Guess the New Civs

I pointed this out in the original post, but edited it to make it more clear. Portugal is very unlikely to be included in this expansion.
 
I'd also point out that Israel is far more important retrospectively than it was at the time. It's important for its religious influence for others. However, it was one of many small Kingdoms in the area and certainly paled in comparison to the giants like Egypt, Hatti, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia, and it also took a backseat to Phoenicia. In terms of comparable states, Phrygia, Elam, and Urartu are in the same area.

However, it's lasting impact is far, far greater. In that sense, I've always thought it worth a mention. But a city-state might be a fair compromise.

I disagree with this. I think the whole point of a culture being in as a civilisation is that it's unique, and Israel/the Jews - particularly referring to the BC's state - definitely fit that, especially considering how completely different the surrounding area has always been in culture. That said, Jerusalem as a religious CS also fits pretty well.
 
Oh, I won't disagree with that. I'm just trying to make sure there's also some perspective of its influence at the time (they were a mid-level state that was a vassal of the Assyrians and probably the Egyptians before being conquered by the Babylonians). They actually did share a lot in common with their Canaanite neighbors, but it's cool because their archaeological sites are easily identifiable due to lack of pig bones. Plus, even when they were subjects of other powers, you get the impression the other powers had to take into account that they were unique and could not just be treated like every other neighbor. The switch from Patron God to Only God set them apart.
 
Fair enough.
 
Honestly, they're top on my list for a Civ I want to mod provided I can convince people to be nice and make the units and program the UA (once the dll code is released unless I think of a new one thanks to religion). Although, with the flexibility of a mod, I'd probably include modern Israel as well with a UU (because they have a cool Tank). One reason I'd want to mod them is because finding a modern speaker of Hebrew is a lot easier than a speaker of Urartian (actually, I don't know what the people of Urartu spoke, maybe Hurian).
 
Portugal is very unlikely to be included in this expansion.

Of all the European Civs you could have why Portugal of all places?
Why not Austria, Scotland or Sweden? Or maybe some Eastern European ones like Poland
or the Ukraine?
 
Portugal probably because it was very strong economically and had a colonial empire with global reach. The Hapsburgs were great and I think deserve consideration, but there is a thought of two civs that literally speak the same language leading to loss of diversity.

Sweden and Poland (as in Poland-Lithuania) are roughly on par with each other. They had a golden age of success, but were never the best of the best at the time (I suppose Portugal falls in this category too).

Scotland really isn't in the same league. Maybe from an Anglocentric viewpoint, but Burgundy is probably just as important as Scotland. Plus, they can be included in the Celts.
 
Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing all of the above in the game.
Scotland deserves to be in the game due to their influence
but I think they'll just be lumped in with the Celts. Thats ok
with me I suppose. Austria really should be in this game though.
Its earned its place. I want to play as the holy roman empire
and as Charlemagne beating back the pagans. Call it a weakness.
 
If the Scots are lumped in anywhere it is with the English surely?
 
I think that if we are expecting a new African Civ, it should be Aksum. It would fit nicely in with the Roman fall scenario because Aksum and Rome had weekly trades between the two.
 
If the Scots are lumped in anywhere it is with the English surely?

Somewhere, William Wallace is turning over in his grave.

Granted, he's turning over in four separate pieces, but still.
 
I don't say that with malice, It is just that the Scottish have never been quite linked with the Celts like the Irish and Welsh have, and if England is representing Britain at the peak of it's empire then Scots have a lot to do with that power. I would totally be for renaming the England Britain.
 
Well, they are a Celtic people. Modern Gaelic that is spoken in places in Ireland as Scottish routes as well.
 
But Scots is a more common language, which is a Germanic language and just about understandable to an English speaker ;)
 
While the danish vikings went around plundering and raping the coast of western Europe, the swedish vikings went east and focused more on trade (slaves, fur etc) and they also founded what would later become Russia. In the 17th century Sweden dominated northern Europe, making the baltic sea its mare nostrum and its armies went out on campaigns that put a fear in the germans that can still be traced today. In modern history it has held one of the biggest armies of the world during the cold war, and even though its territory is much smaller today and its population is a just over 9 million its diplomatic importance during the cold war was far greater than countries many times its size. Even though the most recent decades has meant a much more puppet-like status, with the country joining the EU and directing its foreign policy to be much more in sync with american imperialist interests, there is no doubt that Sweden holds a place as a civ in CiV, where much lesser countries are represented. If Denmark is a civ, Sweden just has to be as well. Or else it would be like making Pakistan a civ instead of India. Nuff said! "Med plutonium tvingar vi dansken på knä!":)
 
No way. Even I don't think that's right, and I'm an on-and-off patriot.
 
Top Bottom