Guess the New Civs

[Gucumatz]

Because, as you yourself mentioned it, the Sioux are very romanticized and thus there are more people interested in them. And they have recurrently appeared in games, having appeared in games such as Civilization II, Colonization and Age of Empires III, so they feel familiar to many people.

But while I am not exactly a fan of either the Comanche or Sioux, the Comanche are still fairly well known. (In Texas, Oklahoma, etc. The Texas Ranger arose due to the Comanche etc.) Its just that the Comanche were a more interesting civ. As seen by their map their raids went all the way from Mexico to the Eastern U.S. At their peak there were more than 2,000,000 horses in Comancheria and developed as the biggest horse based civ in North America.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

But while I am not exactly a fan of either the Comanche or Sioux, the Comanche are still fairly well known. (In Texas, Oklahoma, etc. The Texas Ranger arose due to the Comanche etc.) Its just that the Comanche were a more interesting civ. As seen by their map their raids went all the way from Mexico to the Eastern U.S. At their peak there were more than 2,000,000 horses in Comancheria and developed as the biggest horse based civ in North America.

Were they a more important civilization historically than the Sioux? Perhaps. But that's not the main concern when adding new official civilizations, but rather the amount of public interest in a particular civilization.

 

[Louis XXIV]

As were Genghis Khan's Mongols.

And then they conquered the world's largest empire. The Mongols as empire managers is their qualifications as a civ, not the Mongols just living in Mongolia pre-Temujin.

But if we want a Horseman culture in North America, why not go with the Comanche who actually established an empire of sorts?

Instead of the overdone Sioux who are only romanticized and except for a few battles were never as significant as other cultures.

If you count the Great Sioux Nation (which is really a bunch of similar tribes and at least three dialects/language groups), their territory is decently large. From an American perspective, they were often the bigger obstacle (although that might also just have to do with the direction of western expansion). None of this should really matter for choosing a civ, I'm just pointing out that their territory was actually comparable to the Comanche.

This is a better map

The Sioux nation included (on the map) Hunkappa, Teton, Minicoujou, Oglala, Yankton, Yanktonai, Mdewakanton, Sisseton, Santee, Wahpekute, and Wahpeton.

It still doesn't solve their lack of cities and the fact that they were really just one of many nomadic, militaristic tribes (the kind that really are well-represented by Barbarians in the game).

 

[Gucumatz]

The link you posted won't work for me.

Also anyone notice 2k Greg was on briefly on this forum just a few minutes ago?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Try this

 

[Gucumatz]

Ok yep that link works much better.

 

[cccv]

Pff, I don't want to get nationalistic at all, but Hungary and Poland bummer civs???
Maybe for you
Actually they are at least as popular as your choices or some of the already known dlc and expansion civs
Not the mention that they are historically way more important than the Zulus and many other already included civs

haha, sorry. I get where you're coming from, and I know those civs would work well in World War scenarios, but for me and a lot of people, I think if civs like Rome, England, China, etc. are getting bumped out of the game by civs like Hungary, people will end up doing what I did with a bunch of the Civ IV BtS civs: changing the xml so the AI can't pick them anymore. I know Poland comes up here as often as it does for a reason, but I don't imagine a lot of people saying out loud and in public that that particular civ would sell as many DLCs as Spain. Of course someone from Hungary would enjoy having them in the game, but that doesn't make up a huge amount of the game's audience, and most people who play civ would rather play against Rome than Hungary. So for a lot of us, WW scenarios excluded, Hungary is kind of a bummer. Not only is it not something we'd like, but we'd actually have to edit the xml to prevent it from making the overall game worse for us (by seeing them in the game at the exclusion of civs like England, etc). The extra problem with that which wasn't a factor for BtS is, and maybe someone an correct me, but I think if we play with the xml edited, nothing we do counts towards achievements, which some people like. So a lot of us would have to choose between achievements and playing with/against civs that are more interesting to us.

And I know the Zulu civ isn't necessarily the most important civ ever, but this isn't about "worthiness" or importance, it's about what people like, and the Zulu are pretty badass, hence people like them.

 

[chazzycat]

what are the odds of a Hun/Hungary combo civ? according to wikipedia modern Hungarians are descended from the Huns. Huns had a pretty big empire under Attila, then later the Hungarians had a pretty decent run for about 500 years in the medieval/rennaissance.

would be kinda like the danes.

 

[Babri]

I think they are going to add Huns & Attila as their leader. Or atleast Huns would be there in Fall of Rome scenario. Anyway did anyone heard any info from that german guy ?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Trineas has posted in this thread (brush up on your German), but I don't see any new info.

 

[j51]

As were Genghis Khan's Mongols.

And then they conquered the world's largest empire. The Mongols as empire managers is their qualifications as a civ, not the Mongols just living in Mongolia pre-Temujin.

<----- This

 

[seasnake]

And then they conquered the world's largest empire. The Mongols as empire managers is their qualifications as a civ, not the Mongols just living in Mongolia pre-Temujin.



If you count the Great Sioux Nation (which is really a bunch of similar tribes and at least three dialects/language groups), their territory is decently large. From an American perspective, they were often the bigger obstacle (although that might also just have to do with the direction of western expansion). None of this should really matter for choosing a civ, I'm just pointing out that their territory was actually comparable to the Comanche.

This is a better map

The Sioux nation included (on the map) Hunkappa, Teton, Minicoujou, Oglala, Yankton, Yanktonai, Mdewakanton, Sisseton, Santee, Wahpekute, and Wahpeton.

It still doesn't solve their lack of cities and the fact that they were really just one of many nomadic, militaristic tribes (the kind that really are well-represented by Barbarians in the game).

I think in colonization the city names were the tribe names, I think Oglala was the capital, Hunkpapa was another, etc. Given that you generally found less cities in Civ V I think they could go that direction.

I still think, honestly, Mississippi would be the best with Tuscaloosa as the leader, given the many cities and accomplishments of the Mississippi. I'd have their unique ability tie into their mound building, maybe a culture gain version of the Korean bonus where they gain bonus culture from every culture building/wonder they build in the capital and have them build Platform Mounds instead of castles, which can be built with Theology and have a GE slot, and increase city attack to 3 tiles away.

But this forum is about guessing the four remaining civs, and I think we'll be seeing an incredibly animated Sitting Bull staring back at us in about 4 months speaking Sioux and threatening us with his Mounted Warriors.

 

[Haig]

5 known:

my guess for the other 4:
Austria-Hungary for the victorian scenario
Zulu in the same victorian scenario (IIRC, Zulu conquest was around that time - Zulu with mechanical weapon!!!)

if we consider fan service, Poland is the top contender and it may be related to the medieval scenario
If the 10th icon is totemism and not tengriism, we may need another northern amerindian civ (a more "great plains" related maybe).

So i'll go with Indonesia (with Senopati as a leader), Austria-Hungary (François-joseph), Zulu (Shaka) and the Sioux (Sitting Bull)

So far I think this is a very good prediction. Actually at the moment it's the same as mine, except for Indonesia.

I think the Scenarios might be a hint here. Of course they can have "scenario-only" Civs like the ones in the Ancient Wonders scenario.

Fall of Rome scenario
Celts, Carthago and Byzantine are confirmed Civs and fit nicely here

Medieval scenario
I wonder do they mean like a year 1200 or 1500? I think the info for it has been vague so far.. I think the lead designer has designed a board game that takes place in the later medieval era. Poland might fit it and Sweden. Both have loads of Civ fans too so might be a good marketing move.

Victorian scenario
Dutch had american colonies, and could represent the Boers maybe too. Austria and Zulu would fit to the scenario very well.

So overall I predict:
Austria
Sweden
Sioux
Zulu or Ethiopia.

 

[Pouakai]

Thing is though, Victorian Scenario is 'Empire of the smoky skies' and is Steampunk. I highly doubt we'll be able to predict anything there

 

[seasnake]

So far I think this is a very good prediction. Actually at the moment it's the same as mine, except for Indonesia.

I think the Scenarios might be a hint here. Of course they can have "scenario-only" Civs like the ones in the Ancient Wonders scenario.

Fall of Rome scenario
Celts, Carthago and Byzantine are confirmed Civs and fit nicely here

Medieval scenario
I wonder do they mean like a year 1200 or 1500? I think the info for it has been vague so far.. I think the lead designer has designed a board game that takes place in the later medieval era. Poland might fit it and Sweden. Both have loads of Civ fans too so might be a good marketing move.

Victorian scenario
Dutch had american colonies, and could represent the Boers maybe too. Austria and Zulu would fit to the scenario very well.

So overall I predict:
Austria
Sweden
Sioux
Zulu or Ethiopia.

Carthage makes sense in a Rise of Rome Scenario. By the fall of Western Roman Empire they weren't even a factor, their lands were dominated by Vandals and later Byzantium won them back until they fell to the Moors.

The fall of Rome would in theory include the Franks, Vandals, Huns, Visigoths and Ostrogoths, which later would turn in the medieval period into France and the HRE, Sicily, Nothing, Spain and Italy; respectively. The Franks under Charlemagne would be the most civ-worthy in my opinion, because for a while the Franks, Byzantines, Khazars and Arabs split world into four separate parts.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think in colonization the city names were the tribe names, I think Oglala was the capital, Hunkpapa was another, etc. Given that you generally found less cities in Civ V I think they could go that direction.

I still think, honestly, Mississippi would be the best with Tuscaloosa as the leader, given the many cities and accomplishments of the Mississippi. I'd have their unique ability tie into their mound building, maybe a culture gain version of the Korean bonus where they gain bonus culture from every culture building/wonder they build in the capital and have them build Platform Mounds instead of castles, which can be built with Theology and have a GE slot, and increase city attack to 3 tiles away.

But this forum is about guessing the four remaining civs, and I think we'll be seeing an incredibly animated Sitting Bull staring back at us in about 4 months speaking Sioux and threatening us with his Mounted Warriors.

I think you might be right. I would love the Mississippians, though. And it took a lot for me to be sold by them. I still think more can be done to make them unique, but, even in spite of their decline being slightly before European colonialism (read: Not as well documented), I would love to see them in a game.

So far I think this is a very good prediction. Actually at the moment it's the same as mine, except for Indonesia.

Fall of Rome scenario
Celts, Carthago and Byzantine are confirmed Civs and fit nicely here

Carthage would actually be a poor choice for a fall of Rome scenario. Although was the dominant Civ before Rome showed up on the block (so to speak) they were so soundly defeated that the city was raised to the ground (and salt was allegedly sowed into the earth so nothing would grow again, but they clearly tried so that was probably apocryphal).

For fall of Rome, the Celts are there, bit not all that important, imo.

 

[MARDUK80]

I still think, honestly, Mississippi would be the best with Tuscaloosa as the leader, given the many cities and accomplishments of the Mississippi. I'd have their unique ability tie into their mound building, maybe a culture gain version of the Korean bonus where they gain bonus culture from every culture building/wonder they build in the capital and have them build Platform Mounds instead of castles, which can be built with Theology and have a GE slot, and increase city attack to 3 tiles away.

Great idea! For some unknown reasons I have always overlooked the Mississippians. But now I see that they would be the best choice for the second native north american civ slot. Based on their success on city building and strong culture. Apache (Mangas Coloradas and Geronimo would be cool leaders!) and Comanche (horse nation) are also good candidates and I am sure Sitting Bull of the Sioux would look awesome, but from now on the Mississippi gets my vote.

 

[AbsintheRed]

haha, sorry. I get where you're coming from, and I know those civs would work well in World War scenarios, but for me and a lot of people, I think if civs like Rome, England, China, etc. are getting bumped out of the game by civs like Hungary, people will end up doing what I did with a bunch of the Civ IV BtS civs: changing the xml so the AI can't pick them anymore. I know Poland comes up here as often as it does for a reason, but I don't imagine a lot of people saying out loud and in public that that particular civ would sell as many DLCs as Spain. Of course someone from Hungary would enjoy having them in the game, but that doesn't make up a huge amount of the game's audience, and most people who play civ would rather play against Rome than Hungary. So for a lot of us, WW scenarios excluded, Hungary is kind of a bummer. Not only is it not something we'd like, but we'd actually have to edit the xml to prevent it from making the overall game worse for us (by seeing them in the game at the exclusion of civs like England, etc). The extra problem with that which wasn't a factor for BtS is, and maybe someone an correct me, but I think if we play with the xml edited, nothing we do counts towards achievements, which some people like. So a lot of us would have to choose between achievements and playing with/against civs that are more interesting to us.

And I know the Zulu civ isn't necessarily the most important civ ever, but this isn't about "worthiness" or importance, it's about what people like, and the Zulu are pretty badass, hence people like them.

Hungary was one of the major european powers from ~900 AD to ~1500 AD, and it's a shame noone ever cares about that
Pre WW-era Austro-Hungary was under a personal union with Austria, and it was rather shortliving. I agree that doesn't deserve a full civ, even if it was a very powerful state

About popularity, just check a few polls
Hungary and Poland are among the most anticipated "missing" civs from the civ series
And yeah, I dare to say that both of them would sell very good as DLCs too, at least as good as some of the previous ones

Also, I really don't think that many people edit civs out from their game
Maybe preset a few civs for a specific game, but editing out a civ for good? Highly unlikely that this is a common thing among civ players

 

[AbsintheRed]

what are the odds of a Hun/Hungary combo civ? according to wikipedia modern Hungarians are descended from the Huns. Huns had a pretty big empire under Attila, then later the Hungarians had a pretty decent run for about 500 years in the medieval/rennaissance.

would be kinda like the danes.

Actually the Hun and Hungarian relativity is highly debated
I personally think that there is some sort of connection to the huns, but it's rather minimal
The main Hungarian tribes were of Uralian origin, and we are a Finno-ugric nation
Might be surprising, but the closest relatives to Hungarians are Finns and Estonians

 

[Androrc the Orc]

The link is AFAIK mostly geographic: the Huns settled in modern Hungary, giving the country it's modern name. The Avars came later and replaced the Huns in the region, but by then the region was firmly known as Hungary. Then the Magyars came to Hungary and replaced the Avars. Since the region was already known as Hungary, the Magyars (who had little to no cultural or ethnic connection with the Huns) became known as Hungarians, since they were the inhabitants of the region "Hungary".