Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you build custom picture books for kids in seconds. Let me know what you think here!
Well, we know what the unique infrastructure will be: Tang Great Wall
Anyways here are my 6 for each age divided by region as equally as I can:
Antiquity:
Garamantes
Anasazi/Pueblo
Heian Japan
Norse
Hittites
Tonga
Exploration:
Benin
Muisca
Burma
Tibet
Florence
Sassanids
Modern:
Austria
Haiti
Asante
Navajo
Morocco
Argentina
I only decided to list civs that I hope to get in. Civs like the Aztecs, Byzantines, Dutch, Ottomans, (Edo) Japan, (Joseon) Korea etc. I also want but more than likely they will make it in.
Hm would Maurya work well enough as the predecessor for a Tibet - Nepal path? Or maybe we need something that’s mountain based there. The Yuezhi maybe?
Don’t wanna derail the thread too too much, but how do you envision that working? A civ called “China” and then you choose either Tang and Ming personas in Exploration?
I'd like to see more Chinese civilizations in the game, but only if they were Manchurian empires, such as Liao or Jin. They could coexist in the same era as the Ming or Han without feeling so redundant. The Tang, as fascinating as they are, would feel very strange existing in the same era as the Ming.
Hm would Maurya work well enough as the predecessor for a Tibet - Nepal path? Or maybe we need something that’s mountain based there. The Yuezhi maybe?
I wasn't necessarily thinking about geography, but more like a Buddhism pathway.
The Mauryan Empire spread Buddhism into Tibet and then go to Nepal where Buddhism was originally founded.
Don’t wanna derail the thread too too much, but how do you envision that working? A civ called “China” and then you choose either Tang and Ming personas in Exploration?
No, no China. Simply that if you choose Tang or Ming, the AI doesn‘t choose the other if any limitation is necessary. But I actually have no problem with Tang and Ming coexisting. We‘ll probably get to the point where we have similar issues with other civs, e.g., if there is a exploration France (instead of Burgundy) that overlaps with Normandy, or if we get the HRE and any of Bohemia/Austria/Hansa/Florence/etc.
If we need a mountain civ before Tibet (and don‘t want the Tibetan Empire), Guge is the historical option. It‘s not really Antiquity, but it could work à la Khmer.
CELTS: A good all-round choice: worthy of inclusion, and help alleviate the tension in Europe due to the overabundance of Euro leaders, especially the bottlenecked French and German ones.
GHANA: Gives West Africa a well-needed starting Civ.
NORSE: Good starting Civ for northern and western europe, as well as Russia. Vikings and overseas exploration probably suits the Antiquity mechanics the best.
PUEBLO: Hands down the best choice in the America's for Antiquity.
SCYTHIA: It's important to have a steppe nomad culture in Antiquity, as starting points for Mongolia, Bulgaria and the Ottomans/Seljuqs.
TONGA: The Polynesian three stage line is long overdue.
Exploration:
AZTEC: Mayans into Mexico is missing an Exploration link.
BYZANTIUM: A logical second stage for both Greece and Rome, and provides an option for the bevvy of Euro leaders. Also welcome foil to Bulgaria and Ottomans.
FRANKIA: Heavily relieves the tension on Normans as the go-to Exploration Civ for so many Euro leaders.
OTTOMANS: A mandatory inclusion. I FULLY believe their prospective kit, which includes the Jannisary and Barbary Corsairs, is much better suited for Exploration.
SHOGUNATE JAPAN: Japan should probably have more than one iteration, and the Shogunate is a glaring omission.
SWAHILI: A decent exploration choice for eastern Africa, one that feels more logical to put between Aksum and Buganda.
Modern:
ASHANTI: Ghana => Songhai => Ashanti covers all of West Africa with three very distinct cultures.
BRAZIL: the biggest omission in latin America
CHEROKEE: Probably the best choice for a native NA civ in Modern that the Shawnee can become without forcing them into a colonial nation
MAORI: the conclusion of the Tonga => Hawaii line.
PHILIPPINES: José Rizal needs a native Civ, and Philippines (or one of its sultanates) can fit the role of a neutral endpoint for many East Asian lines.
TÜRKIYE: A direct continuation from the Ottomans into Modern, overseeing the reformation of the Ottoman Empire into the modern Turkish republic.
CELTS: A good all-round choice: worthy of inclusion, and help alleviate the tension in Europe due to the overabundance of Euro leaders, especially the bottlenecked French and German ones.
Considering the Celts are a very broad group, I think they could still get away with a specific group, like Gaul again, and that would still be broad enough to diverge into multiple civs.
OTTOMANS: A mandatory inclusion. I FULLY believe their prospective kit, which includes the Jannisary and Barbary Corsairs, is much better suited for Exploration.
I get the reasons, but I still think that Ottomans make sense for Modern in the game. If we look at the premise of building history in layers then Constantinople would be Greek/Roman>Byzantine>Ottomans.
Plus, all the civs with two military units go into Modern.
Considering the Celts are a very broad group, I think they could still get away with a specific group, like Gaul again, and that would still be broad enough to diverge into multiple civs.
I get the reasons, but I still think that Ottomans make sense for Modern in the game. If we look at the premise of building history in layers then Constantinople would be Greek/Roman>Byzantine>Ottomans.
Plus, all the civs with two military units go into Modern.
But the Ottoman capital could be Bursa in exploration age. Although personally I’d prefer exploration Sejuks and modern Ottomans myself for a Turkish line. (If the Mughals are considered modern shouldn’t the other two gunpowder empires be?)
Considering the Celts are a very broad group, I think they could still get away with a specific group, like Gaul again, and that would still be broad enough to diverge into multiple civs.
The Celts as a broad group favours them here. it creates a direct tie with England, Byzantium, Spain and Bulgaria, which would otherwise not be the case if one just went with Gaul.
Antiquity Civs probaby should cast a wide net if possible. Specialization can come from Exploration onwards imo.
But the Ottoman capital could be Bursa in exploration age. Although personally I’d prefer exploration Sejuks and modern Ottomans myself for a Turkish line. (If the Mughals are considered modern shouldn’t the other two gunpowder empires be?)
I wasn't specifically talking about capital cities in game, I was just reiterating what Ed said when he visited London. And yes, I do think all the gunpowder empires should be in Modern, but too bad probably no Safavids thanks to Qajar.
The Norse belong in an earlier era than their descendants the Normans, both chronologically and thematically.
Using the Norse in antiquity and the settled Nordic realms for Exploration onward makes far more sense than forcing the Norse in a later era over some loose conceptions of gameplay, or insistence on specific dates.
The descendants of the Norse include the Normans, Kievan Rus (medieval Russians), Scandinavians and even to a lesser extend the Poles and Baltic states.
They have to be Antiquity. Denmark and Sweden can serve as their incarnations in Exploration and Modern (with Denmark specifically as a pivot from Viking stuff into Scandinavian statecraft.)
The descendants of the Norse include the Normans, Kievan Rus (medieval Russians), Scandinavians and even to a lesser extend the Poles and Baltic states.
They have to be Antiquity. Denmark and Sweden can serve as their incarnations in Exploration and Modern (with Denmark specifically as a pivot from Viking stuff into Scandinavian statecraft.)
But they were early rivals of the Byzantines. I think one civ in the game needs to associate with Zoroastrianism, and the only way to do that is put them in Exploration. Not to mention we already have a Persia in Antiquity.
So were the Abbasids. The Norse and the Abbasids are mostly contemporary, they rose and fell at the same times.
The Norse are a perfect fit for Exploration because they were explorers. And merchants. More than they were raiders. This is one chance for the Civ series to show the medieval Norse as more than just an epic berserker gimmick.
So were the Abbasids. The Norse and the Abbasids are mostly contemporary, they rose and fell at the same times.
The Norse are a perfect fit for Exploration because they were explorers. And merchants. More than they were raiders. This is one chance for the Civ series to show the medieval Norse as more than just an epic berserker gimmick.
My problem with the Norse in Exploration, and Anglo Saxons too sort of, is that they'd be contemporary with the Normans who should come after them.
The Norse to me feel like the Khmer who historically should be in Exploration, but due to gameplay reasons should go into Antiquity, for being the progenitor to a number of civs: Normans, Denmark, Kyivan Rus' etc.
If you want to go the merchant/exploration route in the Exploration Age you can go with the Danes/Denmark, though I wouldn't necessarily make them based on the Viking Age Denmark.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
