Never-Before-Seen Civilizations

all of them

though if I had to choose Tibet and Phoenicia

Mark the Bold said:

I say the Kurds. Saladin as their leader. Bam.

And they are NOT arabs so dont say it. Largest ethnic minority in the world without a state.

Click to expand...

Well, the whole lack of a state thing is a problem for arguing they should be included as a Civ (yes, Saladin was Kurdish, but he essentially led Arabs. I don't want to get into the Napoleon French or just Corsican debate, but Stalin was Georgian and he was fine as a Russian leader in Civ4). Also, for what it's worth, the Pashtun people don't directly have a state (Afghanistan and Pakistan both have large populations, but both also have non-Pashtuns in large amounts). They're also slightly larger in population size than the Kurds.

Alezander01 said:

You do get that I'm talking about the votes in the poll and not my personal preference right?

Click to expand...

I don't like any of your choices, which is why I picked other. Hebrew is kind of cool though. I swear I played a civ game in the past with the Hebrews though.

Kruelgor said:

I don't like any of your choices, which is why I picked other. Hebrew is kind of cool though. I swear I played a civ game in the past with the Hebrews though.

Click to expand...

Call to Power had the Hebrews.

If you don't like the choices, why suggest Tibet like you did a moment ago? Why say the Hebrews are cool. Bah, whatever. This is pointless.

Kruelgor said:

You don't like Huns, huh?

There are others:

Ireland
Ukraine
Australia
Sweden
Umayyad Caliphate
Tibetan Empire
Seleucids
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Click to expand...

almost half of this list doesn't even qualify.
huns were a unique enough civilization, but they were more of a barbarian group.
i'm not sure if ireland is unique enough, it's kind of a mix between british and celts. british are already in there and celts are likely to be added.
ukraine, i don't really know enough about them to comment, but i'd probably prefer kazakhs.
australia isn't really a unique civilization.
sweden, maybe.
umayyad caliphate is already covered by arabians.
tibet's already in the poll.
seleucids are already covered by greece and persia.
polish-lithuania, i'd prefer just poland, but maybe.

If I was adding new civs to Civ V, I'd pick these (both new and old):

Americas: Mississippi, Sioux, Maya
Africa: Kongo, Ethiopia, Zulu, The Moors
Greco-Roman: Byzantium, Carthage, Sassanid
Middle East: Hittites, Sumerians, Mughal
Asia: Korea, Khazaria, Khmer, Chola
Europe: Austria, Scandinavia, Portugal, Netherlands, HRE

So I guess the ones that haven't appeared before would be: Mississippi, Kongo, The Moors, Sassanid, Mughal, Khazaria, Chola, Austria.

Between the current entries, the formerly included civs and the newbies that would be 45 civs total, and I think I've rounded out the globe pretty well with that list. Looking at your list -- I'd say the Moors are the winner!

Louis XXIV said:

Well, the whole lack of a state thing is a problem for arguing they should be included as a Civ (yes, Saladin was Kurdish, but he essentially led Arabs. I don't want to get into the Napoleon French or just Corsican debate, but Stalin was Georgian and he was fine as a Russian leader in Civ4). Also, for what it's worth, the Pashtun people don't directly have a state (Afghanistan and Pakistan both have large populations, but both also have non-Pashtuns in large amounts). They're also slightly larger in population size than the Kurds.

Click to expand...

So any included Civ has to be some perfectly homogenous group with a state today? Well you might as well scratch virtually everything from the poll then, and most of the Civ's already in the game too. What the Congolese have a state? News to the congolese. "Congo" is a butcherous basketcase of warring tribes even by African standards. People are seeking asylum in Somalia, where its safe. The Minoans? Really? Why not put the Pygmies as a Civ too?

Hey, you know this is cute. Let's come up with the most obscure nameless civs with virtually non-existant effects on all of human history, but lets bar the Huns (one of Rome's greatest enemies), Armenians and Kurds due to some minor techincality.

I have an idea lets just have one big multicultural hoe-down and throw every tribe on earth in the game. Nothing would be more immersive and big-selling than the epic clash of the Chinese and the John Smith clan-civ of Derby, UK.

Assyrians, OK I can see that. But Indonesia? How are they so different from Polynesia? No offense to any indonesians here. How are the Vietnamese so different from Siamese? Is there REALLY that much of civilizational difference between Vietnam and Cambodia - Burma?

Hey, I'm all about multicultural outreach. BUt lets get real here. I say lets qualify civs that have had some minutely measurable impact on human history. Hacking your neighbors women and children to death with machetes over petty tribal squabbles for all of human history doesnt count.

I suggest all the peeps on this thread read Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. His criteria for what constitutes a civilization is far more credible than any of the logic I've read on this thread. Sure he lumps the French / German's/ English all together, but there is at least some consistency to it.

I think you took far more out of my last statement than was intended. My point about the Kurds is that the lack of political control making them a driving force is a problem. I don't think that's a minor technicality.

The Huns were not one of Rome's greatest enemies. They were a short-lived storm essentially. The Goths were a greater enemy. So were the Gaul, so was Carthage, so was Greece. In this period, the most powerful force facing Rome were the Sassanians. I'm not one to argue long-term unification is necessary (after all, there is Greece), but it certainly helps. The Huns were nomadic for much of their history, which is in conflict with a game that is built around founding cities.

I'm certainly not one advocating for the Congolese, so I that isn't a good argument for me. But every one of the Civs I've mentioned (even the tongue-in-cheek ones like Urartu, Mittani, Elam can be justified if you want me to). Indonesia is nothing like Polynesia. Sure, they're on islands, but the point is the history of Muslim expansion and the political and economic force that they had. I usually focus on Majapahit. Architecturally, politically, economically, and culturally, they were among the top in Southeast Asia. Today, it's still worth noting that the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesian, not Arab.

I'm not even going to comment on comparing the Minoan culture on Crete (with the palaces at Knossos, their trade across the Mediterranean, their adoption of a unique writing system, and their influence on Greek civilization) to the Pigmy people. That's not being opposed to multi-culturalism, that's being disingenuous.

The modern state of Congo has issues. The Kingdom of Kongo was a powerful African kingdom for four centuries or more under leaders that employed an advanced central government system and a powerful army. They declined in the end of the 19th century and vassalized by Portugal.

Mark the Bold said:

Let's come up with the most obscure nameless civs with virtually non-existant effects on all of human history, but lets bar the Huns (one of Rome's greatest enemies) [...] Hacking your neighbors women and children to death with machetes over petty tribal squabbles for all of human history doesnt count. [...]

Click to expand...

the huns were great warriors, but their empire didn't last very long, so there's not too much that can be said for their administrative abilities. i'm pretty sure they never had a capital and i'm unsure if they ever even built any cities. really, what they're known for is hacking people to death.

indonesia is different from polynesia for a few simple reasons, among others: 1) they're actually unified and were at several points historically, 2) the majapahit empire in particular is known as one of the greatest empires in southeast asian history, 3) they've been pretty important trade partners with both china and india for the better part of the last millennium and a half.

i suggested the kingdom of kongo because they had a unique culture and a centralized government that existed for several centuries. the huns can't really say much about the latter.

Brazil and Cuba.

JJOne said:

Brazil and Cuba.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

Its a shame that an entire continent, south america, has only one civ (Inca). Go Brazil! If we dont deserve be in ciV because of our merits, maybe we deserve just because of our geographic position!

awesome said:

indonesia is different from polynesia for a few simple reasons, among others: 1) they're actually unified and were at several points historically, 2) the majapahit empire in particular is known as one of the greatest empires in southeast asian history, 3) they've been pretty important trade partners with both china and india for the better part of the last millennium and a half..

Click to expand...

Indonesia is a tremendously important country. I have no doubt of that.

seasnake said:

The modern state of Congo has issues. The Kingdom of Kongo was a powerful African kingdom for four centuries or more under leaders that employed an advanced central government system and a powerful army. They declined in the end of the 19th century and vassalized by Portugal.

Click to expand...

Issues? Sure I guess. 5 million dead in the past 10 years. Yes that is an issue.

But I grant your point, if you had to name the filthiest and most disgusting imperial country of all time, Portugal would be hard to beat. Belgium would be a close second.

Kruelgor said:

You don't like Huns, huh?

There are others:

Ireland
Ukraine
Australia
Sweden
Umayyad Caliphate
Tibetan Empire
Seleucids
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Click to expand...

hehe, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie...!

The Moors and the Minoans.

Moors as they had a massive and lasting impact on mediterranean culture.

Minoans as I just really like them. They jumped over aurochs for crying out loud! Also the had a very strong naval trading empire that would convert well in to a UA. Something like Harbour based trade routes yield 20% more gold, or what ever. UB could be a pimped palace or colosseum, i.e. Bull Pit, +3 for no maintainence and another or two if improved cows are in the borders.

If I was adding new civs to Civ V, I'd pick these :

Americas: sioux, moundbuilder, anasazi, inuit, maya, chibcha, mapuche, arawak, tupi-guarani, caribs, haida
Africa: kongo, Nok, Zulu, ethiopia, kanem-Bornou, moors, nubians, zwahili, great Zimbabwe/Monomotapa
Middle-east: hittites, mamelouks, mitani, hebrews, elam, sumer, phoenician
Asia: timurides, vijayanagar, tibetan, Uygur, majapahit, samoyedic tribes (nenets?), korean
Oceania: papuan, aborigene, Nan Madol, Lapita
Europe: viking, bulgars, huns, netherlands, portugal, HRE, Byzantines
Ancient: gaul/celt, iberian, goths, Daces, scythians, carthage

awesome said:

australia isn't really a unique civilization.

Click to expand...

How is Australia not unique? 13th largest economy of all time. One of the largest countries in the world. It has a unique culture, and they invented the boomerang!....and special unit Crocodile Dundee!

Not to mention they fought tenaciously during WW2.

grandad1982 said:

The Moors and the Minoans.

Moors as they had a massive and lasting impact on mediterranean culture.

Minoans as I just really like them. They jumped over aurochs for crying out loud! Also the had a very strong naval trading empire that would convert well in to a UA. Something like Harbour based trade routes yield 20% more gold, or what ever. UB could be a pimped palace or colosseum, i.e. Bull Pit, +3 for no maintainence and another or two if improved cows are in the borders.

Click to expand...

Ah, the Minoans. I'd give them a temple replacement, except 2 civs already have that. I thought a good UA would have extra food/gold from sea resources. UU would be a labrys in place of a swordsman. It would be a better replacement to the axeman, though, which should be added as a regular unit- something else for the classical era. That way, vikings could have the berzerker as a replacement to that.

Kruelgor said:

How is Australia not unique? 13th largest economy of all time. One of the largest countries in the world. It has a unique culture, and they invented the boomerang!....and special unit Crocodile Dundee!

Not to mention they fought tenaciously during WW2.

Click to expand...

the aborigines invented the boomerang, not australia the nation-state. that's like saying that the ottomans invented greek fire. if you had said aborigines, that might be a little bit different. but with polynesia in the game, i don't see that happening, either.