Civ V Civilizations Roster

The Sioux are not accurate.

1. The Sioux were not a civ. They were nomads without agriculture or architecture.
2. The word Sioux isn't even correct! It means "Snake" or "Foreigner"

The Pueblo or Mississippians would be way more accurate, but you never see people requesting them. You always see Poland this, Poland that...

I'm happy with England as a civilisation, but the last thing I want is Churchill as an "English" leader and the "English" insignia being the Union Flag. That's just sloppy.

calgacus said:

I wouldn't expect to get civs like the Celts, Vikings, Zulu and Mongols in the first game. There may be one or two of these, but the developers will see these civs as of second-tier importance, and will probably wish to use their popularity to sell expansion packs. At the same time, some civs are guaranteed. E.g. America, Russia, China, Japan, England (hopefully NOT "Britain"), Rome, Greece, Germany. These are guaranteed because of what educated unspecialised people of US cultural background believe to be "historically important", but also market reasons.

The Aztecs are there, but that wasn't gauaranteed. I hope the developers have realised that the Arabs are one of the most important civilizations in history and added them to the core, but the traditional western historical education marginalises them because of their location, culture and period of floruit (the understudied oriental middle ages).

I'm hoping we get the Sioux back. I don't think they are historically important or anything, I just want them in the game from nostalgia.

Click to expand...

I think this is being a little over cynical and overlooking series tradition.

The Aztecs for example were as close to a lock as you can get outside of the USA or Germany. They've been in every game of the series so far all the way back to Civ I. Why? Who knows. Sid likes them I guess. It should surprise no one they're in Civ V.

Likewise the Mongols and the Zulus are long times series fixtures dating back to the first game. The Mongols somehow missed the third game, but were immediately brought in for the first expansion and were included out of the box in Civ IV. I suspect the Zulus will get the same treatment. People have been cursing Shaka over their keyboards for 15 years now. I'd be at least a little surprised if he's not in the final cut. Leaders like Shaka and Gandhi are as much "characters" in the Civ series as Mario is in his series.

Well, Sid has to realize that the Zulus didn't really do a whole lot. Especially when compared to the Ethiopians or Malinese or Kongolese or Beninese or countless more deserving African nations.

There was nearly no complaining about the "Native American Empire" in BtS

Click to expand...

There was plenty, but it was all centred on the fact that it was just poorly named.
The Sioux were not nomadic. Parts were,

The Sioux are not accurate.

1. The Sioux were not a civ. They were nomads without agriculture or architecture.

Click to expand...

That is wrong. The Sioux are a very broad group, and some had settlements and agriculture and were not nearly as nomadic until the introduction of horses and later being pushed westward into the plains. Too many people equate the later Lakota with the entire history of the Sioux.

Huayna Capac357 said:

Well, Sid has to realize that the Zulus didn't really do a whole lot. Especially when compared to the Ethiopians or Malinese or Kongolese or Beninese or countless more deserving African nations.

Click to expand...

Of course he does.

And yet, here they are. He couldn't resist putting them back in with the first expansion.

Who knows why he chose them back in Civ I? The Civ Zulus have an identity all their own separate from the real Zulus at this point. They're a completely absurd choice. But he can't help sticking them in every game anyway. Like I said people have been cursing electronic Shakas for 15 years now, they'll probably be cursing him for another 15. Their real world importance is clearly just not relevant.

say1988 said:

There was plenty, but it was all centred on the fact that it was just poorly named.
The Sioux were not nomadic. Parts were,


That is wrong. The Sioux are a very broad group, and some had settlements and agriculture and were not nearly as nomadic until the introduction of horses and later being pushed westward into the plains. Too many people equate the later Lakota with the entire history of the Sioux.

Click to expand...

I am aware of that fact, but there were groups in North America that had actual cities and architecture and large-scale agriculture and armies and organized religions. These groups deserve to be in much more than the Sioux.

I'm fairly sure Shaka Zulu got in because the movie ZULU had recently come out. Seriously. The reason we want to smash our keyboards whenever Shaka attacks us is because of a poorly timed movie. I can think of some arguments why they would copy/paste the civs from Civ 4 onto Civ 5 tbh.

1. Everybody knows what to expect and less disappointment
2. It worked well, as far as I'm concerned
3. Without Montezuma and Shaka, who else is as lunatically dangerous? Alexander is a sane warmonger IMO, same with Caesar. The only other lunatic is Zara, as far as I can think atm.
4. #1, because almost all of those civs have fans that adhere to them. I still hope to see the Inca Empire, and with a leader more important than Huayna. Pachacutec and Tupac Yupanqui please!

EMT said:

I'm fairly sure Shaka Zulu got in because the movie ZULU had recently come out. Seriously.

Click to expand...

Most likely. Without that movie I don't know that most people would ever have heard of them.

Well, it wasn't exactly "recent", more like 30 years...

But yeah, I get your point. There hasn't been any movie about Mansa Musa or Menelik II that I can think of.

AlphaShard said:

Dude you know that last statement is completely not fair or accurate. There have always been plenty of non-white civs used from Civ I on up. Zulu, Mongolia, Egypt, China, Aztecs, and India have been in the series since the first game and are non-white. They've even added more over the years so saying their being prejudice is just wrong.

Click to expand...

1) You obviously didn't read what I wrote, or you just didn't understand it. Here, I'll post it again for you:

Lyoncet said:

For that matter, why all the "maybe Mongolia" opinions? It was the second largest empire in Earth's history (next to the British Empire's height and by a long shot the largest contiguous empire), sported a huge degree of diversity, essentially revolutionized military organization and strategy, implemented a progressive law code (for the time), and fielded one of the most notorious, feared, and skilled armies the world has ever seen.

Oh yeah they're not white. Silly me.

Click to expand...

As you can see, I was obviously talking about the posts on this board about "OK guys Civ 5 should be Denmark, France, Spain, England, USA, Germany, Russia, Portugal, Norway, Scotland, Canada, Australia, Austria-Hungary, Rome, Greece, Holy Rome, Byzantine, and maybe Mongolia." Obviously that's hyperbole, but hopefully it gets the point across.

2) You put the word "prejudiced" in my mouth. Which is completely inaccurate and frankly insulting.

3) Yes there are obviously non-white civs in Civilization (nice job distorting my post three times in 3 sentences). However if you want to take my post which was obviously directed at some posters here and make it about Firaxis, then this does not mean that the game is devoid of some serious ethnocentrism (I'd encourage you to look that word up since you don't seem to be able to tell it apart from prejudice). Example: Civ IV has Arabia as a single civ led by Saladin. By that same method, we should have Europe as a single civ, perhaps led by Stalin (just chose that because the names sound similar). Also, ever notice how many Wonders are American?

That's not to say that there's no justification in having more American wonders than, say, Babylonian wonders, or that there should be an equal number of Native American and European civs. But the skew goes well beyond historical relevance.

Sorry for the derail. Point still stands.

The Zulus have been the traditional African civ for the Civilization series... IN fact, if I remember correctly, until Civ4, they were the only one. So I was really happy when Mali got in in Civ3. Personally I really hope that they put in Mali as the African civ for Civ5, but since the Zulus are such a "traditional" civ of the Civilization series, they have the best chances of being the African civ.

morss_4 said:

I think this is being a little over cynical and overlooking series tradition.

The Aztecs for example were as close to a lock as you can get outside of the USA or Germany. They've been in every game of the series so far all the way back to Civ I. Why? Who knows. Sid likes them I guess. It should surprise no one they're in Civ V.

Likewise the Mongols and the Zulus are long times series fixtures dating back to the first game. The Mongols somehow missed the third game, but were immediately brought in for the first expansion and were included out of the box in Civ IV. I suspect the Zulus will get the same treatment. People have been cursing Shaka over their keyboards for 15 years now. I'd be at least a little surprised if he's not in the final cut. Leaders like Shaka and Gandhi are as much "characters" in the Civ series as Mario is in his series.

Click to expand...

I don't really think I'm being overly cynical ... you yourself are saying more or less what I'm saying.

I disagree though that the Aztecs are a lock. I think they've gotten lucky to be in so many times, but no, it's no surprise they're there. In theory they are just as vulnerable the Celts, Vikings, and so on. Are the Aztecs reall more famous in popular American culture than the Vikings or Incas. I mean, the "Aztecs" were just a three city-state confederation in the valley of Mexico, and we'd likely never have heard of them if they weren't the top-dogs when Cortes turned up. They're important, but they keep getting in ahead of the Incas, the second largest state on the planet in the early 16th-century, despite being neolithic in technology and functionally illiterate. So maybe Sid does like 'em...

Well, the Incas may have had "writing" in the form of khipus, but that's for another thread.

They should do the huns, but they won't, as they need Atilla for the Barbs . . .

They should definitely NOT do the Huns. There are tons of way more deserving civs. Especially since there's only 18.

Gotta remember Civ isn't a real life simulator, it's a game.

It's a game, but it is a historical game.

I don't think, Huayna Capac357, that civs will be chosen on how much they "deserve" it. I don't think that should be the case either. I think regional representation, and broadness, is important too. It brings diversity to bring in civs like the Zulu (or the Huns). The worst thing for me is the stream of semi-identical European nationlettes like Portugal, Holland, and so on, who are not in any meaningful sense "civilizations" (as distinct from countries) and whose marginal "importance" comes from partaking in shared pan-European technological superiority from the 15th to the 20th century.

The developers though will prioritise popularity rather than either of these. If the gamers want the Canadians or the Huns or the Dutch or the tribe that American high school kids learned gave Rome a hard time in a couple of battles, they will get them.

I would personally plump for China, Japan, Mongolia, India, America, Iroquois, Aztecs, Incas, Zulus, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, England, France, Germany, Spain & Russia.