1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization V: Civilizations

Discussion in 'Article Comments' started by Thunderfall, Mar 16, 2010.

  1. veBear

    veBear Slumerican Citizen

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    Norway
    I guess they save Spain, the Mongols and Incas to the Expansions. Also, i wold like to see a Phoenician Empire in the Expansions, based on both Carthage and Phoenicia, so while Tyre could be their Capital, Carthage could be their third city (after Sidon) and so on. Also, adding a Viking based civ would be nice, but this time CALL THEM NORSE!!! Vikings and Scandinavians is compleately unaccurate.

    BTW.
    What civs would you like to see in the Expansions?
     
  2. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    OK, VeBear, since you started it... Here's my prediction for the first expansion (with leaders):
    1. Mongolia (Genghis Khan)
    2. Celtia (Vercingetorix)
    3. Tawantinsuyu (Pachacuti)
    4. Phoenicia/Carthage (Hannibal Barca)
    5. Zululand (Shaka)
    6. Norseland (they better call it Norseland too!) (Canute)
    7. Spain (Isabella)
    8. Korea (Wang Kon)
    Bonus: Babylon (will be available for everyone this time, perhaps)

    In the second expansion I would like to see:
    1. Maya City-States (Pacal II)
    2. Ethiopia (Menelik II)
    3. Netherlands (Willem van Oranje)
    4. Portugal (Henrique the Navigator)
    5. Poland (Jan Sobieski)
    6. Austria (not HRE) (Franz-Joseph)
    7. Hatti (Hattusili)
    8. Sumer (Sargon)
    9. Polynesia (Kamehameha)
    10. Italy (Lorenzo de Medici)
    11. Hungary (Lajos Kossuth)
    12. Sioux Land (Sitting Bull)
     
  3. veBear

    veBear Slumerican Citizen

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    Norway
    Agree, down with all those other, non-accurate terms. It would be like calling the Hungarians for the Arpads after their first dynasty

    Also, i would like a change in the Phoenicia/Carthage side, with Hamilcar as a leader, and not his son.
     
  4. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    I also hate the fact they call the Turks "Ottomans". It is like calling the Chinese by the name of one of their dynasties.
     
  5. Nidgaro

    Nidgaro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    0
    I am a spanish player of CIV. I've been playing since civ I, and have played and won on the highest levels of dificult in the game. Lots of hours, thousand of games, more than any other game. And what do I get in the new edition? That CIVs that had supported the "new world" like "vikings", spanish, portuguese for example are forgotten... The empire that Felipe II (Phillip II) took from Carlos I has been the greatest and largest empire ever... the empire that Manuel I and Joao II left one of the most important ever... and so on. And they are not present in the game...

    Nowadays Spain and Portugal are part of the UE, and represents a big part of the economy, I+D, turism, and culture of the world... I can't believe we are so unworthy in this edition. And so on I have decided not to buy this release, and in fact I hope that at least all the aggrieved people follow my example.

    It's so funny that france (with 3 important leaders), Germany, England and other european appear like great people and africans, asians and even more latin americans do not appear at all.

    I'm so dissapointed...
     
  6. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    I don't understand your disappointment. First of all, you say you played Civ since the first one- well, Spain wasn't in Civ I, later Spain also wasn't included in Civ III until a later expansion pack. What I'm saying is that Spain (and Portugal and the Netherlands) will 100% be included in the game in the expansion packs. I agree that Spain should have been in the vanilla version of Civ V instead of the Iroquois or the Thai, but I'm sure Spain will return, so don't be disappointed.
     
  7. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    22,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    To be fair, the Empire embraced many more people than Turks, and many of the top officials in the former Ottoman Empire were not Turks. The Sultans are of mixed Turkish-Greek descent.
     
  8. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    Yes, I know that of course, but if you look at the so-called "Ottoman" civ in the game- it is purely Turkish. All the city names, the units, the buildings... I don't see a point in making an "Ottoman" civ, since it is not really a civ. They should call them Turks.
     
  9. Nidgaro

    Nidgaro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    0
    Yes, I know. It's time to change the game, to make it more reliable. Why do not choose between 50 civs... (i know that expansions packs are for selling more...) but, it's a strange thing that spain is always forgotten... don't you think?
     
  10. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    Not always. Spain wasn't in Civ I, then it was in Civ II, then it wasn't in Civ III until an expansion pack, and in Civ IV it was present from the first edition. Conclusion: in Civ VI Spain will be again among the civs in the vanilla version.:)
     
  11. Reims_empire

    Reims_empire Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Reims, France
    I would rather enjoy to have thi 18 civs:
    America
    England
    Germany
    Russia
    France
    Rome
    Spain
    Greece
    Persia
    Egypt
    Arabia
    Ottoman
    China
    Mali
    Japan
    Azteque
    India
    Mongolia or Khmer civ
     
  12. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    OK, according to the Civ V site there is a change in Russia's special ability and unique building. The special ability is: Siberian riches. The UB is Krepost'. I'm not too sure what they had in mind there, though. Krepost', for those of you who don't speak Russian, means fortress or citadel. The question is- what is the meaning of krepost' in Civ V. It could be one of the following two versions: 1. a fortress like the Petropavlovskaya Krepost' for instance, or 2. a Kremlin. I think they'll go with the second one.
     
  13. veBear

    veBear Slumerican Citizen

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    Norway
    Good idea for an update on the russians. I personally think the Fur Trading Post was kind of... well, the idea you choose when you have run out of other ideas. A kind of kremlin looks good though. Also i hope that this time they actually use the Norse language for the Viking civ and not some Norwegian dialect, althoug I think it actually is a bit fun to hear them answer in norwegian all the time.

    PS. I'm tired of Lodbrok. I say as you Igor, use Canute!
     
  14. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    The question is: are there people who speak "Norse" today? Actually, as much as I could hear, Ramesses II speaks Egyptian Arabic and not "Ancient Egyptian". For example- he calls his country "Masr", not "Kemet".
     
  15. veBear

    veBear Slumerican Citizen

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    Norway
    If they can get hold of one of those professors who know their language, then use him. If not, get someone from Iceland, which is closer to ancient Norse than Norwegian.
    Well that's just wierd :lol:
     
  16. jermungand

    jermungand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    If you wanted to represent the Native Americans on a level that posited them as a global contender would you pick a short lived confederation that never grew any larger than the area of New York State? No.

    They should just do what they did in Civ4: represent the entirety of Native America. No, they were never unified into a single political entity, but this is fantasy. For all it's importance in world history, how long was Arabia a unified political entity? Really, how much of what we recognize as Arab civilization---with it's scholarship, innovation, and artistry---occurred under a unified rulership? Zero.

    So if we want to imagine that Native Americans put a bigger spin on history (which would be fun), why deliberately ignore all of those outside of New York State? What is it the developers think the Iroquois have that other tribes/leagues don't? Whatever it is, it's definitely not good enough.
     
  17. veBear

    veBear Slumerican Citizen

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    Norway
    Pretty long, i should tell you. It all started with the Rashidun Caliphate, then continued over to the Umayyad Caliphate, then the Abbasid Caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate and it all ended with the decline of the Ayyubid dynasty, and that is about 700 years of united Arabian nations, being a civilization ecxisting longer than modern day US. Also, i would like to remind you, that a lot of great Inventions and all of the best universities and libraries were locateded in 'Arabia' at this time. There have to be a reason why they call this the Islamic Golden Age. In other words, most of what we symbolize with Arabia today when it comes to artistry, scolarship etc. is from the era of unified rule, such as the Madrassas.

    EDIT:
    And BTW, using a Native American civ is, in my opinion, as stupid as using a EU civ for Europe (although the last one actually can work in Future Sci-fi Scenarios). I think the reason they did choose the Iroquois is because they managed to win a lot of battles against enemies superior in numbers... in enemy territory. And they also secured themselves monopoly on the trade with the Dutch, so they actually, in the late era of the confederation, traded Fur for Guns. Basically, they can be seen as one of the most sucssesfull native americans, besides the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas of course.
     
  18. jermungand

    jermungand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    Ouch, you're right. I was going to say you were being a tad abrasive, but wow---I was totally in my own world right there. Nevermind. The Greeks would have been the example I was looking for. If the Greeks had never been united, it would still be wrong not to include them. Can you imagine what a complicated mess this game would be if civs were determined from a purely political standpoint?

    I think by the same token the Native Americans of North America should be included together. No they're not unified (neither are many civs in history actually centralized), but they are a force to be reckoned with and their culture is more than significant enough. Having the tiny little woodsy, longhouse-dwelling Iroquois all by themselves as a competitor on a map where none of the other civs are even from that area of the world would feel really out of whack to me. Nor do I think it would be appropriate to share a map with multiple Native "civ"s, who ALL hold a great potential for being nuclear-armed world superpowers. That too would be crazy. Having a single civ to represent Native America just seems like the most balanced, most fun, and least outrageous option. I think civs should be included relevant to their historical significance as a cultural group first, and politically second (with some exception to be made for the US).
     
  19. veBear

    veBear Slumerican Citizen

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,612
    Location:
    Norway
    And thinking about what this little group achieved, I think they fit pretty much in the picture. I also see little (or no sense) in including the extreamly culturally different groups of Sioux in the same civ as Iroquois. Also, i would like to remind you that the Iroquois were in Civ III, something Native America were not.

    PS.
    Greeks were a pretty bad excample. They were city states with basically the same culture. And even if the Greeks themselves did not consider the Macedonians to be greek, the only difference was that the Macedonians had a kingdom. The city-states, Epireus and Macedon had basically the same culture and acted mostly in union with other city states (Pelloponnesian League, Delian League, Macedon after Philip II etc.). The point I am trying to make is that the Greek culture was pretty much the same, while the Native Americans were not.

    Edit:
    In the expansions, I would really like to see the Sioux as an own nation.
     
  20. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    And even before that the Sioux were in Civ II.
     

Share This Page