nzk13
Some Jew-boy on Noble.
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.
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!
![]()
Nice!![]()
Personally, I think best would be to have a German civ with 3 leaders: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 ...
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?
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).
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.
This chart clarifies a lot of things that were being debated previously, thanks for making it.
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.
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).
I agree with you regarding Poland-Lithuania.
(It is too much for me to make them seperative.)