Civilizations in Civ 5: Asia
- Thread starter Optimizer
- Start date
I would like to see northeast Asia fleshed out a bit more. China, Japan, and Korea are a must, but I would like to see the Manchus and Khitans make it in the game at some point. True, they're quasi-barbaric and have been assimilated into China for a long time now, but they've consistently played a major role in NE Asian history and I think they deserve a chance for once.
And as for Israel...
The Jews have had major impact on Western history, and the world today is pretty much dominated by the abrahamic religions. They've gone through many hardships (a bit whiny about it but true nonetheless) but you can say they've ultimately succeeded as a people.
But Israel is so fail for a civ. The kingdom of Judea has been around for.. what, a couple centuries max in who-cares-when BC? On top of that, Israel as a state hasn't even been around for a century. Truth is, Israel doesn't compare to other civs that have stood the test of time for millenia. The fact that they were (and still are) influential as a people doesn't mean they were influential as a state/nation/empire, the apparent benchmark for being a civ. IMO, if Israel officially makes it as a Civ so should Tibet
But then again, the more civs the devs can include (with good quality) better. I would like to see all the civs mentioned here included and then some.
And as for Israel...
The Jews have had major impact on Western history, and the world today is pretty much dominated by the abrahamic religions. They've gone through many hardships (a bit whiny about it but true nonetheless) but you can say they've ultimately succeeded as a people.
But Israel is so fail for a civ. The kingdom of Judea has been around for.. what, a couple centuries max in who-cares-when BC? On top of that, Israel as a state hasn't even been around for a century. Truth is, Israel doesn't compare to other civs that have stood the test of time for millenia. The fact that they were (and still are) influential as a people doesn't mean they were influential as a state/nation/empire, the apparent benchmark for being a civ. IMO, if Israel officially makes it as a Civ so should Tibet
But then again, the more civs the devs can include (with good quality) better. I would like to see all the civs mentioned here included and then some.
I would like to see northeast Asia fleshed out a bit more. China, Japan, and Korea are a must, but I would like to see the Manchus and Khitans make it in the game at some point. True, they're quasi-barbaric and have been assimilated into China for a long time now, but they've consistently played a major role in NE Asian history and I think they deserve a chance for once.
And as for Israel...
The Jews have had major impact on Western history, and the world today is pretty much dominated by the abrahamic religions. They've gone through many hardships (a bit whiny about it but true nonetheless) but you can say they've ultimately succeeded as a people.
But Israel is so fail for a civ. The kingdom of Judea has been around for.. what, a couple centuries max in who-cares-when BC? On top of that, Israel as a state hasn't even been around for a century. Truth is, Israel doesn't compare to other civs that have stood the test of time for millenia. The fact that they were (and still are) influential as a people doesn't mean they were influential as a state/nation/empire, the apparent benchmark for being a civ. IMO, if Israel officially makes it as a Civ so should Tibet
But then again, the more civs the devs can include (with good quality) better. I would like to see all the civs mentioned here included and then some.
Israel is fail for a civ?
Korea is a must add?
How many Nobel winners have each country had?
South Korea has had one sham winner who essentially bought it. (Kim Dae Jung)
Israel has had 9 with a much smaller population.
Israeli people have been around for thousands of years (at least 3000) but have not always been independent. They certainly were influential in the first millenium BC and have been responsible for the birth of several major world religions.
Korean people have been around for a little over 2000 years. The first recorded mention of Koreans was about 2100 years ago. (I know about the myth of Korea's 5000 years of history so don't bother going there.) They also have not always been independent as well.
Koreans also really haven't had a major impact outside of North East Asia in their entire history. Perhaps in the last decade their Chaebols have had some slight impact but that's about it.
For the record, I don't really have a problem with Korea being included in an expansion for ciV but Israel would be an equally good choice. Certainly its impact on world history is much greater. Whatever the case, there is absolutely no need to tear down other countries or civilizations to build up your own.
Hittites: Uh, Maybe a barbarian in the game.
Israel: Of course. I bet golda meir could replace ghandi as a pacifist gone wild in the game.
Babylon: Yes.
Sumeria: Only if gilgamesh is in it.
Assyria: Maybe.
Egypt: They can't leave this one out but I hate it.
Phoenicians: It could be a very economic civ.
Carthage: Yes.
Arabia: They haven't not had it yet.
Huns/Magyars: Sure
Berber/Maghreb: Once again. A non-playable maybe.
Persia/Iran: Persia yes. Iran, only for Koyotolla.
Pakistan: NO! I'm pro Isreal.
Indus civilization: We to this day can not name a single indus valley leader.
India: Only for Ghandi.
Thailand/Siam: Only for political reasons.
Khmer/Cambodia: Khmer is India.
Malaya/Malaysia: No.
Indonesia: If they can find a leader.
Vietnam: Of course.
Mongolia: They have to.
China: Best civ in any game.
Korea: Yes. The leader should be Kim Jong Ill.
Japan: Of course.
Other: I always loved Tibet
Israel: Of course. I bet golda meir could replace ghandi as a pacifist gone wild in the game.
Babylon: Yes.
Sumeria: Only if gilgamesh is in it.
Assyria: Maybe.
Egypt: They can't leave this one out but I hate it.
Phoenicians: It could be a very economic civ.
Carthage: Yes.
Arabia: They haven't not had it yet.
Huns/Magyars: Sure
Berber/Maghreb: Once again. A non-playable maybe.
Persia/Iran: Persia yes. Iran, only for Koyotolla.
Pakistan: NO! I'm pro Isreal.
Indus civilization: We to this day can not name a single indus valley leader.
India: Only for Ghandi.
Thailand/Siam: Only for political reasons.
Khmer/Cambodia: Khmer is India.
Malaya/Malaysia: No.
Indonesia: If they can find a leader.
Vietnam: Of course.
Mongolia: They have to.
China: Best civ in any game.
Korea: Yes. The leader should be Kim Jong Ill.
Japan: Of course.
Other: I always loved Tibet
Picard42
Chieftain
Israel is fail for a civ?
Israel has had 9 with a much smaller population.
Israeli people have been around for thousands of years (at least 3000) but have not always been independent. They certainly were influential in the first millenium BC and have been responsible for the birth of several major world religions.
There's another reason to include Israel, at least in an expansion pack: people are familiar with it, both in the historical context of the ancient kingdom and as a modern state. As important as some of the other civs mentioned in this thread might have been, I doubt the average customer has ever heard of most of them.
In other words, Israel is going to be more of a draw as a bullet point on the game box than a fairly obscure civ from the subcontinent.
That's not to say that they should or won't ever include lesser-known civs, but as a practical matter, I think they're much more likely to stick with mostly the "popular" civs with one or two oddball inclusions in the expansions than they are to fill the game with relative obscurities.
There's also the world map to consider. Do we really need to fill India with three or four different civs? Ditto the area around modern-day Iraq. Of course, this is a strong argument against Israel's inclusion, but I digress.
Personally, I'd like to see some of the emptier areas of the world map filled a bit more. As far as Asia goes, I think the Timurids (who also benefit from a distinctive leader and a fairly large empire at the height of their power, both of which are criteria that most included civs meet) and the Manchus would help. I'll also throw in my support for a civ in the Indonesia region (Javanese, Malay, whatever).
I think Sumeria as a Civ is important. Admittedly it usually wasn't unified (with a few exceptions, such as Sargon of Akkad), but it was very important as one of the first civilizations.
Hittites are a good Civ, old antagonists of Egypt. Shame we don't know more about them.
Israel I can't justify. They were never a world power and were often overshadowed in their region. Important for religious reasons and Jerusalem, but I wouldn't put them in.
I can understand the feeling that some Indus valley civs should be in but India is what we're all familiar with. They are kind of rolled up with India although they were quite distinct. I guess it's like Rome/Italy in reverse.
It wouldn't be Civ without Egypt and China.
Hittites are a good Civ, old antagonists of Egypt. Shame we don't know more about them.
Israel I can't justify. They were never a world power and were often overshadowed in their region. Important for religious reasons and Jerusalem, but I wouldn't put them in.
I can understand the feeling that some Indus valley civs should be in but India is what we're all familiar with. They are kind of rolled up with India although they were quite distinct. I guess it's like Rome/Italy in reverse.
It wouldn't be Civ without Egypt and China.
Tigernose
Chieftain
Armenia, the only existing country in the 3000 year old maps of Anatolia, with a strong technological impact in our time and the strongest state east of Rome during 80 - 60 BC.
arkguy
Warlord
I have no real preference to which civilizations are included. I've found that all of them are different in their own way and all have interesting characteristics. Variety is the spice of life and the more the better. I have yet to find one that wasnt good to play. With the new changes being thrown out about the leaders and their personality & traits should make some interesting combinations which ever one are used. Might add Mesopotamia to that list.
Centurio
Warlord
I'm really angry that they excluded Korea from the final game; while it may have never had as much shock-and-awe value and opulence as China and Japan, the Korean people managed to survive terrible foreign oppression and create a unique culture with an even more unique language that survives largely intact today. Of course, that doesn't even begin to describe their effect on the modern world: companies like Samsung, LG, and Hyundai have holdings across the globe, and for it's tiny size, South Korea has the tenth largest economy in the modern world. It would be fascinating to play the role of survivor for the predominance of the game, and then emerge as an economic superpower in the modern era.
As for other powers, I'd like to see the Middle East expanded; however, I do not want Carthage to be a part of the game!!!!! The Carthaginians were only around for the first part of Rome's history, and honestly did not contribute that much to society, other than material for lame history channel documentaries about Hannibal. If Hannibal and the Cothon are the best Firaxis can come up with for their leader and unique building, then they shouldn't even be in the game. While Carthage is an integral faction for games like Rome: Total War, they don't belong as a major player in a game about all of human history. They were around for only a short period of time and made very few lasting contributions to mankind. If Carthage were to be included in period-specific campaigns, I'd be happy with that; however, they did not last long enough to be considered a major power. If anything, we could portray them as a city-state that usually goes to war with Rome, after all, the Carthaginians really didn't control many worthwhile cities other than Qarthadast itself, admittedly an incredibly rich prize for any foreign invader.
As for other powers, I'd like to see the Middle East expanded; however, I do not want Carthage to be a part of the game!!!!! The Carthaginians were only around for the first part of Rome's history, and honestly did not contribute that much to society, other than material for lame history channel documentaries about Hannibal. If Hannibal and the Cothon are the best Firaxis can come up with for their leader and unique building, then they shouldn't even be in the game. While Carthage is an integral faction for games like Rome: Total War, they don't belong as a major player in a game about all of human history. They were around for only a short period of time and made very few lasting contributions to mankind. If Carthage were to be included in period-specific campaigns, I'd be happy with that; however, they did not last long enough to be considered a major power. If anything, we could portray them as a city-state that usually goes to war with Rome, after all, the Carthaginians really didn't control many worthwhile cities other than Qarthadast itself, admittedly an incredibly rich prize for any foreign invader.
Why khmer is in India? Khmer have our own civilzation and we build khmer empire and Angkorwat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Cambodia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroasiatic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Kingdoms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_dance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Boxing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Cambodia
I think we are unique from Indian and we have been here long before neighbor country and also share our culture too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Cambodia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroasiatic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Kingdoms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_dance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Boxing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Cambodia
I think we are unique from Indian and we have been here long before neighbor country and also share our culture too.
Drake L. Dragon
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 128
The ridiculous thing is that we're still arguing over what civilizations should be in the game or not. I know that most of you don't want to think about philosophy, but Aristotle defined the act you're all doing right now -- moral desert. Which civilizations deserve the honor of being in Civilization V? However, as virtually every Western philosophy has shown, arguments along these lines go no where. No where, because it's all subjective. This is why, for example, you don't let personal opinions get into science. It's because arguments like these are always open for interpretation. What people, or the game developers really, need to do is make set, objective standards, such as including civilizations based on the size of their empire at their highest point. However, arguing over something without a set, objective standard will not allow anybody to arrive at any conclusions or ends as to who should or shouldn't be in the game.
For example, I could argue that China should not be in the game. Even if China was the greatest civilization on Earth, which, for a time, it technically was in army and technology, I could still argue it, and my argument would be just as valid as the more popular arguments. We must progress, not regress.
For example, I could argue that China should not be in the game. Even if China was the greatest civilization on Earth, which, for a time, it technically was in army and technology, I could still argue it, and my argument would be just as valid as the more popular arguments. We must progress, not regress.
Given the number of mods for other Civs I think there'll be plenty mods for Civ V which will include many civilizations not found in the original game. And maybe a mod to play with all of them, an unlimited number of players on a map? Imagine, hundreds of civs, you press end turn, wait 2 hours and then the game crashes
dagriggstar
King
Probably because we people read thread titles ?
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
My Lord why not Songhai? You brought over North Africa even to the group. Why is there just not a poll perhaps on a region not half the globe? How about Far East and Near East Asia as separate categories to begin with? Then we can fuss about silly 6000 year civs.
Apparently not. It clearly says "Asia" in the thread title, and as well all know, Poland is a semibarbaric Asiatic society.
revengeofmakno
Eclectic Enigma
Note: I have the area on an earth map as a consideration. The Tigris-Euphrates area and Indochina have several very good candidates but not all can fit.
Having said that, the Ottomans have to be there! No question about it.
Hittites ~ Not a chance, Interesting for their iron working but nothing else and the region is crowded.
Israel ~ Absolutely No, Insignificant geo-politically but not religiously. Could be a city state at most.
Babylon ~ Yes, there are many good choices from this crowded area but I think they are the best.
Sumeria ~ No, very good civ but Bablyon has that space.
Assyria ~ No, not bad but the region is crowded already and they are clearly a lower priority.
Egypt ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Phoenicians ~ No, not bad but a crowded area and the Carthaginians are there. City State.
Carthage ~ Yes as they fill a gap in the map and they were a force but could also be there as powerful city state.
Arabia ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Huns/Magyars ~ Yes sort of. They are in a large empty area and they had an impact but don't mix them please, make it one or the other or have them both in as major barbarian waves that could then settle/conquer.
Berber/Maghreb ~ Maybe, if Carthage is in, they are out but take Carthage out and they can play.
Persia/Iran ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Pakistan ~ Absolutely no, a recent political creation not a distinct civilization if the Indus valley is there.
Indus civilization ~ Yes ! I see this as the legitimate northern Indian subcontinent civ.
India ~ No, it should be the Indus Civ plus something from the Dravidian cultures in the south. This is a major beef I have with how "India" is portrayed in Civ.
Thailand/Siam ~ No, the region only has space for them or Khmer and the Khmers were there first.
Khmer/Cambodia ~ Yes, Seems the most interesting of the Indochinese Civs. Quite a history.
Malaya/Malaysia ~ No, I prefer Indonesia for that area but one of the Malaysian kingdoms could be there as a pirate breeding city state.
Indonesia ~ Yes, the map is open there and there were some interesting periods in that area's history.
Vietnam ~ Not if Khmer is there but take Khmer out and they could be in.
Mongolia ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
China ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Korea ~ Marginal but I want the Turtle ships and Admiral Yi! Could be another powerful city state a la Carthage.
Japan ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Other; Where the hell are the Ottomans!!??? A southern Indian Dravidian culture and also perhaps Tibet and something else from central Asia/kazakh-Uzbekistan.
Having said that, the Ottomans have to be there! No question about it.
Hittites ~ Not a chance, Interesting for their iron working but nothing else and the region is crowded.
Israel ~ Absolutely No, Insignificant geo-politically but not religiously. Could be a city state at most.
Babylon ~ Yes, there are many good choices from this crowded area but I think they are the best.
Sumeria ~ No, very good civ but Bablyon has that space.
Assyria ~ No, not bad but the region is crowded already and they are clearly a lower priority.
Egypt ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Phoenicians ~ No, not bad but a crowded area and the Carthaginians are there. City State.
Carthage ~ Yes as they fill a gap in the map and they were a force but could also be there as powerful city state.
Arabia ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Huns/Magyars ~ Yes sort of. They are in a large empty area and they had an impact but don't mix them please, make it one or the other or have them both in as major barbarian waves that could then settle/conquer.
Berber/Maghreb ~ Maybe, if Carthage is in, they are out but take Carthage out and they can play.
Persia/Iran ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Pakistan ~ Absolutely no, a recent political creation not a distinct civilization if the Indus valley is there.
Indus civilization ~ Yes ! I see this as the legitimate northern Indian subcontinent civ.
India ~ No, it should be the Indus Civ plus something from the Dravidian cultures in the south. This is a major beef I have with how "India" is portrayed in Civ.
Thailand/Siam ~ No, the region only has space for them or Khmer and the Khmers were there first.
Khmer/Cambodia ~ Yes, Seems the most interesting of the Indochinese Civs. Quite a history.
Malaya/Malaysia ~ No, I prefer Indonesia for that area but one of the Malaysian kingdoms could be there as a pirate breeding city state.
Indonesia ~ Yes, the map is open there and there were some interesting periods in that area's history.
Vietnam ~ Not if Khmer is there but take Khmer out and they could be in.
Mongolia ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
China ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Korea ~ Marginal but I want the Turtle ships and Admiral Yi! Could be another powerful city state a la Carthage.
Japan ~ Yes, there is no need to explain why.
Other; Where the hell are the Ottomans!!??? A southern Indian Dravidian culture and also perhaps Tibet and something else from central Asia/kazakh-Uzbekistan.
Similar threads
