ok civs from the screenshot...

[necrolyte]

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1129&c=24

we have Byzantine, Assyrians, Babylonians and Khmer/Siam/Burma?

Hoping they add Vietnam too, but thats just me...

 

[cybrxkhan]

im hopin they add in 'Nam too. but thats just because i'm viet.

from my assumptions, we have the Byzantines, Babylonians, Khmer/Thai, and the Sumerians, not the Assyrians.

 

[bonafide11]

I really hope they have Ethiopia/Abyssinia. Can someone who has more experience with prior versions of Civ tell if they've had them before? I think Africa needs another Civ and Ethiopia/Abyssinia would be perfect. My guess would be protective/creative, I think it fits their history pretty well, and imagine having them for your neighbors in the early game... It's going to be a headache trying to take those cities!

I wouldn't mind seeing Vietnam either, perhaps protective/organized...

 

[Edgecrusher]

There has never been an Ethiopia/Abyssinia

The only Civs that the Series has had before that havent been used yet are:

Sioux (In BTS)

Iroquois
Babylon (In BTS)
Sumeria
Hittitte
Byzantine
Portugal (In BTS)
Netherlands (In BTS)
Maya (In BTS)
Austria* (was a "secret" civ in civ3)

Incidently thats 10 Civs that the series has had before that arent in the current civ4 line.

 

[bonafide11]

There has never been an Ethiopia/Abyssinia

The only Civs that the Series has had before that havent been used yet are:

Sioux (In BTS)

Iroquois
Babylon (In BTS)
Sumeria
Hittitte
Byzantine
Portugal (In BTS)
Netherlands (In BTS)
Maya (In BTS)
Austria* (was a "secret" civ in civ3)

Incidently thats 10 Civs that the series has had before that arent in the current civ4 line.

Well, I hope they don't stick to those Civs for BTS. I wouldn't mind seeing many of them, but many of them seem to go against the late game theme of BTS. I'm not saying they have to select modern Civs, but you'd think they'd have included Sumer in the earlier versions if they intended on including them. Sumer is an ancient Civ that wouldn't much to a game designed for the later half of the game.

On the other hand, Abyssinia/Ethiopia has existed for thousands of years. It is the only African nation never to be colonized (though Liberia has some claim to this too, but it was founded by American abolitionists looking to start a colony with the black slave population.) Ethiopia has an ancient history and it still is the third highest populated country in Africa. I really think it'd make an excellent choice...

 

[cybrxkhan]

i think that Vietnam is an excellent choice too.

 

[Thedrin]

Well, I hope they don't stick to those Civs for BTS. I wouldn't mind seeing many of them, but many of them seem to go against the late game theme of BTS. I'm not saying they have to select modern Civs, but you'd think they'd have included Sumer in the earlier versions if they intended on including them. Sumer is an ancient Civ that wouldn't much to a game designed for the later half of the game.

It's been pretty well established that BtS is not just about improving the late game.

Sumer almost made it into Vanilla CivIV. If you search through the files you can find artwork, both for a leader and, if I remember correctly, a unique unit.

 

[Jan H]

I really hope they have Ethiopia/Abyssinia. Can someone who has more experience with prior versions of Civ tell if they've had them before? I think Africa needs another Civ and Ethiopia/Abyssinia would be perfect. My guess would be protective/creative,

Ethiopia would be an excellent choice for a new civ. Probably with Haile Sellassie as a leader?

Maybe they could add Rastafari as a new religion as well

 

[sneaky]

So it looks like we have the Byzantines, Babylonians, Khmer and the Sumerians.
I would be very happy with the Khmer or another south-east Asian civ, but the other civs that are now rumoured pretty much bore me. Mesopotamia is already overpresented as it is and although these three civs all were very important I rather have some civs from other regions.
Ethiopia/Abyssinia would be an excellent choice. An important and historic civilization that also adds some more diversity.

 

[Catharsis]

Mesopotamia is already overpresented as it is

Not really... there aren't any Mesopotamian civs in Civ IV, or Warlords.

 

[sneaky]

Not really... there aren't any Mesopotamian civs in Civ IV, or Warlords.

I'm bad at be being topographically correct.

Although I know that the Arabs, Persians, Ottomans, Byzantines, Babylonians and Sumerians were completely different ethical groups, civilizations and cultures, I just feel their empires, at their height, consisted of mostly the same areas. Mesopotamia, Turkey, the middle east, etc.

Although all of these civs were very important in their time and we certainly should include a couple of them I feel that with the Persians, Ottomans, Arabs and the Babylonians in the game, we don't also need the Sumerians, Byzantines and maybe even the Hittites.
Therefore, I rather see some important civs from other regions, like South-East Asia, Africa, South-America, etc. The Khmer, 'Nam, the 'Polynesians', Ethiopia, maybe even the Berbers or the Moors.

 

[Catharsis]

Well, that's a bit like saying France shouldn't be in the game because it's too close to Germany.

However, I do agree with you that there should be some new civs from different regions (if only to fill up that world map!). I'd like to see Khmer, Ethiopia, Polynesia, Kongo, Chimu, the Puebloes and the Khwarizm. But Sumeria's too important historically to leave out.

 

[sneaky]

Well, that's a bit like saying France shouldn't be in the game because it's too close to Germany.

However, I do agree with you that there should be some new civs from different regions (if only to fill up that world map!). I'd like to see Khmer, Ethiopia, Polynesia, Kongo, Chimu, the Puebloes and the Khwarizm. But Sumeria's too important historically to leave out.

Lol, I knew that argument would be coming.

I admit my point is shaky but I think you get what I mean.

Also, Kongo, yeah, that would be a really good civ to include. If we got Ethiopia, Congo and a northern civ like the Berbers or the Moors, Africa would finally almost be sufficiently represented.

 

[Martinus]

I'm bad at be being topographically correct.

Although I know that the Arabs, Persians, Ottomans, Byzantines, Babylonians and Sumerians were completely different ethical groups, civilizations and cultures, I just feel their empires, at their height, consisted of mostly the same areas. Mesopotamia, Turkey, the middle east, etc.

Although all of these civs were very important in their time and we certainly should include a couple of them I feel that with the Persians, Ottomans, Arabs and the Babylonians in the game, we don't also need the Sumerians, Byzantines and maybe even the Hittites.
Therefore, I rather see some important civs from other regions, like South-East Asia, Africa, South-America, etc. The Khmer, 'Nam, the 'Polynesians', Ethiopia, maybe even the Berbers or the Moors.

Well, the only arguably Mesopotamian civ right now is Persia. And Mesopotamia is not considered the craddle of human civilization for nothing.

 

[GrandSultan]

Consider, too, thats France dosn't overlap Germacy by a whole lot historically. If we have the Byzantine, Ottoman, and HIttites, do they each get a city on the world map? Who gets Istanbul? What about Greek colonies? Then if we include Sumer, we have Arabs, Sumerians, Babylonians, Persians, and Ottomans all overlapping the same area. That would be 6/7 different civs all in an area smaller than europe.

Europe is crowded aswell, but most of the civs don't overlap eachother like these Middle Eastern civs do. With the addition of Portugal and Babylon, both these areas don't need any more civs. THey are near full to bursting. The America's, SE Asia, and Africa could all use some more civs to fill things out. Ethiopia, along with Egypt, Carthage, Mali, and Zululand would fill out Africa very well. The Khmer/Viet/Siam would work nicely in Asia, and the Sioux help fill out North America. The only other rather desolate areas of the world not are central asia, South America (which another civ could eliminate, Brazil or Argentina maybe.) and Oceania (tough one there. See debate on "Polynesians" in other thread.)

I think we can all agree that the mid-east and europe are both stuffed to overflowing, yes?

 

[sneaky]

Consider, too, thats France dosn't overlap Germacy by a whole lot historically. If we have the Byzantine, Ottoman, and HIttites, do they each get a city on the world map? Who gets Istanbul? What about Greek colonies? Then if we include Sumer, we have Arabs, Sumerians, Babylonians, Persians, and Ottomans all overlapping the same area. That would be 6/7 different civs all in an area smaller than europe.

Europe is crowded aswell, but most of the civs don't overlap eachother like these Middle Eastern civs do. With the addition of Portugal and Babylon, both these areas don't need any more civs. THey are near full to bursting. The America's, SE Asia, and Africa could all use some more civs to fill things out. Ethiopia, along with Egypt, Carthage, Mali, and Zululand would fill out Africa very well. The Khmer/Viet/Siam would work nicely in Asia, and the Sioux help fill out North America. The only other rather desolate areas of the world not are central asia, South America (which another civ could eliminate, Brazil or Argentina maybe.) and Oceania (tough one there. See debate on "Polynesians" in other thread.)

I think we can all agree that the mid-east and europe are both stuffed to overflowing, yes?

That was the point I was trying to make, but failed to do.

Ethiopia would fill a part of North-East Africa, Congo could do the same for Central Africa or the Moors/Berbers for North-West Africa. Together with Egypt, Carthage, Mali, and Zululand Africa would be perfectly represented with one or two of these civs.
With one South-East Asian civs most of Asia would at least be decently represented.
South-America already has the Inca's but a second civ certainly would be nice.
A civilization for Oceania is also needed and a "Polynesian" civ would probably be best.

 

[Catharsis]

S. America could be filled out by the Chimu, Chanca, Nazca or Tihuanaco (one of those), and perhaps a modern civ like Brazil (destined for world-powerhood). Central Asia could be amply filled by Armenia or Khwarizm.

 

[Cía]

OK.
Portugal.
Netherlands.
Babylonia.
Native Americans.
Byzans.
Sumer.
Maya.
Then there i 3 civs who we still don´t know.
As you all being talking about there should be 3 civs from diferent regions. But I think there don´t have to be a South America region civ, wew´e got both the native americans and the maya from north/central america, so ther is o´no need for one more american civ.
But what we need, as many people here been saying, is one african civ and one asian civ.
Most people want Ethiopia/Abyssia and Khmer asthose civs, but I wuold prefer Nubia/Kush and Thai/Siam. And as the last civ Polynesia.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

I bet the southest asian civ is khmer with jayavarman as the ruler, that is the most notable of the southeast asian empires for most people. the second civ will be ethiopia although I'm not completely sure about that and the last one, who knows, my guess is european civ maybe austria or poland.