Civ V Civilizations Roster

[cybrxkhan]

Where did you get that information? I thought that Genghis Khan is more widely known than Attila.

Okay, I don't think there's any statistical or scientific research to back my claim, but I'm pretty sure everybody is like "Oh yeah, that guy!" when they hear Attila, while for Genghis Khan it may take a little while longer before they recognize it. I think it's like this because Attila has more fame in the West due to his attacks on the Romans, so Genghis Khan (although known quite a lot for his conquests), doesn't resonate as much. Not to say that Genghis Khan isn't widely known (and frankly he was one of the first historical figures I self-studied a lot on), but to your average American I think Attila is more well-known. Anyhow, Mongolia I think does deserve a spot in Civilziation, regardless.

 

[Evie]

I would say that, at least in North America (and that's a very sizeable chunk of the Western World right there), the name "Genghis Khan" is much more famous than "Attila".

 

[Pikkis]

I would like to see this guy in, as Scandinavian or Swedish leader.
He is one of the greatest warrior kings afterall, and conquered almost whole Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_II_Adolphus

Sweden with Gustav Wasa and Gustav II Adolf as leaders could make an appearance as a surprise civ, I think. It would be a different, but still worthy civ. It could even end up being quite fun to play as.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I would say that, at least in North America (and that's a very sizeable chunk of the Western World right there), the name "Genghis Khan" is much more famous than "Attila".

Guess we were raised in different parts of America, then.

Point is, regardless of whether which one is known better, when people hear Genghis Khan, it does resonate. And that's good marketing, I'd say, and that's why Mongolia is almost always included in the vanilla game.

 

[apenpaap]

I don't know, I think Attilla and Chingis are about equally well-known.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I don't want to sound rude, but I really think you should reconsider that statement.

You could also take a look at ancient Nubia. After being dominated by Egypt, they then conquered Egypt and ruled it for a century; even after so, and even though they were heavily influenced by Egypt, they developed their own unique culture, one that successfully resisted Greek, Roman, and Arabic invasions for centuries.

Hello, khan of Pho. I agree with you about Africa, but when did Greeks try to invade Nubia?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I remember somewhere that Alexander the Great may have considered an invasion of Nubia, but I may be wrong there. I am certain, however, that the Ptolemoi attempted an invasion at least once.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Then couldn't we have the Moors instead of the Arabs and Carthage for a change?

The Moors were a subset of the Arabic civilization. The fact that some of them were descended from Berbers doesn't alter that fact.

 

[say1988]

Sweden with Gustav Wasa and Gustav II Adolf as leaders could make an appearance as a surprise civ, I think. It would be a different, but still worthy civ. It could even end up being quite fun to play as.

I doubt we will see any European civs beyond the obvious. It is already very Euro-centric to begin with. The only real chance would be the "Vikings". Other Euro civs will have to wait for expansions.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Russian would be out in the top ten, but not competing for number one. Round globe to flat map make Russia appear a lot bigger than it is. Plus, IMHO, claiming the moon as part of your empire might sound good, but there are no people and therefore, no military, economic, or cultural impact comes from the moon. And lets face it 1/3 of Russian looks like a frozen moon. Several empires are ahead of Russia in conquering the known world - "known world" means per hemisphere in my book - Persia, Mongolia, China, Arab-Muslim Empire, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Greek-Macedon Empire; even USA today is ahead of Russia all-time when considering military dominance, economic influence, and cultural influence.

"Known world" is just being used to make what are essentially regional states look more impressive than they are.

Anyway, the stats on territory are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Though this article has a lot of other nonsense in it.

The Russian Empire is actually impressive. As I said above, Russian Siberia is just a rail-track, but you're taking the poo-pooing of the Russian Empire too far. It consisted of some of the great civilizations of Central Asia, as well as eastern Europe. It is one of the greatest empires in history. "Greek-Macedon Empire", Byzantine Empire and ... lol ... the Holy Roman Empire don't really compare with that kind of thing ... they're not on the same kind of scale anyway.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Oda Nobunaga is right on the Aztecs btw. Surprising as it may seem, they were not really an empire. Unless a confederation of three city-states with some periodic tribute-payers is an "empire". The Incans were an empire though. The Incans and Aztecs are not even vaguely closely matched.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Oda Nobunaga is right on the Aztecs btw. Surprising as it may seem, they were not really an empire. Unless a confederation of three city-states with some periodic tribute-payers is an "empire". The Incans were an empire though. The Incans and Aztecs are not even vaguely closely matched.

However, the Aztecs are fun to have in the game, which is the most important argument for inclusion.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

The Aztecs might not have been an empire, but they still definitely deserve a spot because of their engineering, their poetry, and their unique system of agriculture.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, I would include the Aztecs, both on the ground that they are no worse a pick to represent Mesoamerica than any of the others (And Mesoamerica should be represented for variety's sake), and on the ground that, unlike the others, they're iconic.

(As opposed to Africa, where there are MUCH better pick to represent Africa than frigging Shaka, so iconic doesn't carry nearly as much weight)

I like Monty well enough, but I have something against ignorant claims that "Mali has no place in game" (/has never done anything important) but that the Aztecs deserves inclusion for the "importance they achieved in history". In the grand scheme of history, they're a glorified footnote.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Well, they are put in probably because they are the Mesoamericans about whom we know the most.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Not opposed to the Aztecs being there either (not really opposed to any add, unless it's something daft like the HRE). Just affirming the facts that make the Incas a more necessary add.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Sweden with Gustav Wasa and Gustav II Adolf as leaders could make an appearance as a surprise civ, I think. It would be a different, but still worthy civ. It could even end up being quite fun to play as.

*If* that happens, which I very much doubt, the best unique unit would be the leather cannon. Gustavus Adolphus was the first general who managed to use cannon as an offensive weapon during battles. The leather cannon were relatively small and easy to move, and they could be devastating when flanked by infantry.

Oops! It seems the leather cannon were flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather_cannon

Even so, Gustavus Adolphus broke new ground by introducing them.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Sweden will and should only get in as Scandinavia/the Vikings.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Sweden will and should only get in as Scandinavia/the Vikings.

In that case, please as the Scandivanians, and without those frigging horned helms.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Not opposed to the Aztecs being there either (not really opposed to any add, unless it's something daft like the HRE). Just affirming the facts that make the Incas a more necessary add.

Well, of course I would agree on that one *points to username*