Civ V Civilizations Roster

I vote for Hebrews. I miss 'em. There are a lot of jews in the world, after all; I'm sure that they would like it.
 
Congratulations, this is a very good list, there will most probably be some totally new civ. I would though rather read the non bold civs as potentials of which you left a few away like the Civ-stables
Sumeria, Hittites, Sioux/Native Americans and I would not totally dicscount some modern nations like Australia/Canada, Thailand or Brazil (which for example could very well replace Portugal, whereas "South Africa" does a worse job with the Dutch ;-)).

Good list, Koning. :)

@Koning: A good and realistic list IMO. Also, I'm glad for your support for Assyria.

Thanks, now it is up to Firaxis to implement those civs in the game;)
 
Honestly, I think the 18 civs included in civ 4 were a near perfect balance. Mali is definitely my first choice for a sub-Saharan African civ, not the Zulus. I could list at least ten historical sub-Saharan states more important than the Zulus. And the Inca are utterly essential. It makes no sense to have the an empty South America.

Honestly its a shame that they're only including 18, that means that they have to bump someone in order to include a surprise. :( I mean Civ II had 21 out of the box! Why not go up to that number? Yeah, I know that the animations are pricey and work intensive, but c'mon! :D

My list for the included 18 would be the exact same civs as in Civ IV. And if they do go up to 21 civs, ala Civ II, they should add the Byzantines, the Ethiopians and the Khmer (or alternately the Ottomans, the Nubians and Srivijaya).
 
Honestly, I think the 18 civs included in civ 4 were a near perfect balance. Mali is definitely my first choice for a sub-Saharan African civ, not the Zulus. I could list at least ten historical sub-Saharan states more important than the Zulus. And the Inca are utterly essential. It makes no sense to have the an empty South America.

Honestly its a shame that they're only including 18, that means that they have to bump someone in order to include a surprise. :( I mean Civ II had 21 out of the box! Why not go up to that number? Yeah, I know that the animations are pricey and work intensive, but c'mon! :D

I agree, sire.
 
Austria will struggle to get in much for the same reason there'll be no Castile civ or no Danish civ, too similar to another civ in the game (i.e. Germany). Well, that's usually been the main reason for opposing it before, and I'd probably oppose it on that ground too. Austria is just the most powerful German state until Little Germany "unification" in the 1860s. Though Austria is preferable to HRE ... Poland and Hungary have far more to commend them (we forget that Hungary was a giant medieval kingdom). Lithuania is indeed a better east-Europe candidate. Europe's last pagans, Gediminas turned it into the largest "empire" west of the Mongols, with the Baltic pagans conquering Belarus, much of Ukraine and west [European] Russia. It would be ridiculous to have Austria there instead of one of these three (or even instead of Bulgaria/Serbia).

Koning, good job for mentioning Srivijaya. This is one of the strongest civs never included in the game ... AND it could represent Malaysia/Indonesia, which can't be that crap of a market for game companies (?).
 
I think that with Civ 5 remolding the game, and kind of breaking with tradition, the game makers should break with tradition too. Yes, the Aztecs should be in the game. But in an expansion pack! The Ottomans should definitely be in vanilla Civ 5, and if they don't increase the number of civs in Vanilla Civ 5 they should increase the number in expansion packs. 20 Civs means we could have the Incans, the Aztecs, Ottomans, a sub-Saharan African civ, and Babylon. If they were making 20 civs, we could have come to a much better consensus.
 
It would make sense if they made the maya and not the aztecs the vanilla meso-american civ.
 
Austria will struggle to get in much for the same reason there'll be no Castile civ or no Danish civ, too similar to another civ in the game (i.e. Germany). Well, that's usually been the main reason for opposing it before, and I'd probably oppose it on that ground too. Austria is just the most powerful German state until Little Germany "unification" in the 1860s. Though Austria is preferable to HRE ...
Personally, I think best would be to have a German civ with 3 leaders:
1) A strong Holy Roman Emperor. Otto the Great or Frederick Barbarossa come to mind, but I don't know much other than pop-culture HRE history. Perhaps Charlemagne, but that is iffy.
2) An Austrian Habsburg, but I know even less about them, so I can't even suggest.
3) A Prussian leader, likely either Bismarck or Frederick the Great.

This is even better with potentially more differentiated leaders (possibly including their own UU/UB).

Thereby an inclusive German civilization, with room left for others.

But I would be shocked to see a surprise European civ, no matter which one, in Vanilla.
 
Before they released Civ I, I think Sid wanted to have a game with three civilizations as he was growing up, imagining his future legacy. Those three were Rome, China, and America. He revealed this in an interview I believe. Can somebody confirm this?
 
Before they released Civ I, I think Sid wanted to have a game with three civilizations as he was growing up, imagining his future legacy. Those three were Rome, China, and America. He revealed this in an interview I believe. Can somebody confirm this?

It's possible that you're thinking of Soren Johnson's afterword to the Civ4 manual. He did mention thinking of a civ-like game growing up, with the Chinese, Romans, and America being the civs mentioned by name.
 
Austria will struggle to get in much for the same reason there'll be no Castile civ or no Danish civ, too similar to another civ in the game (i.e. Germany). Well, that's usually been the main reason for opposing it before, and I'd probably oppose it on that ground too. Austria is just the most powerful German state until Little Germany "unification" in the 1860s. Though Austria is preferable to HRE ... Poland and Hungary have far more to commend them (we forget that Hungary was a giant medieval kingdom). Lithuania is indeed a better east-Europe candidate. Europe's last pagans, Gediminas turned it into the largest "empire" west of the Mongols, with the Baltic pagans conquering Belarus, much of Ukraine and west [European] Russia. It would be ridiculous to have Austria there instead of one of these three (or even instead of Bulgaria/Serbia).

IMHO, it is arguable. But at least I agree with you regarding Poland-Lithuania.
(It is too much for me to make them seperative.)
 
I think that with Civ 5 remolding the game, and kind of breaking with tradition, the game makers should break with tradition too. Yes, the Aztecs should be in the game. But in an expansion pack! The Ottomans should definitely be in vanilla Civ 5, and if they don't increase the number of civs in Vanilla Civ 5 they should increase the number in expansion packs. 20 Civs means we could have the Incans, the Aztecs, Ottomans, a sub-Saharan African civ, and Babylon. If they were making 20 civs, we could have come to a much better consensus.

I'd like the Aztecs to be in the vanilla game More importantly, I agree with you about having more than 18 civs in it. It would be a good idea.

By the way, I first thought you were suggesting that they include Babylon 5 in the game. It's probably time to go to bed.
 
Öjevind Lång;8926658 said:
I'd like the Aztecs to be in the vanilla game More importantly, I agree with you about having more than 18 civs in it. It would be a good idea.

By the way, I first thought you were suggesting that they include Babylon 5 in the game. It's probably time to go to bed.

Babylon 5 would definitely get the best UU's.
 
I know some EPs will come but still 18 civs are less for the start. OTOH, as each leader features are unique, i wonder how they will make up with that.
as civ5 leaders will be unique, we can expect more differences (compared to civ4) in the power of leaders. some being weak and some much stronger.

anyway, i would like to give my fav civs

18 civs for civ5 vanilla
American
Arabian
Aztec
Chinese
Egyptian
English
French
German
Greek
Indian
Japanese
Mongolian
Turkish
Persian
Roman
Russian
Spanish
Zulu

civs for the EPs
Babylonian
Carthaginian
Celtic
Dutch
Incan
Maya
Native American
Portuguese
Sumerian
Viking
 
Personally, I think best would be to have a German civ with 3 leaders:
1) A strong Holy Roman Emperor. Otto the Great or Frederick Barbarossa come to mind, but I don't know much other than pop-culture HRE history. Perhaps Charlemagne, but that is iffy.
2) An Austrian Habsburg, but I know even less about them, so I can't even suggest.
3) A Prussian leader, likely either Bismarck or Frederick the Great.

This is even better with potentially more differentiated leaders (possibly including their own UU/UB).

:goodjob: My thoughts exactly. I'd be especially keen to see Otto the Great!
 
I agree with you regarding Poland-Lithuania.
(It is too much for me to make them seperative.)

If you are Polish you probably want Lithuania to be part of a Polish civ (this is my experience of the Polish mentality here). But Gediminas and the golden age of the Lithuanian pagan state had nothing to do with Poland. I'd have Poland and Lithuania as civsl, not Poland-Lithuania (for the same reasons I wouldn't have Austria-Hungary).
 
I also agree that 21 civs like in CivII would be much better amount than 18; Firaxis could get everyone's favorites in as well as a couple surprise civs. Also, Africa and South America would then definitely be represented.
 
Back
Top Bottom