2nd Expansion Civilizations

As the 1st expansion has all the civs confirmed, let's all ramble about what you think the next civs will be.

On Apolyton, i was reading that they picked civilizations fit for warlords. While it certainly fits for the Celts, Vikings, Zulus & Carthaginians. I wasn't too sure for the Koreans & Ottomans.

Since the Babylonians should be in the next expansion, it got me thinking of names for the next one, maybe Cradle of Civilizations?

As well as what my picks for the top 6 civs i'd love to see. (Let's just assume 6)

Babylonians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, Iroquois, Sumerians & Mayans.

(Proper poll coming up this time.)

Irish (I'm Irish ), Babylonian, Hebrew, Ethiopian, Iroqois, and Other, though I have no idea who the other would be. I guess I like surprises.

I think it would be fun to have one "lost" civilization like the Atlantians.

I should prefix this with saying that I have no axes to grind over which Civs get included and would never base my satisfaction with a Civ product on the list of Civs available. (Of course I am English now living in the US so given the likelihood of either Civ ever being left out that is an easy attitude for me to adopt! )

I find that many of the ancient and especially European civs start to repeat each other after a while...my preference would be to see more African, American and Asian civs. For example, Siam would be a good choice, as well as other more diverse civs such as the pacific islanders (polynesians?).

I simply have no interest in arguing the worth of one civ over another, to me diversity is more important than some ideal list of civs rigorously historically justified.
I normally play with a randomly selected civ and for me Civ is about what might have been, so any Civ could rise to greatness, which of them did in reality is irrelevant.
Still the choice of civs will mostly be driven by marketing concerns on the side of the publishers so those who express a positive preference loudest will likely win out over those of us who would prefer diversity and more obscure civilizations. (Tough to complain though, since I may be the only one that feels this way. )

How can you ask for a civ to be included and not even use a correct name for it? "Byzantians" seems a new civ to me (Byzantines would be better). But are you sure they are a civ? You can claim that they are a Roman or a Greek empire (depending on the date you look at them) but they were never a separate civ as far as I know. Even the name "Byzantines" is a name used only by later historians - they didn't call themselves like that.

If they were a separate civ, how did they disappeared from the face of the earth without leaving even one descendant to claim to be Byzantine today? Also which are the major cities of their empire? Even their capital, Constantinople, was built by a Roman emperor in the place of an ancient Greek city (Byzantium).

It's another thing to have a Byzantine empire in games like AoE or in scenarios that are focused on a specific time period, and a completely different thing to have them in games like civ that span the whole history.

I think your post is more relevant in off topic, then it is here. But it is a good point I suppose nonetheless.

a little early to be talking about the second expansion IMO when the first one is not quite out yet. We don't even know when the next expansion could be released or if one is planned.

Its still hard to work out. Based on my gut reaction;

Babylonians and Iroquois Confederation seem like almost sure-fire bets. I'm not bothered by the Eurocentricity of the Civs so I would also like the Dutch and the Portugese (or perhaps the Polish, Lithuanians or Magyar). I think it is also time to please those who would like to see the Hebrews in there. I think Sumeria as one of the cradles of civilization also has strong claims.

The Mayans have had a go. I tend to think of the Byzantines as just Medieval Greeks (with Roman and eastern influences). Despite my heritage, I don't think that the Irish and Scots deserve a spot outright - 'Celts' covers them in a slightly more abstract way. Plus there are those who insist on Great Britain which the Scottish are a part of. The only reason I could think of would be specfically for a scenario that would need those nations.

Once Firaxis has covered bases with all the popular/needed civs - I would like to see them take one or two from out of left field. Ethiopia is perhaps one of these, even with its rich trading history. Left field within reason - not like the Australian Aboriginie, but perhaps the Vietnamese or the Khmer to represent SE Asia.

So what are the reflections? No idea? I tell you ...

It would be the best to put most of the mentioned civs in the game. And perhaps some of not mentioned. Working on Civ4 perhaps lasted 4 years, so preparing next 20 civs would be also very expensive and lasted another 4 years. Would you wait 8 years for a game?

The Huns may be interesting.

It's interesting to note that the least popular civs are the ones that have never been in the games yet, save Hittites.

Khmer. Angkor Wat's builder, Jayavarman VII, is a ready made leader. Industrious, obviously, and probably spiritual. Some kind of war elephant UU.

I would like a Sikh civ added

Babylon
Holland
Portugal
Iroquois
Maya
Ethiopia

That's how I voted. Although, with hindsight, I'd have voted for Other (Khmer) over Ethiopia.

Khmer (Other)

(and I only voted for 4, I think 6 might be too many)
Babylonians
Iroquois
Maya
(Khmer)

Ethiopia is the only other one I'd consider

Ethiopia (spearman UU, market UB)
Israel (slinger UU, temple UB)
Iroquois (horse archer UU, ? UB)
Ireland (swordsman UU, monastery UB)
Byzantines (caravel UU, castle UB)
I would have voted Other 3 times, since I want
Vietnam (long history and an Asian civ most deserving to join [not as deserving as Israel, though] Vietcong UU, replacing infantry, -1 strenght, Woodsman I and Guerilla I upgrades. ? UB)
Aborginal (Oceania is a deserted land mass, some may say they didn't use any of the techs but Hunting, but that's unture. They had as much as the Inca for instance or the Aztecs. Hunting, Mysticism, Polytheism, Masonry, Pottery, Writing, Alphabet, Agriculture, Mining... Boomerang thrower UU replacing longbowman, +2 first strikes, Tribal Granary UB, replacing Granary stores (usual effects) -10% upkeep cost in city)
Polynesia (most expansion-ed civ in the world at 1000AD and an exotic exciting idea. Hawaiian galley UU, replacing galley, can carry 3 units and costs -25% less hammers than galleys. Tropical fruit harbor UB, replacing harbor. +100% trade yield cost if civ has tropical fruit in stead of the usual +50%

But I voted Other for Polynesia mainly.

Mayans, Ethiopians, Scottish, Byzantines, Portuguese and Iroquois.

Mayans for their cool spearman
Ethiopians as I hope for the religion of Rastafararion!
Scottish as I like Scotland personally and Highland musketeers!
Byzantines for Cataphracts, heavy cavalry and should produce interesting scenarios!
Portuguese for their seafaring abilities.
And finally the Iroquois for yet another American tribe.

Most of these have all bin modded

Wouldn't the Irish fit under the heading of "Celts" ?

Yeah, but it was a choice during the firaxis poll So i added it anyways.

I voted for the; Portugese, Babylonians, Dutch, Mayans and Iroquis. i also picked other and believe that instead of a single Scottish nation, Scotland and England should become one British nation (inc. Northern Ireland of course)
i agree with the others that there is no point in having an Irish civ when there will already be Celts.