Which New Civs should be in CIV V

Inuit Tribe
Brazil
Bantu Tribes
Israel
Vietnam
Australia
Austria
Scotland
 
Out of the ones currently not in,

Poland
Austria-Hungary
rename Vikings as Scandinavians

than Europe should be done.

In the Americas,

remove native america in exchange for two north american tribes
Venezuela (or some form of Gran Colombia)
Brazil

In Africa,

Mali and Zulu are fine, add in Swahili city states.

In Asia and the Pacific,

Pheonica
Hittite
East Asia is fine.
Polyneisia.

So effectively,


Poland
Austria-Hungary
rename Vikings as Scandinavians
remove native america in exchange for two north american tribes
Venezuela (or some form of Gran Colombia)
Brazil
Swahili
Pheonica
Hittite
Polyneisia

And there will be no more need for new civs.
 
Get rid of Native America. Put Poland. Also get rid of holy roman empire. Add austria-hungary. Rest are fine. Add more civs.
 
Remove HRE and Native America.
Add
Austria
Poland
Sweden
Italy
Huns
Assyria
Hittite
Vietnam
Srivijaya
Nigeria (Nok/Oyo/Yoruba/Benin/Hausa/Bornu)
Lunda
Brazil
Iroquois
Sioux
 
I don't think having both Germany and HRE or Rome and Italy make sense. Instead, Civs should bemore adaptable to fit into each era.
 
Instead, Civs should bemore adaptable to fit into each era.
Click to expand...

This could end up being really confusing with the Roman, Greek, Mongol, Arabian, Ottoman, etc; empires. I still wanna have the ability to play as both Rome and France or Mongolia and Arabia.
 
Poland: The source of ALL forum disputes. :p
 
I'd like to see Transylvania (or Wallachia) in Civ V with Vlad Dracula 'the Impaler' (or Matthias Corvinus) the leader of this Civ :crazyeye:

:)
 
Remember that the civs are supposed to be major powers in their area some time in their history. You can safely say that Italy is the same thing as Rome, since they did not overlap. Celts could be almost any european country. Scandinavia includes the Vikings, and Sweden. The Ottoman Empire can be the same as Turkey. The Holy Roman Empire (it's included in civ4?) should not be a civ. The Austro-Hungarian Empire is not a bad idea though.


Oh, yeah: WHY IS ROME PURPLE?!?!?!?!?
 
Argetnyx said:
Remember that the civs are supposed to be major powers in their area some time in their history. You can safely say that Italy is the same thing as Rome, since they did not overlap. Celts could be almost any european country. Scandinavia includes the Vikings, and Sweden. The Ottoman Empire can be the same as Turkey. The Holy Roman Empire (it's included in civ4?) should not be a civ. The Austro-Hungarian Empire is not a bad idea though.


Oh, yeah: WHY IS ROME PURPLE?!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with you on the Rome = Italy part. It's an incredibly overly simplified view...
 
It would be a waste, the more civs, the better. Plus, it's easier to mod, because the unique units that Rome doesn't have in the industrial-modern times is all taken care of by the Italian UUs.
 
Argetnyx said:
It would be a waste, the more civs, the better. Plus, it's easier to mod, because the unique units that Rome doesn't have in the industrial-modern times is all taken care of by the Italian UUs.
Click to expand...

But doesn't that mean that there will be a lot fewer of the ancient powerful civs? I.e., Persia, Greece, Rome, Mongolia and many of the other ancient civs you wanted to play as.
 
Argetnyx said:
Remember that the civs are supposed to be major powers in their area some time in their history. You can safely say that Italy is the same thing as Rome, since they did not overlap. Celts could be almost any european country. Scandinavia includes the Vikings, and Sweden. The Ottoman Empire can be the same as Turkey. The Holy Roman Empire (it's included in civ4?) should not be a civ. The Austro-Hungarian Empire is not a bad idea though.


Oh, yeah: WHY IS ROME PURPLE?!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

Purple has long been considered the color of royalty and luxury, and so Roman emperors were the only people allowed to wear it. It was very difficult to make for a long time (Cleopatra supposedly made her servants soak 20,000 purpura snails in order to make a single ounce of Tyrian purple dye).
 
Yes, but Rome has always been RED.
Click to expand...

Only in Civ3 the default Roman color is red. In Civ2, it is white. I don't remember the Civ1 color schemes, but I do remember that red is the Barbarian color there.

As to the question - get rid of the irrelevant weak trash like Rome, Egypt or China and replace it with deserving, mighty and significant civilizations like Liechtenstein, Free City of Danzig, Nepal, Bhutan and Barbados.
 
Lone Wolf said:
Only in Civ3 the default Roman color is red. In Civ2, it is white. I don't remember the Civ1 color schemes, but I do remember that red is the Barbarian color there.

As to the question - get rid of the irrelevant weak trash like Rome, Egypt or China and replace it with deserving, mighty and significant civilizations like Liechtenstein, Free City of Danzig, Nepal, Bhutan and Barbados.
Click to expand...

Whilst we're at it why not:

Transnistria
Pechenegs
Pisa
Savoy
Karelia
Dunmomia
Berwick-Upon Tweed
Papal States (But only have Conquest Victory on)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lord Lakely
Filling in the gaps - Charting the optimal Civ Switches
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
3K
ehecatzin
ehecatzin
D
Future Civ Changing Mechanic Suggestion
Replies
0
Views
372
desk
D
Lazy sweeper
  • Poll Poll
Minimap mode. Pool, yes or no.
Replies
5
Views
587
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
GeneralZift
Era should NOT be global.
Replies
19
Views
975
Iceberg1er
I
Bast
I think the game should get back to some realistic history
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
7K
luca 83
luca 83
Back
Top Bottom