Civ V Civilizations Roster

[Turquoiside]

Nobody here is having an overview...somebody is not making a good job.

Nations with leaders:

• America - George Washington
• Egypt - Ramesses
• Arabia - Harun ar-Rashid
• Aztecs - Montezuma
• China - Wu Zetian
• Germany - Otto von Bismarck
• England - Elizabeth
• France - Napoleon Bonaparte
• Greece - Alexander the Great
• India - Mahatma Gandhi
• Inca
• Japan - Oda Nobunaga
• Mongolia - Dschingis Khan
• Ottomans - Sulieman
• Rom - Julius Caesar
• Russia - Catherine
• Songhai - Askia
• Unknown

You didnt translated the list correctly into english, J :wink:. (Edit: corrected .)

For the last civ, I'd bet on Persia or Spain, but both civs should be in. Additionally, i hope for Surferman .

You missed a spot.

i doubt the ottomans had a powerful navy. if they had, they woudl be able to take a lot more land than usual. like all of Italy for starters.

The Ottomans were the foremost naval power in most of the Med for quite a bit, even Spain was defeated on occasion. The failure to take Italy was due to problems on land ( a worried Naples). Whether they are particularly renowned for it is another thing.

 

[Bridog7]

Definitly need montezuma. the Game's not the same without him

 

[Huayna Capac357]

i doubt the ottomans had a powerful navy. if they had, they woudl be able to take a lot more land than usual. like all of Italy for starters.

Ahem. Cough cough.

 

[SpiritWolf]

Definitly need montezuma. the Game's not the same without him

Yup. Who else looks like "" when they are angry, and has no need for late era theme music?

 

[Mathalamus]

Ahem. Cough cough.

the first one was just an impressive military tactic.
the second one..is a map... hey i never knew the ottomans did travel to the new world.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

It takes a powerful navy to defeat the combined naval forces of Genoa and Venice.

 

[Art Grin]

Well, the Ottomans had a very powerful navy at their height but with the times they lost their superiority on the seas to other nations. They didn't invade Italy because they were more interested in taking Vienna and attack Western-Europe afterwards. But as soon as Russia got itself a Black-Sea port, the Ottomans started to loose their Naval power and later the British and French established themselves in the Mediterranean so the Turks lost all their Naval superiority. At the beginning of the 20th century the Ottoman Navy wasn't even strong enough to take on the Greek Navy.

 

[kivanc]

Well, the Ottomans had a very powerful navy at their height but with the times they lost their superiority on the seas to other nations. They didn't invade Italy because they were more interested in taking Vienna and attack Western-Europe afterwards. But as soon as Russia got itself a Black-Sea port, the Ottomans started to loose their Naval power and later the British and French established themselves in the Mediterranean so the Turks lost all their Naval superiority. At the beginning of the 20th century the Ottoman Navy wasn't even strong enough to take on the Greek Navy.

u 're right except your last sentence. because in history turks fighted against a single nation seldomly. most wars were against an alliance, just like the beginning of 20th century.
First balcan war then ww1 and then 19-22. so in a 10-15years period, ottomans fighted against bulgaria, serbia, greece, russia, UK, arabs etc.

 

[Arakhor]

By that time the Ottoman Empire was justly known as "the sick man of Europe".

 

[kivanc]

By that time the Ottoman Empire was justly known as "the sick man of Europe".

yeah. that is true.
ottoman empire was called "the sick man of europe" for centuries. so that time is quite long.

a big part of the economy of ottomans came from war loots, so as the empire slowed down in tech, they started to lose in field and economy went down. shortly, education and research was the main lack of ottomans. still, 623 years of an empire is great. this is true for East Roman Empire as well (~10 centuries)
british empire lost many territories as well, so it is normal. there is a peak for each country and a fall.


i always think, not only conquering new territories but also reforming a decaying economy and managing the empire in hard conditions is a success. so generally, leaders who rule during empire falling periods are underestimated. an example: (which I mentioned in another thread before)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_II

 

[Tee Kay]

Mahmud II's and Abdulmecid II's rule probably prolonged the Ottoman Empire by half a century or so.

 

[kivanc]

Mahmud II's and Abdulmecid II's rule probably prolonged the Ottoman Empire by half a century or so.

not abdulmecid II, abdulhamid II he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulhamid_II

abdulmecid II only claimed the caliphate for a short period after empire turned to republic.

but yeah. i see what u mean, strange system ottoman dynasty had. most of them lived most of their pre-emperor lives in room prison, dealing with less politics but more literature etc. this is a dramatic example...
still there are a few good ones in stagnation & declining period.

 

[Tee Kay]

not abdulmecid II, abdulhamid II he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulhamid_II

abdulmecid II only claimed the caliphate for a short period after empire turned to republic.

Sorry. I meant Abdulmecid I, this guy.

You know how I feel about Abdulhamid II

 

[cybrxkhan]

Alright, according to an Italian Magazine article, there is going to be NINETEEN civs, not eighteen, and the two lucky civs will be Persia and Siam.

... That's right, Siam. See for yourself: http://www.weplayciv.com/node/177

The relevant quote:

We only managed to see the Ancient part of Civ5, up until the Alexandrian period, but thanks to a huge poster with all the units of the game we were able to look at the units that will be available in subsequent eras. Among these are the inevitable Legions [of Rome], the Immortals of Persia, [Japanese] Samurai, Siamese Elephants, (Ottoman) Janissaries, Landsknechts, different types of bombers, fighters like the ultra modern F-22 and even mech units of the close future.

Persia's not too much a surprise (and a relief for me), but personally I highly doubt that Siam would even have made it into a vanilla Civilization game, (considering the fact that the Khmer as the first SE Asian civ only made it in by BtS) instead of, say, Spain, so I am pretty sure that this may be a mistake on the magazine's part (like previously one magazine said that the English leader was Victoria, while we all know it's Elizabeth).

We'll have yet to see what all this means, since it could just be a mistake.

 

[Thormodr]

Alright, according to an Italian Magazine article, there is going to be NINETEEN civs, not eighteen, and the two lucky civs will be Persia and Siam.

... That's right, Siam. See for yourself: http://www.weplayciv.com/node/177

The relevant quote:




Persia's not too much a surprise (and a relief for me), but personally I highly doubt that Siam would even have made it into a vanilla Civilization game, (considering the fact that the Khmer as the first SE Asian civ only made it in by BtS) instead of, say, Spain, so I am pretty sure that this may be a mistake on the magazine's part (like previously one magazine said that the English leader was Victoria, while we all know it's Elizabeth).

We'll have yet to see what all this means, since it could just be a mistake.

Hopefully it is not a mistake. I'd like to see Khmer and Vietnam as well in subsequent expansion packs.
I have seen the Civilization series in stores when I have been in Thailand. It could be a smart move to include Thailand/Siam as it would boost sales there.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Meh. Khmers would be better.

But it's nice to have a little diversity, especially in a neglected region like Southeast Asia.

 

[Thormodr]

Meh. Khmers would be better.

But it's nice to have a little diversity, especially in a neglected region like Southeast Asia.

Exactly. Diversity is good. Having a wide range of choices never hurt anyone.

Hopefully they will have a Malayo-Polynesian Civ in one of the expansion packs.

Perhaps one more South American Civ but I'm not sure who you would choose.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Moche?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Personally I also think the Khmers would have been better, and also that I think Spain or Babylon or even Scandinavia would deserve the spot more than Siam/Thailand... But IF this is true, that Siam would be in, hey, at least Firaxis is starting to acknowledge the existence of SE Asia - maybe Vietnam will be in one day too.

 

[dagriggstar]

I have a feeling Siamese war elephants were confused with Indian war elephants...I mean either that or they told us "18 civs" to throw everyone off...or Siam was possibly included at some point in time but scrapped...