Guess the New Civs

[Nyanko]

Maori, maybe in Civ 6, since we have Polynesia. They have merits. But New Zealand? No way. Our military consists of three helicopters, two boats and a couple of guys with Nerf guns.

Are you sure? I thought they decommissioned the Nerf brigades last year.

I am really looking forward to seeing what the other four new Civilizations are in this expansion; particularly what their "Uniques" are. Though I do think a few of the suggestions in this thread are a bit far fetched, Brazil and Indonesia for example; despite they might be a fun civ to play, only seem in there for their geographical importance rather than any historical legacy (but then again some of the current choices fall into that category; Songhai, Polynesia, I look at you)

But I'll place money that the Zulu are in there. The Zulu (no matter how important they were in real life) have been a center for Civ since the Original.

I stand by my dislike of Justinian for a couple of reasons:

One, he bankrupted the Eastern Roman Empire
Second, the Empire when he ruled it still seemed a bit western facing. He is referred to as the last Roman Emperor and he spoke Latin. He focused on trying to recapture Rome.

The later Empire that spoke Greek and was a hybrid of east and west seems a bit better. I like Alexius Comnenus, but I've also heard good arguments for Basil II. In other words, someone who spoke Greek.
It's also possible it would be Justinian's wife, Theodra, but that would compound my objections.

How about someone from the Palaiologos lineage? They managed to recapture Constantinople from the Latins. Maybe Michael VIII? Or even better, Constantine XI (heh)?

I'd place my chips on Basil I however for Byzantine Emperor, anyway. he seems like the only decent one of them.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

It would be good to see a brand new civ make it into the expansion. How about Lithuania? Depending on what the Medieval scenario actually is, it could be a good civ to have in.

 

[Optical]

I want to see Poland before Lithuania

 

[dagriggstar]

So there's 4 left. So far, no Asia and no Africa, I would say the one American civ would probably mean no more from that part of the world.

One of (Sub sahara would get at least one more civ)
Ethiopia (Could be CS)
Zulu (series favourite)
Kongo (Personal tip) (Female Ruler Bonus points)
Kanem-Bornu
Madagascar (Female ruler bonus points)

One of (Likely presence of Tengriism)
Huns
Khazars (Personal tip)
Uzbeks/Timurids/Basically any state centered on Samarkand/Bukhara/Merv

One of (Likely second Asian civ)
Sri Vijaya/Majapahit (Sri Vijaya more likely, occupy an under-represented place in time 800 AD) (Personal tip)
Khmer (civ IV)
Burma
Vietnam

One of (Europe always ends up with a lot of civs)
Austria/Austria-Hungary (Personal tip, female ruler bonus points)
Bulgaria
Venetian empire
Poland/Poland-Lithuania
Sweden




Should emphasize that of 3 new civs, we have no new female leaders. Can't imagine Carthage having one either. Out of 9, I imagine 2 would be females.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Should emphasize that of 3 new civs, we have no new female leaders. Can't imagine Carthage having one either. Out of 9, I imagine 2 would be females.

Boudicca is female and she will be the Celt leader. It's entirely possible that they'll choose Dido for Carthage (though they've gone with Hannibal in the past).

 

[anandus]

If the Scots are lumped in anywhere it is with the English surely?

The Celts have a Pict warrior. I don't think it'll get more Scottish than that.

 

[Fabiano79]

Switzerland has city state written all over it. Even down to the way it's governed. It was never a grand civilisation, just a little survivor between the meat grinders of france, germany and the alps.

I would like to see Brazil, but that's not exactly a world leader by any means yet, it's only just jumped ahead of the UK in GDP. It's got lots of food and they speak Portguese, but they haven't really had any history yet.

Brazil has a lot of history and fought most of the wars that happened in south america. I can easly say that our history is so full of events as the USA history. The problem is that we were really isolated from the rest of the world. Nobody understand our language. To make things worse, Brazil gave his back to the others counties in Latin America. They speak spanish and share the same heroes, they have a lot more in common between themselves and really form a "comunity". Brazil is that strange big neighbour.

I kind like the notion of a Gran Colombia as a civ, it would represent more countries of Latin America. My problem is that would be a fictional civ, and Im not a fan of this.

Just to bring some positive points to justify Brazil as a civ:

- Religion is really a big deal here. We are the biggest catholic and evangelic country in the world. (theres literally one church every corner down here). So, we can be portrait as a religious civ in the game.

- We are the worlds top exporter of lots of commodities. From food to minerals. So we can be portrait as a commercial civ too.

Theres also the obvious reasons, Brazil ocuppies more than half of south america, is the world 6 economy (FMI says we will be the 3 in 15 years), we have 20% of the worlds fresh water, the Amazon, the biodiversity goods (medicines), 200 million pop, an decent army.

The con of Brazil is that we didnt have a major part on the world in the past and sure we are not a world leader (depends what you call a world leader). Brazil, China and India acts as a bloc on all major international negotiations, so...hell yes..you better listen what we have to say if you want to have a consumer market or something to eat.

I prefer ancient powers like the summerians and hitites, but if modern civs will be in the game, Brazil surely is a contender.

Our science is weak, our governament corrupt, our society hugely unfair...but hey, we surely know how to play football and how to party. Firaxis, put Brazil on ciV and we will deliver the fun this game needs! BTW, its carnaval time!

 

[Civciv5]

I agree,Brazil is too modern.
Zulu is the most modern civ that they ever released,but they were present as a people since
+-1300 AD.
Civilization had never too modern nations(1800-present),examples are Canada,Australia,South Africa,Brazil,Mexico...

 

[anandus]

I agree,Brazil is too modern.
Zulu is the most modern civ that they ever released

I think Germany is the youngest civ?
The Zulu Kingdom precedes Germany by half a century or so.

But of course it's hard to define 'civ' and the age of the civ.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Just a thought...I don't mean to be negative with this comment either...but I wonder if there'll be a couple of civs in the mix that fill a gap, but wouldn't be big sellers if released as a stand-alone DLC?

 

[anandus]

Just a thought...I don't mean to be negative with this comment either...but I wonder if there'll be a couple of civs in the mix that fill a gap, but wouldn't be big sellers if released as a stand-alone DLC?

It wouldn't surprise me, to put some more 'boring' civs as fillers in the expansion pack and leave more exciting civs out of it.
The Zulu would make sense as a DLC-civ for instance.

 

[Civciv5]

"Germany was founded as an "empire" in 1871".
But their civilization was present since the Holy Roman Empire,which full name is "Holy Roman Empire of the German Empire".
All those modern nations civilizations were founded at the same date as their nation.
Except if you count "tribes" as an civilization.
Canada,Australia,South Africa,Brazil,Mexico indigenous tribes were present long before their founding date,but they were NOT called "Canada" or "Brazil" until their modern nation was founded.
The point is that they will not include any modern nations OR "civilizations".
I'm sure of that and IF they do then they would be really confused.

 

[albie_123]

I know people tend to get angry about geographic balance - something I think is pretty absurd, I mean, there are simply some geographic areas that lended themselves more towards Civilization building than others - but I cannot see why the Celts have been included before the Goths.

 

[bite]

I honestly would like to see one quite a bit out of left field, one we have never had before, for no other reason (geographic, historical et.al.) other than they can

 

[blackcatatonic]

I'd quite like to see Scotland in there, but the presence of the Celts with a Pictish Warrior UU is making me extremely doubtful. But who knows, maybe by the time Civ 6 comes out, Scotland will be independent again and they might consider it...

 

[Fabiano79]

The problem with Brazil is that not only is it modern, it is super modern. As a country with any global impact, its age is measured in decades (at best). It makes the USA look like an old European Power. I think it's simply not had enough impact to be in the game. Will it have enough impact in the future? Almost certainly, but not quite at this stage.

Sometimes I think if that is really true or people just dont know anything about the history of Brazil. Overall, the history of Latin America tends to be ignored by foreigners. So, of course Brazil didnt have major impacts on Europe (besides being a huge gold mine to Portugal, England and the Catholic Church), but the world is not only Europe and US. Brazil is a power of this continent since the 1600s.

Of course we are not france or rome, so Ill concede and agree with you. As I said, I prefer the ancients civs like summeria, phoenicia, hitites...

But, IF they are choosing one or two modern civs, Brazil is way ahead most of the candidates IMO.

 

[Louis XXIV]

^ I think Argentina is a good cautionary tale. If Civ could exist 50 years ago, Argentina would likely be included. Today, no one thinks they did enough. If Brazil remains consistently among the best for another 20+ years, I think they should be in. But not for Civ5.

How about someone from the Palaiologos lineage? They managed to recapture Constantinople from the Latins. Maybe Michael VIII? Or even better, Constantine XI (heh)?

I'd place my chips on Basil I however for Byzantine Emperor, anyway. he seems like the only decent one of them.

Palaiologos lineage is from a fairly disappointing time in Byzantine history. Basil I is good. He fits the two criteria I'd like. He speaks Greek (Macedonian line) and he made the Empire prosperous. That alone puts him above Justinian.

But my money is still on either Justinian or Theodra as much as I'd prefer it not.

 

[hoplitejoe]

I honestly would like to see one quite a bit out of left field, one we have never had before, for no other reason (geographic, historical et.al.) other than they can

That would have such a backlash If I could choose that I would Al-Andalus/Córdoba.

 

[Nirosi]

But, Empire of Brazil was ruled by an PORTUGAL DYNASTY and founded 1822.

 

[Fabiano79]

I should clarify, I didn't mean that the geographic area and people living in Brazil had no importance until a few decades ago; but the nation (both in terms of the state and a distinct, partially homogeneous and self created culture) of Brazil is really a very modern thing. Argentina was far more influential at the turn of the last century than Brazil, and a case could be made to have Argentina first.

Dont worry, Im not taking personally and I think we are just talking, not fighting.

very Modern thing?

Well, that depends of what you call modern. Our indepence was in 1822 and our first constitution is from 1824 (germany was unify on 1871)

Argentina was far more influential at the turn of the last century than Brazil

I fail to see based on what facts you can say this... Argentina was and still is a great country. But in the balance of powers before 1900s, Colombia and Paraguay (maybe venezuela too) were ahead of Argentina on the spanish latin america.

Brazil was a british puppet on the continent by them, but nevertheless a major power. Just look the wars on the XIX century and the role Brazil had.


About Portugal, of course I think they should be in the game before Brazil.