Guess the New Civs

Venice did have participation in major wars. They were an economic and naval powerhouse and fought against the Ottoman Empire. I personally think they are better candidates for a mod, I just wanted to defend the idea that they were actually more than just a city-state.

Hm, true, true, but... I just can't see it as a civilization, more like just a powerful city-state... I don't know... Kind of like Athens & Sparta in ancient Greece etc.
 
I forgot Khmer.

Here's how I see it:

Khmer and Mali are out from far too similar existing Civs, that is, Siam and Songhai.

HRE is most likely out, as with Austria in, I think that will be enough central Europe in Firaxis's mind.

Portugal is out, as the Dutch and Carthaginians effectively fill the naval void.

That leaves Zulu, Hittites, and Sumeria - and let's be honest here, who do you think 90% of consumers are going to find most exciting? ;)

Hence my bet on the Zulu. I, personally, would love to see the Sumer, but I think Zulu are a more realistic, and probably more fun, option.
 
Well,but from the 8 already revealed civilizations,there are only 2 civilizations that have never been represented as a civ before(Austria and Huns) . I think It'd be more interesting if the 9th civ is also in the similar situation from these two .
 
Maybe a never before represented Civ outside of Europe too? :p
 
BTW, are we absolutely certain the "Byzantines" are one of the new civs, rather than the Romans getting a new leader and uu?
 
Yes, we are.

ETA: I won't be glib. The original screenshot for choosing religions explains that the "Byzantines" get to choose an extra bonus. Unless Rome also got renamed, the Byzantines are a separate civ. I'm pretty sure Dennis Shirk also stated that the "Byzantines" get the Dromon, which spits fire.
 
So, just for those who wanted to know (Sorry if this has been done already), these are the Civilizations from previous games and expansions that are not yet present:

  • Holy Roman Empire
  • Portugal
  • Sumeria
  • Mali
  • Zulu
  • Hittites
  • Khmer
For the record, my money's on Zulu.

You forgot the Khmer (IV) and Sioux (II).

Also of those, it's important to note that the Zulu have been in all 5 previous games (including Rev), Portugal and Sumer have been in 2 previous games, and the rest have only been in 1 previous game.

Anyway, HRE is replaced by Austria
Portugal is in as a city-state
Mali is replaced by Songhai
Khmer is replaced by Siam

That leaves the Zulu and Sumer as the legacy civs that have appeared in the most previous games. Then the Sioux and Hittites as one time legacy civs.

I still think either the Zulu or Sumer are very likely for the last spot. I don't see the Hittites getting in before Sumer. People argue against the Sioux as another horse civ, but I don't really see this as a big deal.
 
Aw geez, forgot the Sioux too! Sorry.

But yes, I agree with you entirely with your post. Sumer or Zulu will be the big two, unless we see one completely out of left-field. (Sealand, anyone? ;))
 
Seems pretty clear then.

Maybe the extra civ is Anglo-Saxon England? Athelstan as leader, capital at Winchester, UU the thegn? ;) In all seriousness, never figured out why some civs like Rome and Germany get period-specific duplications (Byzantium and HRE in Civ IV), but others like England, Russia and China don't.
 
Meh, Venice is better represented as a mere city-state. Pisa and Genoa also had overseas lands, hell, even Ragusa had a strip of land in India, but they were not really world changers were they? They didn't have any big participations in great wars or anything...

Venice sacked Constantinople and had a large part in the early Crusades, which would make it a fit for the Medieval Scenario, which might be the way the expansion is going to choosing which civs to include. They seem a little more important than a lot of other City-States already in the game - then again, Genoa wiped out most of Europe, so who knows what defines importance. But I highly doubt Venice will be included. By comparison to the other civs they seem quite unlikely.
 
That is your view. I dont have anything against having more European civilizations and I could almost bet that the last civ is Sweden.

I'm with you; here's hoping for Sweden. If there truly is a new era, and it is the Enlightenment era, Sweden is not a stretch of the imagination.
 
Pangur Bán;11400250 said:
Maybe the extra civ is Anglo-Saxon England? Athelstan as leader, capital at Winchester, UU the thegn? ;) In all seriousness, never figured out why some civs like Rome and Germany get period-specific duplications (Byzantium and HRE in Civ IV), but others like England, Russia and China don't.

I think the Holy Roman Empire was added because they didn't want people fighting over who gets Charlemagne as their leader. Byzantium not only had a very different culture than Ancient Rome, they spoke a different language and had a different geographical area and capital. In that sense, they're more logical as a different civ than the Saxons.
 
I think the Holy Roman Empire was added because they didn't want people fighting over who gets Charlemagne as their leader. Byzantium not only had a very different culture than Ancient Rome, they spoke a different language and had a different geographical area and capital. In that sense, they're more logical as a different civ than the Saxons.

Charlemagne was well before the Holy Roman Empire. HRE addition in Civ 4 was just a big blunder I think.

Byzantium not only had a very different culture than Ancient Rome, they spoke a different language and had a different geographical area and capital. In that sense, they're more logical as a different civ than the Saxons.

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. Justinian himself was a Latin-speaker who ruled most of the empire's traditional boundaries and in fact more of it than Julius Caesar! ;) If you want to pull that argument off you'd need to take a late medieval leader, and even here it means ignoring the fact that they are actually the same state. 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.
 
Oh I'm all excited about Sweden now as well ^.^
Though I think a non-european civ deserves the last spot more.

It depends on the non-european civ - the Majapahit, or Tibet, sure. The Zulu? Not so much. Sweden has never been in a civ game before, and this is the first time Scandanavia hasn't been lumped into one civ. Sweden deserves some honour.
 
Powys had great influence throughout Wales and even in western England for several centuries. It would be good to see Powys better represented, instead of being lumped with the Celts or Wales! ;)
 
Well, not quite. 'Norweigan' ski infantry, after all.

Fair point; that slipped my mind. Still, Civ 5 still gives more room to breathe for Sweden, even if Norway does get pushed into its union with Denmark. Finland would probably be overlooked in a similar manner.
 
Top Bottom