Guess the New Civs

I think that when people say they want more African civs, they actually want Sub-Saharan civs. Completely understandable. It's a big area and the Songhai are quite close to being a Super-Saharan civ.

I'd still like to see a North American tribal civ as well. Navajo, Apache, Pueblo, or Comanche.
 
Zulu would be the 4th civ in Africa: Songhai, Egypt, Carthage..

Compared with only two from North America, I'm not surprised a lot of people share the opinion that another native American civ wouldn't hurt. Personally I'd like to see a tribe from the southwest like the Navajo or Apache, there aren't many good desert civs.

There may be some bias involved given the number of players in North America vs. Africa, but Africa is not that badly represented IMO.

I'd like to have both ideally.

Sub-Saharan Africa, though. In my mind (at least) Egypt and Carthage are more Mediterranean than African. Ethiopians or Nubians would be cool.

I would like another NA civ, but I haven't heard one yet that I really like too much. The suggestions all sound like they're trying much too hard. For SA, Brazil might work for a modern age Civ. Ancient might be possible.
 
Indeed. May i suggest South America, Africa and North America (in that order)? :lol:

cheers!

Best to worst in each region:

South America: 1. Chachapoya (arguably the most important Pre-Colombian civ to be neglected with a good city list, culture, language, and leaders. Huge cities, huge impact, and its a shame that the most people know of them is from Indiana Jones), 2. Brazil, 3. Gran Colombia, 4. Tupi, or maybe 5. Nazca for a Desert Civ

Africa: 1. Ethiopia, 2. Kongo, 3. Moors/Morocco, 4. Zulu, 5. Zimbabwe, 6. Benin

US + Canada: (Since it seems we are excluding Central America), 1. Pueblo/Anasazi, 2. Comanche, 3. Inuit, 4. Cherokee, 5. Navajo, 6. Sioux 7. Seminole, 8. Illinois 9. Tuscarora (and re-editing info from Iroquois)
 
Morocco's out, we have confirmation of Marrakesh as a CS

Well at least some representation is nice. Pity, I feel like they could have made a nice surprise addition.
 
Sub-Saharan Africa, though. In my mind (at least) Egypt and Carthage are more Mediterranean than African. Ethiopians or Nubians would be cool.

I would like another NA civ, but I haven't heard one yet that I really like too much. The suggestions all sound like they're trying much too hard. For SA, Brazil might work for a modern age Civ. Ancient might be possible.

Sure, I agree. Ghana, Mali, Ethiopea, Zulu - I would be pretty shocked actually if at least one of these doesn't make it.

My point was more that North America is also underrepresented, not that Africa isn't.
 
Sure, I agree. Ghana, Mali, Ethiopea, Zulu - I would be pretty shocked actually if at least one of these doesn't make it.

My point was more that North America is also underrepresented, not that Africa isn't.

I agree with that. I just haven't fallen in love with any of the options yet (though I'm thrilled to hear that Maya is back in).
 
I'd love to see some kind of relative geographical/cultural balance, but deep inside my heart I know it's not going to happen... Nevertheless, right now I’d say South America is the least represented region, while Sub-Saharan Africa is not represented at all:

Europe: 6 (+2 in DLC; +3 in G&K) (*Counting the Byzantines in)
Asia: 4 (+ 2 in DLC)
Middle-East: 3 (+1 in DLC) (*Counting Persia in)
Northern Africa: 2 (+1 in G&K) (*Counting Songhai in)
North America: 2
Mesoamerica: 1 (+1 in G&K)
Oceania: 0 (+1 in DLC)
South America: 0 (+1 in DLC)
Sub-Saharan Africa: 0

Keep in mind I’m talking about “relative balance”. We all know that some regions are more interesting than others to the game’s purpose, so it’s not like we’re expecting Oceania and South America to get the same amount of Civs as Europe and Asia. But I think it’s fair to expect the addition of a Sub-Saharan Africa people (Kingdom of Kongo and the Zulu being great choices) and a South American State (I believe that post-colonial nations like Gran-Colombia and Brazil - Republic or Empire - are more likely to be chosen than any native people) over everything else.
 
Has anyone said Canada yet? They haven't been in Civ so far AFAIK, but why would that be so ridiculous? They hold a pretty big chunk of land right now and were involved in plenty of major wars. Why not Canada? Have any of their CSs been seen in GaK screenshots? Is there anything ruling them out aside from the fact that they haven't been done yet?
 
Has anyone said Canada yet? They haven't been in Civ so far AFAIK, but why would that be so ridiculous? They hold a pretty big chunk of land right now and were involved in plenty of major wars. Why not Canada? Have any of their CSs been seen in GaK screenshots? Is there anything ruling them out aside from the fact that they haven't been done yet?

Quebec City is a city state. I doubt they'll be included in G and K.
 
Quebec City is a city state. I doubt they'll be included in G and K.

Yes, but CSs in the past have been changed for new civs. Which is why I ask if any Gods and Kings screenshots have shown Quebec or anything else in Canada. The fact that they're currently a CS means nothing.
 
previously city states have been made into civ cities, Seoul comes to mind. So I don't think they are "ruled out". In fact they probably have a pretty good chance just due to the video game market there. The suits aren't dumb.

If Canada is in though, that kind of opens the gate for the likes of Australia & Brazil. I think it's more likely to see those kind of civs bundled in a DLC.
 
True, they have been changed in the past. I just doubt Canada would be a civilization for Gods and Kings. There's been precious few in the way of GK screenies, so I doubt anyone's seen a GK picture of Quebec City, however that was one of the more recent updates.
 
Has anyone said Canada yet? They haven't been in Civ so far AFAIK, but why would that be so ridiculous? They hold a pretty big chunk of land right now and were involved in plenty of major wars. Why not Canada? Have any of their CSs been seen in GaK screenshots? Is there anything ruling them out aside from the fact that they haven't been done yet?

The problem is that Canada is two civilizations (Quebec should really be it's own civ rather than be bundled together with Canada), and I'm not sure whether the English portion of Canada is distinct enough from America to warrant being a civilization.
 
Best to worst in each region:

South America: 1. Chachapoya (arguably the most important Pre-Colombian civ to be neglected with a good city list, culture, language, and leaders. Huge cities, huge impact, and its a shame that the most people know of them is from Indiana Jones),


Have you considered making a mod that adds the Chachapoya as a civilization? I'm sure many people would appreciate it, specially since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about them and could properly explain their relevance.
 
I'd love to see some kind of relative geographical/cultural balance, but deep inside my heart I know it's not going to happen... Nevertheless, right now I’d say South America is the least represented region, while Sub-Saharan Africa is not represented at all:

Europe: 6 (+2 in DLC; +3 in G&K) (*Counting the Byzantines in)
Asia: 4 (+ 2 in DLC)
Middle-East: 3 (+1 in DLC) (*Counting Persia in)
Northern Africa: 2 (+1 in G&K) (*Counting Songhai in)
North America: 2
Mesoamerica: 1 (+1 in G&K)
Oceania: 0 (+1 in DLC)
South America: 0 (+1 in DLC)
Sub-Saharan Africa: 0

The more traditional way they've divided it up has been
(Base game + DLC + G&K)
European 4 + 2 + 2
Mediterranean 4 + 0 + 2
Mid-East 3 + 1 + 0
Far-East 4 + 3 + 0
America's 3 + 1 + 1

North and South America have probably the most similar histories of any two geographical continents. Makes sense to group them (Along with Meso-America)

If you think about the land area of Oceania, it's tiny comparatively speaking. And if you're counting Australia well, we have such an amazing history :rolleyes:

Every civ from Africa falls into either the mid-east category or mediterranean (North Africa). The Sub-Saharan category, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Fulani, Kanem were all Islamic. Ethiopia is Christian but is also located geographically close to the middle-east anyway. That leaves a bunch of really, very small African states that we don't know much about (Zimbabwe, Lunda, Luba, Bachwezi) that seem to fit the definition of "city-state". The remainder is what, the Kongo kingdom (Which again is quite small) the Ashanti and the Zulu, both known probably more for fighting the British than anything else.
 
The problem is that Canada is two civilizations (Quebec should really be it's own civ rather than be bundled together with Canada), and I'm not sure whether the English portion of Canada is distinct enough from America to warrant being a civilization.

It would be kinda cool if they did Canada and it had a two-level UA to reflect it's duality. Like there was a general bonus to forests and strategic resource tiles and then every fourth city has a bonus to culture.

And the leader says his lines in English and then repeats them in French.
 
The problem is that Canada is two civilizations (Quebec should really be it's own civ rather than be bundled together with Canada), and I'm not sure whether the English portion of Canada is distinct enough from America to warrant being a civilization.

No Canada is one nation/civilization. Quebec should not have it's own civilization anymore than Texas.

I think you are confused about Canada with your "the English portion" comment. The province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual, also there are many towns and city districts outside of Quebec that are french/bilingual. As well as there are tons of Aboriginal reserves with own respective languages. Aside from most Canadians not feeling that Quebec is separate from the rest of Canada. It's typically the vocal minority that people hear.

"the English portion" of Canada isn't distinct from America, since it is part of North America. If you meant The United States of America, then it is very distinct. Universal health care, peace keepers, not committing genocide against our first nations peoples, multiculturalism vs melting pot, Canada's whole Government structure is different from the USA (we are part of the British monarchy) and general politeness. USA citizens when traveling around the world have been known to put Canadian flags on their luggage to get better treatment. However it doesn't work as many people in the hospitality industry can easily distinguish a Canadian from someone from the USA.
 
No Canada is one nation/civilization. Quebec should not have it's own civilization anymore than Texas.

I think you are confused about Canada with your "the English portion" comment. The province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual, also there are many towns and city districts outside of Quebec that are french/bilingual. As well as there are tons of Aboriginal reserves with own respective languages. Aside from most Canadians not feeling that Quebec is separate from the rest of Canada. It's typically the vocal minority that people hear.

"the English portion" of Canada isn't distinct from America, since it is part of North America. If you meant The United States of America, then it is very distinct. Universal health care, peace keepers, not committing genocide against our first nations peoples, multiculturalism vs melting pot, Canada's whole Government structure is different from the USA (we are part of the British monarchy) and general politeness. USA citizens when traveling around the world have been known to put Canadian flags on their luggage to get better treatment. However it doesn't work as many people in the hospitality industry can easily distinguish a Canadian from someone from the USA.

I don't think that poaster was confused at all. I'm from BC, not a drop of Quebecer in me, and I absolutely believe they are a "distinct society" and in very real ways, their own nation. In fact, the more time I spend in History classes, the more I learn, the more I'm convinced Quebec really should go their own way.

Don't take my word for it: google "Quiet Revolution" and learn about Quebec's modern roots.
 
I don't think that poaster was confused at all. I'm from BC, not a drop of Quebecer in me, and I absolutely believe they are a "distinct society" and in very real ways, their own nation. In fact, the more time I spend in History classes, the more I learn, the more I'm convinced Quebec really should go their own way.

Don't take my word for it: google "Quiet Revolution" and learn about Quebec's modern roots.

learn more before speaking about 'history class' information.

It's kinda sad when classes are being used to change 'history', and use things like 'distinct' society in relation to former french colonists.

A small point: go find out how many different cultures actually immigrated to Canada across the years before splitting it into 'english' and 'quebec'.
 
Top Bottom