Guess the New Civs

While we talk about all this, it might be wise to say it would be exceptionally difficult to implement an Australian Aborigine civilization. Firstly, we don't know the names of great pre colonial aboriginal leaders, Secondly they lack settlements, being a tribal and nomadic people, so what would be used for City names? Finally, it seems wrong calling them Aborigines when that can refer to native peoples all over the world. Though their UA would obviously be "Dreamtime"
 
For me it's great news that Portugal won't be in this expansion. This means we will get it later - hopefully packed together with Kongo ;)

Besides the known 30 civs, this is my preference list, and my guesses for the expansion civs:
The last 4 remaining places in the expansion: Hungary or Poland, Ethiopia or Zulu, Sumeria or Hittite, Sioux

Portugal + Kongo double pack as DLC

Besides these, 1st tier civs (should definitely included eventually): Poland or Hungary, Zulu or Ethiopia, Hittite or Sumeria, Phoenicia
2nd tier (also great additions): Assyria, Nubia, Sweden, Bulgaria, Khmer, Mali, Moors (Al-Andalus or Morocco), Indonesia (Majapahit or Srivijaya)
3rd tier (a couple from each region would be nice if there is still room): Apache, Comanche, Navajo, Inuit, Mapuche, Guarani, Arawak, Tupi, Swahili, Zimbabwe, Benin, Vietnam, Burma, Austria, Bohemia, Lithuania, Kievan Rus, Khazar, Mughals, Scythians, Timurids, Huns

I know there are also a lot of suggestions for Israel, but in my opinion the perfect representation is to have Jerusalem as a religious city state
 
I don't understand why people are so enamored by the Zulu or Sioux. In Africa there are far better civs to include (Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Kongo, Benin, Morocco, etc.)

I also don't get the Sioux when there are so many better Native American Civs that haven't been used yet.
 
Gucumatz said:
I don't understand why people are so enamored by the Zulu or Sioux. In Africa there are far better civs to include (Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Kongo, Benin, Morocco, etc.)

I also don't get the Sioux when there are so many better Native American Civs that haven't been used yet.
Click to expand...

Shaka is classic Civ, it generally feels wrong not to have his craziness all up in your face. That's why. Sioux were a powerful, long culture that dominated a significant area of North America and have had a long impact on popular culture and how the world perceives the American Indian.
 
Gucumatz said:
I don't understand why people are so enamored by the Zulu or Sioux. In Africa there are far better civs to include (Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Kongo, Benin, Morocco, etc.)

I also don't get the Sioux when there are so many better Native American Civs that haven't been used yet.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not fond of the Zulu
I guessed them to be included eventually though, as I don't think Firaxis will skip them in any Civilization game
Zimbabwe is also a great idea, will add that too
 
seasnake said:
Shaka is classic Civ, it generally feels wrong not to have his craziness all up in your face. That's why. Sioux were a powerful, long culture that dominated a significant area of North America and have had a long impact on popular culture and how the world perceives the American Indian.
Click to expand...

I hope they would save the Zulus for a DLC release. I am sure every CiV fan would buy them even if they do not buy G&K. Zulu DLC would sell well and that would leave a room for one lesser known, but deserving Civ to the expansion pack. As this expansion theme is about "Gods & Kings" ie. religion and leaders. In my opinion, Menelik II of Ethiopia (Christianity) would suit very well. Also Ziebel of Khazars (Tengriism/Judaism), Solomon of Israel (Judaism) and Hayam Wuruk of Indonesia (Hinduism/Buddhism) would be excellent choices. :)

I really support for another native north american Civ. Just that if Sioux did not ever build any cities what would their city list be like? Are there other candidates for that spot (Apache, Cherokee, Comanche, Lakota, Pueblo?). :)
 
I hope they would save the Zulus for a DLC release.
Click to expand...

Possible, but I'd have thought if they were going to do that they'd have kept the Dutch for it and released a Boer War scenario. (Which would be pretty cool.)
 
I don't like Zulu,because their influence on history was minimal to nothing,they were not important.
I'd rather have the Kingdom of Kongo which was more influental or the Kingdom of Zimbabwe,anything but please NOT Zulu...
Altough I will buy them if they are released,because more civs=a better game.
 
So, another guess ;-)

Expansion: Ethiopia (peaceful religious), Apache/Sioux/? (plains), Poland, Hittites (early Iron working or diplomacy-oriented)
DLC 1: Israel (Espionage (!!!), not religious scenario)
DLC 2: Zulu (South African scenario with Boers, English and Zulu)
DLC 3: Sweden (30 years scenario)
DLC 4: Portugal and Kongo ("late" imperialism scenario)

The thing is, Israel is one of those few civs* where an espionage bonus makes sense, nobody cannot argue that the Mossad isn't scary, just go ask some Iranian Nuclear Scientists..., whereas you do find a lot of Religion oriented civs. So I'd guess that the first DLC would be published quite soon and the other follow two or three months apart.

*The Soviet Union = Russia is another possibility. But then? A Italian City State-like civ? United Kingdom with James Bond? Nazi Germany? Not really exciting ones. Maybe the Navajo as the US Army used their language as a code in the second world war...
 
Expansion: Sioux, Ethiopia, Hungary, Sumer

Dream DLCs:
Portugal + Kongo
Poland + Lithuania + Kievan Rus + forming the Commonwealth scenario
Assyria + Hittite + Phoenicia + ancient middle east scenario
Khmer + Srivijaya/Majapahit + indonesian/malayan conquests scenario
Zulu + Zimbabwe + Swahili + glory for south africa scenario
Sweden + Austria + Bohemia + 30 years war scenario
 
What's with so many people wanting the Sioux? It's not a civilization. Its a nomadic culture.
 
the Sioux are romanticized in pop culture with the big headdresses, Custer and whatnot. personally i'd prefer to see the Navajo.
 
Personally, I'd prefer the Pueblos or Mississippians, but this thread is for guessing new civs. Since the Sioux have been in in the past, it's not an entirely unreasonable guess.
 
Looking at this thread makes me think the rest of the civs are going to be a bummer. Zulu and Portugal are the only 2 civs left I'd care about, and it looks like Portugal is out. Do you think they're planning to release more DLC civs? Because at this point Portugal and Sumeria would be the only ones I can see selling well if they include the Zulu civ now. I know some people on the board want Poland, but do you see that selling well enough to bother making?

Point is-- either they're saving Portugal/Zulu/Sumeria for future DLC and will be giving us bummer civs like HRE, Hungary, and Poland now, or they're giving us Sumeria/Zulu now, and aside from Portugal this is pretty much going to be it for civs that a broad audience will actually care about.

Another thought-- while they're obviously not rolling all the DLC in, it is possible that maybe they'll just throw Babylon into it. It's the only DLC civ without a scenario and it started as a pre-order bonus, so that could possibly end up taking up a slot.
 
cccv said:
Looking at this thread makes me think the rest of the civs are going to be a bummer. Zulu and Portugal are the only 2 civs left I'd care about, and it looks like Portugal is out. Do you think they're planning to release more DLC civs? Because at this point Portugal and Sumeria would be the only ones I can see selling well if they include the Zulu civ now. I know some people on the board want Poland, but do you see that selling well enough to bother making?

Point is-- either they're saving Portugal/Zulu/Sumeria for future DLC and will be giving us bummer civs like HRE, Hungary, and Poland now, or they're giving us Sumeria/Zulu now, and aside from Portugal this is pretty much going to be it for civs that a broad audience will actually care about.

Another thought-- while they're obviously not rolling all the DLC in, it is possible that maybe they'll just throw Babylon into it. It's the only DLC civ without a scenario and it started as a pre-order bonus, so that could possibly end up taking up a slot.
Click to expand...

Pff, I don't want to get nationalistic at all, but Hungary and Poland bummer civs???
Maybe for you :p
Actually they are at least as popular as your choices or some of the already known dlc and expansion civs
Not the mention that they are historically way more important than the Zulus and many other already included civs
 
But if we want a Horseman culture in North America, why not go with the Comanche who actually established an empire of sorts?

Instead of the overdone Sioux who are only romanticized and except for a few battles were never as significant as other cultures.

Navajo, Pueblo/Anasazi, (I am glad the Iroquois got in, rarely discussed but a good civ choice), Apache, Illinois, Seminole, etc. would be better choices. In North America. And if you really wanted a horseman/plains culture the Comanche did have a fairly extensive nation for a period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Henri Christophe
The Mongol conquest
Replies
5
Views
1K
lerrocco
L
J
Please help, I can't ever get past the industrial era on immortal.
Replies
6
Views
1K
martindo
M
T
Permanent ally for city-states
Replies
6
Views
733
myclan
myclan
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
Hinin
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (6-70) Add New City-States When Major Civs Are Absent Ingame
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Recursive
Recursive
Top Bottom