's enough already to sell the XP.
I never thought about it that way. Good point. :)

BTW, are we absolutely certain the "Byzantines" are one of the new civs, rather than the Romans getting a new leader and uu?

Yes, we are.

ETA: I won't be glib. The original screenshot for choosing religions explains that the "Byzantines" get to choose an extra bonus. Unless Rome also got renamed, the Byzantines are a separate civ. I'm pretty sure Dennis Shirk also stated that the "Byzantines" get the Dromon, which spits fire.

So, just for those who wanted to know (Sorry if this has been done already), these are the Civilizations from previous games and expansions that are not yet present:


Holy Roman Empire
Portugal
Sumeria
Mali
Zulu
Hittites
Khmer

For the record, my money's on Zulu.

You forgot the Khmer (IV) and Sioux (II).

Also of those, it's important to note that the Zulu have been in all 5 previous games (including Rev), Portugal and Sumer have been in 2 previous games, and the rest have only been in 1 previous game.

Anyway, HRE is replaced by Austria
Portugal is in as a city-state
Mali is replaced by Songhai
Khmer is replaced by Siam

That leaves the Zulu and Sumer as the legacy civs that have appeared in the most previous games. Then the Sioux and Hittites as one time legacy civs.

I still think either the Zulu or Sumer are very likely for the last spot. I don't see the Hittites getting in before Sumer. People argue against the Sioux as another horse civ, but I don't really see this as a big deal.

Aw geez, forgot the Sioux too! Sorry.

But yes, I agree with you entirely with your post. Sumer or Zulu will be the big two, unless we see one completely out of left-field. (Sealand, anyone? ;))

Seems pretty clear then.

Maybe the extra civ is Anglo-Saxon England? Athelstan as leader, capital at Winchester, UU the thegn? ;) In all seriousness, never figured out why some civs like Rome and Germany get period-specific duplications (Byzantium and HRE in Civ IV), but others like England, Russia and China don't.

Meh, Venice is better represented as a mere city-state. Pisa and Genoa also had overseas lands, hell, even Ragusa had a strip of land in India, but they were not really world changers were they? They didn't have any big participations in great wars or anything...

Venice sacked Constantinople and had a large part in the early Crusades, which would make it a fit for the Medieval Scenario, which might be the way the expansion is going to choosing which civs to include. They seem a little more important than a lot of other City-States already in the game - then again, Genoa wiped out most of Europe, so who knows what defines importance. But I highly doubt Venice will be included. By comparison to the other civs they seem quite unlikely.

That is your view. I dont have anything against having more European civilizations and I could almost bet that the last civ is Sweden.

I'm with you; here's hoping for Sweden. If there truly is a new era, and it is the Enlightenment era, Sweden is not a stretch of the imagination.

Maybe the extra civ is Anglo-Saxon England? Athelstan as leader, capital at Winchester, UU the thegn? ;) In all seriousness, never figured out why some civs like Rome and Germany get period-specific duplications (Byzantium and HRE in Civ IV), but others like England, Russia and China don't.

I think the Holy Roman Empire was added because they didn't want people fighting over who gets Charlemagne as their leader. Byzantium not only had a very different culture than Ancient Rome, they spoke a different language and had a different geographical area and capital. In that sense, they're more logical as a different civ than the Saxons.

I think the Holy Roman Empire was added because they didn't want people fighting over who gets Charlemagne as their leader. Byzantium not only had a very different culture than Ancient Rome, they spoke a different language and had a different geographical area and capital. In that sense, they're more logical as a different civ than the Saxons.

Charlemagne was well before the Holy Roman Empire. HRE addition in Civ 4 was just a big blunder I think.

Byzantium not only had a very different culture than Ancient Rome, they spoke a different language and had a different geographical area and capital. In that sense, they're more logical as a different civ than the Saxons.

Problem for this line of argument, which I think is misguided in many respects, is that the empire ruled by Theodora (or rather Justinian) wasn't all that different from the Roman Empire in other eras. Justinian himself was a Latin-speaker who ruled most of the empire's traditional boundaries and in fact more of it than Julius Caesar! ;) If you want to pull that argument off you'd need to take a late medieval leader, and even here it means ignoring the fact that they are actually the same state. Kievan Russia wasn't even the same state as the Tsarist regime represented by Civ. Even the notorious HRE wasn't the same state as the Prussian-modeled 'Germany' of Civ.

Oh I'm all excited about Sweden now as well ^.^
Though I think a non-european civ deserves the last spot more.

Oh I'm all excited about Sweden now as well ^.^
Though I think a non-european civ deserves the last spot more.

It depends on the non-european civ - the Majapahit, or Tibet, sure. The Zulu? Not so much. Sweden has never been in a civ game before, and this is the first time Scandanavia hasn't been lumped into one civ. Sweden deserves some honour.

Powys had great influence throughout Wales and even in western England for several centuries. It would be good to see Powys better represented, instead of being lumped with the Celts or Wales! ;)

this is the first time Scandanavia hasn't been lumped into one civ.
Well, not quite. 'Norweigan' ski infantry, after all.

Well, not quite. 'Norweigan' ski infantry, after all.

Fair point; that slipped my mind. Still, Civ 5 still gives more room to breathe for Sweden, even if Norway does get pushed into its union with Denmark. Finland would probably be overlooked in a similar manner.

In my eyes Austria is a replacement for the Holy Roman Empire, just as Songhai is for Mali and Siam is for Khmer. We all knew that Holy Rome was a lame excuse not to include Italy and Austria in the game. The Holy Roman Empire from the reign of Charles V to Francis II (Hapsburg Monarchs) was focused in Austria, the headquarters being Vienna. In a way they divided the Holy Roman Empire into two Civilizations, the early Medieval one with the original Saxon rule with Otto is represented by Germany, and then then Renaissance Hapsburg rule is represented by Austria.

Charlemagne was well before the Holy Roman Empire. HRE addition in Civ 4 was just a big blunder I think.

I'm not arguing about it being a bad idea. However, he was crowned Emperor of Rome so it's not entirely inaccurate to make him the leader. The Holy Roman Empire was basically the eastern half of Charlemagne's empire and continued or revived the tradition he started.

Problem for this line of argument, which I think is misguided in many respects, is that the empire ruled by Theodora (or rather Justinian) wasn't all that different from the Roman Empire in other eras.

I'm not personally a fan of Justinian and Theodora for this reason. I usually recommend Alexios Komnenos for this reason. But it should at least be the Macedonian dynasty or later.

Kievan Russia wasn't even the same state as the Tsarist regime represented by Civ. Even the notorious HRE wasn't the same state as the Prussian-modeled 'Germany' of Civ.

If they added the Kievan Rus, I'd probably say they were different enough to at least merit discussion. Likewise, I think India could be broken up into various parts too.

"Germany" is broader than Prussia. Sure, the Prussian government essentially became the modern German government but the culture that makes up the German "civilization" is broader than Prussia and includes many component parts that were associated with the Holy Roman Empire at least post-Westphalia.

ETA: Actually, pre-Westphalia since I'm literally thinking of the 30 Years War.

In all likely hood, I will say...

1. Sumer
2. Zulu
3. Majapahit

I'll be shocked if we get someone else. Just can't see another Euro civ at this point. Nor can I see another Native American civ.

For next DLC's, following those three...

1. Portugal (Africa colonization)
2. Poland (Maybe WWII scenario)
3. Sweden (Some 17-1800 scenario about trading or colonization... not a history buff)
4. Sioux (Complete Americas/Manifest Destiny scenario)
5. Hittite/Assyrian (Ancient scenario)

Among all of this listed civs, we will get one more for THIS expansion, maybe 3-4 DLC's at MOST (at least two me thinks), and if we get another expansion a couple years down the line, I think we will see the rest of those civs, along with maybe some modern civs, Brazil, Italy, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and a game that may go into the future, like 2100ish... if not at least an accompanying scenario.

In my eyes Austria is a replacement for the Holy Roman Empire, just as Songhai is for Mali and Siam is for Khmer. We all knew that Holy Rome was a lame excuse not to include Italy and Austria in the game. The Holy Roman Empire from the reign of Charles V to Francis II (Hapsburg Monarchs) was focused in Austria, the headquarters being Vienna. In a way they divided the Holy Roman Empire into two Civilizations, the early Medieval one with the original Saxon rule with Otto is represented by Germany, and then then Renaissance Hapsburg rule is represented by Austria.

@Cicero, In some ways you are right, but the chief royal title of the HRE rulers was "king of Germany", and that's what most of Europe called them. They had a concentration of land in the archduchy of Austria (which isn't modern Austria btw and was a not particularly distinctive part of the German kingdom!), but they also had demesne elsewhere in Germany. Austria really is a low priority addition, but low priority "civilizations" tend to get into civ games if they are in Europe and if they are more important in more modern times.

Austria really is a low priority addition, but low priority "civilizations" tend to get into civ games if they are in Europe and if they are more important in more modern times.

Low priority? Why would you say that? I am glad they added it.

I think Austria is a good addition too! But that's just my opinion. :)

Yep many opinions out there.

I like Austria for example and am one of the so called "Zulu Haters" Nokmirt mentioned (Don't want them anywhere near an Expansion. A DLC at most but nothing more)

Not only is it a great addition, I think the UA is perfect for it

I'm not arguing about it being a bad idea. However, he was crowned Emperor of Rome so it's not entirely inaccurate to make him the leader. The Holy Roman Empire was basically the eastern half of Charlemagne's empire and continued or revived the tradition he started.


The two aren't related though, except by early modern historians. The German kingdom was in some ways a kind of "eastern Francia" (certainly aspired to be). The Roman emperor part was a continuation of the Lombard kingdom of Italy though, which had taken over the papal Roman title and was acquired by Otto. If you read the sources, you'll see that until the Hohenstaufen period the imperial title tends to be taken as interchangeable with the kingdom of Italy ... certainly from an Italian point of view.



"Germany" is broader than Prussia. Sure, the Prussian government essentially became the modern German government but the culture that makes up the German "civilization" is broader than Prussia and includes many component parts that were associated with the Holy Roman Empire at least post-Westphalia.

ETA: Actually, pre-Westphalia since I'm literally thinking of the 30 Years War.


Indeed, it is broader than "Prussia", but in that sense includes "Austria", which is a different civ now. Civ has always had Germany as the Greater Prussia 'Germany' of eastern Europe rather than the more expansive medieval kingdom of the Rhine and Danube.

EDIT: Reported old news, sorry.

My guess as of now is Sweden or Zulu.
Anything else would be a pleasant surprise.
Unless it is something supid like "native america".

I'm not really "burning" for the Zulu, they and Sumeria are more of a "meh" to me.
Something new is better.

Scale of excitement:

A new Non-European civ (AWESOME!)
A new European civ (Nice!)
An old civ (Meh...)
A stupid civ (like Native America)

Personally, I'm someone who prefers playing TSL Earth maps, so I'm always up for more non-European civs. I'll tolerate Austria since at least it's new to the civ scene, but Sweden is about the only other European civ I'll tolerate the addition of, and even then I'll prefer pretty much anything else from any other currently-unoccupied part of the world before it.

Most of all, I'm rooting for Majapahit, because the indonesian archipelago needs some love.

I am thinking this will be a new civ altogether.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a more ice/desert/marsh focused civ.

This could offer a wide range of options for currently useless terrain in Civ 5 in some cases.

This could be the push needed for a Sweden/Finland/Inuit

Or a Nazca/Pueblo/Anasazi

Low priority? Why would you say that? I am glad they added it.

It's most obviously a low priority if you have a wider perspective of world history and culture. Austria is a German state, important as a middle-ranking independent state only in the 19th century and early decades of the 20th. Seriously, the world is much bigger. Even in central/eastern Europe early modern Poland, medieval Hungary, 14th century Lithuania, the Bulgars, and some others, are far more important and interesting.

I find the endless duplication of miniature western European "civilizations" to make the game extremely boring. We're seriously debating here the inclusion of a SECOND (!) Scandinavian civilization for goodness sake when Africa and eastern Asia only have a handful between them.

I'm not the average gamer though.

Charlemagne does actually have some influence on Austria. He ordered for the region to be rebuilt to be the center of the Eastern portion of the Empire. That's how Austria got its name, from the German word Osterreich - meaning Eastern Empire

Austria had quite a bit more importance earlier than the 19th century...

SO did Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Burgundy, Castile, and so on .. they are not and never will be represented as independent civilizations in the game.

Did you know the Ottomans didn't have a distinct word for 'Austria'? They just called it Germany. The idea of a separate Austrian state before Napoleon wasn't really in many peoples' heads. Austria was just the location of the most important regional holding of the German emperor.

It's most obviously a low priority if you have a wider perspective of world history and culture. Austria is a German state, important as a middle-ranking independent state only in the 19th century and early decades of the 20th. Seriously, the world is much bigger. Even in central/eastern Europe early modern Poland, medieval Hungary, 14th century Lithuania, the Bulgars, and some others, are far more important and interesting.

I find the endless duplication of miniature western European "civilizations" to make the game extremely boring. I'm not the average gamer though.

I am sorry but Austria is hardly a middle-ranking state. From 1600 to 1850 it was the dominant German power, it wasn't until Bismarck took control of Prussia when it lost its power. Austria at its height had control over Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Mantua, and Lombardy as well as a links to other monarchies through marriages, such as Spain and France. Austria was the center of music and many of the greatest composers were either from Austria or went to Vienna to learn music. Austria today may be small, but it has one of the worlds strongest economy and one of the highest standards of living

The main reason why Austria is included is the Habsburg dynasty. They are very important because they ruled an Empire which included Austria, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary, Bohemia, Spanish America, Portugal and many more. I can't think of any other dynasty that ruled over a bigger Empire, which they attained peacefully through marriage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Habsbourg-1700.png/800px-Habsbourg-1700.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG

I am sorry but Austria is hardly a middle-ranking state. From 1600 to 1850 it was the dominant German power, it wasn't until Bismarck took control of Prussia when it lost its power. Austria at its height had control over Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Mantua, and Lombardy as well as a links to other monarchies through marriages, such as Spain and France. Austria was the center of music and many of the greatest composers were either from Austria or went to Vienna to learn music. Austria today may be small, but it has one of the worlds strongest economy and one of the highest standards of living

Would have saved yourself time by reading my posts more attentively. :)

Before Napoleon Austria was not an independent state. Austria was just the location of the German king's most important regional holding. BTW, what you are describing is still a regional power of second rank. Russia, France, Britain, were the top players in the 19th century, even in that region. Austria was propped up by Russia for much of the 19th century until it alienated Russia, and was just a German puppet state after Bismarck too, since it had no choice if it wanted protection from Russia.