Guess the New Civs

[Liex]

I’m afraid I don’t have much to add to the ongoing debate over the Austria and Hungary thing, but I wouldn’t mind seeing those two as Austria-Hungary, mainly for two reasons:

1st: Every time I hear ‘Austria’, ‘Hungary’ rings in my mind, and vice versa. As a distant, average observer, I seldom hear of each of them separately, outside the WWI context. I think most of the non-Europeans could say the same.
2nd: Every time I listen to Shubert’s piano works, I have to listen to Liszt’s as well. I don't know why.

My personal guesses:
-Kingdom of Israel, under David or Solomon (Not only because they’re adding Judaism as one of the religions; it left an important legacy in culture, religion and even in nowadays politics)
-Zulu (Due to series’ tradition and the currently lack of any sub-Saharan people)
-Portugal (Lisbon as a CS was intended to drawn attention elsewhere, a sort of small joke. I mean, naval gameplay being reworked, Great Admirals and all, and you skip Portugal?)
-I cannot think of a fourth guess… Assyrians, Sumer, perhaps? I have a crush on Khmer things (it’s weird, I know, but it’s not a guess as it’s absolutely unlikely). And I’d love if they surprise us with a modern big nation (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada or some another whale-like country… unlikely, eh?)

 

[dagriggstar]

Because India and China each are composed of similar cultures. Austria and Hungary, on the other hand, belong to rather different cultural families.

I would've imagined for a start there would be more differences between say Maurya (Buddhist, North India), Chola (Hindu, South India) and Mughal (Muslim, from central asia) empires than between Austria and Hungary...

 

[Guandao]

All Austria and Hungary has is linguistic differences (German being Indo-European and Hungarian/Magyar being Uralic), and different histories. Though, the Magyar came from the east (near Ural mountains?), they intermarried with the surrounding people, so they look European.

India is quite diverse with many languages (Indo-Aryan languages like Hindi, Gujarati etc. which descend from Sanskrit, Dravidian like Tamil, Malayalam etc, Austro-Asiatic like the Munda languages, and some isolates) cultures and religions. (Gandhi, war elephants, and Mughal forts barely represent its vast history)
China is also pretty diverse. People might only think of the Han Chinese living there, but there are 56 recognized ethnic groups representing different language families (Sino-Tibetan, Mongolic, Turkic, Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, Indo-European, Austro-Asiatic, Austronesian, Korean, Tungusic) Even the Chinese "dialects" are diverse (Ex: a person who knows Cantonese only can't understand Mandarin or Hunanese or...) Some of the dynasties were ruled by "foreigners" or minorities (Mongols, Manchus, Xianbei, Xiongnu, etc) though they ended up adopting many Chinese customs. I gotten admit that even Russia is quite diverse (though ethnic Russians make the majority), they got minorities speaking Caucasian, Turkic, Mongolic, Uralic, Tungusic, and Siberian languages.
I'm not trying to say that Austria and Hungary don't deserve to be civs. But India and China are way larger, thus they have more linguistic/ethnic diversity.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

FYI: Austro-Hungary was a personalunion
Habsburgs were elected emperors of Austria and elected kings of Hungary
Kaiserlich und Koniglich - the famous K.u.K also comes from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.u.K

Anyway, as I already said a couple times, I'm absolutely not against including Austria
My point was that the dual monarchy was only a small part of the Austrian history, small part of the Austrian civilization (using the word in Civ V terms)

I'm really getting curios:
Why are you against a complete Austrian civilization, which could represent the early Habsburg kingdoms from 1282, the continuously rising power of the Austrian Kingdom in central Europe in the 15-18th century, the Austrian Empire from the end of the 18th century to 1867, and the dominant partner in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy?
Wouldn't that be so much more than only the Austro-Hungary part?

The same works for Hungary
Why would you want to represent it with only the lesser partner in a personal union which only existed for 50 years?
Why, when a separate Hungary could represent hundreds of years of very eventful and rich history, a unique culture stuck between western european and slavic nations in central Europe, which still managed to be a dominant power for more than 600 years?

You misunderstand me.

The kalmar union was a series of seperate governments uniting under one governing body. That is a union. The habsburgs inherited territory for their control. That is a completely different manner of control. Hungary and Austria were not seperate entities under the Habsburgs. For all intensive purposes under the Habsburgs they were the same civilisation. The were governed in a similar fashion to castile and aragon in spain. K.U.K. quite literally stands for nothing when they were both ruled by the same austrian family. For all intensive purposes, hungary and austria were the same enitity in all but name under the Habsburgs.

I am not against the Austrian empire, you misunderstand me completely. As i keep saying, the concept of the austrian empire and the austro-hungarian empire are interchangeable as they are essentially the same thing. In the end it doesn't matter which one they get because they are two names for the same empire. It's like saying why are we getting the Byzantines, they don't represent the history of the east roman empire. The austro-hungarian empire represents the austrian empire in its latter years and shows the rising influence of hungary in the empire. To some degree it represents both. Whilst predominantly it still represents the austrian empire, it represents hungary a little better than merely calling it the austrian empire and in represents austria a lot better than calling it the hungarian empire.

And by the way, Austro-Hungary was NOT a personal union. It IS the austrian empire. There was virtually no change at all in the empire. There was no union between two parties or people. It's name was the result of a period of intense nationalism that led the Hungary wanting some kind of representation within the austrian empire. It did not seperate, it did not become autonomous, and it was still a part of the austrian empire, it was just renamed the Austro-Hungarian empire, if anything for a better representation of it's geographical area.

So to make myself clear, i will sum up.

The Austro-Hungarian empire is not a personal union; it is a continuation of the Austrian empire and the same entity. Austrian empire = Austro-Hungarian empire. Because of this, it is an interchangeable concept with the austrian empire, and as a result it is irrelevant which we get should we get it. They both represent the same civilisation and both have an equal claim to it because they are not separate ideals. I am not against an austrian empire being included, i think it has a very interesting history, including its history between 1867-1918 under a different name. I am against a hungarian empire however, as it is predominantly a medieval empire and much less significant in world politics than the austro-hungarian/austrian empire.

Because India and China each are composed of similar cultures. Austria and Hungary, on the other hand, belong to rather different cultural families.

India and China possibly have some of the most polarised cultures in the world within their borders. The China represented in the west is the chinese culture primarily from the coast around the yellow river region. There are hugely different cultures in the south, in the west (which is primarily inhabited by turkic people) and the north.
India is probably the most conflicted country on earth culturally and i wouldn't even know where to start to explain it. The guy above me knows his stuff, and that's still ignoring religion, race, gender etc.

Austria and Hungary comparatively are like twins. Yes they have their differences, but they have shared a great deal of history together. And cultural differences clearly aren't an identifier of civilisation or else we would have an entirely different selection of civilisations to the ones we currently know.

 

[AbsintheRed]

The kalmar union was a series of seperate governments uniting under one governing body. That is a union. The habsburgs inherited territory for their control. That is a completely different manner of control. Hungary and Austria were not seperate entities under the Habsburgs. For all intensive purposes under the Habsburgs they were the same civilisation. The were governed in a similar fashion to castile and aragon in spain. K.U.K. quite literally stands for nothing when they were both ruled by the same austrian family. For all intensive purposes, hungary and austria were the same enitity in all but name under the Habsburgs.

No, these are just not true:

"The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (German: Ausgleich, Hungarian: Kiegyezés) established the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. The Compromise re-established the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hungary, separate from and no longer subject to the Austrian Empire. Under the Compromise, the Cisleithanian (Austrian) and Transleithanian (Hungarian) regions of the state were governed by separate Parliaments and Prime Ministers. Unity was maintained through rule of a single head of state of both territories and governments. The armed forces were combined with the Emperor-King as commander-in-chief. Certain key ministries were under the direct authority of the Crown, and served the whole Empire and Kingdom.
...
Under the Compromise, Austria and Hungary each had separate parliaments that met in Vienna and Buda (later Budapest), respectively, that passed and maintained separate laws. Each region had its own government, headed by its own prime minister. The "common monarchy" consisted of the emperor-king, and the common ministers of foreign affairs, defense, and finance in Vienna. The terms of the Compromise were renegotiated every ten years."

And even in common monarchial affairs:

"When in 1870, Beust wanted Austria-Hungary to support France against Prussia, Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Andrássy was "vigorously opposed", effectively vetoing Austrian intervention."

And by the way, Austro-Hungary was NOT a personal union. It IS the austrian empire. There was virtually no change at all in the empire.

So that's absolutely not true, even if it was not entirely a personal union
Btw, Austro-Hungary was rather a real union:

"Real union is a union of two or more states, which share some state institutions as in contrast to personal unions; however they are not as unified as states in a political union. It has developed from personal union and usually was limited to monarchies.
...
Sometimes, however, a real union came after a period of a political one. The most notable example of such a move is the Kingdom of Hungary which achieved the status of an equal partner to Austria in the Habsburg Empire following 1867."

As i keep saying, the concept of the austrian empire and the austro-hungarian empire are interchangeable as they are essentially the same thing. In the end it doesn't matter which one they get because they are two names for the same empire.

This is where I mostly disagree
Austria as a civilization includes in itself all the austrian history, which means more or less also includes Austro-Hungary too
Austro-Hungary as a civilization is much more restricting. It can only represent what is it, those 50 years

Gameplay terms:
If you get Austria as a civ, you can have UUs, UB, UA from all of it's history, whatever is the most fitting. Including K.u.K Infantry
With Austria-Hungary as civ, I couldn't imagine having a bonus from other than the late 19th century time period

 

[AbsintheRed]

I am against a hungarian empire however, as it is predominantly a medieval empire and much less significant in world politics than the austro-hungarian/austrian empire.

That's a completely different question
Hungary was a main power mainly in the medieval era (900-1500), while Austria had it's peak later, in the industrial era (1600-1900)

It's a matter of personal preference which to favor
But I would certainly not say anything like Hungary was "less significant in world politics" than Austria
This is maybe true for the 17-19th century, but certainly not in the 10-15th

I'm for example very much into medieval history, so for me Hungary is a much valid choice than Austria
(I guess this is the same reason I would also prefer Poland over Austria - it's just a much more interesting time period for me - at least in Europe)

 

[mitsho]

Guys, do we have another Polandgate?

There's really no merit in discussing the value of the civs, better do discuss the chances of implementation of either civ, be it Austria, Hungary, India, Maurya, Mughal and Chola. (the latter three probably being more diverse than the first two). Because in my mind, all of them are worthy, the question is which one makes the Top 50 list in fun and interesting gameplay.

Civ's not a simulation. Implementation doesn't mean you are worth more, which is imho kinda shown by how they chose to have the Holy Roman Empire in Civ 4.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I’m afraid I don’t have much to add to the ongoing debate over the Austria and Hungary thing, but I wouldn’t mind seeing those two as Austria-Hungary, mainly for two reasons:

1st: Every time I hear ‘Austria’, ‘Hungary’ rings in my mind, and vice versa. As a distant, average observer, I seldom hear of each of them separately, outside the WWI context. I think most of the non-Europeans could say the same.

Yeah, and completely understandable. Most non-Europeans only hear them in a WWI context.
This is what should be changed IMO
Doesn't matter if we are talking about Austria or Hungary. Both nations has a much richer history, I feel it's wrong if only such a small aspect is highlighted.
Even if that "such small aspect" was the very powerful entity of Austro-Hungary

2nd: Every time I listen to Shubert’s piano works, I have to listen to Liszt’s as well. I don't know why.

That's actually quite nice

 

[AbsintheRed]

Guys, do we have another Polandgate?

There's really no merit in discussing the value of the civs, better do discuss the chances of implementation of either civ, be it Austria, Hungary, India, Maurya, Mughal and Chola. (the latter three probably being more diverse than the first two). Because in my mind, all of them are worthy, the question is which one makes the Top 50 list in fun and interesting gameplay.

Civ's not a simulation. Implementation doesn't mean you are worth more, which is imho kinda shown by how they chose to have the Holy Roman Empire in Civ 4.

Yeah you are right
I also think it's high-time to stop this conversation? debate? argument? about Austria, Hungary and the Dual Monarchy.
So I will try to keep myself from posting more about Austro-Hungary...

Actually 50 would be a very nice number, but I'm not sure if we will reach it
Right now we have 34 civs (18+7+9), and a couple more DLCs are very likely after Gods and Knights (from Portugal, Zulu, Sioux, Sumer, Hittite those that won't make into this expansion)
I guess it's a question of whether they will make another expansion or not.
If yes, somewhere around 50 is realistic. If not, 40-42 is the best number we can hope for

 

[Manifold]

Forget Austro-Hungary, if you wanna play them take the Mongols or Germans and rename them.

Furthermore I think we need the Soviet Union as Civ.

trait: something for a huge empire
UU1: KGB secret agent
UU2: Katyusha rocket launcher
Citynames: Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk, Stalingrad, Baku, Gorky, Sverdlovsk, Stalino...

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

No, these are just not true:

"The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (German: Ausgleich, Hungarian: Kiegyezés) established the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. The Compromise re-established the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hungary, separate from and no longer subject to the Austrian Empire. Under the Compromise, the Cisleithanian (Austrian) and Transleithanian (Hungarian) regions of the state were governed by separate Parliaments and Prime Ministers. Unity was maintained through rule of a single head of state of both territories and governments. The armed forces were combined with the Emperor-King as commander-in-chief. Certain key ministries were under the direct authority of the Crown, and served the whole Empire and Kingdom.
...
Under the Compromise, Austria and Hungary each had separate parliaments that met in Vienna and Buda (later Budapest), respectively, that passed and maintained separate laws. Each region had its own government, headed by its own prime minister. The "common monarchy" consisted of the emperor-king, and the common ministers of foreign affairs, defense, and finance in Vienna. The terms of the Compromise were renegotiated every ten years."

And even in common monarchial affairs:

"When in 1870, Beust wanted Austria-Hungary to support France against Prussia, Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Andrássy was "vigorously opposed", effectively vetoing Austrian intervention."



So that's absolutely not true, even if it was not entirely a personal union
Btw, Austro-Hungary was rather a real union:

"Real union is a union of two or more states, which share some state institutions as in contrast to personal unions; however they are not as unified as states in a political union. It has developed from personal union and usually was limited to monarchies.
...
Sometimes, however, a real union came after a period of a political one. The most notable example of such a move is the Kingdom of Hungary which achieved the status of an equal partner to Austria in the Habsburg Empire following 1867."



This is where I mostly disagree
Austria as a civilization includes in itself all the austrian history, which means more or less also includes Austro-Hungary too
Austro-Hungary as a civilization is much more restricting. It can only represent what is it, those 50 years

Gameplay terms:
If you get Austria as a civ, you can have UUs, UB, UA from all of it's history, whatever is the most fitting. Including K.u.K Infantry
With Austria-Hungary as civ, I couldn't imagine having a bonus from other than the late 19th century time period

Whilst wikipedia is a great source, it overstates the power of Hungary in the austro-hungary. It's increasing power since the treaty in 1867 contributed to the collapse of the union, but imediately after 1867 and for the rest of the 19th century at least the power was very much still on the side of the austrians. Of course there were instances where hungarian power was shown, but that instance was shortly after their defeat in the austro-prussian war and the hungarian ministers side was the only practical side to take.

And as for the personal union, you still misunderstand me. There was no union. At no point were Austria and Hungary formally united. It was an imperial territory under the rule of the Habsburgs. There was no personal union either, it was ruled by the same people. Their was no union on a personal level because they had the same rulers. There were no seperate rulers uniting. Again, it received the status of an equal partner, this does not mean it WAS an equal partner.

But disputing the history of the empire is irrelevant.

The Austrian empire represents all austrian history yes, but likewise with the austro-hungarian empire there is no reason why it can't represent the austrian empire. If it goes one way, it does have to go the other too. It is the same empire ruled by the same people with the same culture seeking the same aims in european politics, so i think the concepts of the austrian empire and the austro-hungarian empire are interchangeable.

I can see what you are trying to say, but i think your argument is constructed in the context of modern nation building. I don't think it's more restricting because it's the same civilisation as the austrian empire. If the rise of national conciousness is a defining factor of when an civilisation ceases to be and becomes a new entity, then there can be no such thing as a civilisation that contains subjugated people. This means no China, no India, no England, no USA, no France, certainly no Germany, no Russia, no Siam, it's the entire foundation of the Songhai.

I also completely support your reason for choosing Hungary, i don't know too much about medieval history, but i think Austria has more credentials at least in the context of civ because it spans more than one entire era.

 

[WilliamKendall]

My personal guesses: -Kingdom of Israel, under David or Solomon (Not only because they’re adding Judaism as one of the religions; it left an important legacy in culture, religion and even in nowadays politics)

I agree. Israel would make a great CIV. I've argued for this one as well.

 

[Sestey]

How come I haven't heard anything about a Scottish empire? To me that would be much more fun and meaningful than the Celts...unlike the Celts the Scottish held off not only the English but also the Romans too. I get why there isn't a Welch one though since they already have the Celts.

How come no one has brought up the Milanese faction? Its a past one and could have been overlooked..just like a potential Lombardy one.

Either way I don't think we are getting any newer ones besides the 5 already given out..I think the last 4 will be previous dlc factions like the Vikings spainards etc...hope I'm wrong though

 

[Kimuyama]

How come I haven't heard anything about a Scottish empire? To me that would be much more fun and meaningful than the Celts...unlike the Celts the Scottish held off not only the English but also the Romans too. I get why there isn't a Welch one though since they already have the Celts.

How come no one has brought up the Milanese faction? Its a past one and could have been overlooked..just like a potential Lombardy one.

Either way I don't think we are getting any newer ones besides the 5 already given out..I think the last 4 will be previous dlc factions like the Vikings spainards etc...hope I'm wrong though

Haha, if firaxis did that the community would not accept it. It would be suicide.
The other foure ARE'NT dlc civilizations, I guarantee it.

And I'd rather see an Italian faction than a Milanese or a Lombardian, though independent, they were part of a larger Italian "Civilization".
Though one could argue they are covered by the Romans.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It just wouldn't make sense. Why only include some DLC? Which four? I assume Polynesia, Korea, Danes, but the rest present their own complications.

 

[Volapyk]

With the new religion and espionage features we should expect to see some civs that favors those specific traits. Personally I would love to see something like the Palatine State as a civ, I know not your standard civilization as such but still a major religious player that shouldn't be left out, especially if we don't see a new Apostolic Palace (as that would kinda null the civ idea).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

With the new religion and espionage features we should expect to see some civs that favors those specific traits. Personally I would love to see something like the Palatine State as a civ, I know not your standard civilization as such but still a major religious player that shouldn't be left out, especially if we don't see a new Apostolic Palace (as that would kinda null the civ idea).

It will more likely be a religious City State.
A reason I don't think Israel will be in.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Vatican/Papal State + Jerusalem as Religious City States (maybe Salt Lake too?) [I don't think Mecca will be taken from the Arabs... but it might]

 

[Androrc the Orc]

I'm not sure if the Vatican would make a good city-state... I mean, it's not even an actual city, it's a part of Rome.

 

[ShahJahanII]

I'm not sure if the Vatican would make a good city-state... I mean, it's not even an actual city, it's a part of Rome.

Actually, it is an independent country.

 

[Kimuyama]

But it is situated WITHIN rome! It's not only within the metropolitan area, it's within the city proper!
Plus that it's only been a seperate entity from Rome for about 90 years.