Guess the New Civs

[Trias]

Just because Jerusalem is a city-state, does not mean that Israel is out. Many country across the world do not recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel, (they recognize the pre-67 borders) and recognize Tel-Aviv as the capital. If they were to implement modern Israel there is still a chance, but for Judea, not as much.
I do think it would be a great addition to add Israel with the religion/espionage aspect, but the controversy might be preventing it from being in Civ5.

And you dont think there will be massive outrage from the jewish community (and particular the Israelis) if they include Israel as a civ and Jerusalem is NOT the capital?

I think this is a hornets nest that Firaxis will gladly avoid.

 

[blackcatatonic]

And you dont think there will be massive outrage from the jewish community (and particular the Israelis) if they include Israel as a civ and Jerusalem is NOT the capital?

I think this is a hornets nest that Firaxis will gladly avoid.

This is what I've been saying...

Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since the days of King David (who established it!). There's no way Israel can be in the game if Jerusalem exists as a City-State (which, by the way, is a great idea - it's the only way you can have such a politically-loaded city as Jerusalem in Civ at all without treading on someone's toes.)

 

[Androrc the Orc]

I would be absolutely ecstatic if they made MALTA one of the new CS

A military CS would probably suit it best considering it endured two of the most awful sieges in history.

Wouldn't Valletta be the CS? Since Malta isn't a city.

 

[Jean Parisot]

Wouldn't Valletta be the CS? Since Malta isn't a city.

It's small enough to work as a CS

 

[WilliamKendall]

1. Zulu
2. Sumeria
3. Hittites
4. Ethiopia
5. Austria
6. Assyria
7. Sioux
8. Poland
9. Hungary
10. Brazil
11. Khmer
12. Mali
13. Phoenicia

There are literally dozens of good recommendations for new civilizations in this thread, including Androrc's above list, nearly all of which would make for fun and exciting new games. However, I strongly suggest that any further expansions or downloadable content to CIV5 should consider one or more relatively new entities and do so for regions of the world with significant territorial coverage gaps. In prior posts I’ve separately mentioned most of my preferred civilizations, but decided it might be helpful for the discussion to assemble the following combined wish list organized by region:

(1) North America: Anasazi (Ancient Pueblo), or Mississippian
(2) South America: Brazil
(3) Europe: Austrian Empire, or Austro-Hungarian Empire, or Minoan
(4) Africa: South Africa, or Zulu
(5) Middle East: Israel (modern state), or Israel (ancient state)
(6) Asia: Indus River Civilization (Harappan)
(7) Oceania: Australia, or Indonesia

 

[Louis XXIV]

I would be absolutely ecstatic if they made MALTA one of the new CS

A military CS would probably suit it best considering it endured two of the most awful sieges in history.

Yeah, I'd love Malta. Plus, you have the Knights Hospitaller time period.

Here's my thought. Add Malta as a military city-state. Change Tyre to a maritime one (as it should be). Maybe change another maritime to mercantile to make up for it (or Tyre can be mercantile).

 

[Polar Bear]

I have not put much thought into this. I want to see my favourite civilization added, the Inuit. I have a thread just for discussing the Inuit. We have already worked out all the details, however it is good to get the input of others. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11173421#post11173421

It could look like this.
Zulu
Assyria
Ethiopia
Inuit

 

[Louis XXIV]

I have criticism of the Inuit's inclusion (essentially, if the Polynesians are just above the threshold, the Inuit are well below it). It's not a knock against them. They show humanity's tremendous ability to adapt and survive in the harshest of conditions. However, those conditions cut precisely against establishing the type of civilization represented in this game.

Nevertheless, I support modding in all sorts of peoples, so I'll go comment on that thread and see if I can give any feedback.

 

[WillBill]

Austro-Hungarian Empire, Zulu, Israel, Brazil. No more USA INDIANS FGS!

 

[fat_tonle]

I'd like to see primitive civilizations represented better by barbarians. Sort of like how they developed into rogue city states in Civ IV. Maybe give them unique resources and units to make exploration and colonization of their lands worth while. You don't really negotiate with them or do missions for them but you can buy them out with gold or something if you don't outright kill them. Think it would be a good representation for native people in largely unexplored lands in the mid game.

 

[vonbach]

I'd like to see primitive civilizations represented better by barbarians. Sort of like how they developed into rogue city states in Civ IV. Maybe give them unique resources and units to make exploration and colonization of their lands worth while. You don't really negotiate with them or do missions for them but you can buy them out with gold or something if you don't outright kill them. Think it would be a good representation for native people in largely unexplored lands in the mid game.

This isn't at all that bad of an idea.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Actually, in a way, I'd suggest the opposite. Similar end goal: Beef up barbarians, but I'd like to return the Horde to Barbarian Horde. That means barbarian migrations and large barbarian surges. I'd also like them to have their own cavalry units rather than just spears, warriors, and archers. I don't like having them settle cities because that seems to blur things too much.

 

[fat_tonle]

Barbarian uprisings should return.

But similar to the revolutions mods in Civ IV, I don't feel the number of CS's should be fixed at the start of the game. Maybe encampments can spawn settlers after 10 or so turns (quick pace) and become a CS. And peace would be blocked until you discover writing, which you certainly will by the time they settle.

I believe you should be able to raze CS's as well (if you can't already, I forget). Liberation should not be an option unless the CS has developed to a certain point. Like until a certain tech or era is reached.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I miss the Barb cities from IV, but I'm ok with not having them. The city-states have somewhat filled the gap. It annoys me how much AI civs get riled up when you start taking C-Ss, even when they aren't allied with anyone.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

No more USA INDIANS FGS!

But Zulu are OK?

 

[anandus]

Barbarian uprisings should return.

Let your unhappiness drop below 20 and voila:

 

[WillBill]

But Zulu are OK?

Yes. The Zulu empire will represent Africa which i think needs more representation. If you think about representation North America already had US and Iroquois and in my opinion its good enough.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yes. The Zulu empire will represent Africa which i think needs more representation. If you think about representation North America already had US and Iroquois and in my opinion its good enough.

I agree that Africa needs more representation--just not with Zulu. I'd actually say that (if you're talking Geographically) North America, South America, and Africa ALL need something.

 

[chazzycat]

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.

 

[WillBill]

I agree that Africa needs more representation--just not with Zulu. I'd actually say that (if you're talking Geographically) North America, South America, and Africa ALL need something.

Indeed. May i suggest South America, Africa and North America (in that order)?

cheers!