19 of 18 Civs now confirmed!

[EMT]

Originally Posted by Dale

I'm now highly doubtful of Inca being in, and seeing Siam as more confirmed. One article mentioned raising the dead Aztec language for Montezuma. They mention Civ and Leader by name. The other article just used the language name.

The article talked about Quechua, people, the language of the Inca! Also, no one knows what Quechua under the Incas was like, seeing as Quechua has 3 languages that are barely intelligable to each other nowadays, so what Fireaxis may have to do with Quechua is either blend, do a lot of guessing, or use one of the 3 Quechua tongues(North, Central, South, esssentially, with South being predominant), or even more so, resurrect a dead dialect.

[The_J]

Originally Posted by Dale

One article mentioned raising the dead Aztec language for Montezuma.

Can you maybe remember which article it was?

[snipperrabbit!!]

There's also the jag warriors in the new GDC screenshots !

[Dale]

Originally Posted by The_J

Can you maybe remember which article it was?

It was one of about 20 I read yesterday getting news items for Weplayciv. I can't remember which one had it.

[cybrxkhan]

If the Siamese ARE in as opposed to the Incas, that would be really surprising for me, since if I remember correctly the last time they only had two civs for the Americas (America + Aztec)... would be Civ1.

I think there's a chance the Siamese may have been confused for the Indians. So until another article confirms this... I'm still skeptical.

[EMT]

Originally Posted by snipperrabbit!!

There's also the jag warriors in the new GDC screenshots !

The Aztecs have been confirmed.........

[Dale]

Let's remember back to Civ4 where assets for Gilgamesh, Augustus and Pericles were in the release but not added till the XP. Maybe this is the same situation?

[Dryhad]

Originally Posted by Solver

Siam was, though, explicitly mentioned by name, unlike the Incans. I agree that it would bebetter to have a second source confirming that but the fact remains that Incans are the only ones not mentioned by civ name or leader name. We'll see soon, I guess

To play devil's advocate, Inca may not have been mentioned by name but Quechua has. Your argument basically rests on this reference being mistaken. Why can't the same logic apply to the reference to Siam? It's not as though Quechua could refer to any other civ, so the fact that it isn't technically the name of the civ is irrelevant.

[cybrxkhan]

We have to remember that the only way from which Siam was mentioned through was a certain unit called a "Siamese Elephant", which they saw not IN the game, but on some notes/charts the developers had. There are many possible ways how this could be a mistake:

1. Siam was originally going to be included, like someone said above, but scrapped.

2. The Siamese Elephant has been mistaken for an Indian Elephant, since we do not know whether the words "Siamese Elephant" were actually written on the notes/chart or not.

3. Siam could also have been mistaken for a different civ.


Of course, it would be pretty interesting if Siam WAS included in the game, since that basically means that Civ5 has two, not one, "surprise civs" (that's if you consider Songhai to be a 'surprise civ'). Although if that is true I'd still be pretty surprised Siam made it over Spain.

[taillesskangaru]

Remember how the Sumerian vulture unit and a concept art for Gilgamesh was originally included with Civ4 vanilla? I suspect this might be something similar.

[alanthreonus]

Carthage's unique unit in Civ IV is Numidian cavalry, so Siamese elephants could just be another civ's unique unit.

[taillesskangaru]

Originally Posted by alanthreonus

Carthage's unique unit in Civ IV is Numidian cavalry, so Siamese elephants could just be another civ's unique unit.

Unique unit for which civ? India? Don't think so.

[cybrxkhan]

The only civ it would even have a remote chance of making sense for is the Khmer (although that wouldn't really make any sense either), but there is no indication that the Khmer would even be considered in vanilla Civ5.

[bonafide11]

I highly doubt Siam will be included in Civ V vanilla, but they'll be a candidate for an expansion pack.

[taillesskangaru]

Originally Posted by cybrxkhan

Although if that is true I'd still be pretty surprised Siam made it over Spain.

Just read this comment again... the Civ series has a well-established tradition of placing balanced geographical representation over historical relevance. The Zulus were in both Civ3 vanilla and CivRev while Spain (Civ3) and Persia (CivRev) weren't. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if Siam is added to fill Southeast Asia (though I'd have expected the Khmer). That said, I'd like to have Spain or Maya or Sumer instead for Civ5 vanilla, and Siam in an expansion.

[cybrxkhan]

Originally Posted by taillesskangaru

Just read this comment again... the Civ series has a well-established tradition of placing balanced geographical representation over historical relevance. The Zulus were in both Civ3 vanilla and CivRev while Spain (Civ3) and Persia (CivRev) weren't. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if Siam is added to fill Southeast Asia (though I'd have expected the Khmer). That said, I'd like to have Spain or Maya or Sumer instead for Civ5 vanilla, and Siam in an expansion.

Even with that in mind, the Civ series has never even done anything in SE Asia until BtS, so I find having a SE Asian civ for a vanilla game extremely surprising. We may argue that Mali was "not something that was ever done in the civ series", but then again, it was still the token African civ, which is a traditional Civ series'... er... tradition.

Of course, if they're in, that's only more reason to show that Civ5 really is taking things differently, and not just in gameplay mechanics.

[NYHunter]

If Siam/Thailand is in I will be very happy just because it is a civ that has never been in Civilization before. Also SE Asia civs are generally more deserving than Koreans in my opinion.

Now all I need is the addition of civs from Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela) and non-Russian Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Ukraine).

[EMT]

Originally Posted by NYHunter

Now all I need is the addition of civs from Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela)

That should explain how wrong that statement is on so many levels...........

[Iván de España]

I remember that, in Civ 3 vanilla, Spain was included and in the web page there was a backscreen of the Spanish, but later this was deleted and Spain wasn't included.

I hope this time the programmers were more clever including Spain in order to get more money and to be fair with History (Spain ruled Europe during two centuries and was a powerful state until 1939).

[EMT]

Being sort of nationalistic about it doesn't help. I mean, it's fairly clear you support Spain based on your Avatar and Username, and I don't argue that Spain MUST be in, in our opinions, but Fireaxis might not agree with our opinions because there might be more deserving candidates(Persia, in my opinion), thus knocking Spain off.

Almenos ay una expansion, no?