Guess the New Civs

This it what I think
1:Netherlands(Willem van Oranje)
2:Celts(Boudica)
3:Byzantine(?,probably Justinian I)
4:Carthage(?,probably Hannibal)
5:Maya(Pacal)
6:Kongo(Ana Nzinga)
7:Indonesia(Hayam Wuruk)
8:Tibet(Songtsen Gampo)
9:Sri Lanka(Parakramabahu I)
This is the current civ list:
Europe:England,France,Spain,Rome,Greece,Germany, Denmark,Russia,Netherlands,
Byzantine,Celts
Asia:Japan,China,Mongolia,India,Siam,Korea
Africa:Carthage,Egypt,Songhai
America:United States,Aztec,Inca,Maya,Iroquois
Oceaniaolynesia
Middle East:Babylonia,Arabia,Ottomans,Persia

Europe is overpresented,all civ games are terrible Eurocentric,which annoys me
Asia has a great or even greater importance then Europe in world history.

I just hope that if the Byzantine and the Ottomans are in the same game they not found the same city.
Constantinople=Istanbul
A city can NOT be the capital of two empires at the same time,that's IMPOSSIBLE.

And I don't want that puny Zulu.
They were a small kingdom.
Did nothing for history.
Shaka was a tyran.
And were only famous because ONE battle.

I think

- Sumerians
- Austria-Hungary
- Zulus
- Moors

what I would like:

- Zulu
- Ethiopia
- Swahili
- Sioux

I stand by my dislike of Justinian for a couple of reasons:

One, he bankrupted the Eastern Roman Empire
Second, the Empire when he ruled it still seemed a bit western facing. He is referred to as the last Roman Emperor and he spoke Latin. He focused on trying to recapture Rome.

The later Empire that spoke Greek and was a hybrid of east and west seems a bit better. I like Alexius Comnenus, but I've also heard good arguments for Basil II. In other words, someone who spoke Greek.
It's also possible it would be Justinian's wife, Theodra, but that would compound my objections.

Louis XXIV said:

I stand by my dislike of Justinian for a couple of reasons:

One, he bankrupted the Eastern Roman Empire
Second, the Empire when he ruled it still seemed a bit western facing. He is referred to as the last Roman Emperor and he spoke Latin. He focused on trying to recapture Rome.

The later Empire that spoke Greek and was a hybrid of east and west seems a bit better. I like Alexius Comnenus, but I've also heard good arguments for Basil II. In other words, someone who spoke Greek.
It's also possible it would be Justinian's wife, Theodra, but that would compound my objections.

Click to expand...

They could do something funny/unusual with the Byzantines by making them have a double-leader. By that I mean instead of just having Justinian as leader, the Byzantines will have both Justinian and Theodora as leaders and depending on the situation/relations either Justinian or Theodora will be talking or they might start to argue because of a proposed deal. But that might be to unorthodox or comical for Civ.
Apart from Justinian or Theodora the Byzantines could be led by Basil II, Heraclius or Manuel Comnenus.

Austria or Brazil would be interesting to see.

Civciv5 said:

Europe is overpresented,all civ games are terrible Eurocentric,which annoys me
Asia has a great or even greater importance then Europe in world history.

Click to expand...

Here is a rough map of countries represented in civ

The problem is most of the Asian Civs I would think worth while representing (Mughal, Timurids e.c.t.) already exist within nations already in the game, leading to the same thing you had an issue with with Byzantium (Which is only in due to Byzantium fan boys).
That leads very few options. I agree Indonesia/Malaysia needs representing but don't see the point of adding relatively minor kingdoms to balance up numbers (Like Sri Lanka).

I don't necessarily think modern countries are the best metric, though. I think one needs to take a more historic approach.

However, I suspect there won't be a lot of European additions. Three of the new civs are, which makes me think the other 6 can be divided among the others.

Plus, you run into playstyle diversity issues. How does Portgual play differently from Spain, England, and the Netherlands? Not in the sense that there won't be some slight advantages here or there, but a clearly unique difference. Spain explores and colonizes, England dominates the sea, I don't know what the Netherlands does except piracy. But the point is, what does Portugal have left? Let's also keep in mind that America has line of sight, so that exploring bonus is gone too.

I don't see Tibet's inclusion due to the new relgious city states, for the same reason I feel like Israel will be somewhat unlikely.

So it seems like most people agree on 2 suspected civs:

Zulus and Ethiopia

I am still hoping for more representation from South America. Gran Colombia is an interesting choice that has been discussed here in these forums for years.

Brazil I would think would have the best chance in South America, but would feel awkward without Portugal.

And my personal favorite civ in South America because of its sheer importance to the region and history, Chachapoya.

There are other possible lesser known native civs in South America that could be used, but the Chachapoya are/were the second most important civ in South America (Pre-Colomb):

Mapuche, Tipu, Nazca among these front runners for native civs.

============

I honestly think its interesting the Pueblo/Anasazi aren't being mentioned more as a possibility. They have been discussed thoroughly over the years and people have gotten the feeling that the Sioux just barely outplaced them of a spot.

And since many suspect polynesia's inclusion was due to fan persistance (on the 2k Forums), perhaps a surprise civ in the Inuit is not out of the realm of possibility.
============

@ Hoplite, you forgot Songhai on that map.

Louis XXIV said:

I don't necessarily think modern countries are the best metric, though. I think one needs to take a more historic approach.

Click to expand...

That would have made it far to complex, would colonies count? Do I take there size as where they controlled when they were largest, or anywhere they have controlled or maybe just there "Core" land?

They could do something funny/unusual with the Byzantines by making them have a double-leader. By that I mean instead of just having Justinian as leader, the Byzantines will have both Justinian and Theodora as leaders and depending on the situation/relations either Justinian or Theodora will be talking or they might start to argue because of a proposed deal. But that might be to unorthodox or comical for Civ.

Click to expand...

I totally agree!

I'm guessing Sumeria (come on, they were one of the first civilizations...), Zulu, Portugal (world exploration, anyone? ), Hittites (really, they were really important for all their iron-based contributions).

Would like to see Olmec and Assyria, too.

I hope they'll save Portugal for later: having 3 European powers out of 9 new nations seems very Euro-centric and unnecessary.

I'd hope for:
-Majahapit
-Ethiopia
-Congo/Moors
-Native American civ of some sort: Sioux might work, but they didn't have a king.

in addition to Byzantines, Carthage, Celts, Dutch and Mayans.

I would like to see Lithuanians as a civ, but I think it isn't high on any priority list. They could have a UA based on their centuries-long religious resistance to conversion. As much as I would like to finally see Poland or any Slavic civ other than the Russians, I think the Lithuanians would provide a more interesting gameplay.

I bet they will now introduce Sumeria or Phoenicia, Kongo, Majapahit and Ethiopia, but I have a hunch that a new Native American civ is going to come along.

Putmalk said:

Portugal (world exploration, anyone? )

Click to expand...

Morningcalm said:

I hope they'll save Portugal for later: having 3 European powers out of 9 new nations seems very Euro-centric and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

As has already been ascertained, Portugal is going to be a city-state in this expansion.

As noted previously, and by a few others, if there is a Native American civ added, I feel like the Sioux would be a strange choice. They didnt really form cities, which is THE core element of the game.

While I agree, they were in Civ2, so it's not impossible they'll bring them back.

anandus said:

One of my many, many speculations
Also the Carolingian Empire could be an option (instead of the HRE), because Charlemagne is awesome

Click to expand...

This!

I'd love the HRE or the Carolingian Empire to feature. Although this would involve reassigning quite a lot of existing Cities/City-States from other Civs, the fact that they introduced the HRE with Charlemagne in the Civ4 expansion pack makes me think they might do it again. An alternative might be to instead have a Prussian/Austro-Hungarian Civ representing the Holy Roman Empire but I think they'd be crazy not to have Charlemagne in there somewhere.

I think the Zulus are a safe bet for sure. Other than that, I'm stumped, except that I'm fairly certain we won't be seeing Israel.

Just seems to me that they, the Sioux, wouldn't bring a wholly new play style (we have a "horse" civ), and taken in conjunction with the fact they didnt build "cities", the developers have better options to work with. Or so I kinda hope.

Remember, you have to consider the language that the Civ leaders will speak in.

We barely have any account of the Hunnic language. Are they gonna replace it with Mongolian or a Turkic language? I rather not have the Huns as a new civ for that reason only.
Hittite language left more records, but will be tough, and it's basically the earliest attested Indo-European language.
Sumerian language was used in Civ4 so it's possible though redundant to have them in the expansion
Boudica will likely speak Gaelic though I prefer Welsh, Carthage's leader will prolly speak in a Berber language like Carthage's units in Civ4, Byzantine's leader will prolly use Medieval Greek, Pakal will speak Yucatec Maya though Ch'ol Maya would be more accurate, Willem will speak Dutch? though some people here say he never spoke that language

Ethiopia (with Amharic) and Majapahit (Javanese, but Indonesian/Malay is ok) are my favorite choices