Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Stonecutter9, Apr 12, 2013.
Now Kongo is out, i'd say:
Pretty hard choices, but my last four favorites are:
1) A Native American Civ: Cahokia (Mississippian Mound Builders) with Cacique Tuskaloosa
2) Majapahit with Queen Tribhuwana or Elephant General Gajah Mada
3) Vietnam with the Trung Sisters or Emperor Le Thanh Tong
4) Morocco with Queen Kahina
Gave my fifth vote for Khazaria, but even as they are my long time favorite, I do not expect to see them in CiV anymore.
I'd consider inuit a far more legitimate suggestion than your support of 'Australia'. At least the former has their own unique language, culture, customs, dress and so on.
Ideally though neither should be included or at least not before they've exhausted virtually every other option.
Really surprised at how relatively few people want Italy.
i think a lot of people dnt want italy because the games already has the roman empire and geographicaly there quite similar
Here's my guess for the next 4:
Controlled large amounts of iron and the iron trade in the American West
Could be connected to a potential Buffalo luxury resource
Civ that would choose Judaism as a default religion
Huge trade empire, connected Europe/Scandinavia to the East
Hinted at in recent interview
Scramble for African Scenario
The Somali City States Civ (might just be called Somalia)
Incredibly important series of cities that dotted the Somali coast and played a huge role in Indian Ocean Trade. Maybe a UA dealing with monsoons
Scramble for African Scenario
Like ur thinking, but there r problems:
1-They should add a South Eastern Asian civ
-Majapahit is a good civ to play ( it has a good history) and they have VERY interesting culture
-Vietnam has a very rich history
2-TBH, I think that the Sioux would be funner to play then the Comanche because Sioux had a very big impact during the colonisation of north america
It's actually doing relatively well IMO. We don't seem to have many runaways anymore. Pretty much just the Native-American mash-up (essentially, multiple civ's) and Indonesia. Those two largely reflects people aspiring to some ideal of "geographic diversity". I sympathize (Italy was the only Euro civ I voted for), but in the end a good candidate is a good candidate, and Italy just meshes with BNW so well.
Gran Colombia - Simon Bolivar!!!
Another Native American Civ - maybe Sioux - Sitting Bull
Other American Modern Civ: Mexico or Argentina
Other Civ: hum... Thailand (tourism!!!)
Have seeing Jerusalem as in one of the new pictures post, I do not believe it will be this time Israel will be a Civ.
Tibet, I think will also a nay.
Holy Rome - would be cool to see again Charlemagne (previous on civ 4)
The Hittites (previous on civ 4)
The Khmer (previous on civ 4)
All those 3 european civs you mention are way more "stupid" ideas than Tibet
Italy could work with a little stretch, but the HRE and Belgium are not civilizations at all (in the sense the civ franchise use the term), only countries/states
HRE is one of the worst choices that keep popping up in these threads... :/
If you want unique European civs with real significance, Hungary and maybe Bulgaria are your best bets
I still think the Denmark/Sweden Austria/Hungary city list parallel makes Hungary the mostly likely unconfirmed civ so far.
There might be another Latin American civ, but certainly not two. I personally want Argentina as the ninth, dark horse civ. Also, Thailand is another name for Siam, so if there's another SE civ, it'll be Indonesia, Khmer, or Vietnam.
Why would you want Thailand ? It's already there (in some way) with the Siam. It would be like having Germany and then adding the "Prussian" Empire. I'd prefer the Khmer Empire (but I don't think they'll make it ... It'll be between Viet Nam and Indonesia, surely). Although I'd like to see Israel under David or Salomon, Jersusalem as CS takes out that choice. Same for Kongo, since Mbanza-Kongo is a CS, and the Sumerians, since Ur is also a CS. And the fifth I'd like to see but certainly won't make it is Tibet, but many don't think they'll be added because too "controversial" (hell it's controversial : We're talking about the Empire from the VII century under Songtsen Gampo or Trisong Detsen !). None of my top 5 will surely make it ... how sad for me !
Look this is what I hate in these discussions - when people slag off other peoples picks. Disagree by all means but calling suggestions stupid is just counter productive negativity.
Now lets look at your suggestions for a second.
Vietnam - Definitely a big chance. Fit's ideology beautifully but perhaps Majapahit and Timurid might be in front from Asia thanks to their trade elements. Also Majapahit comes from one of the most populous countries on earth (Indonesia). Bali has long been a tourism mecca and they are renowned as traders. Vietnam has a good case but spent most of history either under others control or fending others off rather than growing into a major power themselves. The Timurid are technically Silk Road and lots of people love their style of play.
Kievan Rus - Worthy suggestion but the negative comes in terms of uniquenss. It's the same argument as the one against Hungary. Stylistically with Poland coming in they are probably design wise fairly similar in terms of what developers would design for them and that hurts their chances.
Chile - If Polynesia wasn't in then the Easter Island statues would have been a great selling point. As it is they are perhaps behind Gran Columbia and Argentina on the Sth American pecking order (certainly in terms of people mentioning them). I love the hugging the coast nature of them in the real world and if the developers designed something around that it could be a fun civ to play.
Cuba - Ideology, expansion into the new world and trade wise they fit the expansion. If Castro had of passed away a couple of years back I actually think they may have got in but with him alive it seems a little unlikely.
Haiti - probably the least likely or sustainable suggestion. Very small but with a somewhat unique culture. I think a more likely dark horse from the region would be The West Indies - whilst it is a cobbled together civ it reflects real life where those nations come together as one for things like sport (cricket, netball etc).
Now I'll compare Australia for a second. Trade and Tourism wise they fit the expansion and were also part of the colonial expansion that lends it's name to the expansion packs name. Have two unique possibilities design wse with the aboriginal culture or the convict culture both of which no other country offers. They offer unique resources. 12th largest economy in the world etc etc. Decent output in science - especially medical sciences. Their sheer size much like Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Lithuania means that they have some merit as a civ. They also are a large gaming market which doesn't hurt their chances.
I undestand if you wouldnt like to play them but to call the suggestion that they are worth considering stupid seems ill considered. Almost any civ could be a great addition if the developers make the right design choices and almost anyone could be terrible with the wrong ones. For me it's those choices that make the civ good or bad play wise and Australia at least offers very clear unique ways to go design wise that offer the possibility of a unique gameplay experience. Somewhere like Kievan Rus is definitely worthy but I think the difficulty is more in finding a uniqueness in design terms that would make them more exciting than what has already been developed in the Eastern European region game wise. That said a good developer with a good knowledge of them would probably find elements to do that. Most of the civs developed for 5 have had something worthwhile gameplay wise.
-Morocco- Hinted at in interview, would fit in well with trade mechanics.
-Indonesia- Good with trade, although I would expect Firaxis to call it Indonesia rather than Majapahit, due to familiarity.
-Sioux- Resource (I think) is Buffalo/Bison
-Sealand- What? It's a good dark horse.
I don't get how civs like Cuba and Kievan Rus are being considered. Cuba has never been important except as a place to grow sugar (of which there are many) and has only become well known because of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Fidel Castro's switch to communism. Since then, they have contributed little to world history and have been dependent on other countries for financial backing in order to stay afloat. Kievan Rus is just an older version of Russia, sort of like Han and Ming China. They're culturally similar, have the same governments, the same ancestry, and one leads to the other. After Kiev went into the hands of the Poles, Russia fought to get it back because it's a Russian city. I just don't know what Kievan Rus or Cuba really contribute besides the fact that they're interesting.
My picks are:
3. Gran Colombia (I just want to see Bolivar or another modern Latin American civ that's not Mexican)
4. Italy? I don't really care by this point. I'm honestly content enough with the Iroquois. Native American civs are always weak and uninteresting opponents, IMO. True wild card.
Portugal was the one I really cared about this time around, and I got that so I'm happy regardless of the turnout of my "predictions"
Given that Morrocco is in, (They're 4th in poll anyway with 81 vote) There are 3 slot left in 9 new civ quota.
Which according to the poll here. Right now, Most wanted civ is...
1st Native American with 175 votes.
2nd Indonesia with 154 votes.
3rd Vietnam with 103 votes
and after 4th Morocco,
Several choices are being crammed at 40-60 vote. Ordering by vote Italy, Israel ,Modern American (continent), Hittite, "Other", Tibet-Timurid, Ashanti, Hungary-Nubia
I think, as Morocco is in, I think there would intensify the flame battle about what civ "could" be in. 3 civ slot left and some complained Africa is underrepresented (although North America is technically equally underrepresented by now), some are voice their support for Italy/Italic civ, I for one who are for Vietnam and Majapahit. But there are only 3 slot... I think Firaxis will have a great opportunity for DLCs soon.
Separate names with a comma.