Guess the New Civs

nokmirt said:

I'd pick Ancona instead. Ancona and Ragusa stood against Venice. Either that make Ancona into a maritme City State.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been to Ancona? It's like Newark, ugggh...

A couple of ideas from me for the final G&K civ.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I don't think they are going to consider region-representation when picking civs. It's about recognition and playstyle. So getting some obscure tribe from the jungles or mountains of Africa or South America isn't going to drive sales unless they can do something really spectacular for playstyle.

The Zulu. Lot's of recognition here. The problem is that there are already plenty of warmongers and one new one already being added in G&K. I see a low probability.

North American tribes: take your pick. Many are well known to Americans, although nomadic plains tribes are less likely to be in the game due to the playstyle being well-represented by Huns and Mongols. Cherokee might ring too similar to the Iroquois. The Apache might be too warmongering. I'd say the most likely NA tribe to be represented is the Navajo. The Mississippians and Anazazi are too easily overlooked.

Brazil would be a fine choice. They have long been a strong regional power with good recognition. There are a lot of possibilities for playstyle from them.

Tibet has a lot of name recognition in the Western World and there is room for an Eastern-style religion-oriented playstyle. One potential downside is that if Civ V is sold in China, the Chinese government may ban the game due to representations of an independent Tibet.

Vietnam is one that may be included by virtue of its name recognition. It also lends itself to jungle/marsh benefits (from a UA or UTI) and an Industrial Era UU, which is a unique combination.

Navajo????
All I know is that their language is related to the Apachean languages. Did they resist American settlement on their lands?

I'm going to blow everyone's mind. It's going to be a Pacific North West indigenous Civ. Chinook, maybe.

Special Building: Totem Poles.
Special Units: Canoe.
Special Ability: Potlatch.

j51 said:

Have you ever been to Ancona? It's like Newark, ugggh...

Click to expand...

Which does not surprise me. And no have never been to the old country yet.

D0MIN1C said:

What in the Heaven, what in the Earth? Who is your mother, where is your church?

Click to expand...

Ok did I miss something here, do you no like your own country? I suppose that would not surpise me either. In universal language back at you!

facepalm is what happens when someone does something kinda stupid or embarrassing, and you just want to cover your face with your palm and sigh out loud. In case anyone is wondering. Wars have been fought over less bellicose comments. There no language to worry about now. Sorry for posting the word "I can't say" on an image. I did not see it there. My fault won't happen again.

Enough wasted time back on tpoic. I still feel Croatia and or Dalmatia would be an interesting addition to civ. Of course they probably have no chance of getting in, but they did play a role in the renaissance, and the medieval era.

Guandao said:

Navajo????
All I know is that their language is related to the Apachean languages. Did they resist American settlement on their lands?

Click to expand...

They were sheep herders, then the U.S. military built Fort Defiance, the Navajo's sheep were competing with the U.S. military's cattle so they made them leave for a reservation. The reservation was so terrible the U.S. dissolved it and let the Navajo go back to their original land, and they actually got one of the larger reservations. Then they were instrumental in WWII with the Navajo code that the Japanese couldn't crack.

nokmirt said:

Which does not surprise me. And no have never been to the old country yet.

Ok did I miss something here, do you no like your own country? I suppose that would not surpise me either. In universal language back at you!

facepalm is what happens when someone does something kinda stupid or embarrassing, and you just want to cover your face with your palm and sigh out loud. In case anyone is wondering. Wars have been fought over less bellicose comments. There no language to worry about now. Sorry for posting the word "I can't say" on an image. I did not see it there. My fault won't happen again.

Enough wasted time back on tpoic. I still feel Croatia and or Dalmatia would be an interesting addition to civ. Of course they probably have no chance of getting in, but they did play a role in the renaissance, and the medieval era.

Click to expand...

Croatia was under Hungary and later on under Austria in a total from 1102 to 1918. Dalmatia? What in the Heaven, that's just a part of Croatia that happened to be under Venice for some time. The only free part of Croatia (which is disputable if it was Croatian at all, as there is really no strong evidence of that either) was the Republic of Ragusa. And after all, Croatia is a small country! Just had to throw a face-grenade in there, had to...
But yes, I do love my country, but its not really a world changing civilization. How did you even come to the idea?? LOL! XD

D0MIN1C said:

How did you even come to the idea?? LOL! XD

Click to expand...

I can't find it now, but I researched what countries and kingdoms existed in 1000 AD and Croatia came up as one of them. It was a far fetched idea to begin with. I was trying to figure out if there is a possible civ missing from Beach's scenario that could possibly be the ninth civ.

Wait here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Middle_Ages_by_country

I wonder if he would have added the Papal States to the scenario. The Papal States vs. The Protestants are a central theme in his board game, as it should be. So I feel he would not deviate from this thinking in his scenario. You can't replace the Papal States with the Rome civ, because its not the same. I feel he needs the Pope in there during this time period. How can you have the Middle Ages without the Papal States, and the influence of the clergy. IDK this is driving me up the wall. Ed Beach has something up his sleeve I just know it.

chaotoroboto said:

I'm going to blow everyone's mind. It's going to be a Pacific North West indigenous Civ. Chinook, maybe.

Special Building: Totem Poles.
Special Units: Canoe.
Special Ability: Potlatch.

Click to expand...

I was going to suggest the Haida, but both are similar. The Haida have been called the Vikings of the Pacific Northwest.

Really, here are the Native American civs I tend to think merit strong discussion:
Mississippians
Pueblos
Haida/Chinook/etc
Cherokee

All were sedentary with an organized social structure. They each bring something unique. And they weren't raider nomads like the Sioux, Apache, and Cheyenne.

Here's a ranking of the largest empires in history discarding redundancy or irrevelancy :

1 BRITISH* (1922)
2 MONGOL (1270)
3 RUSSIAN (1866)
4 SPANISH (1740)
5 CHINESE (1790/QING)(1310/YUAN)
6 FRENCH (1938)
7 ARABIAN (750)
8 PORTUGUESE (1815)
9 PERSIAN (-480)
10 BRAZILIAN (1880)
11 JAPANESE (1942)
12 ROMAN (117)
13 GERMAN (1942)
14 ARALIAN TURK (557/GOKTURK)(1405/TIMURID)
15 GREEK (-323)
16 ANATOLIAN TURK (1683/OTTOMAN)
17 INDIAN (-250/MAURYA)(1690/MUGHAL)
18 MEXICAN (1822)
19 TIBETAN (800)
20 HUNNIC (-176/XIONGNU)(441/HUNS)
21 ITALIAN (1940)
22 DUTCH (1940)
23 BYZANTINE (555)
24 MOORISH (1147/ALMORAVID)(1200/ALMOHAD)
25 KHAZARIC (850)
26 DANISH (1397)
27 INDONESIAN (1389/MAJAPAHIT)
28 MANDCHOURIAN (947/LIAO)(1126/JURCHEN)
29 BELGIAN (1914)
30 EGYPTIAN (1300/MAMLUK)(-1450/18th D)
31 INCA (1527)
32 ASSYRIAN (-670)
33 SONGHAI (1500)
34 MALIAN (1312)
35 ETHIOPIAN (350/AXUM)
36 SIAMESE (1782)
37 SWEDISH (1658)
38 POLISH (1619)
39 KHMER (1290)
40 KANEM (1200)
41 BURMESE (1800)
42 BABYLONIAN (-2250/AKKAD)(-562/NEO.BAB)
43 BULGARIAN (900)
44 KOREAN (476)
45 ARMENIAN (-83)
46 CARTHAGINIAN (-220)
47 AZTEC (1520)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
not ranked

91 AMERICAN
92 POLYNESIAN
93 CELTIC
94 AUSTRIAN
95 MAYA
96 IROQUOIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to be determined

97 HUNGARIAN
98 SUMERIAN
99 SIOUX
00 HITTITE
01 KONGO
02 ZULU
03 COLOMBIAN
04 BOLIVIAN
05 MISSISSIPIAN
06 GALLIC
07 INUIT
etc ...

1 to 47 : greater to lesser empire (dynastic succession & power shifts eliminated)
91 to 96 : known civs who never formed an empire - disputable (america, austria ...)
beyond 96 : expected civs
*assuming ENGLAND is the driving force behind the BRITISH empire
BOLDED is missing civs
UNDERLINED is current available civs

^ What's the basis of that ranking?

Did you count America at the height of its territorial extent (including the Philippines and the canal zone)? It's also worth counting areas they had dominant influence, meaning much of the Caribbean at a minimum (I'm trying to decide how to factor in Operation Gladio, West Germany, etc.).

Polynesian and Celts did not have a unified state. If you talk about ethnic coverage, the Celts have most of Europe (from Ireland to the Thrace). The Polynesians have the Pacific ocean, of course.

This

I know all that, Louis, but it's just a basis to reflect upon. I don't expect a Karkotan empire to see the light of civ inclusion soon.

The Khmer Empire was larger then Siam.
The Burmese Empire was larger at the time of Bayinnaung (1,300,000 km2)

Nice ranking. Just reinforces how wrong it is to exclude Portugal and Brazil. Especially Portugal.

No the table is a complete muddle of guesses and historic misunderstandings, and is useless even as a guide.

The "Hunnic Empire" is of completely unknown extent, and to all intents and purposes may have been no more than a temporary network of alliances among some Germanic and other tribes on the Danube.. Portugal's "empire" for instance, was widespread, but it wasn't particularly big. It looks massive if you factor in a billion acres of ungovernable rainforest of course, so basically what you are saying is that a civ becomes important if it can get a neighbour to acknoledge its formal sovereignty over an area it has no chance of ever ruling.

Pangur Bán;11410621 said:

No the table is a complete muddle of guesses and historic misunderstandings, and is useless even as a guide.

The "Hunnic Empire" is of completely unknown extent, and to all intents and purposes may have been no more than a temporary network of alliances among some Germanic and other tribes on the Danube.. Portugal's "empire" for instance, was widespread, but it wasn't particularly big. It looks massive if you factor in a billion acres of ungovernable rainforest of course, so basically what you are saying is that a civ becomes important if it can get a neighbour to acknoledge its formal sovereignty over an area it has no chance of ever ruling.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree

Anyway, the mostly missing civs for me:
Based mostly on historical importance, but heavily taken into account popularity and uniqueness too (and appearance in previous civ games to a little extent):
1. Sumer
2. Hungary
3. Poland
4. Hittite
5. Khmer
6. Phoenicia
7. Portugal
8. Kongo
9. Sweden
10. Morocco (representing mostly the Almohads/Almoravids, but Al-Andalus too)
11. Sioux
12. Indonesia (Majapahit or Srivijaya)
13. Khazars
14. Mali
15. Assyria
16. Zulu
17. Apache

Some of these are kinda close to one or more already released civs, but in those cases historical importance and popularity is dominant enough - at least for me
From these civs, quite a few are popular enough to be released as DLC:
Zulu, Sumer, Portugal+Kongo, Hungary+Poland (with a real medieval scenario), Sioux. I expect some of these will become availeable even in this year
Hopefully we will get most of the others in a second expansion

EDIT: I probably placed a little too up the Hittite, Phoenicia and Sweden
Anyway, the exact rank doesn't really matter that much

Pangur Bán;11410621 said:

Portugal's "empire" for instance, was widespread, but it wasn't particularly big. It looks massive if you factor in a billion acres of ungovernable rainforest of course, so basically what you are saying is that a civ becomes important if it can get a neighbour to acknoledge its formal sovereignty over an area it has no chance of ever ruling.

Click to expand...

That is not true, you clearly don't know Portugal's achievements. The land in the Americas that was supposed to be under Portuguese rule was much smaller than it eventually became, because the Portuguese explored the territory and settled in different areas that the Spanish did not go. Later on, they managed to acquire these new territories through negotiation based on the principle of "uti possidetis, ita possideatis" (who owns in fact should own by right). Quite early on, actually, the Portuguese already profited from extracting spices from the Amazon forest.

Portugal was the first to find the way to the Indias sailing around Africa, the first European country to get in contact with Japan, the first to sail around the world, and the first to have possessions in 4 different continents (Europe, America, Africa and Asia), at the time all of the ones known. In many ways, their deeds were more impressive than the Spanish, especially when you consider it was all done by a very small country with a population under 1 million.

Using size of territory claimed in Amazonia to make Portugal a top empire is like making any nation today a top empire for claiming the territory of Mars or the Moon.

No point about arguing having Portugal as the ninth civ. Lisbon is a city-state.

The dev team prolly couldn't make it unique in trait. It would be similar to Dutch and Carthage.