Never-Before-Seen Civilizations

Which of the following Civs belongs in the game? (Please Select All That Apply)


  • Total voters
    211
Mongolia have more appeal.

When I want to be a warmonger, nothing better than the old Gengis.
 
Also, one of the two had an empire twice the size of the Roman Empire.
 
Well, that's why I think we're leaning towards Falcon Warrior now anyway.

yeah, i saw that post and decided to reply to it right away, then went ahead and read the rest of the thread, because that was the first thought that came to mind.

cahokia would definitely make a good capital for three reasons: 1) it was a large, mississippian city' 2) it's well known; and 3) it was the native american capital in civ 4.

the biggest issue is the unit. birdmen could work, but i'm not sure how to work them into the game. they apparently used clubs and atlats, which would be best for a warrior or archer unit respectively, but both of those are already taken by american civilizations. neither would be good for replacing the spear and it seems like they don't want more than one unique replacement per unit or building per culture area.
 
The problem with Brazil is that we dont buy that much of games, because they`re expensive and we use a lot of piracy software. So, a Korea civ, for exemple, makes a lot more sense for the producers.

Also, I dont know if we have the appeal for foreigners players. I can see plp playing Rome, Greece easily, Im not so sure if someone (not brazilian) would want to play as Brazil.

What about the Amazons or Portugal? Although Portugal isn't new.
 
Portugal is nice, but the gameplay would be really close to spain. Nothing new, but I think Portugal deserves to be back on the game.

Amazons? Do you mean the legendary women? like wonder-woman?

Theres hundreds of indian plp on Brazil, each one with their on culture and beliefs. The more important and numerous are the Guarani. But none of them had write or cities. They are more collectors, hunters, didnt develompt a true civilization like the Incas or Maias.
 
neither would be good for replacing the spear and it seems like they don't want more than one unique replacement per unit or building per culture area.

Granted, Greece and Persia might not be the same culture area, but they were literally rivals. If there is any thought of having them face each other, it would be spear vs. spear.

I don't see anything wrong with having them replace Spears, though. If not, maybe Pikemen. Since the Mississippians had a developing Civic Service that would even make a degree of sense.
 
wait, i just realized that arabia and songhai are in the same culture area, at least as far as the game is concerned right now. i still think it's kind of weird to use the city skins to decide who's in what culture area, but i guess it has to be done right now. a birdman with an atlatl could possibly be added after all, since north america is at least as different from south america as the middle east is from west africa.
 
Wow, you guys have sure found a lot of minutiae on the Mississippians. I doubt that they'll get included though... Tuskaloosa is IMHO still a weak choice of leader, and we only possess a limited amount of information about them. Shame we don't know all that much about the individual people themselves... Cahokia is really cool.

If a second Native American civ is included at some point, I'd be expecting something much more familiar like the Sioux with Chief Sitting Bull.
 
or they could get a unique scout. there aren't any of those yet.

and yeah, some of us tend to get pretty in depth on this stuff sometimes.
 
I'd also add that having "the Arabs" as one giant Civ does a bit of a disservice to history. There were many great Islamic Kingdoms, plenty of which weren't even led by Arabs (Almoravids are Berbers and are the ancestors of modern Morocco). So, while I'll accept the Arabs of the Arabian conquest, rulers of Damascus and Baghdad, etc. should be represented by one Civ. The height of Islamic Spain and North Africa can easily fit in as a second Civ.

Spot on. I'd argue Civs portrayal of a single Arab civilization is more akin to modern political pan-Arab nationalism -- a product of dissent towards Ottoman imperialism.

For centuries, the 'Arabs' were divided and operated very distinct societies, from Almoravids, to the Fatamids and Abbasids (probably the closest civ that the Arabs in Civ5 are meant to represent), who, once split formed a dynasty based around Baghdad, each very distinct and in many ways, had very different culture, architecture, society and in many cases, different views of Islam.

Their separation is no different than France and Germany as separate entities. Do not forget that much of modern-day Germany was once called 'East-Francia'.
 
Fact- amazon Civ with women would be alot more fun then brazil

Fact- The Amazons (Greek: Ἀμαζόνες, Amazónes, singular Ἀμαζών, Amazōn) are a nation of all-female warriors in Classical antiquity and Greek mythology. Herodotus placed them in a region bordering Scythia in Sarmatia (modern territory of Ukraine). Other historiographers place them in Asia Minor,[1] Libya,[2] or India.[3]

the evidence is clear- Warrior women of Fact
 
:rolleyes: No, I meant the native people of Brazil.
I thought you mean that, I just never heard they being called amazons, but maybe thats the way other coutnries call them, sry to make fun of you.

As I said:
Theres hundreds of indian plp on Brazil, each one with their own culture and beliefs. The more important and numerous are the Guarani. But none of them had write or cities. They are more collectors, hunters, didnt develompt a true civilization like the Incas or Maias.
 
Fact- Etruscans

Fact- Thrace

the evidence is clear

I don't think you know what "fact" means.

Anyway, Etruria is interesting, although secondary to many contemporary peoples. Luckily for them, the Greeks are all in one civ, so the absence of Syracuse, the Peloponnesian League, and Delian League as independent Civs gives them a better argument for inclusion.

I'm not sure about Thrace, though. The dominance of the Greeks over the area, the lack of dramatic permanent achievements that influenced later peoples, and the lack of a unified league or central government are arguments against them.
 
Well I am sure there are more Brazilian nationals playing Civ than Mongolian nationals. lol

but the mongols conquered almost all of asia and the largest continuous empire in history. brazil would need a major accomplishment such as that to be incorperated into the game
 
The Etruscans are Civ-worthy but very small. I think they're more Honorable Mention territory.
 
^^^^my only issue with hebrews is that they are pretty much known for founding judaism and conquering the canaans, not much more. in my opinion that isn't enough to be included.
 
Top Bottom