Guess the New Civs

I still think, honestly, Mississippi would be the best with Tuscaloosa as the leader, given the many cities and accomplishments of the Mississippi. I'd have their unique ability tie into their mound building, maybe a culture gain version of the Korean bonus where they gain bonus culture from every culture building/wonder they build in the capital and have them build Platform Mounds instead of castles, which can be built with Theology and have a GE slot, and increase city attack to 3 tiles away.

Great idea! For some unknown reasons I have always overlooked the Mississippians. But now I see that they would be the best choice for the second native north american civ slot. Based on their success on city building and strong culture. Apache (Mangas Coloradas and Geronimo would be cool leaders!) and Comanche (horse nation) are also good candidates and I am sure Sitting Bull of the Sioux would look awesome, but from now on the Mississippi gets my vote. :)
 
haha, sorry. I get where you're coming from, and I know those civs would work well in World War scenarios, but for me and a lot of people, I think if civs like Rome, England, China, etc. are getting bumped out of the game by civs like Hungary, people will end up doing what I did with a bunch of the Civ IV BtS civs: changing the xml so the AI can't pick them anymore. I know Poland comes up here as often as it does for a reason, but I don't imagine a lot of people saying out loud and in public that that particular civ would sell as many DLCs as Spain. Of course someone from Hungary would enjoy having them in the game, but that doesn't make up a huge amount of the game's audience, and most people who play civ would rather play against Rome than Hungary. So for a lot of us, WW scenarios excluded, Hungary is kind of a bummer. Not only is it not something we'd like, but we'd actually have to edit the xml to prevent it from making the overall game worse for us (by seeing them in the game at the exclusion of civs like England, etc). The extra problem with that which wasn't a factor for BtS is, and maybe someone an correct me, but I think if we play with the xml edited, nothing we do counts towards achievements, which some people like. So a lot of us would have to choose between achievements and playing with/against civs that are more interesting to us.

And I know the Zulu civ isn't necessarily the most important civ ever, but this isn't about "worthiness" or importance, it's about what people like, and the Zulu are pretty badass, hence people like them.

Hungary was one of the major european powers from ~900 AD to ~1500 AD, and it's a shame noone ever cares about that
Pre WW-era Austro-Hungary was under a personal union with Austria, and it was rather shortliving. I agree that doesn't deserve a full civ, even if it was a very powerful state

About popularity, just check a few polls
Hungary and Poland are among the most anticipated "missing" civs from the civ series
And yeah, I dare to say that both of them would sell very good as DLCs too, at least as good as some of the previous ones

Also, I really don't think that many people edit civs out from their game
Maybe preset a few civs for a specific game, but editing out a civ for good? Highly unlikely that this is a common thing among civ players
 
what are the odds of a Hun/Hungary combo civ? according to wikipedia modern Hungarians are descended from the Huns. Huns had a pretty big empire under Attila, then later the Hungarians had a pretty decent run for about 500 years in the medieval/rennaissance.

would be kinda like the danes.

Actually the Hun and Hungarian relativity is highly debated
I personally think that there is some sort of connection to the huns, but it's rather minimal
The main Hungarian tribes were of Uralian origin, and we are a Finno-ugric nation
Might be surprising, but the closest relatives to Hungarians are Finns and Estonians
 
The link is AFAIK mostly geographic: the Huns settled in modern Hungary, giving the country it's modern name. The Avars came later and replaced the Huns in the region, but by then the region was firmly known as Hungary. Then the Magyars came to Hungary and replaced the Avars. Since the region was already known as Hungary, the Magyars (who had little to no cultural or ethnic connection with the Huns) became known as Hungarians, since they were the inhabitants of the region "Hungary".
 
Civilization franchise has an immense fan base in Poland, often ranting, but overall devoted to the franchise. There was a Polish civilization mod for every iteration of the game starting with Civ3. I really hope that Poland makes it to Civilization eventually, be it in Civ5 as DLC, in expansion pack or even in Civ6 in the future. Poland may not have a distinct "civilization" of its own today, but in history it was a unique country, in its prime in Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance up to the Commonwealth with Lithuania. Poland would fit very well as a cultural and religious civ with the military cherry on the top in the form of Winged Hussars.

I'm not advocating Poland because I'm Polish, but because there is a void in Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe left by Firaxis. I can understand that, traditionally, all Slavic countries are represented in Civilization games by Russia, but the Poles are, in my opinion, a little offset from the Slavic root, being more westernized in language and mentality, similarly to the Czechs.

If there would be a civilization to represent Central Europe that isn't Poland, it would - and should - be Hungary, because - as AbsintheRed said - it was a major power throughout the Middle Ages and was a place where cultures, religions and peoples clashed. Hungarian throne was valuable enough that foreign dynasties fought over it, while unique, maybe a bit romanticized, Magyar culture of horse riding remained an intriguing spot among city-dwelling Germans and rural Slavs.

But, whatever we may hope, the devs have already chosen. My guesses for the 4 remaining civs are:
-Majapahit, due to immense fan demand
-Poland/Hungary/Sweden as a representation of some missing European civs which could provide an interesting gameplay, with Poland and Hungary being likely additions because of the Medieval scenario
-Hittities/Sumerians, although they won't be completely new to Civilization games, but you can't get enough of Ancient and important civs
-Zulu, because they are often a fan favourite.

As for the Victorian scenario (if it takes place in the real world and not on a fantasy continent, which might be the case - either way a steampunk setting would be a refreshment in Civ5), Austria-Hungary will most likely be represented by Roman or Greek UA, the leader would be Franz Josef, but the leaderhead would be replaced by a painted, static portrait, just like the beautiful portraits in the Viking scenario. The same way could be done with the Huns in Fall of Rome scenario being represented by Mongolian UA and maybe UUs with a custom leader portrait.
 
Perhaps the time is right for something new in a CIV game? I have a few ideas: (1) Minoans, an Atlantis-like Civilization. (2) Or, what about one of the pre-Columbian era North American Indian groups: Anasazi, Hopewell, or Mississipians? (3) My personal favorite would be an Israel that utilizes both the ancient civilization and the modern Israeli state.
 
Civilization franchise has an immense fan base in Poland, often ranting, but overall devoted to the franchise. There was a Polish civilization mod for every iteration of the game starting with Civ3. I really hope that Poland makes it to Civilization eventually, be it in Civ5 as DLC, in expansion pack or even in Civ6 in the future. Poland may not have a distinct "civilization" of its own today, but in history it was a unique country, in its prime in Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance up to the Commonwealth with Lithuania. Poland would fit very well as a cultural and religious civ with the military cherry on the top in the form of Winged Hussars.

I agree, except for one point: of course Poland is it's own distinct civilization today! What else could it be :)
 
Perhaps the time is right for something new in a CIV game? I have a few ideas: (1) Minoans, an Atlantis-like Civilization.

I like the Minoans and I like thinking of them as something other than the Greeks of the mainland (their culture had a lot of differences, but they definitely seem to have been conquered by the mainland Mycenaeans). However, what language would they speak? We know the mainlanders spoke Greek, but I don't think there's any reason to definitively conclude that the Minoans of Linear A script fame spoke Greek (I've heard the argument that they spoke a language isolate or a language related to Etruscan).

Also, what leader would they have? Would it be Minos of the Minoans? Leaving aside that he's possibly a fictional King (I'm partial to the theory that Minos was a title anyway), it's weird to have the leader and the civ have the same name. Especially since the civilization was named by scholars after the King.

Anyway, they're cool for a mod, but somewhat awkward to really include.
 
What would really be a cool thing, was if the developers created a "Separation" DLC.

Greece could be separated so the Civs instead of full Greece (which I completely hate) it could be Athens, Sparta, Minoa, etc.

China could also be separated into different dynasties. (Han, Qin, Ming)

India, instead of being India, could be the Kushan, Chola, Maurya, Gupta, etc.

I can't stand these giant nations like India, China, and Greece, because they clump together a bunch of civs that were totally different and deserve to be individual.
 
What would really be a cool thing, was if the developers created a "Separation" DLC.

Greece could be separated so the Civs instead of full Greece (which I completely hate) it could be Athens, Sparta, Minoa, etc.

China could also be separated into different dynasties. (Han, Qin, Ming)

India, instead of being India, could be the Kushan, Chola, Maurya, Gupta, etc.

I can't stand these giant nations like India, China, and Greece, because they clump together a bunch of civs that were totally different and deserve to be individual.

Scenarios maybe.... not civs.
 
Scenarios maybe.... not civs.

However, he has a point. India in particular is a baffling addition. It has half a century of history. Before that it was NEVER a civilisation. Some of the most significant empires of the time were however based in India. The Mughals had a huge empire that they conquered for themselves, created the worlds largest civil service system, created buildings like the Taj Mahal and reigned for hundreds of years. The Marathas too were pretty big i hear. But for some reason we get India... :S
 
Greece could be separated so the Civs instead of full Greece (which I completely hate) it could be Athens, Sparta, Minoa, etc. China could also be separated into different dynasties. (Han, Qin, Ming) India, instead of being India, could be the Kushan, Chola, Maurya, Gupta, etc. I can't stand these giant nations like India, China, and Greece, because they clump together a bunch of civs that were totally different and deserve to be individual.

I had similar thoughts this morning, as I was itching to play a specific Chinese dynasty and not the giant conglomerate that each CIV game has come packaged with.

Is there a chance I can generate some interest in the Anasazi, Hohokam, Hopewell, or Mississippians? I realize these extinct and largely illiterate North American peoples didn't leave us much in the way of named personalities or language. However, I've been truly impressed by visits to some of their sites, like Chaco Canyon in NM, Serpent Mound in OH, and Cahokia in IL. Believe me, Pueblo Bonito is far more impressive than anything the Iroquois ever built. Perhaps the best reason we have utilized the Sioux or Iroquois to fill the territorial gap in CIV games is due to their immediate exposure to the US and the modern world. I fear that the totality of their achievements and standing among other civilizations will never compare well with the others in the game. Added the new research in the book Man Corn, a cannibalistic cliff dwelling CIV - the Anasazi - could make for a fun play and a unique challenge to their southern neighbors the Aztecs.
 
With the Mississippians, their successor peoples languages would work, such as the Creek and Choctaw.
 
However, he has a point. India in particular is a baffling addition. It has half a century of history. Before that it was NEVER a civilisation. Some of the most significant empires of the time were however based in India. The Mughals had a huge empire that they conquered for themselves, created the worlds largest civil service system, created buildings like the Taj Mahal and reigned for hundreds of years. The Marathas too were pretty big i hear. But for some reason we get India... :S

Yea! There was so much stuff the ANCIENT indians did that is all neglected in Civ5 because Firaxis decided India was all the same.

I had similar thoughts this morning, as I was itching to play a specific Chinese dynasty and not the giant conglomerate that each CIV game has come packaged with.

Same with China, too. And with China, there were like 2 modern dynasties (ming, qing). There were so many ancient dynasties that get overlooked in CiV China with Wu Zetian. I mean, even Wu Zetian!?!?! Confucius, Wudi, or any other Chinese figure could have been way more sufficient than Wu Zetian. Even in the DoM speech, they don't mention Wu's accomplishments at all. They just give a history of China because SHE hasn't done anything herself.

And with Greece, Alexander isn't even Greek!! He's a Macedonian!!!! Most of the Greek accomplishments (Parthenon, stuff like that) is from Athens, way before Alexander was even born. True Greece is not portrayed in the CiV "clump," it's Hellenistic Greece which is actually a combination of cultures. "True" Ancient Greece was during Athens's Golden Age and the Greek city-states were split up and should be in CiV.
 
I wouldn't say Firaxis thought they were all the same, since when the decision to include India was made, it was still MicroProse.
 
I hope for several civilizations, but I can't really guess any of them.
Since the five announces civilizations has already appeared in past civs more than once I hope that the rest are completely new to the series, or one that has only appeared once, like Ethiopia, and civilizations outside of europe.

I'm hoping for, not guessing:
Most of all:
Mapuche
Kongo
Khazar
Inuit

Secondly:
Ethiopia
Sioux
Brazil (They'd be interesting as a modern nation, as opposed to other suggestions, like Australia and Canada which I feel are to similar to USA, culturally).

I know that several (a whopping THREE :0) of those civs'd be horse based, but that's how I roll ;D
 
Hungary was one of the major european powers from ~900 AD to ~1500 AD, and it's a shame noone ever cares about that
Pre WW-era Austro-Hungary was under a personal union with Austria, and it was rather shortliving. I agree that doesn't deserve a full civ, even if it was a very powerful state

About popularity, just check a few polls
Hungary and Poland are among the most anticipated "missing" civs from the civ series
And yeah, I dare to say that both of them would sell very good as DLCs too, at least as good as some of the previous ones

Also, I really don't think that many people edit civs out from their game
Maybe preset a few civs for a specific game, but editing out a civ for good? Highly unlikely that this is a common thing among civ players

You're right, most people probably choose what civs they play against rather than edit others out. I'm different because I like randomness. I like going into a game and having it be a surprise to find out who else is on the map (civIV: "sweet, crazy ol' Monty!" "Crap, Izzy"). But I guess most people aren't like that, so I'm one of the few who will actually see more civs as a disadvantage/bummer if they're not as "cool" to me as the more obvious choices. That's the nice part of DLC civs-- if I don't want them I can just not buy them in the 1st place.
 
Yea! There was so much stuff the ANCIENT indians did that is all neglected in Civ5 because Firaxis decided India was all the same.



Same with China, too. And with China, there were like 2 modern dynasties (ming, qing). There were so many ancient dynasties that get overlooked in CiV China with Wu Zetian. I mean, even Wu Zetian!?!?! Confucius, Wudi, or any other Chinese figure could have been way more sufficient than Wu Zetian. Even in the DoM speech, they don't mention Wu's accomplishments at all. They just give a history of China because SHE hasn't done anything herself.

And with Greece, Alexander isn't even Greek!! He's a Macedonian!!!! Most of the Greek accomplishments (Parthenon, stuff like that) is from Athens, way before Alexander was even born. True Greece is not portrayed in the CiV "clump," it's Hellenistic Greece which is actually a combination of cultures. "True" Ancient Greece was during Athens's Golden Age and the Greek city-states were split up and should be in CiV.
You doubt that Wu Zetian was a great leader?
She was the first great empress of China.
She reconquered some territories that Taizong conquered and were lost.
She provided better equality.
She was great at administration,she appointed people by looking at their talents and not by social status.
She built many temples and pagodas.
She was fair to the lower classes and lowered taxes.
She reduced the size of the army,which saved lots of money.
She did a lot of great things,but she was cruel,yes,but those who want to achieve greatness must sometimes do cruel things.
She improved agriculture and placed a lot of importance it.
The empire prospered and there was peace.
...
There is no doubt that she was a great leader,she was surely the mightiest and greatest women in Chinese history.
I admire Wu Zetian and she is one my favourite leaders in history.
Look at all the mods in Civ4 that have her as one of the leaders!
They choose her above some other great emperors and she deserves it!
 
I want
* Congo or Ethiopia. I think Zulu will be saved for later DLC because of their popularity.
* Poland or Hungary. We need a new central European civ!
* Israel
* A new Native American civ.
 
I'm basing my guesses on logic and precident. (I'm not the best speller)

That being said...

Zululand is an obvious choice not for any historical significance, but for simple fame (maybe a UA that allows primitive units to contend with and/or defeat modern units??)

The Sioux have merits and are also good choice for just fame.

Sumeria is unlikely because of overlap with Babylon.

Hunnic-type "superciv" with all of the nomadic tribes of that area used as cities (simillar to the Polynesian Islands) with Attilla the Hun as leader. (possible UA involving converting barbarians when at war)

Poland is doable

Hittites would definatly work

Yugoslavia/Balkans (same concept as Huns ,minus the UA, but with slavic ethnic groups and maybe Serbia as capital because of its hotbed for Yugoslav independence)

in conclusion, my picks would be

Zululand
The Sioux
The Huns
Yugoslavia
The Hittites
Poland
 
Top Bottom