No Persian Civ!?!?!

[GermanSettler]

I am sure we will get Persia eventually, so no problem there for me.

Some new choices, some familiar ground, some interesting and unconventional choices.

People can state their disappointment and have the right to do so. However, people should also stop trying to come up with a "totally rational and unsubjective argument" why their preferred would have made more sense, are more logical, etc etc.

Being one of the top 18 civilisations in history or top 18 leaders (who rates this anyway) wasn't the main question for the choice of these vanilla version civs.

I, for one, are pleased with the route they are taking. If this means no Persia for now, so be it. IMHO.

 

[Civciv5]

Persia better be a free DLC or I'm not buying the game ever.

Or perhaps we should be able to omit several civs from the base game in exchange for free DLC civs if there's civs we are not interested in.

 

[manim]

persia will come there is no doubt about it,but i think they put lots of interesting cives in the vanilla so im fine with them not being in

 

[Scaramanga]

Muh Persia! But anyways, they'll be in when it's convenient, like when Alexander/Macedonia gets added.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Multiple posts deleted. If you think a new thread is duplicative of an existing thread, please report the post and let us be the judge. What you should not do is lob abuse at the OP or at those complaining about the thread -- all of that is trolling, which is both rude and pointless.

 

[Big J Money]

This has no impact on me. Honestly, if they replaced 1/2 of the base civs with something new I wouldn't care. I think it's spoiled to demand any civ be in Firaxis' game. Persia will probably be in DLC.

 

[migalhone]

Not having Persia/Iran in the base game is an odd choice to me. Firaxis puts whatever Civ's they like/prefer, so it's not much of a big deal so far.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Where is Persia?
Where is Korea
Where is Indonesia?
Where is Wonderland?
Where is Netherlands?
Where is Byzantium?
Where is Mongols?
Where is Inca?

I got 3 letters for you: D.L.C

They can't put every civ in the vanilla, it would be too much work. They can only afford to do about 18 civs at release so some hard choices have to be made. Second, they need something to sell after the release. So they need to hold some things back. Vanilla Civ5 also had some civs missing but they were added post release. Nothing to worry about. We will get more civs added later.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

This reminds me of civilization V and no Spain. To me it don't matter which civs they puck because this game is about creating history.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

I don't have any basis on this, but the Persians could still be in the game. Few reasons:

1. Aztec were in that list but they are not vanilla, thus other names in that list could be "not vanilla".
2. The list was alphabetical. What if the leader is Xerxes, because they wanted a new personality? We didn't see the very bottom of the list after all.

I know this doesn't match the leader bingo board, but it is still a possibility, just not a very big one.

 

[lp_04]

THAT would be great. And Xerxes should be the leader for Persia.

Still, I don't see Xerxes in the base game, sadly. There are already 18 civs, and with Gilgamesh, Gandhi and Thmyris the TSL concept has no space for him.

Civilization without Persia (Or Achemenids, if you prefer) seems less of a Civilization game. At least for my experience as a player. It would probably be my first choice once the game comes out. Guess I'll have to switch to Gilgamesh or Cleo and wait for the DLC to come out...

 

[DeutschDachs]

More surprised that the Zulus aren't in tbh. They've been in every Civ since the first (Shaka too).

Zulu weren't in base Civ IV or Civ V though

 

[AlexByrde]

I got 3 letters for you: D.L.C

They can't put every civ in the vanilla, it would be too much work. They can only afford to do about 18 civs at release so some hard choices have to be made. Second, they need something to sell after the release. So they need to hold some things back. Vanilla Civ5 also had some civs missing but they were added post release. Nothing to worry about. We will get more civs added later.

Moreover, I'm sure some of the civs that seem "cut" like Persia or the Inca or Korea may have been so because they have a really cool idea for a game mechanic but it's not in the game yet. So we wait for expansions.

Obviously not the only reason for their omission. The primary reason is almost certainly that only so many civs can make vanilla because of time/money and half the roster is "tradition" anyway. They probably had a LOT of really cool ideas to start with and shaked it down to the 19 (21?) we have now by creating those niches in the game mechanics.

That said, I don't like it. I had expected Persia and wanted to play as them. But I do understand it and will patiently wait until their inevitable addition later down the road.

 

[Magil]

I honestly do not care that much about which ancient Asian/African/Middle-Eastern/"that general area" civs are in the game. There's always going to be some of them, and frankly Sumeria and Egypt do a good job in representing that area.

With that said, Persia is significant enough that I'd expect to see them at some point.

 

[ehecatzin]

Persia better be a free DLC or I'm not buying the game ever.

Or perhaps we should be able to omit several civs from the base game in exchange for free DLC civs if there's civs we are not interested in.

But why would it be free DLC? it seems they are treating the Aztecs as the "free" dlc or early acces this time around.

Persia, and many other favorites are sure to come on DLC after release, it's no like they have been dropped from the game forever.

 

[Civciv5]

But why would it be free DLC? it seems they are treating the Aztecs as the "free" dlc or early acces this time around.

Because I have zero interest in Brazil or Poland. Why should I have to pay for a civ that should have been in the base game?

 

[_hero_]

Who else is as disappointed as I am about the choices for the base game? Scythia, Gorgo, Kongo over Cyrus the Great or Darius the Great? 2 Greek choices without a Persia!?! I'm just unbelievably let down by this. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot to the extreme.

I'm glad personally. I am tired of the same civs every time at launch. I wish more of the civs were originals and not retreads.

 

[Enrchd Iranium]

I would rather have no Persia than a misrepresented one. Firaxis seems unaware that Persia (like other ancient civs such as India, Greece, Mayan, Rome/Italy, and China) is a living civilization, with the Achaemenid Empire as only the prelude to a culture that has impacted the world far beyond its borders and throughout history to the present day.

The Achaemenids themselves were becoming stale in Civ with boring mechanics and an Immortal unit that hardly represents the most interesting possibility when considering the scale of Persian history.

Meanwhile, in Civ V, Darius was voiced by an Aramaic-speaking Arab! Yet Imperial Aramaic was not a language that he would have spoken. It was merely a liturgical language for records and correspondence. As someone who has studied the various stages of the Persian language, I wrote Firaxis and explained to them why they had made a huge mistake. I hope that some of this can be rectified if and when they do bring out a DLC or expansion with Persia.

I also hope that they seriously consider a unit from the Sassanid era, thus broadening their understanding of the available Persian civilizations they can choose from. They already pick selectively from Indian history (War Elephant and Gandhi!), so there should be no problem when doing the same thing for Iran. An expansion pack with Sassanid Persia and Byzantium would actually be pretty amazing.

Moreover, I am always in favor of Civ replacing a legacy ancient civ with a more modern one such as Brazil. In this vein, I would love to see more modern civs like (Anglo/Colonial) Australia, Mexico, and Renaissance Italy (instead of Rome). Portugal and Netherlands would also be fantastic in an age of exploration or colonization expansion pack. All of these I would want more than a return to Achaemenid Persia.

 

[ehecatzin]

Because I have zero interest in Brazil or Poland. Why should I have to pay for a civ that should have been in the base game?

That doesn't mean it should be free tho, I guess you'll have to wait for a sale to get it as cheap as possible when it comes.

I would rather have no Persia than a misrepresented one. Firaxis seems unaware that Persia (like other ancient civs such as India, Greece, Mayan, Rome/Italy, and China) is a living civilization, with the Achaemenid Empire as only the prelude to a culture that has impacted the world far beyond its borders and throughout history to the present day.

DLC's civs tend to be more interesting design wise, I think that we might get a better Persia this time around, because I agree, longer golden ages and inmortals was rather boring to play. Now that there are no golden ages we can expect something diferent.

 

[Merciorum]

It's rather indicative of their new ethos- rather than trying to portray the major players in world history, they're aiming for a more European-dominated roster while treating the rest of the world as a pick-and-choose buffet of tokenism and leftovers. Persia's inclusion really is a great disappointment, and a bizarre decision. It's like leaving India or China out.

Still, as Enrchd Iranium says, it would be very nice to have a broader Persia that wasn't just the Achaemenids, and we can but hope that's what they're planning. The Sassanids and Safavids need some love- Shah Abbas would certainly fit well into that whole "big personality" thing they've got going on.