Only two civs remain...

[Traitorfish]

Brazil will never be a civ- it was a Portuguese colony, so it won't be added for the same reason that Canada never will be (sorry, Joebasalt).
By all rights, America shouldn't be in the game either, but you can put that down to A) America's significance in recent history and B) the game is made in America.
I understand that culture is different, but not enough to justify devoting a whole new civ to it, at least not when there are so many other, more unique civs untouched.

 

[Train]

Brazil will never be a civ- it was a Portuguese colony, so it won't be added for the same reason that Canada never will be (sorry, Joebasalt).
By all rights, America shouldn't be in the game either, but you can put that down to A) America's significance in recent history and B) the game is made in America.
I understand that culture is different, but not enough to justify devoting a whole new civ to it, at least not when there are so many other, more unique civs untouched.

I totally agree with you, but I said:

"If it is to have a Latin American civ... I vote for Brazil..."

I was also referring to the suggestion of Gran Colombia or a Latin American civ instead of a Brazillian civ...

 

[andrewlt]

Wow, that's a loaded statement... a lack of civilizations? Says who? Who defines what makes a civilization?

I believe it's the existence of writing. There may be others but that's the most important one. There's really just three major areas where civilization sprang (Indus Valley, Yellow/Yangtze River, Tigris/Euphrates). Of these, some of the ones near Tigris/Euphrates scattered and became fragmented so we got lots of European and Middle Eastern civs.

 

[Jono]

Sorry if this's been suggested (and/or vetoed), but what about Ireland/Scotland/Wales?

 

[Train]

Sorry if this's been suggested (and/or vetoed), but what about Ireland/Scotland/Wales?

Sounds Celtic... or Viking.

 

[methane]

I wanted to respond to several different posts, so I just indicated the previous posts with italics.

Wow, that's a loaded statement... a lack of civilizations? Says who? Who defines what makes a civilization?

>I believe it's the existence of writing. There may be others but that's the most important one. There's really just three major areas where civilization sprang (Indus Valley, Yellow/Yangtze River, Tigris/Euphrates). Of these, some of the ones near Tigris/Euphrates scattered and became fragmented so we got lots of European and Middle Eastern civs.<

Yeah, I think the original poster was referring to the fact that Europe has numerous 'civilizations' in a small place. We refer to China and India as 2 civilizations even though they occupy large areas of space and time. In Europe, We have Rome, Celts, and France as different 'civs', even though they occupy the same space. And the Middle East is even more a case of many 'civs' occupying the same space. Thus, Asia has a lack of civilizations, not a lack of civilization in comparison with Europe/middle East. We refer to Ancient China as the same civ as modern China. We refer to Turkey as progressively a part of greater Greece, a part of Rome, the heart of Byzantium, the heart of the Ottoman Empire, and finally its own country.

Sorry if this's been suggested (and/or vetoed), but what about Ireland/Scotland/Wales?

The ancient countries are covered by the Celts. The modern Scotland and Wales are covered by the misnamed English (2 of the 3 leaders come after the monarchies of England and Scotland were joined).

Brazil will never be a civ- it was a Portuguese colony, so it won't be added for the same reason that Canada never will be (sorry, Joebasalt).
By all rights, America shouldn't be in the game either, but you can put that down to A) America's significance in recent history and B) the game is made in America.
I understand that culture is different, but not enough to justify devoting a whole new civ to it, at least not when there are so many other, more unique civs untouched

I've long been opposed to post-colonial countries being included, and I hope there aren't any in this expansion. However, if they would be a 3rd (doubtful, I know), we finally have enough other civs that I'd consider supporting some of the biggest post-colonial countries (Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia). I'd still want some older civs that haven't yet been covered, though (Aborigine, Polynesia, Kongo, as well as some of the ongoing civs like Vietnam, Ethiopia, Nepal). I know I'll get flamed for this, but I still wouldn't pick Canada for at least a couple for more expansions.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Vietnam's an option, but it seems like the most obvious SE-Asian civ would be the Khmer- they had a more unique culture and more historical importance. The historical significance of Vietnam is often over-rated due to the ridiculously heavy emphasis that the US placed on the Vietnam War.

whoa whoa whoa!!! first of all, never say that when a Viet is listening!

anyways, though the Khmer would be the best civ even in my opinion historically, the Viets would be good too.

as for your statement about the Vietnam War, i will agree that there is too much emphasis on it. however, vietnam has a long and long history. long enough, in fact, to see us kick out quite a number of world powers (im not just saying this because im from nam, but it is true.)

in my nationalist opionion, the Viets are as good a pick as the Khmer.

 

[Donny]

I think everyone was talking about the Kingdom of Israel (could be a modern UU though).

Oh, silly me. I don't know my history enough to say something about the old kingdom If you think they can be considered as the founders of modern Israel, the modern UU would be appropriate

also fine for me are:

* Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand or whatever tribe used to live there
* Numidia
* Portugal

(note: maybe some of them are allready announced, cant find a list right now but have to go)

 

[cybrxkhan]

oh, wait, i forgot to add... Vietnam DOES have a very very very very very important contribution to the world ...

PHO

 

[TheLastOne36]

in my opinion Siam would probably be best suited as a SE Asia civ.

But i wouldn't be surprised if another SE Asian civ gets the spot.

But i know for sure that there has to be an SE Asian Civ. Besides the screen shows elephants from SE Asia.

But the screen shot could be a scenario.

I'd like to see either: Poland, Austria, or Ethiopia with the last spot. But i wouldn't be surprised if Polynesia or the Hittetis get in.

 

[bonafide11]

whoa whoa whoa!!! first of all, never say that when a Viet is listening!

anyways, though the Khmer would be the best civ even in my opinion historically, the Viets would be good too.

as for your statement about the Vietnam War, i will agree that there is too much emphasis on it. however, vietnam has a long and long history. long enough, in fact, to see us kick out quite a number of world powers (im not just saying this because im from nam, but it is true.)

in my nationalist opionion, the Viets are as good a pick as the Khmer.

Don't forget that Vietnam not only defeated the American imperialists, but also the French imperialists... I think it's quite worthy of a Civ just because of its success at resisting foreign invaders. But I think (and this will upset all those who whine about Asian Civs all being protective) that if Vietnam is included, it would have to be protective...

 

[aelf]

in my nationalist opionion, the Viets are as good a pick as the Khmer.

And as a Holy Roman Empirist, I insist that the HRE be added

 

[Phoenix1595]

I liked Drewcifer's idea about a Swahili civ (when I play the Malinese or Arabs on Earth map, I try to establish the West coast trade cities... lots of gems and other goodies there), but sadly they just won't make it this round.

Why do people insist on a modern Turkish civ? If the Hittites and a modern turkish civ are included, then much of the region's history would be in the game-- Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Byzantines, Ottomans, and modern Turkey. I dunno-- what would a modern Turkish civ contribute to the game that these previous civs haven't? Besides, Istanbul is already in the game in its various incarnations at least three or four times now. Let's leave this one alone. There are far more regions and cultures in the world that need representation, and only a few slots left to fill...

 

[cybrxkhan]

Don't forget that Vietnam not only defeated the American imperialists, but also the French imperialists... I think it's quite worthy of a Civ just because of its success at resisting foreign invaders. But I think (and this will upset all those who whine about Asian Civs all being protective) that if Vietnam is included, it would have to be protective...

they could just do a rearangement of the traits.

oh, and you forgot Qing Imperialists, MOngol Imperialists, Han Imperialists (not really but who cares ), Ming Dynasty Imperialists, Song Dynasty Imperialists... yup, CHina loves us.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

they could just do a rearangement of the traits.

oh, and you forgot Qing Imperialists, MOngol Imperialists, Han Imperialists (not really but who cares ), Ming Dynasty Imperialists, Song Dynasty Imperialists... yup, CHina loves us.

I hate the Qing dynasty, they were worthless and they weren't even Chinese...

Even though the Vietnamese repelled almost(?) all Chinese invasions they adopeted much Chinese culture.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I hate the Qing dynasty, they were worthless and they weren't even Chinese...

Even though the Vietnamese repelled almost(?) all Chinese invasions they adopeted much Chinese culture.

we didn't adapt it... we just messed it up to our own needs. yes, i suppose, you have a point there...

but the chinese never invented PHO!!! (or so it seems...)

oh, and i guess we viets love China in a skewed way too, then...

 

[bode404]

Brazil will never be a civ- it was a Portuguese colony, so it won't be added for the same reason that Canada never will be (sorry, Joebasalt).
By all rights, America shouldn't be in the game either, but you can put that down to A) America's significance in recent history and B) the game is made in America.
I understand that culture is different, but not enough to justify devoting a whole new civ to it, at least not when there are so many other, more unique civs untouched.

Sorry, but I cant agree. I know post-colonial Brazil's importance in world history is very little when compared to other nations and understand it not being included. However, having being a colony shouldnt be a factor for prevent some civ to be included.
I say this because of:
1) Byzantines. They were part of the Roman Empire, not a new civilization.
2) Portugal. It belonged to Spain for centuries.
3) USA, as you said.

And extending this thought, we could say even France and Spain, which as far as I know, doesnt really have a national identity from before the Roman Empire. But I think this is going way too much in the past.

 

[Phoenix1595]

in my opinion Siam would probably be best suited as a SE Asia civ.

But i wouldn't be surprised if another SE Asian civ gets the spot.

But i know for sure that there has to be an SE Asian Civ. Besides the screen shows elephants from SE Asia.

/QUOTE]

I agree with you, LastOne: Siam will probably be the SE Asian civ included, simply because it is the best known of the top contenders amongst the game's core demographic (Khmer may be too obscure, and the Vietnamese might not fly well in N. America). Of any and all possible civs to fill the remaining slots, I do hope one of the SE Asian civs do make it.

All indications seem to point yes: civ4 already has many SE asian wonders included in vanilla, warlords, and BtS, and after seeing a magnified version of the screenshots, that elephant rider looks the part of a SE Asian UU (although it will suck if you NEED ivory to build it). Of all the new civ ideas flying across these forums the past few months, there does seem to be consensus that a SE Asian civ should be in the front of the line for civ-worthy status.

 

[Paideia]

I agree with you, LastOne: Siam will probably be the SE Asian civ included, simply because it is the best known of the top contenders amongst the game's core demographic (Khmer may be too obscure, and the Vietnamese might not fly well in N. America). Of any and all possible civs to fill the remaining slots, I do hope one of the SE Asian civs do make it.

All indications seem to point yes: civ4 already has many SE asian wonders included in vanilla, warlords, and BtS, and after seeing a magnified version of the screenshots, that elephant rider looks the part of a SE Asian UU (although it will suck if you NEED ivory to build it). Of all the new civ ideas flying across these forums the past few months, there does seem to be consensus that a SE Asian civ should be in the front of the line for civ-worthy status.

I agree. Speaking geographically that only leaves Africa (and Australia, but I seriously doubt the introduction of the Aboriginals) without a new civilization in the expansion. Personally, I'm rooting for Ethiopia. The only African nation never to have been a colony. For a leader I would choose either Lalibela (ancient), Dawit II (medieval) or Haile Selassie (modern). Preferably two of them, but maybe that is for another expansion..

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I only put Polyenesia there because they would represent a part of the world not already in the game. I only picked them because I feel like it would bring a different feel to the civs we have already. I picked Poland just cause Poland fans seem pretty dedicated to getting them in (with that online petition). I could really care less about either civ to be honest. Every civ I really wanted (Maya, Native Americans, Babylon) is already in. If there was an announcement tomorrow that only the 7 known new civs were going to be included....It would not phase me a bit..

...so What is your biased obsession with Polynesia? You seemed to get pretty defensive just because I had Poland equal with them.

I, like many others, think there are quite enough European civilizations in the game as it is. Adding Poland would not increase the fun level much, quite apart from the fact that it is no better qualified than, for example, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Sweden or Denmark. Polynesia, on the other hand, would represent something new and might be very enjoyable to have in the game.