Guess the New Civs

In my eyes Austria is a replacement for the Holy Roman Empire, just as Songhai is for Mali and Siam is for Khmer. We all knew that Holy Rome was a lame excuse not to include Italy and Austria in the game. The Holy Roman Empire from the reign of Charles V to Francis II (Hapsburg Monarchs) was focused in Austria, the headquarters being Vienna. In a way they divided the Holy Roman Empire into two Civilizations, the early Medieval one with the original Saxon rule with Otto is represented by Germany, and then then Renaissance Hapsburg rule is represented by Austria.
 
Pangur Bán;11400294 said:
Charlemagne was well before the Holy Roman Empire. HRE addition in Civ 4 was just a big blunder I think.

I'm not arguing about it being a bad idea. However, he was crowned Emperor of Rome so it's not entirely inaccurate to make him the leader. The Holy Roman Empire was basically the eastern half of Charlemagne's empire and continued or revived the tradition he started.

Problem for this line of argument, which I think is misguided in many respects, is that the empire ruled by Theodora (or rather Justinian) wasn't all that different from the Roman Empire in other eras.

I'm not personally a fan of Justinian and Theodora for this reason. I usually recommend Alexios Komnenos for this reason. But it should at least be the Macedonian dynasty or later.

Kievan Russia wasn't even the same state as the Tsarist regime represented by Civ. Even the notorious HRE wasn't the same state as the Prussian-modeled 'Germany' of Civ.

If they added the Kievan Rus, I'd probably say they were different enough to at least merit discussion. Likewise, I think India could be broken up into various parts too.

"Germany" is broader than Prussia. Sure, the Prussian government essentially became the modern German government but the culture that makes up the German "civilization" is broader than Prussia and includes many component parts that were associated with the Holy Roman Empire at least post-Westphalia.

ETA: Actually, pre-Westphalia since I'm literally thinking of the 30 Years War.
 
In all likely hood, I will say...

1. Sumer
2. Zulu
3. Majapahit

I'll be shocked if we get someone else. Just can't see another Euro civ at this point. Nor can I see another Native American civ.

For next DLC's, following those three...

1. Portugal (Africa colonization)
2. Poland (Maybe WWII scenario)
3. Sweden (Some 17-1800 scenario about trading or colonization... not a history buff)
4. Sioux (Complete Americas/Manifest Destiny scenario)
5. Hittite/Assyrian (Ancient scenario)

Among all of this listed civs, we will get one more for THIS expansion, maybe 3-4 DLC's at MOST (at least two me thinks), and if we get another expansion a couple years down the line, I think we will see the rest of those civs, along with maybe some modern civs, Brazil, Italy, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and a game that may go into the future, like 2100ish... if not at least an accompanying scenario.
 
In my eyes Austria is a replacement for the Holy Roman Empire, just as Songhai is for Mali and Siam is for Khmer. We all knew that Holy Rome was a lame excuse not to include Italy and Austria in the game. The Holy Roman Empire from the reign of Charles V to Francis II (Hapsburg Monarchs) was focused in Austria, the headquarters being Vienna. In a way they divided the Holy Roman Empire into two Civilizations, the early Medieval one with the original Saxon rule with Otto is represented by Germany, and then then Renaissance Hapsburg rule is represented by Austria.

@Cicero, In some ways you are right, but the chief royal title of the HRE rulers was "king of Germany", and that's what most of Europe called them. They had a concentration of land in the archduchy of Austria (which isn't modern Austria btw and was a not particularly distinctive part of the German kingdom!), but they also had demesne elsewhere in Germany. Austria really is a low priority addition, but low priority "civilizations" tend to get into civ games if they are in Europe and if they are more important in more modern times.
 
Pangur Bán;11400370 said:
Austria really is a low priority addition, but low priority "civilizations" tend to get into civ games if they are in Europe and if they are more important in more modern times.

Low priority? Why would you say that? I am glad they added it.
 
Yep many opinions out there.

I like Austria for example and am one of the so called "Zulu Haters" Nokmirt mentioned (Don't want them anywhere near an Expansion. A DLC at most but nothing more)
 
I'm not arguing about it being a bad idea. However, he was crowned Emperor of Rome so it's not entirely inaccurate to make him the leader. The Holy Roman Empire was basically the eastern half of Charlemagne's empire and continued or revived the tradition he started.

The two aren't related though, except by early modern historians. The German kingdom was in some ways a kind of "eastern Francia" (certainly aspired to be). The Roman emperor part was a continuation of the Lombard kingdom of Italy though, which had taken over the papal Roman title and was acquired by Otto. If you read the sources, you'll see that until the Hohenstaufen period the imperial title tends to be taken as interchangeable with the kingdom of Italy ... certainly from an Italian point of view.


"Germany" is broader than Prussia. Sure, the Prussian government essentially became the modern German government but the culture that makes up the German "civilization" is broader than Prussia and includes many component parts that were associated with the Holy Roman Empire at least post-Westphalia.

ETA: Actually, pre-Westphalia since I'm literally thinking of the 30 Years War.


Indeed, it is broader than "Prussia", but in that sense includes "Austria", which is a different civ now. Civ has always had Germany as the Greater Prussia 'Germany' of eastern Europe rather than the more expansive medieval kingdom of the Rhine and Danube.
 
My guess as of now is Sweden or Zulu.
Anything else would be a pleasant surprise.
Unless it is something supid like "native america".

I'm not really "burning" for the Zulu, they and Sumeria are more of a "meh" to me.
Something new is better.

Scale of excitement:
  1. A new Non-European civ (AWESOME!)
  2. A new European civ (Nice!)
  3. An old civ (Meh...)
  4. A stupid civ (like Native America)
 
Personally, I'm someone who prefers playing TSL Earth maps, so I'm always up for more non-European civs. I'll tolerate Austria since at least it's new to the civ scene, but Sweden is about the only other European civ I'll tolerate the addition of, and even then I'll prefer pretty much anything else from any other currently-unoccupied part of the world before it.

Most of all, I'm rooting for Majapahit, because the indonesian archipelago needs some love.
 
I am thinking this will be a new civ altogether.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a more ice/desert/marsh focused civ.

This could offer a wide range of options for currently useless terrain in Civ 5 in some cases.

This could be the push needed for a Sweden/Finland/Inuit

Or a Nazca/Pueblo/Anasazi
 
Low priority? Why would you say that? I am glad they added it.

It's most obviously a low priority if you have a wider perspective of world history and culture. Austria is a German state, important as a middle-ranking independent state only in the 19th century and early decades of the 20th. Seriously, the world is much bigger. Even in central/eastern Europe early modern Poland, medieval Hungary, 14th century Lithuania, the Bulgars, and some others, are far more important and interesting.

I find the endless duplication of miniature western European "civilizations" to make the game extremely boring. We're seriously debating here the inclusion of a SECOND (!) Scandinavian civilization for goodness sake when Africa and eastern Asia only have a handful between them.

I'm not the average gamer though.
 
Charlemagne does actually have some influence on Austria. He ordered for the region to be rebuilt to be the center of the Eastern portion of the Empire. That's how Austria got its name, from the German word Osterreich - meaning Eastern Empire
 
Austria had quite a bit more importance earlier than the 19th century...
 
SO did Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Burgundy, Castile, and so on .. they are not and never will be represented as independent civilizations in the game.

Did you know the Ottomans didn't have a distinct word for 'Austria'? They just called it Germany. The idea of a separate Austrian state before Napoleon wasn't really in many peoples' heads. Austria was just the location of the most important regional holding of the German emperor.
 
Pangur Bán;11400419 said:
It's most obviously a low priority if you have a wider perspective of world history and culture. Austria is a German state, important as a middle-ranking independent state only in the 19th century and early decades of the 20th. Seriously, the world is much bigger. Even in central/eastern Europe early modern Poland, medieval Hungary, 14th century Lithuania, the Bulgars, and some others, are far more important and interesting.

I find the endless duplication of miniature western European "civilizations" to make the game extremely boring. I'm not the average gamer though.

I am sorry but Austria is hardly a middle-ranking state. From 1600 to 1850 it was the dominant German power, it wasn't until Bismarck took control of Prussia when it lost its power. Austria at its height had control over Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Mantua, and Lombardy as well as a links to other monarchies through marriages, such as Spain and France. Austria was the center of music and many of the greatest composers were either from Austria or went to Vienna to learn music. Austria today may be small, but it has one of the worlds strongest economy and one of the highest standards of living
 
The main reason why Austria is included is the Habsburg dynasty. They are very important because they ruled an Empire which included Austria, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary, Bohemia, Spanish America, Portugal and many more. I can't think of any other dynasty that ruled over a bigger Empire, which they attained peacefully through marriage.

Spoiler :


 
I am sorry but Austria is hardly a middle-ranking state. From 1600 to 1850 it was the dominant German power, it wasn't until Bismarck took control of Prussia when it lost its power. Austria at its height had control over Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Mantua, and Lombardy as well as a links to other monarchies through marriages, such as Spain and France. Austria was the center of music and many of the greatest composers were either from Austria or went to Vienna to learn music. Austria today may be small, but it has one of the worlds strongest economy and one of the highest standards of living

Would have saved yourself time by reading my posts more attentively. :)

Before Napoleon Austria was not an independent state. Austria was just the location of the German king's most important regional holding. BTW, what you are describing is still a regional power of second rank. Russia, France, Britain, were the top players in the 19th century, even in that region. Austria was propped up by Russia for much of the 19th century until it alienated Russia, and was just a German puppet state after Bismarck too, since it had no choice if it wanted protection from Russia.
 
Top Bottom