Guess the New Civs

[anandus]

Carthage? Celts? Huns? Byzantines?

Those are more classical civs than ancient civs (in civ5 tech tier speak). (While Carthage and the Celts do gay way back, though).

Although something like 'ancient' is relative, of course

 

[AriochIV]

True Ancient Era civs are boring, because they are really limited as to options. You can have replacements for Warriors or Archers or Chariots, and that's about it.

 

[anandus]

True Ancient Era civs are boring, because they are really limited as to options. You can have replacements for Warriors or Archers or Chariots, and that's about it.

True. And the buildings: Granary, monument, stone works, library, barracks, shrine(?).
But it''s limited, yes.

Although I must say I did like the Hittites and Sumeria in WOTAW.

 

[Nefliqus]

the last one:

 

[anandus]

the last one:

That was already verified to be pure speculation, some thingss are even just wrong, eg no Dromon for Byzantium .

 

[Nefliqus]

Spoiler :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ApprenticeFan/Sandbox/Civilization_V

 

[blackcatatonic]

My guess for the last spot:

Hittites. Why: there are no ancient civs included yet in the expansion. They have made an appearance in the series. Sumeria likely would sell better as a DLC/2nd expansion civ.

I'd really like them to add the Hittites, but they would either have to be an Ancient-era aggressive Civ (of which there are already plenty) or something very defensive, like Babylon but without the science bonus. Not sure they'll go down that route when they've already added one Civ geared at Ancient-era rushing (the Huns).

 

[dagriggstar]

Any of

Afghanistan
Uzbeks (combo civ of various central asian empires)
Sri Vijaya

Are fine by me. Do not really want to see ANOTHER euro civ...

 

[GenjiKhan]

I'd really like them to add the Hittites, but they would either have to be an Ancient-era aggressive Civ (of which there are already plenty) or something very defensive, like Babylon but without the science bonus. Not sure they'll go down that route when they've already added one Civ geared at Ancient-era rushing (the Huns).

Don't forget that there's already a Civ with defensive bonus,without science bonus(Ethiopia) .

 

[blackcatatonic]

Don't forget that there's already a Civ with defensive bonus,without science bonus(Ethiopia) .

Yeah, I know - I meant another defensive Civ from the Ancient era specifically. Ethiopia look Industrial/Modern to me.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Yeah, I know - I meant another defensive Civ from the Ancient era specifically. Ethiopia look Industrial/Modern to me.

But Ethiopia can't be Industrial/Modern,because even the old book of Bible mention them .

 

[Kimuyama]

But Ethiopia can't be Industrial/Modern,because even the old book of Bible mention them .

But their leader and UU are modern, and they use their modern capital.

(though I am aware of Ethiopias age)

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Is it time to remove the last 's' in the thread title ?

 

[fat_tonle]

Hittites were known for their Chariots in warfare, and considering Egypt already has a UU, I don't see them offering much in terms of unique game play. Sumer bonuses would probably all come the first 15 turns of the game anyhow. We all know how lame Babylon's UA is so I don't want them to repeat that mistake. I am not opposed to ancient civs but only if they bring something new.

Ethiopia is a little too modern for my taste so if we get Zulu I am sure they will be more geared toward the early game. Ethiopia should have been more faith based than the traits we have gotten thus far.

 

[MARDUK80]

Portugal made friendly contact with Kongo and there was a great interchange of trade, with Kongo adopting Christianity and even the king Nzinga Mbemba receiving a portugues name and title and sending his son to live in Lisbon.


Later, they had a falling out over the slave trade, and it led to war. Kongo was eventually overcome by the superior-tech of the portuguese.

Worst damage was done by Leopold II the King of the Belgians with formation of Congo Free State. Kongo hasn't really come over from that Period. But that's a different topic. Like said many times already Kongo + Portugal would be a strong combo and nice addition even if released separately via DLC.

 

[blackcatatonic]

But their leader and UU are modern, and they use their modern capital.

(though I am aware of Ethiopias age)

Yeah - regardless of how old Ethiopia is, it's clear from what we know so far that the Civ in the game is being given a more modern focus. Haile Selasse is the most modern leader we've had so far, for example.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Spoiler :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ApprenticeFan/Sandbox/Civilization_V

We know that list. However, two days before the demo, the list looked entirely different. The zulu were purple, the Austrians were another shade of purple and had Charles V as their leader, the Huns were brown, etc. All that list shows is whoever saw the demo changed the colors of the Zulu from purple to green because they knew the last civ's colors were green.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Hittites were known for their Chariots in warfare, and considering Egypt already has a UU, I don't see them offering much in terms of unique game play. Sumer bonuses would probably all come the first 15 turns of the game anyhow. We all know how lame Babylon's UA is so I don't want them to repeat that mistake. I am not opposed to ancient civs but only if they bring something new.

Yeah, this is my concern as well. I could imagine them working well as an Ancient-era Civ with defensive bonuses and perhaps a UB or UI giving a food bonus in less easily-settleable terrain or something, because of how remote Hattusha was. But the UU poses a problem, because a Chariot would make most sense but as you say there's no room for 2 chariot UUs in the game.

Ethiopia is a little too modern for my taste so if we get Zulu I am sure they will be more geared toward the early game. Ethiopia should have been more faith based than the traits we have gotten thus far.

To be honest, I think if/when the Zulu make it in they will end up being quite late-game focused as well, purely because they weren't really around until the 18th century anyway. Plus Shaka is 19th century...

 

[blackcatatonic]

We know that list. However, two days before the demo, the list looked entirely different. The zulu were purple, the Austrians were another shade of purple and had Charles V as their leader, the Huns were brown, etc. All that list shows is whoever saw the demo changed the colors of the Zulu from purple to green because they knew the last civ's colors were green.

Interesting. How do we know this? A minimap somewhere?

Rules out the Inuit, I'd say.

 

[Louis XXIV]

To be honest, I think if/when the Zulu make it in they will end up being quite late-game focused as well, purely because they weren't really around until the 18th century anyway. Plus Shaka is 19th century...

Technically, there are two Chariot UUs. The Hittites would be a third.

The problem with making the Zulu industrial age is their technology was still in the Iron Age.

blackcatatonic, while there's some dispute, there's a minimap in the second save for the Carthage demo. In that screenshot, there's something lime green towards the bottom with what appears to be a darker dot. Some people think it's backwards, which would mean it's a lime green dot and a darker background - making it either a lime green city-state or possibly the Arabs. However, whoever edited the wikipedia page interpreted it to be a lime green background, dark secondary color civilization.

If it is green, it rules out a couple of civs (most prominently, Sweden), but I don't think it comes close to answering who it actually is.