Guess the New Civs

[evanschrader]

Falcon Warrior (hence the similarity to the Aztec Jaguar warrior). I suppose it could be called the Birdman instead, although I'd just start thinking of Our Lady Peace.

The only historically documented battles were a siege against De Soto where they used Archers (I think the Spanish described them as Longbows), but I don't think the Falcon imagery is associated with Archers, so these might be a bit exclusive and I'm not sure the name for the Archers.

O_o they seem pretty awesome! But I can see the similarity to the Jaguars.

 

[Gali]

Can we please not consider the Byzantines a European civ or at least not count it as a western european civ. The heartland of the Byzantine empire was in Turkey in the Ionian cities like Pergamum, and the man power of anatolia and the east where most of their army came from. Add in the fact that militarily, economically, and diplomatically they were FAR more interested in and occupied by the Middle East and their European status is really the lesser role. Add in the fact that their primary European contacts are Bulgarian and Russia, along with Italy and they provide a bit of needed Eastern Europe flavor. Lumping them in as Europe with France and Germany is silly.

For people having trouble having the Byzantines, Romans and Greeks, remember they represent very different periods of history. The Greeks in CIV 5 represent the Greek city state era that most assoicate with Greece AND the hellenistic conquests and cultures of the Macedonians. The Romans under Augustus represent the Roman Republic and early empire, which is very different from the late empire. The Byzantines represent some late republic and mostly the Eastern Orthodox greco-roman fusion that they became. They had different governments, power centers, eras of dominance, military styles, religions, technological impacts and much more. Arguing that the Byzantines are not separate, especially when their phase lasted over 1000 years, is just silly and needs to stop. Most are not angry over them but theres been enough grumbling that I feel compelled to defend them. They should also be included since they are civ often undervalued becuase they left little in the end.

 

[evanschrader]

Can we please not consider the Byzantines a European civ or at least not count it as a western european civ. The heartland of the Byzantine empire was in Turkey in the Ionian cities like Pergamum, and the man power of anatolia and the east where most of their army came from. Add in the fact that militarily, economically, and diplomatically they were FAR more interested in and occupied by the Middle East and their European status is really the lesser role. Add in the fact that their primary European contacts are Bulgarian and Russia, along with Italy and they provide a bit of needed Eastern Europe flavor. Lumping them in as Europe with France and Germany is silly.

For people having trouble having the Byzantines, Romans and Greeks, remember they represent very different periods of history. The Greeks in CIV 5 represent the Greek city state era that most assoicate with Greece AND the hellenistic conquests and cultures of the Macedonians. The Romans under Augustus represent the Roman Republic and early empire, which is very different from the late empire. The Byzantines represent some late republic and mostly the Eastern Orthodox greco-roman fusion that they became. They had different governments, power centers, eras of dominance, military styles, religions, technological impacts and much more. Arguing that the Byzantines are not separate, especially when their phase lasted over 1000 years, is just silly and needs to stop. Most are not angry over them but theres been enough grumbling that I feel compelled to defend them. They should also be included since they are civ often undervalued
becuase they left little in the end.

So true

 

[Liex]

Can we please not consider the Byzantines a European civ or at least not count it as a western european civ.

I'd never call them "western", but I have a hard time trying to think of them as non-European. I can understand the points you made, but culturally (language, religion etc.) weren't they closer to Europe than to Middle East?

For people having trouble having the Byzantines, Romans and Greeks, remember they represent very different periods of history.

Do people have trouble with them? I'd guess everyone loved their inclusion, I think I missed something. Perhaps a few people see some trouble in having the Byzantines and the Ottomans, but it isn't a big deal. If one have trouble with the Byzantines, Romans and Greeks being represented, upon the premise they're too similar or something like that, then one is just senseless, don't take him seriously...

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The reason i'm not jumping for joy with the Byzantines is that i think it's ridiculous that we have two (more) civs overlapping the majority of their land in the middle east while we still only have one real African civ.

 

[MARDUK80]

So do you guys have any ideas on Mississippi leaders?

What was your idea on the UU for the Mississippi?

Mississippi
Leader: Tuskaloosa
Capital: Moundville
Starting Bias: Hills/River/Grassland
Musical Theme:
Unique Building: Platform Mound. Replaces Monument, +3 Culture and increases the cities attack range to 3 spaces. Also has a Great Engineer slot.
Unique Unit: High Priest. Replaces Missionary. Generates +1 Culture when Garrisoned in Mississippian City. Also adds +2 Faith and +1 Science to the tile yields of Landmark (Great Artist) improvement when fortified in the tile.
Unique Ability: Mound Builders. Cities can form Trade routes through Rivers. +2 Culture for all specialists and for all Great Person tile improvements. Receives a Culture boost each time a cultural building/Wonder is built in the Mississippian capital.
New National Wonder: Serpent Mound. Note: Linked to have Astronomical significance and connection to Ancient Astronauts

Here is also a concept idea* by seasnake (some additions by me). Hope you like it
(*Which can be found in the list linked in my signature)

Falcon Warrior (hence the similarity to the Aztec Jaguar warrior). I suppose it could be called the Birdman instead, although I'd just start thinking of Our Lady Peace.

The only historically documented battles were a siege against De Soto where they used Archers (I think the Spanish described them as Longbows), but I don't think the Falcon imagery is associated with Archers, so these might be a bit exclusive and I'm not sure the name for the Archers.

Good ideas. Perhaps I'll change the High Priest UGP (or missionary) idea to the Falcon Warrior (as it might be more proper... not sure )

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Now, instead of guessing the new civs, we are designing them. Discussions of creating new civs should be moved to the Creation & Customization forum while ideas can be moved to the Ideas and Suggestions thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, there are only three left. We can still take some educated guesses about plausible choices. I created a map of all current civs and city-states. Red are civs, purple are city-states. I cheated slightly in that I moved the Ottomans to Ankara. I also split Rome in half. If we do things geographically, it might show what's missing.

 

[GRM7584]

I am not sure if its been pointed out already, but in terms of
A) Geography (empty location and being above average in square km)
B) Unmatched Wonders from the list-o-wonders
C) Civs with no prior representation, excepting CTP
D) More historical significance than the Zulu (this is an easy one)
E) Likely having a substantial current population of Civ players

There are two exact matches: Brazil and Australia.

I guess: Zulu, Brazil, Australia.

Zulu because of series precedent, and the inclusion of a Victorian era scenario.

I wish: Kongo, Ethiopia, or anything but Zulu as the next African Civ. I'm fine with Brazil and Australia. I think I would rather have an Indonesian civ like Majapahit wait for a post-expansion dlc with its own scenario. Same goes for any additional European civs (e.g. Portugal, Poland, and Sweden).

 

[GenjiKhan]

About Brazil,I've suggested some ideias for them at Civ5 Civilizations/Leaders Wanted! topic,since I notice no one had suggested them before . And Brazil can fit in Victorian era scenario with Zulu as well .

 

[Civciv5]

Why does Myanmar/Burma has a red button?
Burma isn't a civ,you placed Siam wrong!?
Or is Yangon a city-state?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, it was supposed to be Sukhothai, but I miss-clicked. I suppose I could re-do it.

EDIT: Quick and dirty change.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

There could be an opening for an Espionage-focused niche playstyle. I haven't the foggiest idea what civ (that isn't already in the game) would be the best for this playstyle.

 

[GRM7584]

There could be an opening for an Espionage-focused niche playstyle. I haven't the foggiest idea what civ (that isn't already in the game) would be the best for this playstyle.

I think it was already said that England would be getting an additional spy. Other civs that could justify an espionage bonus (Russia, America, China, for example) are already in the game as well. I don't know how contentious civ trait strength is, but I personally think America's trait is fairly worthless, and could safely receive an espionage buff of some sort, or be wholly replaced with an espionage trait. Russia is another obvious contender, but I could see them representing that through a change to the Kremlin. China is, in a sense, already in, with the Great Firewall presumably having something to do with espionage.

Apart from these, I can't think of any civs that would fit in the espionage niche; they'd have to be fairly modern, since espionage won't become available until the renaissance in civ.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think it was already said that England would be getting an additional spy. Other civs that could justify an espionage bonus (Russia, America, China, for example) are already in the game as well. I don't know how contentious civ trait strength is, but I personally think America's trait is fairly worthless, and could safely receive an espionage buff of some sort, or be wholly replaced with an espionage trait. Russia is another obvious contender, but I could see them representing that through a change to the Kremlin. China is, in a sense, already in, with the Great Firewall presumably having something to do with espionage.

Apart from these, I can't think of any civs that would fit in the espionage niche; they'd have to be fairly modern, since espionage won't become available until the renaissance in civ.

You're forgetting about Nigerian Internet scams.

 

[GenjiKhan]

There could be an opening for an Espionage-focused niche playstyle. I haven't the foggiest idea what civ (that isn't already in the game) would be the best for this playstyle.

There's a good chance that the Freedom/Order/Autocracy branches give some bonus related to espionage . For example,Autocracy may give bonus to counter-espionage and Order may increase the rate of sucess of stealing techs from other civs .

 

[mitsho]

Apart from these, I can't think of any civs that would fit in the espionage niche; they'd have to be fairly modern, since espionage won't become available until the renaissance in civ.

Israel fits perfectly: the Mossad, Nazi-Hunting, the Crowd Control-focus of the police forces, the strong role the army holds. It also is much better than any kind of religious UA as that holds the danger of stepping on anyones toe. But of course it won't be in Gods and Kings since we know Jerusalem is a city state, so it's a moot point.

But it's difficult if you don't know how espionage works, to propose civs suited for it. Maybe they want espionage to be eavenly spread out in usage and it's just such a side mechanism that it isn't good to focus a civ or even just a UA on it.

Other contenders that I could think of are the Apache/Navajo, since their language was used as a succesfull code language (Yes, it's a stretch, but better than a generic desert bonus, you could also argue that good scouts = good recon).

It really is difficult as my second thought was Mata Hari = why not the Dutch, but then realized she's famous because she was a dancer and in the end, she was pretty bad as a spy. Of the good ones, we obviously know very little about... ;-) They can tack an espionage bonus on pretty much any "modern" civ, if they want: Cuba, "Iran", Russia, USA, China, ... .

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I thought of the Apache too, but they really aren't the "staging a coup", "rigging an election" type. If the espionage options were for causing uprisings, ruining improvements, stealing gold, or something, the Apache would work better. They are more guerillas than spies.

 

[GRM7584]

I agree about Israel on all points; I don't think it will ever be a civ in an official release, though, since it is an open invitation to some peculiar twist of media fate that brings negative publicity to the series.

The Dutch have actually had a fair number of other famous spies and tricksy-spy-like-activities, but we already know their UA is (rightfully) focused on mercantile pursuits.

The language used in interviews indicates that espionage is meant to take over where religion leaves off, and religion is depicted as being a pretty meaty part of the new mechanics (Half the title, and all). I think it is reasonable to assume that espionage will be nearly as big a part of gameplay, in order to 'eclipse' religion in the modern era (Even if the title isn't Gods and Spies, or Spirituality and Subterfuge).

Navajo espionage is definitely a stretch; and honestly I would rather not see any more North American civs, lest we end up with another "Native Americans" civ like we had in 4.

Israel fits perfectly: the Mossad, Nazi-Hunting, the Crowd Control-focus of the police forces, the strong role the army holds. It also is much better than any kind of religious UA as that holds the danger of stepping on anyones toe. But of course it won't be in Gods and Kings since we know Jerusalem is a city state, so it's a moot point.

But it's difficult if you don't know how espionage works, to propose civs suited for it. Maybe they want espionage to be eavenly spread out in usage and it's just such a side mechanism that it isn't good to focus a civ or even just a UA on it.

Other contenders that I could think of are the Apache/Navajo, since their language was used as a succesfull code language (Yes, it's a stretch, but better than a generic desert bonus, you could also argue that good scouts = good recon).

It really is difficult as my second thought was Mata Hari = why not the Dutch, but then realized she's famous because she was a dancer and in the end, she was pretty bad as a spy. Of the good ones, we obviously know very little about... ;-) They can tack an espionage bonus on pretty much any "modern" civ, if they want: Cuba, "Iran", Russia, USA, China, ... .

 

[Gucumatz]

Yea looking at the map you see how barren Africa is atm. I could see 2 African civs getting in. Ethiopia and Zulu. But I really hope the Zulu are ignored for once and instead we get the Kongo instead of Zulu.

As for the third spot I would love to see another South American Civ for once. Top two being 1. Chachapoya, 2. Brazil