Civ V Civilizations Roster

Alexander the Great btw didn't really conquer anything. He simply took over an existing empire, the Persian Empire. His conquests are more comparable with those of the Bolsheviks, than of a people like the Mali or like...

apenpaap said:

You're right. He should be a leader of both France and Germany.

Click to expand...

And to make room for more Civs, maybe we could merge them and call them the Holy Roman Empire!

If they have the Romans, Byzantines and Ottomans, there's no reason you couldn't have the Franks in addition to France and Germany (though I'd hate that myself).

Saying Alexander didn't conquer anything is disingenuous. He brought various Greek states under his control, destroyed the Persian Empire, directly led to the rise of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt and even conquered part of western Asia. He is justly famed for being one of the world's greatest ever generals.

Personally, I'll be happy as long as Babylon is in the original 18 - I'm a major ancient near east geek. If Sumer is in there too I'll be overjoyed, and either Byzantium or Khmer would also be totally and completely awesome.

Though Byzantium should totally have multiple leaders - they're the longest enduring empire in western history, they shouldn't have to play second fiddle to some damn english monarchs. I vote for Justinian and Alexius Comnenus myself. And maybe Basil II. But apparently he was really ugly, so who knows.

Also, we should be able to play as famously crappy leaders. I think it'd be hilarious to play rome as Nero or Warren G. Harding. Also Egypt having Akhenaten would tickle my funny bone.

Arakhor said:

Saying Alexander didn't conquer anything is disingenuous. He brought various Greek states under his control, destroyed the Persian Empire, directly led to the rise of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt and even conquered part of western Asia. He is justly famed for being one of the world's greatest ever generals.

Click to expand...

Actually, Alexander's dad had conquered these various Greek states (not a very big area). He suppressed a rebellion, and after that he simply took over another kingdom. We could say the Bolsheviks "conquered" the Soviet Union in the same was Alexander "conquered" Persia, but we wouldn't normally. While in all likelihood Parmenion was responsible for Alexander's important early military victories in Persia (Alexander being yet to inexperienced), Alexander himself failed keep the kingdom together, it splitting after his death. Compare this to the professionalism of later real conqueror-state-builders like Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar, Toghrïl Beg, and so on.

While he may be "famed for being one of the world's greatest ever general's", that is down to his importance as a legitimising figure for his successors, and nothing to do with reality.

Mongolia, India, Japan and Persia will be included. The Arabs and Aztecs probably also. I wouldn't count on the Dutch or Portugal - maybe one of them will, but I doubt it. If they are it's a nod to the emerging powers of South Africa and Brazil, but I wouldn't discount either of those countries (especially Brazil) being included. It's not likely in the vanilla game, but with Brazil hosting the World Cup and the Olympics in the next few years, it's looking like their moment. They're the emergent power in South America.

The other potential surprise I would say is Poland/Lithuania. Again, probably not in vanilla, but if we see one new European civ anytime soon, I think it's them. They're probably the biggest power in Europe during the Middle Ages. And this is an era that is underrepresented in Civ (speaking of, I'm pretty much demanding Charlemagne be included as a leader, either of France or Germany or both. I don't care if it's an imperfect fit, the man deserves to be in and he's the most iconic leader of an underrepresented era).

As far as who else appears in the Vanilla game - I'd guess the Zulu and Babylon. Other possibilities include the Inca and Scandinavia/Vikings. And maybe Mali or Ethiopia instead of the Zulu. I know the Zulu are civ icons, but the inclusion of them over Mali and Ethiopia strikes me as a little Afro-ignorant. I think Firaxis is aware of this, or else we wouldn't have seen Mali in Civ4 vanilla. So I would not at all be surprised to see Mali in vanilla V. Possibly even in addition to Shaka.

Besides, as iconic as Shaka's personality might be, as far as Civ4 goes, Mansa Musa is the preeminent tech whore. He's consistently one of the most notable leaders in any given game I play, whether or not he's doing very well.

Tusked said:

Personally, I'll be happy as long as Babylon is in the original 18 - I'm a major ancient near east geek. If Sumer is in there too I'll be overjoyed, and either Byzantium or Khmer would also be totally and completely awesome.

Though Byzantium should totally have multiple leaders - they're the longest enduring empire in western history, they shouldn't have to play second fiddle to some damn english monarchs. I vote for Justinian and Alexius Comnenus myself. And maybe Basil II. But apparently he was really ugly, so who knows.

Also, we should be able to play as famously crappy leaders. I think it'd be hilarious to play rome as Nero or Warren G. Harding. Also Egypt having Akhenaten would tickle my funny bone.

Click to expand...

my vote is Justinian, Basil II or Heraclitus. not this Komenos crap. as i recall they recovered the Empire, but totally destroyed it in the end. didn't one of the leaders of that dyantasy want to take the throne and enlisted the 4th crusade to help?

Mathalamus said:

my vote is Justinian, Basil II or Heraclitus. not this Komenos crap. as i recall they recovered the Empire, but totally destroyed it in the end. didn't one of the leaders of that dyantasy want to take the throne and enlisted the 4th crusade to help?

Click to expand...

You're right, I forgot about Heraclius. But I disagree with your reasoning on the Comneni - sure, the later ones sucked, but the first three (Alexius, John, Manuel) were awesome. And saying that you shouldn't have a leader because his dynasty ended up being crappy invalidates Augustus Caesar (Caligula, Nero) and Trajan and Hadrian (Commodus). If you count political parties as dynasties, it invalidates Lincoln because of Warren G. Harding and Dan Quayle! Anyway, Alexius is still awesome.

I agree with Tusked. The first three, Alexius, John, and Manuel, did a lot for the Empire, and basically Byzantium seemed to be in a extremely stable position, even a decade or two before the 4th crusade, so the Kommenoi didn't really necessarily suck. Personally i'd like to see Constantine XI of the Palaiologos, even though that'd never happen and even though his achievement was simply to die fighting an epic last stand rather than actually making the Empire big again.

Anyhow, if there were a Byzantine leader, it'd probably be Justinian (or Theodora, possibly, if they want a female leader).

Tusked said:

You're right, I forgot about Heraclius. But I disagree with your reasoning on the Comneni - sure, the later ones sucked, but the first three (Alexius, John, Manuel) were awesome. And saying that you shouldn't have a leader because his dynasty ended up being crappy invalidates Augustus Caesar (Caligula, Nero) and Trajan and Hadrian (Commodus). If you count political parties as dynasties, it invalidates Lincoln because of Warren G. Harding and Dan Quayle! Anyway, Alexius is still awesome.

Click to expand...

then who screwed Byzantium up? Alexius V or III or Isaac II?

thats not what i meant, i don't want leaders who suck. that invalidates every leader who brought nothing but decline to various Empires. including modern ones.

having Constantine XI as the leader would be interesting. Epic last stand battles are so bad ass.

Many say they would be happy if there were Babylonia and/or Sumer, but Assyria is seldom mentioned and it has never been featured in a Civ game unlike other major Mesopotamian civs. Why is that? I think that Ashurbanipal, for example, would make a great leader.

Israel! That would be cool.

I don't think we can expect anything more than Babylonia (if that) in vanilla V. That said, I think there's decent odds we'll see Babylonia. But even that's uncertain.

dagriggstar said:

Surely the insane mindless warmonger spot is represented by Genghis Khan/Montezuma...

We don't need Shaka.

Click to expand...

I want Shaka! It's traditional, and he's my favourite hate object after Montezuma (who should also be in).

So, you all say that Civ's biased towards European civs and that more African civs should be in, but all that I've seen mentioned are the Zulu, the Malinese, and the Ethiopians. Now, I'm no expert on this, not by a long shot (Didn't know who the Zulu or Malinese were before Civ) but aren't there more than three big major African civs?

Having the Byzantines is a waste of a perfectly good space, especially for Vanilla.

EDIT: And yes, there's tons more African civs. For example, Ghana, Songhai, Shona, Benin, Oyo, Kongo, etc.

The whole issue with African civs is that, yeah, they were big and had a lot of people, but were they really that great and innovative, or powerful.

I think one African civ not counting Egypt in vanilla ciV tops, anymore robs a worthy spot.

Here's my list of what should, and/or will happen. Excuse me if I left an obvious one out.

Confirmed:
America
Germany
Aztec
Russia (the talk of Stalin)


Definite (some might be confirmed:
England
France
China
Japan
Egypt
India
Rome

Very Likely:
Persia
Mongols
Arabs
Mayans
Babylon

Wildcards:
Zulu
Incas
Mali

Huayna Capac357 said:

Having the Byzantines is a waste of a perfectly good space, especially for Vanilla.

EDIT: And yes, there's tons more African civs. For example, Ghana, Songhai, Shona, Benin, Oyo, Kongo, etc.

Click to expand...

The Byzantine Empire was the longest-lasting Empire in essentially the history of the entire west. If you count the east they get beaten by China, but everyone gets beaten by China. That's an achievement, at least beating the Mali, who were the second largest empire of their time period - well, great, you can say that for about fifty civilizations. Why not include Canada and be over with it? (answer: you probably shouldn't include canada.)

Not that I don't like the Mali. I do. I just also like Byzantium, and would prefer its inclusion as an "oh gasp look at what we put in this time aren't we surprising" civ than the Mali.

MrBanana said:

The whole issue with African civs is that, yeah, they were big and had a lot of people, but were they really that great and innovative, or powerful.

Click to expand...

I don't want to sound rude, but I really think you should reconsider that statement.

The Western African civilizations, such as Mali and Songhai, were centers of Islamic learning for several centuries. That's right - they were centers of learning. Their trade was so prosperous, and they were so wealthy, that legend has it that when Mansa Musa visited Mecca and gave out some gold for free, he actually caused the market to go kaploop for a year. And note that these empires' armies were not like the stereotypical tribal warriors running at each other. They fielded large armies organized along the lines of infantry, auxiliaries, and heavy cavalry, much like other powerful states around the world.

We may also take the Berber/Moorish civilizations, for example - they were not the same as the Arabic-Persian Islamic civilization, and they played a huge role in developing Spain; for a time, Moorish-ruled Spain was the most intellectually and culturally advanced society in Europe, and it was also a surprisingly tolerant place, too.

You could also take a look at ancient Nubia. After being dominated by Egypt, they then conquered Egypt and ruled it for a century; even after so, and even though they were heavily influenced by Egypt, they developed their own unique culture, one that successfully resisted Greek, Roman, and Arabic invasions for centuries.

Or, perhaps, look at Ethiopia. They were one of two only African nations to not be colonized by European powers.

Another example are the Swahili, who were famous traders along the East African coast. They played a pivotal role in the Indian Ocean trade for more than a millennia.

Now I do think myself that probably the vanilla game only needs one sub-saharan African civilization, but frankly, I think you really have to think twice before saying that African civilizations didn't develop their own unique, prosperous, and urbane cultures.