Civ 5: Civilizations/Leaders Wanted!

[EulerMcE]

I don't know much on the Celts either - by chance I've actually been reading Caesar's campaign across Gaul recently to help me read more and help in my creative writing - but the Celtic civ still seems very narrow-minded, to me anyway. The Driudic Lore Unique Ability is the only aspect of the Celts that represents the broader people of ancient Europe. Everything else; the Briton - specifically Iceni - leader, the Pictish Unique Unit, the Gaelic - as opposed to Celtic - Unique Building, and the Scotish capital, all appear to fixate on various parts of ancient Great Britain.
Please don't get me wrong, it may seem like it but I'm not complaining about it. I'd love to play them, it just seems almost limp-wristed to call that Celtica.

The trouble with the Celts is how ill-defined they are. There aren't that many uniform elements to those typically considered Celtic, so they just pick and choose. With regard to the UB being Gaelic being in particular opposition to Celtic - the Gaels are likely just as Celtic as the Britons under the metric of related language and a probably shared ethnicity. Moreover, I think it's commonly held that neither share a strong ethnic link with the continental Celts so the link doesn't extend much past mythology and language. Biggest argument against it if Britons are OK is probably the notion of a hall (and the associated definition of céilidh) for it being post-Christianisation.

That said I agree that the Celts being presented are way too narrow. The known city list leaves a bit to be desired - I wouldn't know about the others closest claim Dublin has to being Celtic is that there was a nearby native settlement when the Vikings set up shop. The UU and UB along with Boudicca's clothing and background and the capital leads me to believe they were gearing it as a Scotland++ civ. Of course they couldn't have Boudicca and call it Scotland so just stuck with the Celt label. I was almost expecting her to speak Scottish Gaelic.

 

[chrissifniotis]

The trouble with the Celts is how ill-defined they are. There aren't that many uniform elements to those typically considered Celtic, so they just pick and choose. With regard to the UB being Gaelic being in particular opposition to Celtic - the Gaels are likely just as Celtic as the Britons under the metric of related language and a probably shared ethnicity. Moreover, I think it's commonly held that neither share a strong ethnic link with the continental Celts so the link doesn't extend much past mythology and language. Biggest argument against it if Britons are OK is probably the notion of a hall (and the associated definition of céilidh) for it being post-Christianisation.

That said I agree that the Celts being presented are way too narrow. The known city list leaves a bit to be desired - I wouldn't know about the others closest claim Dublin has to being Celtic is that there was a nearby native settlement when the Vikings set up shop. The UU and UB along with Boudicca's clothing and background and the capital leads me to believe they were gearing it as a Scotland++ civ. Of course they couldn't have Boudicca and call it Scotland so just stuck with the Celt label. I was almost expecting her to speak Scottish Gaelic.

Yea, you do raise good points. I suppose we can go about this argument however long and much we like and get nowhere from it. I'll just not mind anymore and play.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think that we need to include civs because they have famous female leaders. Just because you can have a woman as the leader doesn't mean you should.

I think it can be a factor to consider. For example, Boudicca is as good a choice as any, but the fact that she's a more diverse choice pushes her over the edge and makes her the better choice. I'd argue Maria Theresa, Elizabeth, and Isabella all fall into this category.

 

[Golden Falcon]

I don't think that we need to include civs because they have famous female leaders. Just because you can have a woman as the leader doesn't mean you should.

It's not only about taht it's just that female leaders do not get as well respected in the civ series as the male leaders look there's only 8 female leaders compared to all the males

 

[Liex]

It's not only about taht it's just that female leaders do not get as well respected in the civ series as the male leaders look there's only 8 female leaders compared to all the males

I don't want to sound sexist, but I don't think there is a plausible way to fix it. It's sad, but it's History, and if Civ wants to rewrite it we are getting Shakala as the Zulu leader and Queen Maria I the Crazy at the expense of a more suitable Portuguese King.

 

[chrissifniotis]

I don't want to sound sexist, but I don't think there is a plausible way to fix it. It's sad, but it's History, and if Civ wants to rewrite it we are getting Shakala as the Zulu leader and Queen Maria I the Crazy at the expense of a more suitable Portuguese King.

It's not sexism if you emphisize the historical point of the argument, which you have. The fact of the matter is history is full of male figures because that was the paradigm (sp?) then; the man is above the woman. It seems sexist to us only because we live on this side of the timeline, with secularism, capitalism and, as much as possible, universal equality. Back then these concepts were heresy;
'The gods don't exsist?! Kill the hithen!'
'Work? For money?! Get back to work or you'll get the lash, slave!'
'A woman at work?! Must be one of those eunchs.'
It's actually slightly funny, only since the past 400-600 years, roughly, did all three of these ideas become more and more evident, until they became acceptable and popular.

Personally I don't mind the female leaders, but if there are better choices I say go for them. Ramessess over Cleopatra; why? Jo mama!

 

[Austria]

As you all probably know, Gods and Kings is adding 9 new civs to civ5. However, there are still lots of civilizations I want them to add to Civ 5 (dlc, expansion, etc...) Here's my list feel free to coment.

#1. Portugal- It is truly shameful Portugal is not already included in civ5. They were the first of the European powers into the age of discovery. millions of people speak portuguese now thanks to their efforts. They were both a cutural and explorative super-power in their hayday
Possible UA-Age of Exploration- Scouts, Caravels, and mounted units all have +1 line of sight and movement, +100% gold, culture and population yield from ancient ruins
Possible UU-Carrack- Replaces Frigate- +1 line of sight, and +1 movement
Possible UB-Feitoria- Replaces Seaport- +1 Gold on each water tile worked by the city.

#2. Sumeria-This is ridicules. The civilazation that brought us writing, the wheel, math and so on, isn't even in the full game. It would even be easy to include them because their already featured the Wonders of the Ancient World Scenario, Just slap on a new unique leaderhead, tweak somethings, and boom new easy civ.
Possible UA- Land of Two Rivers- +1 food from each tile adjacent to a river, and no movement penalty from crossing rivers
Possible UU-Phalanx- Replaces Spearman- +1 combat strenghth and is available at mining instead of bronze working.
Possible UB-Ziggurat- Replaces Temple- +1 culture and +1 hapiness than a temple

#3. Assyria- One of the most BA civs to ever appear in history. No civilization made a bigger impact on the major civs of the Ancient Age than Assyria, burning, looting, pillaging they did it all. They were the great bullies of the Ancient Age.
Possible UA-Total Decimation- +20% combat bonus versus civs that are smaller than them. (The opposite of Ethiopia's ability)
Possible UU-Heavy Chariot- Replaces Chariot Archer- is a melee unit instead of ranged unit
Possible UB-Training Grounds- Replaces Barracks- Costs no maintenance unlike the Barracks

#4. Poland- A superpower in it's glory days, and a proud nation always struggling for it's independence on it's off days. Poland has changed Europe in so many ways including being the tipping point of World War Two. Poland would nicely fill that gap in Eastern Europe, and Poland deserves it too.
Possible UA- Polish Heritage: +33% combat bonus in friendly territory.
Possible UU1- Uhlan- Replaces Lancer- +2 extra combat strenghth
Possible UU2- Winged Hussar- replaces Knight- +30% combat bonus against wounded enemies

#5. Sioux- A native American nation in the Great Plains is what civ5 really needs. More America civs need to be on it and the Sioux are a diverse and cultural people, who can be fierce in times of war.
Possible UA- Great Plains Nation: Culture Borders are invisible to other players other than teammates. +2 Faith from unworked flat unforested plains tiles.
Possible UU-Dog Soldier- replaces scout- has +2 combat strenghth
Possible UI (Unique Improvement)- Medicine Hut- +1 culture and +1 food must be built on a plains tile.

#6. The Apaches- Another Native American civ I always thought deserved to be included. When foriegners came the Apache adapted to the new kind of war. This makes them one of the most versitile civilizations ever.
Possible UA- The Warpath: during a golden age all units recieve a 50% combat bonus when attacking.
Possible UU1-Thunder Brave- replaces musketman- +20% combat bonus in open terrain
Possible UU2-Mounted Thunder Brave- replaces calvary- +20% combat bonus in open terrain

#7. Gran Columbia- A good South American civ to add to the melting plot. I'm hoping if they make a second expansion it's something about revolutions, i don't know it'd be cool. This civ would be the cover for that expansion and rightfully so,
Possible UA- Viva the Revolution- Anytime you liberate a prevously city culture output is doubled for 5 turns.
Possible UU1-Liberator- replaces Great General- anytime an enemy city is captured two tiles or less away you earn 150 culture .
Possible UU2- Colombian Militant- replaces infantry (WW2)- cheaper than usual

#8. The Zulus- As much as I hate them, Zulus are a part of the civ series and it would be awful to exclude them now. for their uniques you can figure anything they had in the past.

#9. Vietnam- A good Southeast Asian civ to counter Siam. They have held true against everyone from China, to Mongols, to the French, to the American. A true survive at all costs civ.
Possible UA- Jungle Survival- +100% combat bonus in jungle tiles
Possible UU- Viet Cong Fighter- replaces Infantry (WW2)- +25% combat bonus in rough terrain.
Possible UI- Paddy- changes marsh tile to worked bonus resource rice (similiar to wheat)

#10. Serbia- A bit of a stretch, but hear me out. Serbia was the main reason for WW1 which turned to be the reason for WW2, which was kinda a big deal I hear. Throughout it's life Serbia fought hard even though it was a tiny nation. That needs to be reconized. Also fun fact more Roman Emperors were born in Serbia than any other country besides Italy.
Possible UA- The Glorious Fight: +20% production on military units if you have less than 6 cities.
Possible UU1-Maceman- replaces swordsman- +1 combat bonus
Possible UU2-Nationalist Militia- replaces WW1 infantry- cheaper than normal

Honourable Mention:
Norway- too close to Sweden and Denmark
Akkadia- too similar to Sumer
Hittites- too similar to Assyria
Bulgaria- wasn't as deserving as my ten
Canada- not distintive enough
Australia- never a world power continder
Brazil- Same as Australia
Holy Romans- Too close to Germany
Mughals- Too close to India
Belgium- probably #11, too close to Dutch

That's my list, I thank anyone who read through it. Did I miss any? please give me your thoughts.
I hope I have encouraged some of the fine people at firaxis or any hardcore modders out there but I might of just been beating a dead horse

Moderator Action: Merged into a bigger thread.

 

[JWAT44]

The 2nd one is ridiculously OP.
Although I like the general idea of improving the capital by expanding, so playing wide helps you go tall as well.

EDIT: Here are my suggestions for order in which these DLCs should be released:
1)Zulu
2)The Netherlands
3)Portugal
4)Kongo
5)Ethiopia
6)Carthage
7)Byzantine
8)Maya
9)Celts
10)Majapahit
11)Austria

Anything after that?
Remember to stay realistic, they really won't be making a Canada civ.

pretty good guess. you only missed the celts and the swedes. oh, and I'm back how does everyone feel about them adding in Spain with the expansion? I would imagine those who bought it on steam already aren't too thrilled...

 

[Sherlock]

Brother, you are spot on about Sumeria and Assyria.

I'd like to see more ancient civs in general.

In fact, I wish they made a game called 'Ancient Civilization' that ran from 4000 b.c.e. to 500 c.e.

 

[JWAT44]

sumeria, assyria, and portugal should definitely be added at some point, but the others are all about each person's personal preference. i don't really like the zulu either, but there are no truly african civilizations (until the expansion adds ethiopia) and it is in all or most of the other games in the series so i see why a lot of people want them in.

 

[Austria]

Thank you for your coments. I do want more ancient civs I thought about added Minoans to the list but thought they were too similar to Greece

 

[Golden Falcon]

the minoans are not similar to greeks they had a very different style and culture

 

[GenjiKhan]

Australia- never a world power continder
Brazil- Same as Australia

In what Millenium are you living to make such affirmation? Because I can't see how a country that recently overcome UK as the 6th biggest GDP can't be a world power contender .

 

[Liex]

#7. Gran Colombia
Possible UA- Viva the Revolution - Anytime you liberate a prevously city culture output is doubled for 5 turns.
Possible UU1-Liberator- replaces Great General- anytime an enemy city is captured two tiles or less away you earn 150 culture .
Possible UU2- Colombian Militant- replaces infantry (WW2)- cheaper than usual

"Gran Colombia" is one of my favorite yet-to-be-included civ, but you're mixing a lot of very distinct things. I don't think "Viva la Revolución" is an appropriate name for the UA, nor "Colombian Militant" - which I understand as the FARC - for the UU.

"Gran Colombia" is the aftermath of the independence movement of several Hispanic-American countries, and under Simón Bolívar it was a young republic with a strong ideology and ambitious plans (that's why I want it in the game so much), but it was short-lived (1819–1831), not being able to maintain its unity and stability.

But right now your suggestion presents Gran Colombia as a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary civ (except by the Libertador UU).

Gameplay wise, there are some problems with the UA as well. I would never play as a civ whose UA (2x Culture for 5 turns) depends on losing a city (so its population is halved) and reconquering it (so its population is halved again...).

About Australia and Brazil, mind that at least 4 civs in your list aren't/weren't global powers as well, so there are some inconsistency in your argument.

 

[chrissifniotis]

...About Australia and Brazil, mind that at least 4 civs in your list aren't/weren't global powers as well, so there are some inconsistency in your argument.

Also, not all the civilizations in Civilization V itself are or have been global powers, but all the same they are there, and a number of these are common in the franchise.

 

[AbsintheRed]

That's my list, I thank anyone who read through it. Did I miss any? please give me your thoughts.

Yeah, Hungary
It should be up top, right beside Poland
A pretty nice list otherwise
EDIT: Check out the civ polls:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460009
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460012

 

[sukritact]

#9. Vietnam- A good Southeast Asian civ to counter Siam. They have held true against everyone from China, to Mongols, to the French, to the American. A true survive at all costs civ.
Possible UA- Jungle Survival- +100% combat bonus in jungle tiles
Possible UU- Viet Cong Fighter- replaces Infantry (WW2)- +25% combat bonus in rough terrain.
Possible UI- Paddy- changes marsh tile to worked bonus resource rice (similiar to wheat)

I'm slightly annoyed that every suggestion for Vietnam so far is ridiculously western based, far too centric on the Vietnam War. (I'm not denying that it's a big part of history)

I'd keep the UU and give it +25% combat bonus on jungle tiles and marshes to it (in addition to the rough terrain bonus).

For the UA, I'd like to represent the fact that they've endured despite being conquered and attacked many times (As your post says). Spirit of Independence (can anyone come up with a better name?): Vietnamese Cities gain +1 bombardment range and can bombard twice when garrisoned, +50% against conquered Vietnamese Cities.

For the UB, Water Puppet Theater: Replaces Gardens, also produces 1 happiness and 3 culture.

 

[black213]

Here's my take on Sumerian UA

Rivers work as roads inside friendly borders and so can connect Trade Routes. +1 per river tile that connects a Trade Route.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I like both the Sumerian UA and Vietnamese UB suggestions in the last two posts. For Vietnam, while I agree it should be a bit broader, I do think the Viet Cong is an inevitable UU based on both on consistency with how Firaxis chooses the UU (it should be comfortably familiar if possible) and the fact that the war was a significant part of Vietnamese history and their Jungle fighting ability was clearly a big part.

 

[Nirosi]

Republic of Genoa
Genoese pirates:You get +2 gold for each foreign coastal city in the -range of your ships
UU:Genoese crossbowman milita, repl.crossbowman +2,-25% purchase costs
UB:Shipyard repl.harbor +15% when building a naval unit.