any signs of Byzantine DLC ?

[Ermak-]

I am dumbfounded that the Byzantines who rules for a thousand years in the heart of civilized world were left out of the game. I demand a brand new DLC with dromons and all. Unique buildging could be Theodorian Walls' and uniqe unit could be the Archbishop or something. Are real empires being left out to make room for Hiawatha savages?

Moderator Action: Throwaway derogatory statements about one nation or another do not serve the purpose of civil[ized] discussion. If you wish to argue that a specific nation should not be included as a civilization then do so with arguments, just calling them savages is not going to cut it. - ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[anandus]

There are many civs still missing. Although nothing is known of any future civs or when and in what format they'll arrive (if ever, but I suppose so).

We're kept in the dark here, so the only thing we can do now is wait.

Alternatively you could check the mods to see if someone has made the Byzantine civ. I'd reckon someone has
Edit:
See here for custom civs: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=399

 

[Optional]

Byzantines and Dromons, I share the sentiment.
Purely speaking in game terms, a nice trireme replacement is still missing, so the Byzantines would fill a gap.

Some people here on the forums are guessing the Byzantines won't come, because the Ottomans are already in the game, and they cover roughly the same geographical area. I don't know, the both ot them were in Civ III.
There's probably still a nice bunch of civs to come, so there's always hoping.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Lots of Civs missing. I'd love Byzantium, but I doubt they're at all close to the top of the list.

ETA: I think Dromons are a poor choice for a UU. I think their implementation in Civ3 was poor overall, so I wouldn't take much from them. In Civ4 they were better, but I'd still rather a different leader than Justinian (one speaking Medieval Greek or its modern derivative rather than Latin). Justinian is known in many ways as the last Roman Emperor, but the Greekness of Byzantium is just as fascinating as its Roman origins.

 

[AbbieRevo]

I think the way Firaxis sees it is that Byzantium = Rome / Greece.

Same reason I don't think we'll see a seperate Holy Roman Empire, or Soviet Union.

They'll probably focus on getting out some more unique cultures, like Sumeria, the Netherlands (Notice there's no Amsterdam CS) the "Zulu", or the Ethiopians.

Though I wouldnt' mind seeing some of these "civ variants" at some point in the future.

 

[Horizons]

Well we have a civ game without the Zulus which I find truly shocking ...

 

[aatami]

I am dumbfounded that Sumeria which was the first civilization in the world was left out of the game.

 

[jtb1127]

It'll probably be the zulu. I won't by it though.

 

[Ermak-]

Well we have a civ game without the Zulus which I find truly shocking ...

ZULUS were not a 'civilization'. All they were is a somewhat more organized band of savages who at the 19t century managed to develop a bronze working technology and using newly aquared spearmen once overun a lone british rifleman with numbers 10:1.

 

[AbbieRevo]

ZULUS were not a 'civilization'. All they were is a somewhat more organized band of savages who at the 19t century managed to develop a bronze working technology and using newly aquared spearmen once overun a lone british rifleman with numbers 10:1.

Dude, you gotta stop calling Tribal Civs "Savages" it's really offensive.

 

[bcaiko]

Well we have a civ game without the Zulus which I find truly shocking ...

This. I think in the last thread that had a "Which Civ should be the next DLC?" poll, Zulus got over half the votes. No one else was even CLOSE.

C'mon Firaxis. We're clamoring for some Chaka here!

 

[CivOasis]

Byantines= Rome. Just as Carthage= Phoenicia.
Though, I would like to see Phoenicia.
In all honesty, though, Europe & the Middle East are really crowded, and there are plenty of civs in other locations that deserve to be represented.
Including civs that many people percieve as "tribal". Look through some more obscure civs, and some can arguably be called more advaced than their conquerors, albeit not militarily.
For example, I wonder how well the Spanish would have done at Tenochtitlan, if they didn't have 6,000+ Tlaxcallans allied?
But, yeah, Africa needs civs more, and there's definitely better options than the Byzantines.

 

[AriochIV]

It's pretty early in the Civ V cycle... Byzantium has been in pretty much every incarnation of Civilization, so it's reasonable to expect that they'll get around to it (assuming they continue to release civ DLC's).

 

[CTH]

I am pretty "sure" that swedish civ will be included at some time, just because the denmark civ could just as well have been a Viking civ but it was not which leaves room for a swedish civ. I dont expect it soon though, perhaps in an expansion or a DLC a year or so from now. I do however agree that Byzantium should be included.

 

[awesome]

i'm another one for more unique civilizations over all of the samey same ones. the byzantines could potentially be pretty cool, depending on how they're done, but civilizations like iroquois and polynesia add some more variation to the game.

I am pretty "sure" that swedish civ will be included at some time

and i kind of doubt that there's going to be a swedish civilization, like, highly doubt it.

 

[zephyrtr]

Yeah I don't know what would make Byzantium particularly different from Rome or Germany. If it wouldn't be a very different Civ to play, there's not point in making them. This is why the Zulus would be favored over the Byzantine Empire. Cause Byzantine will play too much like other Civs, or best case scenario would play like a mix-and-match.

We have Rome, Greece, Germany, France and Spain -- they need to be allowed to break away and pursue other, stranger Civs.

I am pretty "sure" that swedish civ will be included at some time, just because the denmark civ could just as well have been a Viking civ but it was not which leaves room for a swedish civ. I dont expect it soon though, perhaps in an expansion or a DLC a year or so from now. I do however agree that Byzantium should be included.

I dont know about that... It's been 'Vikings,' and it's been 'Scandanavia.' I think they wanted to name it after an actual Nation, not a group of people or a geographical region. It doesn't suggest to me at all that Sweden is coming.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the way Firaxis sees it is that Byzantium = Rome / Greece.

Same reason I don't think we'll see a seperate Holy Roman Empire, or Soviet Union.

There's a key distinction. The Holy Roman Empire this time around has been explicitly incorporated into Germany (Landsknechts represent medieval Germany - the heart of the Empire). I doubt we'd see the Soviet Union, but that's because it was the direct cultural and political successor of Russia and was in the same geographic area. It's similar to England and the UK (although, had they had the T-34 as a UU, I think there would be an even better argument).

Byzantium is different. It wasn't in the same geographic area, there isn't as clear of a cultural continuity (there are Eastern elements that Byzantium embodied which never found as much prominence in the west). And, most importantly, Byzantium is not clearly incorporated into either the Greeks or the Romans, both of which seem to very much represent their Ancient Empires (both had same era UUs when it would have been simple to have a Cataphract as well if they chose to).

They'll probably focus on getting out some more unique cultures, like Sumeria, the Netherlands (Notice there's no Amsterdam CS) the "Zulu", or the Ethiopians.

I agree with this, however. If you ask me to think of unique playstyles for the Byzantines, I sometimes have trouble. These Civs definitely play differently (although I hope they don't go with the Zulu this time).

ETA:

Byantines= Rome. Just as Carthage= Phoenicia.
Though, I would like to see Phoenicia.

Actually, Byzantines =/= Rome, just as Carthage =/= Phoenicia. Also, just like America =/= England.

 

[CivOasis]

Actually, Byzantines =/= Rome, just as Carthage =/= Phoenicia. Also, just like America =/= England.

There's a big difference in those examples. The Byzantines weren't just a successor state to Rome, they actually consider themselves Rome, albeit a Greek-speaking one.
Carthage was founded by people from Tyre, and considered itself a successor to Tyre. It may have survived the collapse of the Empire, but its history seems very akin to the Byzantines.
The Americans revolted from the British, and did not consider themselves successors. Unlike the other two, they set out to be different, not in the same image.

America's difference is in the vein of how France, Spain, and England are not Rome.

 

[awesome]

I agree with this, however. If you ask me to think of unique playstyles for the Byzantines, I sometimes have trouble. These Civs definitely play differently (although I hope they don't go with the Zulu this time).

well, i'm sure they could design a byzantine empire with a unique style of play, especially if they go with the dromon, but i agree that something like ethiopia or the netherlands has more potential for that.

 

[Louis XXIV]

There's a big difference in those examples. The Byzantines weren't just a successor state to Rome, they actually consider themselves Rome, albeit a Greek-speaking one.
Carthage was founded by people from Tyre, and considered itself a successor to Tyre. It may have survived the collapse of the Empire, but its history seems very akin to the Byzantines.
The Americans revolted from the British, and did not consider themselves successors. Unlike the other two, they set out to be different, not in the same image.

America's difference is in the vein of how France, Spain, and England are not Rome.

Carthage came to see themselves as a successor, but did not originally see themselves as a successor. They more or less emerged as the leader of clearly independent Phoenician colonies. Not all these colonies were ever ruled by Tyre. Western Punic is very different but Tyrian Phoenician. The culture was very different. The paramount gods were different. Their history was different.

Likewise, I think it's more important to look at whether they were different, not if they set out to be different. Carthage was culturally distinct from Phoenicia. Byzantium was culturally distinct from Ancient Rome (the Rome represented in game). I'm just saying there's enough diversity to justify the distinction and there's enough distinction to justify including them at some point.