New civilizations beyond BTS: More civs or no civ spam?

[cybrxkhan]

i voted:

- split the NA. explainable. they aren't one homogenous empire, and althernative history-wise, that would have been ridiculously unlikely
- Poland - to stop the Poland threads.
- Polynesia - oceans need representation too!!!... plus the Polynesians couold make ANYTHING using coconuts - milk, rope, ships, houses, weapons... and Hawaii is a pretty place
- Tibet - personal preference, very unlikely cohice by Firaxis because of Chinese commies
- Vietnam - to stop all the Vietnam threads. and PHO tastes good. and we got two sisters as leaders too.

 

[Pangur Bán]

@calgacus: a well done, robust poll! Quite an interesting list - well researched I think, because I see cultures that I have rarely heard of

Why, thank you.

 

[Moxxa]

I think the more civs and leaders the better. The main reason I'm getting BTS is for the new civs and leaders. Civs and leaders civs and leaders.


EDIT: Wow, this post is almost painful to read.

 

[Antilogic]

I think we're very close to Civ-spam territory already. Frankly, most of the most important ones have been in the game since vanilla, anyway. Having too many civs that have faded away already and made little to no contributions that affect how we live today will detract from the epic feel of the game.

There are a few, like Hittites with iron working, that have made contributions that we still use today but I still think keeping the amount of civs manageable would be better from a gameplay perspective.

I'd say no to that. "Important" civs are being added in BtS (Sumeria and Babylon come readily to mind), and I think those, or at least one of them, should have been in Vanilla. However, I agree with you--we are approaching Civ-spam, and I don't want to go there. Maybe a few more (Austria and Hittites were on my wishlist and didn't make the BtS cut), but not too many.

But the leaders...that's another story entirely. I'm probably not going to play with the "any leader, any civ" option, so a new trait and another 3 (unused combos) + 11 (new combos with existing traits) for 14 new leaders would be nice. Many Civs could use new leaders, like Spain, Japan, and Arabia, but also there are good candidates for the Inca (Pachacuti) and others. It would be nice to see more.

 

[Soneji]

I want to change my vote!!!

 

[Antilogic]

Honestly, just posting it to what you would change it to would probably have a greater effect than altering it above. Write a few paragraphs.

 

[Saim]

I voted:

Assyria and/or another Mesopotamia civ (Assyria and Akkad, both big empires, especially in Assyria's case)

Austria and/or Bavaria and/or Saxony and/or other German civ (Obviously Austria, since it had a pretty big empire, and was very influental and powerful in Europe, is the only great WWI power not in the game yet)

Hittites and/or Armenia and/or another Anatolian civ (Hittites, Seljuks, and maybe Armenia)

Huns and/or Goths and/or other ancient western "barbarian" civ (MAYBE the Huns, but I'm not so sure about that any more)

Iroquois and/or Sioux and/or Anasazi and/or another native North American civ (now split) (The Iroquois and Sioux, of course, and maybe some others)

Israel (Hebrews) and/or Phoenicians and/or other Levantine civ (Phoenicia and Israel where both very influental in ancient times, although Israel's importance is overplayed by Abrahamic religions)

Kanem and/or Mandara and/or Congo and/or other central African civ (It's a pretty big area, and it needs SOME representation for it)

Moors and/or Berbers and/or other northern African civ (I think a Moorish or Berber civ would be good, and North Africa was very influental during Classical times.


Polynesia (not sure about this one anymore...)

IndoChina (Dai Viet and Siam)

Southeastern Asia (Not sure about this one anymore, not sure if Srivijaya and Majahapit are important enough)

Turkic civ (Uigher, Seljuq, Timurid)

And I didn't vote other before, but I would now, I just forgot why...

 

[Paideia]

All in all, I would prefer more leaders to more Civs. I don't really see the need for any more. Maybe something oceanic/southeast-asian but that's it.
Start working on those one-leader civs instead

 

[Antilogic]

All in all, I would prefer more leaders to more Civs. I don't really see the need for any more. Maybe something oceanic/southeast-asian but that's it.
Start working on those one-leader civs instead

Second! Although I would make a few changes to the current list and add maybe 1-4 more civs, I'm pretty happy with the current array. My suggestions:

Change the HRE to Austria (since Austrian royalty dominated the HRE for centuries)
Change Ethiopia to its "ancient" name, Abyssinia
Change the Ottomans to Turks, in general
Add the Hittites (iron working, I think important enough to deserve a slot)
If you really want the Hebrews, I suggest the ancient name Judea over Israel

But here's the meat:

Possible New Leaders:
Abysinnia: Menelik II or Haile Selassie I?
America: Jefferson or T. Roosevelt
Arabs: Abu Bakr?
Byzantines: Basil II or Constantine?
China: Liu Che or Zhao Kuangyin or Tang Taizong or Deng Xiaoping?
Germany: Barbarossa or Otto I
Inca: Pachacuti
India: Akbar?
Japan: Meiji
Korea: Sejong?
Maya: Itzamná or Kukulcan
Netherlands: De Witt?
Portugal: Afonso?
Rome: Trajan or Hadrian
Spain: Charles V (if not taken by Austria)?
Vikings: Canute?

DISCLAIMER: I have not done research on all of these leaders or enough research in general to feel comfortable recommending the above list. This list is mostly a running compilation of suggestions I have seen on these forums. I won't defend a large number of these names, but simply say "Somebody else said it, not me. I'm still debating and trying to figure out a list I would like to see." There are only a few "definites" for me on the above list.

Hopefully, later, I will be able to take some names off, and add a few that have been omitted, until I get a list I will be happy with.


EDIT: I just noticed something: aren't the Moors, Berbers, and Numidians actually the same group of people? They were Numidians in the ancient and classical times, were Moors when they were in southern Spain, and are Berbers in the modern day, right?

 

[Pratputajao]

Good god just I had guessed... after the whole "lets add the Khmer becouse they have a cool city" Thailands fire has died. Even though Thailand is the most successful Civ from SE asia ( based on where it came from, who it deposed and where it is NOW) it has now been relegated to a third tier status... in fact all of SE asia has been pushed out of any importance with the release of BTS (thanks Firaxis!) and somehow even Vietnam has surpassed ( in every other poll Vietnam was behind?) Thailand. I doubt you will ever see another rep from SE asia in this game. Lets add the Huns and Goths insted...uhg...

 

[Psycadelic_Magi]

I think including more civs is not a priority... I think spending a lot more effort on making the existing civs more culturally distinct would be better... Who agrees with me?

 

[Cromat]

I think I can somewhat objectively claim that the most influential civ not already included is the Israelis/Hebrews/Israelites:

1) Wrote the Bible, the basis of pretty much every moral system in the Western World until recently.
2) Founded a religion that was a forefather of two of the world's largest religions.
3) Survived for 3000 years while retaining a unique cultural and religious identity, even when faced with the worst persecutions in the world.

On the other hand, I do recognize that Firaxis has some good reasons not to include them:

1) They never controlled an empire, at most a modest sized kingdom. They were vassalized and exiled by other empires. Modern Israel does have one of the world's strongest armies.
2) Controversy regarding modern Israel.
3) Difficulty in finding a suitable leader. Ancient leaders like David and Solomon are too religiously involved to be included (it's like including Muhammad as the leader of the Arabs) and modern Israeli leaders are considered controversial.
4) Already somewhat represented by the Jewish religion.

 

[SJSerio]

I don't think that there could be too many civs as you don't have to play with every civ. The hardest part would be narrowing down which civs you want to play with. But then, colonies coud help with that!

By the way, I picked the following:

1 Austria and/or Bavaria and/or Saxony and/or other German civ
2 Australia and/or Brazil and/or Canada and/or Other modern-only state
3 Hittites and/or Armenia and/or another Anatolian civ
4 Huns and/or Goths and/or other ancient western "barbarian" civ
5 Israel (Hebrews) and/or Phoenicians and/or other Levantine civ
6 Scotland and/or Ireland and/or Gaels and/or other insular civ (e.g. Wales, Britons, Picts, etc)
7 Vietnam and/or Champa and/or Other "Indo-Chinese" civ

* As many civs as they can make should be added

 

[attackdrone]

I demand the Basque be instated!

 

[Danielos]

I would also prioritize new leaders for existing civs rather than new civs. I would like more modern leaders:

* Vladimir Lenin (Russia), Nikita Chrustjov (Russia/Soviet)
* Hirohito (Japan)
* Francisco Franco (Spain)
* John F Kennedy (America/USA)
* Adolf Hitler (Germany)
* Karl XII (Vikings/Sweden)
* Benito Mussolini (Romans/Italy)
* Margaret Thatcher (England/Britain)
* Nelson Mandela (Zulu/S Africa)