Guess the New Civs

[awesome]

Well,

We have the Carthage, Byzantines, The Huns, The Netherlands, the Celts and the Mayans.

So, from what I see, no major African Natiosn, no Asian nations (unless you wanna consider the Huns as an Asian nation), and no Northern America Nation.

well, carthage can go either way between being considered african and middle eastern. of course, if they keep the african and middle eastern city skins the same, that won't really matter.
and the maya are from central america, which is considered part of north america, but i digress.

i'd expect at least one more civilization from africa. maybe also something from asia, although the only two things i can think of from asia are the khazars and tibet, the khazars had most of the same land as attila and i'm not too interested in tibet at all.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Any chance of the Hittites, I wonder?

 

[awesome]

it's possible

 

[j51]

India isn't a civilisation. It is a subcontinent and a nation state. Your definition of India would include pakistan, and if you asked the devs whether or not india in game represents pakistan they would likely run away.

Also better india civs:
Marathan
Mughal
Maurya

The India in this game makes about as much sense as calling it the deccan plateau, from a history point of view at least.

The issue of narrow, imperial definitions of civs was what that last post was trying to get around. As for the Pakistan issue, Lahore and Karachi are included on the city list.

Moderator Action: Please do not ignore moderator warnings.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The issue of narrow, imperial definitions of civs was what that last post was trying to get around. As for the Pakistan issue, Lahore and Karachi are included on the city list.

Touche my friend...

Which makes it all the more confusing exactly what it is India in this game represents... Maybe India in the early 40's under the end of British rule? Would make sense with Gandhi.

But we digress, since more Indian civs are almost certainly near the bottom of any list firaxis has.

South East Asia is vastly under represented at the moment so i'm expecting a civ definitely from there. Sub Saharan Africa too, so there's a second.

Third eludes me, though i would hope they would add another from Asia, seeing as how huge and more significant than Europe it is and always has been.

Moderator Action: Please do not ignore moderator warnings.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[awesome]

i don't know about "always has been," since europe was the most important continent in the world for at least a few hundred years, but i guess that's kind of a moot point

Moderator Action: Please do not ignore moderator warnings. Return to the topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

i don't know about "always has been," since europe was the most important continent in the world for at least a few hundred years, but i guess that's kind of a moot point

Europe was desperately trying to control Asia (and in a number of cases couldn't) precisely because it was so important. Europe may have had a stronger military and more expansionary aspirations for a few hundred years but this doesn't make it more important.

Thus, Asia should have many more civs coming.

 

[awesome]

i guess that depends on what your definition of what "more important" is. either way, there really aren't too many more civilizations left in asia that either don't overlap or aren't really all that important. like i said before, i can only think of one from east asia and i highly doubt that they'll add tibet. there are a few more from west and central asia, but most of them overlap too much.
though there's still indonesia.

 

[fuzzatron717]

Moderator Action: Contents deleted. Please learn to follow instructions.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[turingmachine]

I can see a few candidates from Asia:

From the Indochina Pennisula, either the Khmer, Champa, or Vietnam, as even though all three were significant empires there's really no need to add more than one of those three.

From Indonesia, the Majapahit or Srivijaya (again don't need both)

From Central Asia, the Timurids and/or the Khazars

From South Asia-East Asia, Tibet

And if you want to include the Near East:

The ancient Fertile crescent can use some more representation, so either Sumer, Akkad, or Assyria, and I wouldn't mind the Hittites (Anatolia)

Each of those groups are distinct enough from each other while still being historically important to warrant inclusion.

 

[Pouakai]

I don't see Khmer getting in, they are too similar to Siam

 

[awesome]

I can see a few candidates from Asia:

From the Indochina Pennisula, either the Khmer, Champa, or Vietnam, as even though all three were significant empires there's really no need to add more than one of those three.

From Indonesia, the Majapahit or Srivijaya (again don't need both)

From Central Asia, the Timurids and/or the Khazars

From South Asia-East Asia, Tibet

And if you want to include the Near East:

The ancient Fertile crescent can use some more representation, so either Sumer, Akkad, or Assyria, and I wouldn't mind the Hittites (Anatolia)

Each of those groups are distinct enough from each other while still being historically important to warrant inclusion.

like i said before, there's way too much overlap with most of them. siam, champa, khmer and vietnam all take up that one peninsula. i can see vietnam being in civ 6 or 7, but not this game. the timurids are way too similar to the mongols. the khazars, tibet and indonesia, i already mentioned. and not only would you "not need" both indonesians, but it would make no sense. it'd be better to just have them both represented. and mesopotamia has lots of overlap, too.

 

[turingmachine]

like i said before, there's way too much overlap with most of them. siam, champa, khmer and vietnam all take up that one peninsula. i can see vietnam being in civ 6 or 7, but not this game. the timurids are way too similar to the mongols. the khazars, tibet and indonesia, i already mentioned. and not only would you "not need" both indonesians, but it would make no sense. it'd be better to just have them both represented. and mesopotamia has lots of overlap, too.

The Timurids are actually pretty distinct from the Mongols due to their adoption of Islam and assimilation of Persian courtly culture. They're as different from the other steppe civs in their own way as the Khazars are. Also, I'd argue it's not better to have an Indonesian civ over either Majapahit or Srivijaya. There were pretty distinct historically. It's bad enough we have Polynesia amalgamating at least two distinct cultures and several distinct empires/civs, or maybe we should go back to the Native America of Civ IV instead of the Iroquois? The fertile crescent is also of such historical importance that another civ can easily deserve to get it in (especially since it has no standard in-game representation, only as DLC). It hasn't stopped both Sumer and Babylon being in the same game in the past. I'll give you that Siam kinda fills the slot of Khmer-Champa-Viet but they are as distinct as several of the European civs that people argue for. You can also add Scythia to the list.

 

[nokmirt]

The Timurids are actually pretty distinct from the Mongols due to their adoption of Islam and assimilation of Persian courtly culture. They're as different from the other steppe civs in their own way as the Khazars are. Also, I'd argue it's not better to have an Indonesian civ over either Majapahit or Srivijaya. There were pretty distinct historically. It's bad enough we have Polynesia amalgamating at least two distinct cultures and several distinct empires/civs, or maybe we should go back to the Native America of Civ IV instead of the Iroquois? The fertile crescent is also of such historical importance that another civ can easily deserve to get it in (especially since it has no standard in-game representation, only as DLC). It hasn't stopped both Sumer and Babylon being in the same game in the past. I'll give you that Siam kinda fills the slot of Khmer-Champa-Viet but they are as distinct as several of the European civs that people argue for. You can also add Scythia to the list.

Its not like anyone plays much on a TSL world map anyway. I used to but its bugged all to hell. I hated having to save my game every two turns. Why not have a few more distinct civs. Although I do feel the Sioux should be added, two Native American tribes would be ok in my book. I would not mind seeing Akkad (Who had chariots in and two wheel varieties, pulled by usually four onagers.), or the Hittites, with their bigger heavier chariots to face Egypt. I would also like to see the Burmese added to fight Siam. That would be cool. Bang Rajan!

 

[dagriggstar]

Potential civs like Siam and Burma are about as similar as France and Germany. They're both in, right ?

I don't know about classifying the Khazars as Asian, when most of their territory was in Europe.

You can always think outside the box and have say Afghanistan.

 

[EddyMcK]

Kingdom of tibet maybe?

or poland

those are my guesses

 

[matt91486]

Can I be horrifyingly cynical and suggest that we should be looking at potential sales markets when we're suggesting what civs might make it in the end? Not saying exclusively, but impact on sales has to factor in. On that account, Poland is a fairly big market, so I think that theory lends itself to their possible inclusion.

 

[Gucumatz]

With money put into vision there are two obvious options waaay ahead of Poland (which while an arduous fan base doesn't have too many people in general playing this game).

The Zulu (A Civ I really dont want)

And the Sioux. At least with the Sioux I can hope they do a Khmer to Siam switch (or a Mali to Songhai switch) so that we get a brand new civ with the Comanche (Also a very well known civ in the USA particularly in the west for the generations of fighting the American Military and Mexican Military had with them).

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think they will add both the Huns and the Sioux. Obviously, their "golden age" time period is different and they can give the Sioux gunpowder weapons, but two nomadic horse tribes seem a bit overkill.

 

[ShahJahanII]

I don't think they will add both the Huns and the Sioux. Obviously, their "golden age" time period is different and they can give the Sioux gunpowder weapons, but two nomadic horse tribes seem a bit overkill.

The Sioux just seem unlikely overall.
I mean, we already have the Sioux as a Native American civ.