New DLC anytime soon?

Jatta Pake · Dec 21, 2012

I think Civ is far too civilization-centric. What about the tribal nomad peoples who never practiced agriculture, transmitted knowledge through oral traditions, and lived savage, short, and brutal lives?

The Huns and Mongols were never a civilization. They were brutal conquerors who later adopted the civilization of their conquered subjects. The Yuan Dynasty was Mongol but had nothing in common with their Mongol ancestors from the steppe. Charlemagne was a Frankish ruler of Germanic tribal descent but he had more in common with the ancient Romans than his tribal brothers, the Saxons.

Rather than starting with a Settler, the Huns, Mongols, Germans, etc should start with a Barbarian camp that can move. Production should be limited to mostly military units, and the tech tree should be limited and unique to the tribal people allowing for some science, culture, and faith advancement. Conquering other AI Barbarian camps should not dispel the camp but allow the Huns or Mongols to utilize it like an extra movable city.

Conquered cities can only be puppeted. However, as soon as a puppeted city is annexed by the player, the player becomes a full fledged civilization. The tribal camps and units then all become AI barbarians for the new civilization to wipe out.

If AI Barbarians take a city, it should launch a new AI Civ.

shaglio · Dec 21, 2012

Menzies said:
Okay, let's start with definitions. What are we calling Asia, and what is Asian centric? Well, if you are lumping everything that is part of Asia as "Asia" in this case, ignoring any definitions of the Middle East (which generally includes parts of North Africa) and blurring the lines of Europe and Asia (which are poorly defined anyhow as they are the same continent), then yes, the following can be considered "Asian":

Japan
China
Korea
Mongolia
Siam
India
Babylonians
Ottomans - Depends on definition
Persians
Arabs
Byzantines

As well as, depending on definition, the Huns. The following however cannot:
Russia
Greeks
Romans

The Greeks are most certainly European, regardless of what territory they held for what time in Asia. The same can be said of Rome and Russia. The reason being is that by the same loose definition you could define England as North American, African, Asian, Oceanian, South American and pretty much everything else, Rome would also be African as well... But I guess you didn't directly include them, so that's something.

Now, if you are to define Asia as the entirety of the continent that is Asia, suddenly things become very different. Asia to many people refers to East Asia and less commonly everything in the continent Asia that is not considered Middle Eastern. If you do define Asia as the whole continent, and there is nothing wrong with that, then the list you presented is a pathetically short list barely covering the vast number of Civilizations that has covered the largest continent that people has inhabited. Considering the shear number of people, the Empires and the fact that it was the birthplace of what would become Western Civilization, only having 11 in comparison to 14 for Europe, effectively the baby brother of what you have defined as Asia. So no, even with that, there is nothing "Asia-centric" about the game still, maybe even light on all things considered.

Personally I rather break the lists up into better bins than just that though. So let's try a different set of definitions:

Europe:
1. Austria
2. Byzantium
3. Celts
4. Denmark
5. England
6. France
7. Germany
8. Greece
9. Huns
10. Netherlands
11. Rome
12. Russia
13. Spain
14. Sweden

Middle East:

1. Arabia
2. Babylon
3. Ottomans
4. Persia

North Africa:

1. Carthage
2. Egypt

Sub Saharan Africa:

1. Ethiopia
2. Songhai

North America (excluding central America):

1. America (United States)
2. Iroquois

South and Central America:

1. Aztecs
2. Incans
3. Mayans

The subcontinent:

1. India

East Asia:

1. China
2. Japan
3. Korea
4. Mongolia
5. Siam

Pacific:

1. Polynesia

Of these, the ones that stick out as under represented are:

1. Sub Saharan Africa
2. East Asia
3. Middle East

This is based on the size of the regions and the historical civilizations that are currently overlooked.

Herein lays the problem: I was referring to Asia the continent. Thus by my definition, the Middle East, the Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, the Central Steppes, and Asia Minor would all be included. I half-heartedly included the Romans because of their territory in the Middle East, the Greeks because their territory extended into the Bactria region in Central Asia, the Huns because some people believe they originated from the Central Steppes or the Mongolia area, and Russia because their modern day territory extends all the way to Kamchatka in North East Asia. I couldnt remember if Egypts territory extending into the Israel/Lebanon region. But the other 11 I mentioned all have their capitals and the majority of their territory on the Asian continent.

I was basically using the maps that pop up in the background during the loading screen, which only shows England as the British Isles, not the various colonies all over the planet. I know those arent the most accurate representation of each civs territorial extent (America only has the thirteen colonies if I remember correctly), but I have to make a demarcation somewhere to make thing somewhat less arbitrary. I am at work right now, so I dont have access to the maps, Im just going by my faulty memory(I forget how far into Asia Russia goes on their map).

I was, by no means, arguing that Civ 5 is Asia-centric. I was merely showing that there is a decent representation from Asia depending how you separate the areas of the world. 11 out of 34 civs isnt too shabby.

Menzies · Dec 21, 2012

tnick777 said:
You say those are under represented? Culturally Carthage is Middle Eastern though. Phoenician actually. Their UA is definitely (and quite obviously) derivative of the Phoenicians.

What else would you need for East Asia/South East Asia? Japan, China, India, Korea, and Siam are all represented...

Sub-Sahara I agree on... Zulu, Nubians, or Benin should be represented.

Again we go back to more Native North American representation.

Oh and to cite my source for the 120 mil mark it's this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#cite_note-1

But I accidentally used the 120 million statistic from this

http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/

Where it was cited even higher in another study at 120 million... I will find it if you are interested.

Cheers

The 50 million figure is for all of the Americas, not the Native Americans of the United States and Canada, which is what we are discussion. The likely figure for them is below 10 million. The most largest groups of the Americas have already been included (the Aztecs, Incans and Mayans).

Also, as mentioned earlier in the post, North Africa is sometimes grouped in with the Middle East, here however I put it separately.

As for East Asia, the big three are:

Khmer
Tibet
Indonesia (or equivalent)

But Tibet won't be included for obvious reasons.

Menzies · Dec 21, 2012

shaglio said:
Herein lays the problem: I was referring to Asia the continent. Thus by my definition, the Middle East, the Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, the Central Steppes, and Asia Minor would all be included. I half-heartedly included the Romans because of their territory in the Middle East, the Greeks because their territory extended into the Bactria region in Central Asia, the Huns because some people believe they originated from the Central Steppes or the Mongolia area, and Russia because their modern day territory extends all the way to Kamchatka in North East Asia. I couldnt remember if Egypts territory extending into the Israel/Lebanon region. But the other 11 I mentioned all have their capitals and the majority of their territory on the Asian continent.

I was basically using the maps that pop up in the background during the loading screen, which only shows England as the British Isles, not the various colonies all over the planet. I know those arent the most accurate representation of each civs territorial extent (America only has the thirteen colonies if I remember correctly), but I have to make a demarcation somewhere to make thing somewhat less arbitrary. I am at work right now, so I dont have access to the maps, Im just going by my faulty memory(I forget how far into Asia Russia goes on their map).

I was, by no means, arguing that Civ 5 is Asia-centric. I was merely showing that there is a decent representation from Asia depending how you separate the areas of the world. 11 out of 34 civs isnt too shabby.

I don't get the point of mentioning those who had territory in Asia at one point or another, especially as that argument could work for any number of civilizations, but that doesn't give any representation to Asia.

As I said, I was referring to East Asia in terms of being under-represented, however, for the significance of the Middle East, it is also still under-represented. That said, I'm sure in the expansion that is almost certainly coming next year they'll probably have a few civilizations from the area, but we'll see.

Browd · Dec 21, 2012

Perhaps I should have said Antarctic-centric, or balto-slavic-centric, or playing-in-my-backyard-centric. My point was that no matter what civs appear in a DLC someone will take that as proof of some bias intended to slight other cultures and countries. The only bias I think you will ever detect is a bias in favor of civs that will help sell more copies of CiV. Period. It's a business, not an educational institution.

seancolorado · Dec 21, 2012

Menzies said:
The 50 million figure is for all of the Americas, not the Native Americans of the United States and Canada, which is what we are discussion. The likely figure for them is below 10 million. The most largest groups of the Americas have already been included (the Aztecs, Incans and Mayans).

Also, as mentioned earlier in the post, North Africa is sometimes grouped in with the Middle East, here however I put it separately.

As for East Asia, the big three are:

Khmer
Tibet
Indonesia (or equivalent)

But Tibet won't be included for obvious reasons.

You would refer to Khmer and Indonesian (or equivalent) empires as "Southeast Asia" which is a very different culture from East Asia

VenGyr · Dec 21, 2012

I would just be happy with a yes/no answer to the following question from firaxis: Will there be any more DLC/expansions released for CiV V?

Considering what was released for civ iv, i'm sadly doubtful anything more will be released for civ v.

tnick777 · Dec 21, 2012

VenGyr said:
I would just be happy with a yes/no answer to the following question from firaxis: Will there be any more DLC/expansions released for CiV V?

Considering what was released for civ iv, i'm sadly doubtful anything more will be released for civ v.

I doubt they'll leave us hanging until 2014/15...

AbsintheRed · Dec 21, 2012

VenGyr said:
I would just be happy with a yes/no answer to the following question from firaxis: Will there be any more DLC/expansions released for CiV V?

Considering what was released for civ iv, i'm sadly doubtful anything more will be released for civ v.

I'm fairly sure there will be a second expansion, and that's the reason for Firaxis' another quiet period
It was the same before GK was announced
After that there is a good chance for a couple more DLCs too

aznin · Dec 21, 2012

Jatta Pake said:
I think Civ is far too civilization-centric.

You make an excellent point in the rest of your message, but that lead-off sentence may be my favorite thing I've ever seen on this forum.

lolno · Dec 21, 2012

Browd said:
Perhaps I should have said Antarctic-centric, or balto-slavic-centric, or playing-in-my-backyard-centric. My point was that no matter what civs appear in a DLC someone will take that as proof of some bias intended to slight other cultures and countries. The only bias I think you will ever detect is a bias in favor of civs that will help sell more copies of CiV. Period. It's a business, not an educational institution.

Europe is in no way equivalent to "Asia" - in historic weight or otherwise. The fact that we're even using such an utterly ******ed, worthless geographic catch-all to describe the civilizations of 2/3rds of humanity proves a point in and of itself.

Matthew. · Dec 21, 2012

Thinking about it more, Gods and Kings was quite heavy on the European civs. There was a decent spread in vanilla, but not so much in G&K.

I'd like to see the Nubians.

Menzies · Dec 21, 2012

tnick777 said:
I doubt they'll leave us hanging until 2014/15...

I speculate about an expansion that would be announced in February or March this coming year. This was based on the lack of DLC and general action reminiscent of the what we saw before Gods & Kings was announced as well as the general release patterns for both Civ IV and V.

seancolorado said:
You would refer to Khmer and Indonesian (or equivalent) empires as "Southeast Asia" which is a very different culture from East Asia

Actually, they are very closely linked historically and there is honestly little point in splitting them up. If I were to do this I'd have to start breaking Europe up into chunks as well.

seancolorado · Dec 22, 2012

Menzies said:
Actually, they are very closely linked historically and there is honestly little point in splitting them up. If I were to do this I'd have to start breaking Europe up into chunks as well.

Linked historically but less so culturally. I say this because I've worked in both Beijing and Jakarta and nobody ever referred to Indonesia as part of East Asia there. It's Southeast Asia. (And, not trying to counter everything you say on purpose or anything, but people do break up Europe into chunks)

Kwami · Dec 22, 2012

seancolorado said:
Linked historically but less so culturally. I say this because I've worked in both Beijing and Jakarta and nobody ever referred to Indonesia as part of East Asia there. It's Southeast Asia. (And, not trying to counter everything you say on purpose or anything, but people do break up Europe into chunks)

Indeed, the Asian split remains today, too. For example, ASEAN does not include Korea, China, or Japan. Europe is always broken into multiple chunks (e.g. Western Europe, Eastern Europe).

But this is all silly. Firaxis is going to include whichever civilizations they want to include. Whether they base their decisions on money, flavor, or just personal preference isn't clear and I don't think that they're going to enlighten us any time soon. I seriously doubt that they decide based on who is "under represented" according to the regional divides that CFC forum posters define.

If we get DLC, then great. If not, then there's always the community-made content.

seancolorado · Dec 22, 2012

Kwami said:
Indeed, the Asian split remains today, too. For example, ASEAN does not include Korea, China, or Japan. Europe is always broken into multiple chunks (e.g. Western Europe, Eastern Europe).

But this is all silly. Firaxis is going to include whichever civilizations they want to include. Whether they base their decisions on money, flavor, or just personal preference isn't clear and I don't think that they're going to enlighten us any time soon. I seriously doubt that they decide based on who is "under represented" according to the regional divides that CFC forum posters define.

If we get DLC, then great. If not, then there's always the community-made content.

Yeah I agree, wasn't trying to make a point about who to include just now other than that the geographical separation is very much alive in real life

You mentioned ASEAN, just in case nobody knows what that is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations

Menzies · Dec 22, 2012

seancolorado said:
Linked historically but less so culturally. I say this because I've worked in both Beijing and Jakarta and nobody ever referred to Indonesia as part of East Asia there. It's Southeast Asia. (And, not trying to counter everything you say on purpose or anything, but people do break up Europe into chunks)

Yes, they are linked less so culturally, but I was attempting to not break the World into a million itty bitty pieces. Maybe I should:

Central Europe:
1. Austria
2. Celts
3. Germany

Great Britain:
1. England

Mediterranean:
1. Greece
2. Carthage
3. Rome

Eastern Europe
1. Russia

Scandinavia:
1. Denmark
2. Sweden

Western Europe:
1. Spain
2. Netherlands
3. France

Arabian Peninsula:
1. Arabia

Mesopotamia:
1. Babylon

Anatolia:
1. Ottomans
2. Byzantium

Iranian plateau:
1. Persia

North Africa:
1. Egypt

East Africa:
1. Ethiopia

West Africa:
1. Songhai

North America:
1. America (United States)
2. Iroquois

Central America:
1. Aztecs
2. Mayans

South America:
1. Incans

The subcontinent:
1. India

East Asia:
1. China
2. Japan
3. Korea

The Steppes:
1. Mongolia
2. The Huns (arguably)

South East Asia:
1. Siam

Pacific:
1. Polynesia

Hopefully no Civilizations got lost in that.

civ54lyfe · Dec 22, 2012

Jatta Pake said:
I think Civ is far too civilization-centric. What about the tribal nomad peoples who never practiced agriculture, transmitted knowledge through oral traditions, and lived savage, short, and brutal lives?

The Huns and Mongols were never a civilization. They were brutal conquerors who later adopted the civilization of their conquered subjects. The Yuan Dynasty was Mongol but had nothing in common with their Mongol ancestors from the steppe. Charlemagne was a Frankish ruler of Germanic tribal descent but he had more in common with the ancient Romans than his tribal brothers, the Saxons.

Rather than starting with a Settler, the Huns, Mongols, Germans, etc should start with a Barbarian camp that can move. Production should be limited to mostly military units, and the tech tree should be limited and unique to the tribal people allowing for some science, culture, and faith advancement. Conquering other AI Barbarian camps should not dispel the camp but allow the Huns or Mongols to utilize it like an extra movable city.

Conquered cities can only be puppeted. However, as soon as a puppeted city is annexed by the player, the player becomes a full fledged civilization. The tribal camps and units then all become AI barbarians for the new civilization to wipe out.

If AI Barbarians take a city, it should launch a new AI Civ.

Epic idea of 2012! +1

seancolorado · Dec 22, 2012

Menzies said:
Yes, they are linked less so culturally, but I was attempting to not break the World into a million itty bitty pieces. Maybe I should:

Not sure if you intended to but you pretty much just proved that civilization is not anything-centric. +1 for logic. Actually, you could argue breaking it down that way is just the same as listing them individually. I definitely think empires should only be based on their individual prowess.

Actually, if anything I'm hopeful for a next expansion because I expect we'll get a curveball of a civ that nobody predicted in addition to some expected classics

Arachnofiend · Dec 22, 2012

Menzies said:
snip

Minor nitpick, but wouldn't the Celts go in Great Britain? I understand that they were all over Europe but considering their leader and city names it would seem the Civ Celts are intended to represent the British ones.

New DLC anytime soon?

Warlord

The Prince of Dorkness

Menzies

Menzies

Dilettante

Deity

Chieftain

Warlord

Deity

Chieftain

Warlord

Deity

Menzies

Deity

Deity

Deity

Menzies

Prince

Deity

Perturbed Pugilist

Similar threads