Guess the New Civs

[AbsintheRed]

Hehe, indeed a bad day to post this
But actually I'm always rooting for the inclusion of Hungary. That's the best choice by far, it doesn't really matter that they included the Huns
Only admitting that Austria isn't a bad choice either

 

[janboruta]

You guys made me check what was going on on 15th March in Hungary, now I know. And I'm from the home city of Józef Bem and went to school named after him (there often were Hungarian guests invited), so I'd like even more to see Hungary in Civ5.

Inclusion of Austria would be a little awkward, but not as awkward as Holy Roman Empire or generic Native Americans from Civ 4. The problem is that the difference between Austria and Germany is an effect of political decisions of the 19th century, while cultural differences are on a similar level to those distinguishing, let's say, Berliners from Bavarians. Austria would undoubtedly be an interesting and fresh Civ to play, but there are so many better choices! Hungary is one of them, and the more I think about it, the more I feel that an Indonesian or Central Asian Civ would be a good solution as well. Kongo, Ethiopia or some sort of other African kingdom/sultanate would fill the blank space.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ethiopia or some sort of other African kingdom/sultanate would fill the blank space.

Nubia!

 

[vonbach]

Originally Posted by janboruta
Ethiopia or some sort of other African kingdom/sultanate would fill the blank space.

How about the Afrikaners? Theres a good african country to add.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think it'll look bad if they include two African civs where one consisted of colonists from Lebanon and the other colonists from the Netherlands. I'm pretty sure people are rooting for a Native black African civilization to be included.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

Strauss, Mozart, Freud, Mendel... A civilization which had a great impact in classical music, invented psychology and discovered genetics is not relevant? And that's only to mention a few aspects.

Too bad none of that would make interesting game play. What would there UU be, a psychologist? UB a replacement of an opera house? Still kind of dull.

 

[Louis XXIV]

They were also important militarily. The bonus civ Austrians in Civ3 had a Hussar as a UU.

 

[Dragonflow]

Too bad none of that would make interesting game play. What would there UU be, a psychologist? UB a replacement of an opera house? Still kind of dull.

There are plenty of UU you can give to Austria like Hussars, Grenzers, Jäger, Cuirasiers, Pandurs, Mountaineers or some heavy WW1 style Artillery. Their UA could have something to do with culture, religion or the fact that they had a very multinational empire.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The one hesitation I would have is this. Don't give them two UU and a culture UA. That risks making them too close to France.

That being said, how about this for a UA:
First Viennese School: Receive X amount of culture every time a great person is born.

I used X because I don't know how much, but that strikes me as something very fitting for their cultural golden age, which centered around great composers like Mozart, Hayden, and Beethoven.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

There are plenty of UU you can give to Austria like Hussars, Grenzers, Jäger, Cuirasiers, Pandurs, Mountaineers or some heavy WW1 style Artillery. Their UA could have something to do with culture, religion or the fact that they had a very multinational empire.

Hussars: Yet another unique mounted unit? Not interesting.
Grenzers: Nothing really sets them apart from your standard light infantry.
Jäger: Again, just another name for light infantry.
Cuirassiers: See Hussars.
Pandurs: Interesting enough, but they weren't widely used in military operations. Also, their unique ability would be something akin to what I'd expect on a Hun UU. (Something to do with pillaging)
Mountaineers: This would basically be represented the same as the Norwegian Ski Infantry. Maybe a (useless) ability to traverse mountains?
WW1 Artillery: Has it even been said there will be an artillery unti in the "Great War" era? Historically speaking, there should be. But if not, giving one civ access to artillery before everyone else would be ridiculously broken.

Could they be done? Sure. I just don't see them as being very compelling in-game.

 

[Dragonflow]

Hussars: Yet another unique mounted unit? Not interesting.
Grenzers: Nothing really sets them apart from your standard light infantry.
Jäger: Again, just another name for light infantry.
Cuirassiers: See Hussars.
Pandurs: Interesting enough, but they weren't widely used in military operations. Also, their unique ability would be something akin to what I'd expect on a Hun UU. (Something to do with pillaging)
Mountaineers: This would basically be represented the same as the Norwegian Ski Infantry. Maybe a (useless) ability to traverse mountains?
WW1 Artillery: Has it even been said there will be an artillery unti in the "Great War" era? Historically speaking, there should be. But if not, giving one civ access to artillery before everyone else would be ridiculously broken.

Could they be done? Sure. I just don't see them as being very compelling in-game.

Hussars: There is only one lancer replacement in-game right now.
Grenzer & Jäger: There currently isn't even a light infantry unit in game, maybe the American Minuteman can be counted as light infantry. A rifleman with extra strength and speed in forest, hills and marches can't be a bad idea.
Cuirasiers: Cossacks are the only cavalry replacement currently in-game. The cuirasier could be a more durable but more expensive shock cavalry unit.
Mountaineers: Traversing mountains can be useful, especially when the only way to reach your enemy leads through a mountain pass.
WW1 Artillery: I meant that a WW1 style siege canon could replace the normal artillery unit. It would be less mobile but far more hard hitting.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

Hussars: There is only one lancer replacement in-game right now.
Grenzer & Jäger: There currently isn't even a light infantry unit in game, maybe the American Minuteman can be counted as light infantry. A rifleman with extra strength and speed in forest, hills and marches can't be a bad idea.
Cuirasiers: Cossacks are the only cavalry replacement currently in-game. The cuirasier could be a more durable but more expensive shock cavalry unit.
Mountaineers: Traversing mountains can be useful, especially when the only way to reach your enemy leads through a mountain pass.
WW1 Artillery: I meant that a WW1 style siege canon could replace the normal artillery unit. It would be less mobile but far more hard hitting.

I would consider any gunpowder unit from Rifleman on to be light infantry, as that's what they were. Aside from Mechanized Infantry of course.

I guess I just don't see the point of adding more mounted units as they are pretty much useless as is, against the AI anyway. (I don't play multiplayer, simultaneous turns are terrible.) The AI never bothers to protect it's ranged units in any meaningful way, so why bother making an expensive mounted unit when I can just send my standard melee/gunpowder units to do the same thing?

Super situational special abilities are also a pretty big put off. You could (and most likely will) go a whole game without ever running into a scenario where you have to cross a mountain, and thus the unit is pointless.

I do like the idea of the heavy artillery, but again, I see it being way too powerful against the AI. They are too stupid to flank and don't know how to deal with artillery. It's pretty funny as the Americans to sit completely out of their range of fire with their improved sight and hammer the AI as they just sit there not sure what to do.

Of course, if the AI is improved in G&K this is all changed, but I'm skeptical.

 

[Dragonflow]

I agree with you, with the current AI it really makes no sense to build cavalry when you can just pound them with ranged units more easily. I myself rarely build mounted units like Lancers and Cavalry since it's easier to use Rifleman & Artillery.
I doubt that Austria will make it, since there are already lots of European civs and Austria isn't too strikingly different from Germany. Since G&K already has the Dutch, Byzantium, Celts and Huns as Euro-civs it's unlikely that five out nine civs will be European, especially when Africa and South America are pretty empty.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The biggest reason I can think of to add Austria is it's one of the easiest chances to get a female leader. But they already added three (two of whom are a bit specious, imo, but I digress), so I doubt they'll feel pressured to add any more.

 

[Bowsling]

Of course, said leader was the one that lost three wars to Prussia despite overwhelming odds...

 

[Alk3Crimson]

Although I agree that the civs are a bit Europe heavy, I'd still love to see Poland with Casimir III the Great as their leader. Arquebusiers could be their UU, but I'm not sure what abilities to give them. Some sort of university replacement as a UB (some of the oldest universities in Europe were founded in Poland). A UA having something to do with rebellions or uprisings would fit best, but that's tough to implement when it's only useful after your cities have been taken.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Of course, said leader was the one that lost three wars to Prussia despite overwhelming odds...

To be fair, she was going up against Frederick. I'd still say, in spite of this, she was an extremely important Monarch for Austria.

 

[Draskar]

Although I agree that the civs are a bit Europe heavy, I'd still love to see Poland with Casimir III the Great as their leader. Arquebusiers could be their UU, but I'm not sure what abilities to give them. Some sort of university replacement as a UB (some of the oldest universities in Europe were founded in Poland). A UA having something to do with rebellions or uprisings would fit best, but that's tough to implement when it's only useful after your cities have been taken.

UU of Poland are Winged Hussars, it's a obbligate choice

 

[Dragonflow]

I don't think Maria Theresia is the best choice for an Austrian leader. If Austria is added then their leader should be Maximilian I, Charles V, Leopold I or Franz-Joseph.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think you entirely missed my point about adding another female leader.

I don't think Wu Zetian, Theodora, or certainly Dido are the best choices for China, Byzantium, or Carthage, respectively, but they (at least arguably) are good enough choices to merit consideration. Maria Theresa is certainly at least in this category.

The only female leaders that can even be argued to be the "best" choice are Catherine and Boudicca and, for the Celts, that's only due to lack of unification.