19 of 18 Civs now confirmed!

[Iván de España]

If there are indeed 25 civs, and Persia and Siam are included, I want the remaining 6 to be Spain, Viking, Babylon, Maya, Sumeria, and Ethiopia.

I agree with you, except Sumeria because it was a region, not a kingdom. So, Ur, Uruk and Akkad could be city-states, since really they were.
I would include Assyria instead of Sumeria.

 

[Art Grin]

At it's peak, The Siamese Empire was larger than the HRE. Going further back Austronesia covered half the globe in three parts, Formosa (Taiwan), Malay peninsula and Oceania. Austronesia stretched from Madagascar to Easter Island. Ignoring South-East Asia in favour of an already over-represented Europe and Middle East would be extremely disappointing.

And so what if parts of Polynesia are still a French colony. Songhai is part of French territory too, but it's in Civ. The Aztecs are now part of Mexico, but they're in. You've made an irrelevant argument.

Well I didn't know that Siam was that big but for how long did it control that territory? Also my argument is not irrelevant and France doesn't control any territory in Africa. The point is that Polynesia is such a small and unimportant area that the French were and are capable of controlling it unlike the former African and Indochinese territories. I accept the point that Europe and the Middle-East are overrepresented, but these are the lands which formed human history a lot more that say Polynesia. The Middle-East is the home of civilization and it created several of the most important civilizations ever( Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Turkey and even Hebrew). Europe shaped the world as it wanted it to be, you can't deny the importance of Europe as it were the Europeans and not Polynesians or Siamese who conquered the world. The argument with Mexico and Aztecs is kind of weird since the Mexicans are the descendants of Aztecs and Spaniards, also IIRC Aztec called their land Mexico.

 

[kivanc]

The Landsknecht is probably the German UU, if Germany has several of these. Also I can understand that people want to fill the entire world map with civs ,but really you can't compare Siam or Polynesia to such giants like Persia, Spain or even Scandinavia. While were at it a large part of Polynesia is still a French Colony. So South-East Asia will most likely get a representation in an Expansion Pack.

At it's peak, The Siamese Empire was larger than the HRE. Going further back Austronesia covered half the globe in three parts, Formosa (Taiwan), Malay peninsula and Oceania. Austronesia stretched from Madagascar to Easter Island. Ignoring South-East Asia in favour of an already over-represented Europe and Middle East would be extremely disappointing.

And so what if parts of Polynesia are still a French colony. Songhai is part of French territory too, but it's in Civ. The Aztecs are now part of Mexico, but they're in. You've made an irrelevant argument.

there are issues i agree and disagree with both of you.


* indiachina being a colony in the history doesn't have anything against a civ in the game. a civ from there can still be in the game. songhai, aztecs etc, there are many examples.

* "Persia, Spain, Scandinavia" or even maya, celts etc should be IN for civ5 vanilla, OTOH siam seems more EP-like.

* i also disagree with the idea "all regions must be represented in the game". with EPs maybe yes, but for vanilla (we only have 18) no. even if we would have 25 civs for vanilla, i still wouldn't consider having 1 civ from south east asia a "MUST"

* market sales aren't directly related to pop of countries. so scandinavian civ might have a bigger effect than siam in the sales. however, some popular civs might be left to EPs for marketing strategy as well.

 

[Iván de España]

The accurate name of the "Aztecs" is "Mexics" or "Mexicas". "Aztec" came from the name of a mythic region, "Aztlan", similar to the Eden of the Hebrew-Catholic tradition.

Besides, the term "Inca" is uncorrect. "Incan Empire" is the European name because they named their land "Tiwantinsuyu". "Inca" means "king" in their language.

 

[Dale]

Well I didn't know that Siam was that big but for how long did it control that territory? Also my argument is not irrelevant and France doesn't control any territory in Africa. The point is that Polynesia is such a small and unimportant area that the French were and are capable of controlling it unlike the former African and Indochinese territories. I accept the point that Europe and the Middle-East are overrepresented, but these are the lands which formed human history a lot more that say Polynesia. The Middle-East is the home of civilization and it created several of the most important civilizations ever( Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Turkey and even Hebrew). Europe shaped the world as it wanted it to be, you can't deny the importance of Europe as it were the Europeans and not Polynesians or Siamese who conquered the world. The argument with Mexico and Aztecs is kind of weird since the Mexicans are the descendants of Aztecs and Spaniards, also IIRC Aztec called their land Mexico.

I'm not denying the importance of Europe or the Middle East. I am saying there is already too many Civs from those areas. Give other areas a go. Why would I care for another European Civ (say Spain) who history is similar/tied up with other European Civs? Or another Middle Eastern Civ (say Persia) who's history is also similar/tied up with other Middle Eastern Civs. Are you saying that other areas of the World are not as important as those two? As for who controls what now, that is irrelevant. The relevance is to history, not to who is in control now. Otherwise 90% of Civs wouldn't be able to be in Civ. Which I'm sure you would agree is absurd.

Siam existed independently (under two different names) from 1238 to the second fall of Ayutthaya in 1767. Thailand as we know it now was formed in 1780's. Also, Siam is the only South-east Asian area that was never controlled by Europe. If you want to get technical, the "modern history" of the Siam area began in about 82AD, being controlled by numerous Kingdoms (including the Khmer) till 1238. From 1767 to 1780's it was controlled by Burma.

 

[Dale]

there are issues i agree and disagree with both of you.


* indiachina being a colony in the history doesn't have anything against a civ in the game. a civ from there can still be in the game. songhai, aztecs etc, there are many examples.

Siam is not Indochina. Indochina is a small part of what was Siam.

* "Persia, Spain, Scandinavia" or even maya, celts etc should be IN for civ5 vanilla, OTOH siam seems more EP-like.

Why? You can't make bold claims without quantifying them. Why is what any of those three Civs more important than what other Civs in the World did?

* i also disagree with the idea "all regions must be represented in the game". with EPs maybe yes, but for vanilla (we only have 18) no. even if we would have 25 civs for vanilla, i still wouldn't consider having 1 civ from south east asia a "MUST"

This game is representing WORLD history, not three regions history. Why is it right to deny South America, Oceania and South-East Asia? How is their history less than Europe, Middle East and North America?

 

[Art Grin]

"Persia, Spain, Scandinavia" or even maya, celts etc should be IN for civ5 vanilla, OTOH siam seems more EP-like."

Why? You can't make bold claims without quantifying them. Why is what any of those three Civs more important than what other Civs in the World did?

Persia= First Empire in the World, they created what later became Human-Right, lots of Mathematical things and Literature.

Spain= Discovery of America, Conquest of America, Exploration and more.

Scandinavia= Discovery of North America, trade and cultural exchange between Europeans and Arabs. Being a major factor of creating Europe as we know it.

Well and Siam and Polynesia:

Siam= not being a colony and having an empire.
Polynesia= ??????

The thing is that both Europe and the Middle-East both have lots of civilization which had usually different development and did thing that changed the World. You can't say "Spain had colonies, France had colonies that makes them the same. So let's leave the Spaniards out." or "Persia had an Empire and Turkey had an Empire this means they are the same. Let's just have Turkey and leave the Persians out.". Europe and the Middle-East have so much diversity which creates the need to represent those areas with several civs.

 

[CMKMStephens]

Well I didn't know that Siam was that big but for how long did it control that territory? Also my argument is not irrelevant and France doesn't control any territory in Africa. The point is that Polynesia is such a small and unimportant area that the French were and are capable of controlling it unlike the former African and Indochinese territories.

France = 670000sq/km
Polynesia + NZ = 1400000sq/km

I'm using Polynesia=Pacific islands due to the Micro/Mela/Poly divisions being a rather wonky product of 18-19th ethnography. And that is of course, just the landmass. The Pacific ocean and area in total is kinda...big.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Civilization as a game requires a combination and balance of actual history, the 'what happened', along with the 'what if'. If you're going to focus solely on the former, or even worse run around being grindingly eurocentric, why not just pick up a history book.

The idea of playing through the game and say having France beat out Britain for the mastery of the globe is equivalent to playing a game where Carthage beats Rome, and that is again, equally equivalent to one where Polynesians conquer the whole damn world.

Similarly, I tire of the same defective arguments against inclusion of various civilizations. 'They're in the stone age' for example has a logical conclusion (in that line of thought) of including only modern nations. France > Polynesian's is the same as New Zealand > Classical Greece - New Zealand's military (yes, we have one) could conquer them. But it is also a self-defeating argument considering that all Civilizations in the game start in the stone age anyway.

Civilization as one of its core gameplay elements effectively takes the history of mankind, and then tosses all its technological, cultural, religious, military achievements up in the air in a big lolly scramble. At this point who actually did what becomes utterly irrelevant. Persia had a big empire, Babylon good at maths? Fantastic. Playing as the Mali you could conquer a bigger empire, and lead the world technologically instead. It assumes that technological progress would be more or less the same in a rerun of the world. Similarly, buildings, governmental process (civics) catering to human needs would be the same. Wonders are a bit more historically specific, but you could still envisage them as more abstract 'great accomplishments'. Subsequently, there is no reason one of those peoples cannot be something a bit further afield than the staples of world history. Babylon building the Pyramids first is really no different than Polynesia building them first.

Long story short, Firaxis is quite justified in choosing Civs from around the world, in this case possibly Siam, in another ideal case Polynesia.

 

[kivanc]

This game is representing WORLD history, not three regions history. Why is it right to deny South America, Oceania and South-East Asia? How is their history less than Europe, Middle East and North America?

I never made a comparison of the importance of cultures, i didn't say "siam culture is less important or europe/mid east is more important etc"
i just said the other elements should be in the game but the reason was not the history. i was just talking about the game at that moment.

my point is; all otehr nations that i counted was elements of civ saga while siam would be a 1st appereance. khmers were a 1st appereance too. Every new civ has some new 1st appereances too. But such civs aren't confirmed in the last minute.

I just expect a more elementary civ to take part in the game. For most guys persia/spain etc would be more exciting than siam but for you it might be the opposite as well.

the issue is this; companies are build to maximise profits. so they don't have to satisfy all the worlds wishes. for an EP, a civ from south east asia will probably come. but for vanilla, i don't expect. still, firaxis might surprise me by putting siam for vanilla, it is a possiblity but small I guess.

firaxis might also have a strategy to postpone a few pop civs to EP as well, so they may surprise us still.

 

[Chalks]

Persia= First Empire in the World, they created what later became Human-Right, lots of Mathematical things and Literature.

Spain= Discovery of America, Conquest of America, Exploration and more.

Scandinavia= Discovery of North America, trade and cultural exchange between Europeans and Arabs. Being a major factor of creating Europe as we know it.

Well and Siam and Polynesia:

Siam= not being a colony and having an empire.
Polynesia= ??????

The thing is that both Europe and the Middle-East both have lots of civilization which had usually different development and did thing that changed the World. You can't say "Spain had colonies, France had colonies that makes them the same. So let's leave the Spaniards out." or "Persia had an Empire and Turkey had an Empire this means they are the same. Let's just have Turkey and leave the Persians out.". Europe and the Middle-East have so much diversity which creates the need to represent those areas with several civs.

Persia is extremely historically significant and I don't see how anyone could argue that Siam could even compete with any of those three on an empire building scale. They may have had some impressive architecture, but their influence on the world has been very minor.

 

[Art Grin]

France = 670000sq/km
Polynesia + NZ = 1400000sq/km

I'm using Polynesia=Pacific islands due to the Micro/Mela/Poly divisions being a rather wonky product of 18-19th ethnography. And that is of course, just the landmass. The Pacific ocean and area in total is kinda...big.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Civilization as a game requires a combination and balance of actual history, the 'what happened', along with the 'what if'. If you're going to focus solely on the former, or even worse run around being grindingly eurocentric, why not just pick up a history book.

The idea of playing through the game and say having France beat out Britain for the mastery of the globe is equivalent to playing a game where Carthage beats Rome, and that is again, equally equivalent to one where Polynesians conquer the whole damn world.

Similarly, I tire of the same defective arguments against inclusion of various civilizations. 'They're in the stone age' for example has a logical conclusion (in that line of thought) of including only modern nations. France > Polynesian's is the same as New Zealand > Classical Greece - New Zealand's military (yes, we have one) could conquer them. But it is also a self-defeating argument considering that all Civilizations in the game start in the stone age anyway.

I'm not saying that Siam, Polynesia or even Canada are not allowed to be in Civ5. What I wanted to say is that for the last civ in Vanilla they are simply not important enough and that this spot should go to Spain, Persia or Scandinavia. Other civs will have to wait for an Expansion pack.
Also how did you get that size for Polynesia? All those small island are in no way bigger than France if you put them together or did you count the ocean aswell?

Spoiler :

PS: Just reread your post and found out you counted other islands as well. That answers my question I guess.

 

[CMKMStephens]

Like I said, Melanesia + Micronesia + Polynesia + NZ. If you just go for the last two, Polynesia + NZ it's 300,000sq/km

 

[kivanc]

i shall comment on historical importance as well. IMO, persia is far more important than all other possiblities remaining.
at least i can say this; according to many ancient texts cyrus II (cyrus the great, founder of achaemenid dynasty) is just over-important. so not only persia but also persia with cyrus should better be IN, if historical importance will be our point.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Persia= First Empire in the World, they created what later became Human-Right, lots of Mathematical things and Literature.

Why's Persia the first Empire and not Assyria? Usually, the argument is that Akkad and Egypt have proto-Empires, but, by the time of Assyria, there are full fledged Empires. Persia certainly was very impressive, though, and I couldn't imagine a Civ game without them.

Polynesia= ??????

They colonized the Pacific, basically. They had tremendous advances in seafaring. They domesticated certain crops I'm too lazy to look up at the moment. In places like Tonga, there was at least a small Empire being built entirely out of chains of islands. In Hawaii, there was a complex bureaucratic society and the islands were in the process of unification. The Moai statues are Polynesian as well.

That takes care of impact and culture. Are the best choice? Certainly not. But I wouldn't dismiss them outright (like I used to).

The thing is that both Europe and the Middle-East both have lots of civilization which had usually different development and did thing that changed the World. You can't say "Spain had colonies, France had colonies that makes them the same. So let's leave the Spaniards out." or "Persia had an Empire and Turkey had an Empire this means they are the same. Let's just have Turkey and leave the Persians out.". Europe and the Middle-East have so much diversity which creates the need to represent those areas with several civs.

I agree. Personally, I think the more civs the better. Can't have too much representation.

 

[EMT]

Like I said, Melanesia + Micronesia + Polynesia + NZ. If you just go for the last two, Polynesia + NZ it's 300,000sq/km

The closest Polynesia ever came to ever being united was the Kingdom of Hawaii. While they would be reasonable as an expansion, as a main civ? Oh hell no. Atleast Germany, Greece, the Maya, and the Vikings pulled together at one point. Polynesia has been a land of technical civil war between a similar, widespread ethnicity. I'd support Polynesia after every Civ in IV is in(and the Hittites, Assyrians, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, even the Hebrew, before Polynesia gets in)

 

[The_J]

* i also disagree with the idea "all regions must be represented in the game". with EPs maybe yes, but for vanilla (we only have 18) no. even if we would have 25 civs for vanilla, i still wouldn't consider having 1 civ from south east asia a "MUST"

With 25 civs we would have enough space to represent most of the important countries and cover most of the world.
We have 17 confirmed civs, 3 which are very probable, 1 which has additionally been mentioned, so we have 21. Then 4 slots would be enough to satisfy most people.

Similarly, I tire of the same defective arguments against inclusion of various civilizations. 'They're in the stone age' for example has a logical conclusion (in that line of thought) of including only modern nations. France > Polynesian's is the same as New Zealand > Classical Greece - New Zealand's military (yes, we have one) could conquer them. But it is also a self-defeating argument considering that all Civilizations in the game start in the stone age anyway.

Okay, stone age is not a valid argument, but not having something what could be called a high culture and not dominating a certain area is a good argument, imho.

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

Spain= Discovery of America

No, the native americans discovered the Americas.

Conquest of America, Exploration

So did the French and the English and the Dutch and the Portuguese, and any others I might be forgetting.

 

[Thormodr]

After watching some videos on Mayan Engineering and Scientific achievements I'm going to have to vote for the Mayans.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Honestly, as far as Civilization-specific unique buildings (other than units), they need to work on it more better since Civ4. I notice in Civ4, English have stock exchange as their unique building. Now, in real life, English (or more accurately British) aren't the only one to have stock exchange. Here, in United States, we also have stock exchange. So it's bit disheartening to see that Americans in Civ4 can't build stock exchange. I also see Dutch have dike as their unique building in Civ4 but any civilizations in RL can easily build dike anywhere needed.

I would also object to replacing normal buildings with unique buildings like they did in Civ4. Unique buildings shouldn't replace them, but rather serve as additional, unique building for their respective civilizations.

 

[Warrior7]

No, the native americans discovered the Americas.

Let it be

So did the French and the English and the Dutch and the Portuguese, and any others I might be forgetting.

OK, so if Mayans build piramids as Egypt did.. let's say that's it's not unique or important for Mayans...

Spain did conquered most of America, Spain was the first by far.
Spain had possessions all over the World, America, Europe, Asia.
Spain did the first round world travel with Magallanes-Elcano.
Spain left a legacy in America.

Take this anachronical map of territories that belonged to Spain.