Guess the New Civs

Be careful, "Columbia" means a very different thing. Yet I got what you meant and completely agree with you, Colombia (Gran Colombia), despite being short-lived, had a great historical significance for several southern and central american countries, and Simón Bolívar is probably one of the Americas' greatest leaders. It's a shame we cannot play as him while some of the currently featured leaders didn't even exist or weren't as half as relevant for their civilization/country/people as Simón was for America.

I also share your Ethiopa/Kongo preference over the Zulu, but I guess the later have better chances. Well, perhaps they're going to surprise us.

I used to do that all the time until a Colombian friend corrected me.
I agree with this idea. It is a great way to represent countries from many time periods.
 
I definitely could see Khmer. I have to think of a second unique thing and ability, but a Ballista Elephant is different enough from other Elephant units. I'd actually consider making it a Trebuchet replacement that can defend itself effectively.
The Baray is fine (the UB in Civ IV). It could even give the same bonus relative to the aqueduct that it used to (+1 food).

Alternatively, with religion they could have a prang (Khmer spire, the "temple-mountains") as a faith-producing structure.

Not as sure about the ability.


I posted Khmer idea in the Civilizations/Leaders Wanted! list, if you would like to continue on with Khmer suggestions. :)
 
Yeah, I'll take a look at that. I still stand by my belief that, outside of Europe/The Near East, such closely connected civs are unlikely. The problem is civs that end up sharing most of their territory at their height (obviously, Ottomans and Byzantines are an exception, as is anything that sprouted up after the Roman or Persian Empires).
 
Yeah, I'll take a look at that. I still stand by my belief that, outside of Europe/The Near East, such closely connected civs are unlikely. The problem is civs that end up sharing most of their territory at their height (obviously, Ottomans and Byzantines are an exception, as is anything that sprouted up after the Roman or Persian Empires).

Surely that simply reflects the European bias in the existing Civ selection, itself intended to make the game recognisable/accessible in Western markets, rather than a design policy of excluding geographically close or predecessor/successor states elsewhere? You could point out that, at its height in the 1930s and early 1940s, the Japanese empire controlled all the territory that previously and since has belonged to China (although granted that isn't the period of Japanese history represented by the leader). There's no overlap in Africa purely because there's only one sub-Saharan African civ in the game, and there have never been more than two in any of its incarnations.

And while I applaud the 'rotation' of Civ IV Civs to give previously unrepresented civs a chance, the Khmer Empire was larger at its height, longer-lived, more powerful and more historically relevant that Siam, although arguably less well-known in the West if only because Siam has been a current country name until fairly recent history, and its imperial period was romanticised in a popular novel. All that most in the West know of the Khmer is Angkor Wat, even that's insufficiently well-known that it didn't make the final list in the 'new Seven Wonders' poll a few years ago, and most of the people who do know of it would probably be hard-pressed to identify the empire that built it. What's today known as the Angkor complex was the largest pre-industrial city in the world at its height.

Certainly there are other areas of Southeast Asia that deserve representation and have never been included in Civ - most notably Indonesia and Burma - but I would like to see the Khmer return to the game.
 
Surely that simply reflects the European bias in the existing Civ selection, itself intended to make the game recognisable/accessible in Western markets, rather than a design policy of excluding geographically close or predecessor/successor states elsewhere?

Yes, but that doesn't change the analysis when trying to guess civs that will actually be included (rather than civs we just wish were included).
 
Yes, but that doesn't change the analysis when trying to guess civs that will actually be included (rather than civs we just wish were included).

Well, they're pretty much done with the European roster, and the new civs include two more European civs (Netherlands and Celts), one more Classical civ (Carthage) and the Near East Byzantines, as well as the Huns who are best-known for the inroads they made into Europe. The Maya are the only so far spoiled Civ without a European bias. My guess would be that they'd try to represent Asia and Africa among the missing civs, with one each (Carthage being geographically North African notwithstanding).
 
Im really liking the idea of Gran Colombia and Brazil as civs.

North America has the USA (a modern civ) alongside with Iroquois, Aztecs (and hopefully Sioux). Having the reverse, two modern civs, Gran Colombia and Brazil along with Incas sounds good.

South America is seriously under represented, and as mentioned before, even if Gran Colombia was shortly lived, many south American countries are related to it and the legacy of Simon Bolivar...and really, Bolivar in a Civ game would be awesome.

If they dont make it to the game, I think both Brazil and Gran Colombia would make for good DLC.
 
Gran Colombia's short-lived status is a serious problem for their inclusion. Likewise, they weren't a world power (among the known world). While I'm sympathetic to the inclusion of South American civs, modern states run into that second problem.
 
Gran Colombia's short-lived status is a serious problem for their inclusion. Likewise, they weren't a world power (among the known world). While I'm sympathetic to the inclusion of South American civs, modern states run into that second problem.

Yea I have to agree. All of the South American possibilities have some problems (doesn't mean I don't want them in).

I like the suggestion of pulling a Denmark and making a "Colombia" to include a lot of peoples/history instead of Gran Colombia.

Brazil still needs more influence in this world, but I think has a decent shot

The Chachapoya are fairly unknown by a lot of people sadly.

The Tupi, Mapuche, etc. are both unknown and arguably not as important as the other three.
 
Yea I have to agree. All of the South American possibilities have some problems (doesn't mean I don't want them in).

I like the suggestion of pulling a Denmark and making a "Colombia" to include a lot of peoples/history instead of Gran Colombia.

Brazil still needs more influence in this world, but I think has a decent shot

Lacking World Influence isn't the real problem . I think one of the main problems with inserting Brazil for a DLC post-expansion would be the lack of scenarios . The closest thing to a scenario you can insert them,if the devs decided to sell them as a DLC is the Paraguayan War. But if Brazil came to be one of the 3 last remaining civs,they can be inserted in Victorian Scenario,to fill the huge space of Eastern South America,which is the main reason I think they'd be one of last 3 remaining Civs . For the last 2 Civilizations,I'd suppose it'll be 2 Sub-Saharan Civ or 1 Sub-Saharan Civ and a Southern Asia Civ .
 
Gran Colombia's short-lived status is a serious problem for their inclusion. Likewise, they weren't a world power (among the known world). While I'm sympathetic to the inclusion of South American civs, modern states run into that second problem.

The key thing going for the idea is the leader - it does make a lot of sense for Bolivar to be in the game as South America's representative.

Yea I have to agree. All of the South American possibilities have some problems (doesn't mean I don't want them in).

I like the suggestion of pulling a Denmark and making a "Colombia" to include a lot of peoples/history instead of Gran Colombia.

Brazil still needs more influence in this world, but I think has a decent shot

The Chachapoya are fairly unknown by a lot of people sadly.

The Tupi, Mapuche, etc. are both unknown and arguably not as important as the other three.

We've had the discussion over predecessor/successor states - and while I hope the Khmer make it in, Asia is at least moderately well-represented already. Having a second Peruvian civ, particularly one like the Chachapoyas who basically map onto the territory later claimed by the Inca, in an otherwise empty continent would be odd, as would having two for Mali and nowhere else for Africa. I'm also not sure what you'd add for them - mountain mummies?

Were Polynesia a world power? Was Alexander the Great's Greece long-lived?

Alexander is the leader of 'Greece' in the game, but it's not "his" Greece. Sparta was never under Alexander's rule (he even styled himself "King of all the Greeks except the Spartans"), yet that's the Greek second city in the game.
 
Were Polynesia a world power? Was Alexander the Great's Greece long-lived?

I added "among the known world" for a reason. They also had coverage of a substantial portion of the globe, which counts for a reason.

Alexander's Empire was short-lived, but the Greek civilization is substantially older. Alexander built off of what was there before.
 
Is there a way to get the developers to use Celtic names for the Celtic city list? It just puts me off to see a mixture of Celtic, English and French names, when a fully Celtic one is possible if you ask guys (like me) knowledgable in such things.
 
The thing is this: when it comes to guessing the new civs likely and wanted are two different things. Objectively, I'd say likely are returning favorites with some geographic balance.

I had originally guessed Khazars, Ethiopia, Zulu and Sioux. But the choice of Huns over Khazars, while silly, has been revealed. In a game with a religious importance and given that Africa is underrepresented by far, Ethiopia is probably the most likely.

Zulu doesn't fit the theme as well, however they are a favorite and on 2kgames radar at least a bit (the april fools I think may have had one or two actual reveals slipped in).
 
We are always pointing out that Brazil inclusion makes sense since they need to fill up the Eastern Southern America region for the Victorian Scenario, but, unless they announced otherwise, I don’t think the scenario setting is going to cover the whole World. I’d say it’s going to be set in the Northern Hemisphere (or Western Northern Hemisphere, or Tropic of Cancer northward), so they’re free to ignore Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Central/Southern Africa and other empty regions.

About the inclusion of modern States, I used to think that, to be included, a civ should match some prerequisites like being a world power (military and political), influential (economic, technologic and culturally), long-lived (and well-aged), famous (and even romanticized), having a great leader and a comprehensive list of cities. But that was me being impractical, since the series offer so many counterexamples. I’m sure they have these parameters in mind (they’re not going to include, let’s say, the Tupi), but I can’t see why Australia, Brazil and “Gran Colombia” inclusion is so unlikely.
 
Pangur Bán;11386326 said:
Is there a way to get the developers to use Celtic names for the Celtic city list? It just puts me off to see a mixture of Celtic, English and French names, when a fully Celtic one is possible if you ask guys (like me) knowledgable in such things.

They couldn't do it for the Khmer in Civ 4 (modern archaeological names for Khmer sites, including both the original Khmer capital and the current name for the site as separate cities). I haven't noticed any French names in the Celtic cities I've seen. I've just registered the fact that they'll need a replacement name for Edinburgh (and since that's unaccountably back as a civ rather than a city-state, Carthage is out).

The thing is this: when it comes to guessing the new civs likely and wanted are two different things. Objectively, I'd say likely are returning favorites with some geographic balance.

I had originally guessed Khazars, Ethiopia, Zulu and Sioux. But the choice of Huns over Khazars, while silly, has been revealed. In a game with a religious importance and given that Africa is underrepresented by far, Ethiopia is probably the most likely.

We've already got several returning favourites (Netherlands, Maya), one or two returning couldn't-care-less like the Celts, and one new non-civ masquerading as a civ (Huns). I still maintain that the only significantly-sized area of the globe without Civ representation is Indonesia - surely it's at least as deserving as Polynesia. Yes, I think it likely they'll try to represent every continent (or at least region, "The Americas" likely counting as a single region). That would also give them an excuse to insert new architecture graphics which didn't make it into the main game, and in an expansion whose new graphics would otherwise be limited to a couple of dozen unit icons and the leaderheads, that could be seen as a draw. I think we'll probably see at least one additional Civ that's been in past games, but hope for at least one more that's all-new to the series.

On a slight tangent, what about city-states people would like to see? With more CS types and possibly CS-specific resources (like Tyre's jewellery), they may be trying to give the CSes individual personalities - there's no need to add many more numerically since the existing ones can't all fit into one game (I think there are more than 18?). It bothers me slightly that so many of the CSes aren't really CSes but are capitals of nations not represented in the game, while some genuine CSes are absent. Examples:

Zanzibar (commercial, unique resource: slaves?. Starting location tends to favour access to spices/ivory)
Crete (religious or cultured, representing the Minoans)
Troy (militaristic)
Syracuse (militaristic. More likely to gift siege weapons/Great Engineers than other units or GPs?)

Zulu doesn't fit the theme as well, however they are a favorite and on 2kgames radar at least a bit (the april fools I think may have had one or two actual reveals slipped in).

I thought that turned out to have actually been invented by CivFanatics staff, not to be a 2K April Fool's? If so, I wouldn't expect them to have foreknowledge of what's in or out beyond what's already been revealed.

And I'll say it again: the details we've been given so far are to generate interest and publicity. If the Zulus were in, chances are they'd have been top of the list for an early preview along with the Maya and the Netherlands - after all, who's ever asked for a Hun civilization? Does anyone much care about having the Celts as a civ?
 
There's only 1 country in Sub-Saharan Africa (most of the continent) and one in South America (which is vastly different from its northern counterpart).
Nevermind that Asia, while better-represented, is quite large and diverse itself.

EDIT:
And there actually have been several calls for a Celtic civ.
 
Top Bottom