Guess the New Civs

[Asderfut]

I'm guessing Brazil will be included in the expansion, for a couple reasons. It's a growth market, so it makes sense from a marketing standpoint and it has a rich precolonial history, with Tupi, Chachapoya, and other indigenous groups.
In terms of growth markets, Indonesia would be logical, so I'm guessing Majapahit too.
Since there isn't much in terms of Eastern Europe, I could see Poland-Lithuania being included.
I'd like to see the Pueblo included, since the western US is largely neglected, and a couple more American Indian civs would be nice, but with Brazil being likely, Kongo is a more reasonable contender, as Angola was also a Portuguese colony, and sub-Saharan Africa is completely unrepresented.

 

[WilliamKendall]

(1) The largest of the world's original civilizations has been completely ignored by the game. Any new expansion should consider the Indus River Valley civilization, which is also referred to as the Harappan Civilization. There is no way that the current India civilization includes the ancient people of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Their territory falls in modern Pakistan and not India.

(2) Calls for another American Indian civilization, aka Native American, should center on the ancient people of the southwest or the Mississippians, not the Sioux. An ancient "Pueblo" civilization might include the Anasazi (currently being renamed "Ancestral Puebloan people" by the National Parks), and one or two others: Hohokam, Mogollon, and Patayan. They have dozens of cities and settlements in the southwest which can still be visited today. If you haven't visited Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, or Keet Seel, take a look outside the airplane window when flying out of Phoenix International Airport, as the runway is built right up to ancient Hohokam ruins at the Pueblo Grande Cultural Park. For the game, they could speak Hopi, the language of their likely modern descendants. The Anasazi road network at Chaco Canyon and the Hohokam irrigation system are certainly worth more attention then the Sioux, not to mention the city complex of Pueblo Bonito.

(3) Calls for a Hungry or Austria civilization should be taken seriously. Why not give the Habsburg House a home in a CIV game? Perhaps this could be extended to include the Austro-Hungarian Empire which played such an important role in WWI.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

(1) The largest of the world's original civilizations has been completely ignored by the game. Any new expansion should consider the Indus River Valley civilization, which is also referred to as the Harappan Civilization. There is no way that the current India civilization includes the ancient people of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Their territory falls in modern Pakistan and not India.

(2) Calls for another American Indian civilization, aka Native American, should center on the ancient people of the southwest or the Mississippians, not the Sioux. An ancient "Pueblo" civilization might include the Anasazi (currently being renamed "Ancestral Puebloan people" by the National Parks), and one or two others: Hohokam, Mogollon, and Patayan. They have dozens of cities and settlements in the southwest which can still be visited today. If you haven't visited Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, or Keet Seel, take a look outside the airplane window when flying out of Phoenix International Airport, as the runway is built right up to ancient Hohokam ruins at the Pueblo Grande Cultural Park. For the game, they could speak Hopi, the language of their likely modern descendants. The Anasazi road network at Chaco Canyon and the Hohokam irrigation system are certainly worth more attention then the Sioux, not to mention the city complex of Pueblo Bonito.

(3) Calls for a Hungry or Austria civilization should be taken seriously. Why not give the Habsburg House a home in a CIV game? Perhaps this could be extended to include the Austro-Hungarian Empire which played such an important role in WWI.

Austro-Hungary is essentially the same as Habsburg Austria, only post nationalism. Hungary are much less deserving of an empire than austria considering they were swapped between Islamic and Western conquerors for a millenium or so. I agree that Austria/Austro-Hungary should be represented though.

Indus valley civ is all good and well, but i think sumer is a more likely cradle of civ civ to be included. Though a harappan civ would be amazing.

As fun as a pueblo or mississippi civ would be, they really aren't very well known, and for a continent as barren of civs as north america, they are very close to the aztec. The sioux fill a whole in dakota, the middle of no mans land between the iroquois and the aztec. They are also very well known as competition to america in the west, being what everyone thinks of when you say native american.

But i think we'll definitely be getting another african civ, likely Ethiopia for its long reaching history that isn't particularly matched by an other sub-saharan civ. Alongside that Sumer and the Sioux, but after that it's a toss up. I think it'll be an asian civ though, and the Majapahit fits the bill quite nicely especially seeing how the songhai and siam were thrown into the main game as dark horses. It's a little unexpected one that fills the massive whole in the east this expansion currently has.

 

[JtW]

I would like to see Habsburg Austria included, along with Poland (of course - my homeland), the Huns or something of the kind (something from central Asia beside the Mongols - I am not a history expert, so maybe there are better alternatives), Portugal and some African civ.

 

[j51]

God, I hope they don't include the Sioux. If they do, they should at least have the decency to release it as a separate dlc so that people who remember the title of the game can ignore it.

 

[ShahJahanII]

God, I hope they don't include the Sioux. If they do, they should at least have the decency to release it as a separate dlc so that people who remember the title of the game can ignore it.

That was really rude and unnecessary.
Are you calling the Sioux uncivilized? Are they not a civilization?

 

[j51]

That was really rude and unnecessary.
Are you calling the Sioux uncivilized? Are they not a civilization?

In so far as they are not a civilization they are "uncivilized." That does not, however, mean they are uncultured and was not meant as an insult.

From wikipedia: "The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state."

As a nomadic, non-urbanized culture, the Sioux are clearly not a civilization. Wow guy.

 

[CivOasis]

In so far as they are not a civilization they are "uncivilized." That does not, however, mean they are uncultured and was not meant as an insult.

From wikipedia: "The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state."

As a nomadic, non-urbanized culture, the Sioux are clearly not a civilization. Wow guy.

Civilization is a highly contested description. While there is a "classical" description, it is highly contested by those in the field - because it creates assumptions like the response to your initial post on the subject.

 

[Asderfut]

I hope Firaxis isn't using such a colonial era definition of civilization. As a group of people with a shared culture, religious and social practices, and central authority, the fact that the Sioux didn't build cities should hardly limit them to not being a civilization.

 

[Gucumatz]

Civilization is a highly contested description. While there is a "classical" description, it is highly contested by those in the field - because it creates assumptions like the response to your initial post on the subject.

Yes they are clearly a civ, but the question is are there better choices out there? (There are).

Anyways Civ games have a traditional nomadic/horseman native civ for whatever reason so despite me (and others not really wanting them) they probably will be in.

I just hope in this iteration a slightly different civ (Apache or Comanche to fill the gap).

Kind of like how Civ 4 had Mali - Civ 5 had Songhai, 4 had the Khmer - 5 had Siam, I think Civ 5 would be a good Civ game to skip the Sioux and add some more diversity and include a new civ for the role if they really have to have a civ like this.

 

[CivOasis]

Oh, I don't disagree with there being better choices. I was just commenting on the "not a civ" part.

 

[j51]

I hope Firaxis isn't using such a colonial era definition of civilization. As a group of people with a shared culture, religious and social practices, and central authority, the fact that the Sioux didn't build cities should hardly limit them to not being a civilization.

I don't think its a colonial era definition. I just mean that the game is not called "Cultures," nor "Rise of Nations" for that matter. And considering that the central mechanic is the founding and management of cities, I feel that in this case we are dealing with the definition of the term at its most restrictive.

 

[CivOasis]

I don't think its a colonial era definition. I just mean that the game is not called "Cultures," nor "Rise of Nations" for that matter. And considering that the central mechanic is the founding and management of cities, I feel that in this case we are dealing with the definition of the term at its most restrictive.

At its most restrictive, nothing in this game is a civ, except, maybe Polynesia and China.
A civilization usually refers to a group of cultures, not a nation.

 

[j51]

Oh, I don't disagree with there being better choices. I was just commenting on the "not a civ" part.

I just don't think nomadic cultures qualify as "civs" - The Mongols are about as far from that guide post that I feel the developers should stray.

 

[Asderfut]

What is there to differentiate between the Sioux and Polynesia, in terms of founding cities? Other than Honolulu, many of the polynesian cities in the game are simply the names of islands.

 

[j51]

At its most restrictive, nothing in this game is a civ, except, maybe Polynesia and China.
A civilization usually refers to a group of cultures, not a nation.

True, but the cultures and nations currently in the game almost all fall under the rubric of civilization as a way to organize a society.

 

[CivOasis]

To be fair, some Polynesian cultures did have cities as we know them, they just weren't used for the list.

 

[CivOasis]

True, but the cultures and nations currently in the game almost all fall under the rubric of civilization as a way to organize a society.

But not the standard definition.
It's not like the Sioux (or any nomadic group) would be a big jump from what's already in the game.

I'm not advocating for their addition, mind you, just saying that to call them "not a civ" is hardly reasonable.

 

[Gucumatz]

Tupi were far from a "civilization",they were a tribe,they had little to no accomplishments.
All the civs that are currently in the game and previous games had agriculture,cities and (advanced technology).
The Chachapoya had agriculture,cities and technology,Tupi not.
They did not lived in cities,were primitive,had no advanced technology,did never build a nation, confederation or empire,did not played a role in history,they were conquered by European nations and did not even offered resistence,they were even cannibals!
Not even the Aztecs were so cruel to do that!
In this perspective even Zulu is far better.
Only the civilizations west of the Andes built cities and were advanced.
Unless you count the Lost City of Z and some other cities that existed but of which the builders are unknown.

A resounding agree for the majority of your post.


=========

In regards to Andorc on prev page*

AFAIK, in regards to impact on world history, the Tupi were rather more important than the Chachapoya.

And when you say influence on the world, the Chachapoya had plenty. (You have to consider their world was Pre-Colombian mostly). They controlled trade that came through north of the Andes, in/out of the Amazons to the Andes, had trade with Easter Island, influenced the Inca and the other subsequent cultures in the region greatly via engineering, mumification, roads, having important religous centers that people came from miles to, etc. Oh not to mention they helped the Spanish in the revenge in destroying their rivals the Inca?

Now on the otherhand the Tupi... they are more famous for being a jungle tribe and thats pretty much it. Their scope of influence both in the modern world and in Pre-Colombian times is and was minimal. Fame yes they are more famous, but 100% not more influential/important.

 

[j51]

But not the standard definition.
It's not like the Sioux (or any nomadic group) would be a big jump from what's already in the game.

I'm not advocating for their addition, mind you, just saying that to call them "not a civ" is hardly reasonable.

It would not be a big jump, I agree.

I'm not saying you're advocating their inclusion. But it is entirely reasonable to not refer to a nomadic people as a civilization. That simply is not what civilizations are.