Speculations about 2 civs in the first DLC

wapamingo said:

I have a question: are civs from DLC playable in MP games where the other player does not have said civ?

Click to expand...

It was already discussed - yes, they should be.

Thank you

So that means that their contents (i.e. unit graphics, and so on) are already included or are downloaded when MP games start.

That would make it very easy for someone to "enable" the civ??

wapamingo said:

(1) Mongols
(2) Spanish
--

I have a question: are civs from DLC playable in MP games where the other player does not have said civ?

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any problem about that.It's unlikely that they would split community with DLCs. Other games also make it possible like Dawn of War 2 where you can play with people playing a faction you can't play.

While I myself am Dutch, I don't think the Netherlands will be in as a civilization. To be true, the Dutch didn't have as much influence on the world as for example the Spanish or the mongols. I would much rather see Amsterdam as a maritime city-state

The problem with the Mongols, I think, is that they really weren't settled for the biggest part of human history, but only captured other people's cities and ruled them/mingled with them (which could also be said, to a lesser extent, about the Magyar or the Turkish). If the whole barbarian thing is well worked out, that could make for an interesting Siberia on a world map.

I would say, empires like the Timurid or the Mughal who are both in a way Mongol, but both turned into other empires that are already covered by Civilization 5 (the Persian empire evolved from the ashes of the Timurid empire and the Mughal empire later became known as the Sultanate of Delhi, which is in India).

Too bad India and China are already in the game. The many factions that vied over control in these area's are bundled into the names we use for them today. Otherwise, you could've had Manchuria, Vijayanagar, Liao, Rajput, Maratha etc.

My guess is:
1) The Spanish (they had a big impact on the world as they captured a huge overseas empire in which their influence is still visible today).
2) The Inca (while they didn't influence the world as much as the other Civs, they did exist in a place that's under-represented in Civ)

I guess they'll release more than only the 2 civs as DLC, probably 6 or 8, but that's only my guess.


To add here: Vikings, Korea.
Vikings have already been discussed and Korea...well...this civ will sure sell great in south korea.

The_J said:

I guess they'll release more than only the 2 civs as DLC, probably 6 or 8, but that's only my guess.


To add here: Vikings, Korea.
Vikings have already been discussed and Korea...well...this civ will sure sell great in south korea.

Click to expand...

Good point. Therefore, Korea would better suit in a (more expensive than a DLC) extension disc.
I agree with the 6-8 civs available by future DLCs. I only hope they won't make a poll on the official website asking "What 2 civs do you want to be included in the incoming DLC ?" or some nonsense like that.
And I hope as well every released civ will be available in extensions (which contradicts my first point btw.)

EDIT : oh and, I'd like having Spain and Mongolia in the first DLC. They should have been included in the first place, but whatever. Business is business.

CTH said:

I would like to see Vikings (well Scandinavia), partly because they were an important part of history but perhaps even more because everyone knows about the vikings as historical characters (even if a lot of the "known" "facts" are wrong).

Click to expand...

Seems like inclusion of Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki means we shouldn't expect Vikings

theis81 said:

Seems like inclusion of Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki means we shouldn't expect Vikings

Click to expand...

I thought so too, but then someone observed that those four capitals weren't important viking cities, so their inclusion as city state shouldn't be seen as an indication that vikings are out. For e.g. Amsterdam it's much more logical that they didn't include A'dam as city state since they need that as capital for the Dutch civ. Otoh that makes one wonder about Korea ...

I'd love to see the UU/UB/SA of the Mongols. Most likely, a Keshik that's actually modeled on historical Keshiks (unstoppable force on open land, not forest warriors!) and a heavily military/expansionist SA.

If they wanted to add a civ to the game that already has city states in the game, they'd merely remove those as city states. It's not like they're anything more than just NAME-MARITIME-IRRATIONAL.

Mongolia and Spain are my top two picks for civs that need to be added, but they don't go well in a scenario pack. Genghis absolutely has to be in the game given how many asians can trace lineage back to him.

In a way, its a shame.
I'd really hoped that city states would be less generic - that allying with them might for example let you get a specific UU or UB.

Geneva could give Swiss Pikemen, Genoa with Genovesee crossbows, Jerusalem with crusaders, Almaty with Kazakh horsemen, Edinburgh with Highlanders, Venice with war galleys, Singapore with trade freighters, Monaco with a racetrack, etc.

Maybe this in a mod?

This DLC better be cheap. After buying a game at the full price of $59.99 or whatever, the last thing I feel like doing is shelling out $9.99 for a handful of civs and maps.

D2D Says '2 civilizations and one scenario' for the first DLC. So if we go by the assumption that each DLC will have two civs based around the Cradle of Civilization maps that have been announced:
Map - Civ Possibilities
America - Inca, Maya, Spanish (for conquistadors)
Medditerranian - Carthage, Spainish, Babylon
Asia - Mongol, Korea, Khmer
Mesapotamia - Babylon, Sumeria (Strong relationship with city-states), Assyria

Pouakai said:

D2D Says '2 civilizations and one scenario' for the first DLC. So if we go by the assumption that each DLC will have two civs based around the Cradle of Civilization maps that have been announced

Click to expand...

The weak point in this logic is:
DLC scenario = Cradle of Civilization map
There are no evidences here and they even use the different name.

But this still could be possible.

But my main point is the two civilizations will be based in the area the scenario focuses in

In my opinion, based on what we know (Asia/Americas/Mediterranean) and a really glaring city-state omission, I'd say that Carthage is very likely. I'm also pretty certain that Mongolia will be in there for the above reasons. I'd also like to see both the Incas and Mayans, but I don't think we'll see both released at the same time. Just seems to me like they deserve the slot more than the omnipresent Aztecs.

neev said:

Good point. Therefore, Korea would better suit in a (more expensive than a DLC) extension disc.
I agree with the 6-8 civs available by future DLCs. I only hope they won't make a poll on the official website asking "What 2 civs do you want to be included in the incoming DLC ?" or some nonsense like that.
And I hope as well every released civ will be available in extensions (which contradicts my first point btw.)

EDIT : oh and, I'd like having Spain and Mongolia in the first DLC. They should have been included in the first place, but whatever. Business is business.

Click to expand...

Seoul is already a city-state in vanilla Civilization V. While I'd like to see Korea added to the game as playable, I don't think they're a priority... though Korean gamers would love to see their homeland represented, as you stated, and so the expansion would sell rapidly there. Honestly, the two most egregiously missing Civilizations are Spain and Mongolia, and therefore I would hope that both of them would be added. Spain would round out Western Europe quite nicely. We already have England, France, and Germany, so a fourth power would be ideal for them. Also, the inclusion of Spain would allow the player to experience a rivalry between the three biggest colonial powers of the Old World (Britain, Spain, and France) which would entertain all the big European History buffs. On the other hand, the Mongols are iconic as a power and traditional to the Civilization series. It would make sense for these classic warmongers to take the stage in Civilization V, so that Montezuma and Asika can have a belligerent buddy to add to their ranks of aggressive nations.

That said, I think that the Koreans and either the Incans or the Mayans are in a good position to take the stage as major players in Civilization V. In addition to previously stated reasons, the Koreans would round out the Asian nation roster (now, we'd have China, Japan, Korea, and Siam). On the other hand, the Aztecs are awfully lonely in South America, and I think that the Incans would make a great addition to the roster, more so than the Mayans. This choice of the Incans over the Mayans stems mostly from the superior architecture and infrastructure (as well as greater size) of the Inca Empire compare to that of the Mayas. While the Mayas still achieved many things in their time, the Incas are more deserving of the position in the game.

On another note, while I am a lover of antiquity, I don't want any more classically based nations in the game. Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome are enough, and all other added nations (except for Phoenicia) would just be insignificant regional powers like Carthage or Etruria, or the Aedui, or the Suebi.

I think it will be Mongolia and the Inca. There were rumblings in the preview about Genghis Khan and Quechua language, which is indicative of some work in those civs direction.

Carthage as an "insignificant regional power" is certainly debatable.

ShaqFu said:

I'd love to see the UU/UB/SA of the Mongols. Most likely, a Keshik that's actually modeled on historical Keshiks (unstoppable force on open land, not forest warriors!) and a heavily military/expansionist SA.

Click to expand...

If they were based on historical Keshiks, you'd likely only be able to build one.

Also, they're not forest warriors; the ability to ignore movement costs allows the Keshiks to conquer lots of territory, very fast (more or less like what actually happened). So, besides the name, they are decent representations of actual Mongol armies IMO.

Back on topic: Inca AND/OR Spain AND/OR Mongols. All three are missing from the lineup, and pretty influential/powerful /representative historically.