What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[Scaramanga]

I doubt we would see an Israelite civ due to the fact that seeing them adopt Christianity or Islam as their state religion would be really weird.

True 'nuff.

 

[gettingfat]

Actually the Shans beat the Mongols as well, there were a few differant people who prevented the mongols from going south. But the Vietnamese beat them back several times to be sure. But the first Thais in Nan chao where beaten by them, that is why they emmigrated south to join other thai people alread there. Shortly after you have the first All thai kingdom in Suhkothai in 1238.

No disrepect to the Vietnamese, to a good extent the Mongols, Chinese or Americans were beaten by the unique landscape and weather in Vietnam, as well as the difficulty in logistics. As long as the Vietnamese don't give up, play some scorched earth tactics and go for guerilla warfares, it's really tough to beat these people. In fact, in ancient time half of the soldiers borned in the north would simply get sick there before they even fought the real battles.

I think the UU for Vietnamese should be a VC guard, an infantry with 18 strength only (they don't have good weapons), but costs only 125 hammers instead of 140, and receives guerilla I and woodman I promotions and no penalty attacking across river. I supposed their leader (probably Ho Chi Minn) should have protective trait (Vietnamese really deserves this trait). This will add Drill I and CG I on top, and make them extremely pesky units to deal with in a map with tons of hills, rivers and forest.

 

[Colin]

Imagine seeing this message pop up: "The Hebrew civilization has been destroyed!"

Given the history of the Hebrew people, I don't think this is something that would go over well.

Just my thought.

Happy Passover to any Jews!

It seems a little arbitrary to worry about this and not the numerous other real-world atrocities that might play out in a typical Civ game: The Aztecs getting wiped out maybe? Religious wars between Christian and Muslim civs? The adoption of slavery? Does this not go down well with South American, Islamic, or black Civ players?

 

[Koelle]

No disrepect to the Vietnamese, to a good extent the Mongols, Chinese or Americans were beaten by the unique landscape and weather in Vietnam, as well as the difficulty in logistics. As long as the Vietnamese don't give up, play some scorched earth tactics and go for guerilla warfares, it's really tough to beat these people. In fact, in ancient time half of the soldiers borned in the north would simply get sick there before they even fought the real battles.

I think the UU for Vietnamese should be a VC guard, an infantry with 18 strength only (they don't have good weapons), but costs only 125 hammers instead of 140, and receives guerilla I and woodman I promotions and no penalty attacking across river. I supposed their leader (probably Ho Chi Minn) should have protective trait (Vietnamese really deserves this trait). This will add Drill I and CG I on top, and make them extremely pesky units to deal with in a map with tons of hills, rivers and forest.

There's a myth that the Vietnamese always played scorched earth tactics and went for guerilla warfares. But lets discuss it in another topic. Everyone has to find a reason to blame for the loss, but at the end of the day it is only the one who masters the art of war that wins, and it is only the win that counts

Ho Chi Minh (if he is the leader) should have charismatics and organized traits in my opinion, but protective would also be a good choice.
Other candidates:
Tran Hung Dao(defeated the Mongols 2 times): Philosophical - Charismatic
Emperor Quang Trung: Aggressive - Imperialistic

 

[MarkM]

I think you have to give the nod to the first historically well known leader, Gilgamesh of the Sumerians, ~2600 BC. There should be at least one leader that's remotely contemporary with the dawn of civilization in this game.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think you have to give the nod to the first historically well known leader, Gilgamesh of the Sumerians, ~2600 BC. There should be at least one leader that's remotely contemporary with the dawn of civilization in this game.

Is it certain that he did exist ?

 

[Phoenix1595]

Is it certain that he did exist ?

Gilgamesh is listed within later Sumerian and Babylonian records as being the fifth king in the first dynasty of the Sumerians, but the lack of any contempory record could always leave room for speculation. I would categorize him as a semi-legendary king, in the same vein as Arthur.

However, the point being: if the Sumerians were in the xpak, who should be their leader? The obvious choice is Gilgamesh.

 

[Phoenix1595]

I doubt we would see an Israelite civ due to the fact that seeing them adopt Christianity or Islam as their state religion would be really weird.

The logic is flawed. That would be like saying it would be weird if the Arabs adopted Judaism, or the Incans becoming Confucians.

It only seems fair that they be included. Taoism/Confucianism have China, Buddhism/Hinduism have India, Islam has Arabia (with Mecca as its capital), and Christianity is represented by the various Euro civs, if not the Romans. Why is Judaism the only religion without a corresponding civ? The Hebrews were considered just that before the Diaspora.

The Hebrews are distinct ethnically, politically and linguistically from the other Civ4 civs in the Near East's area: they are certainly not covered by the Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, or Turks. They established some of the most famous and oldest cities in the world. There's no doubt of their contribution to civilization, even beyond religion. They have a far better case to be included compared to some of the other civs suggested on this board.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The logic is flawed. That would be like saying it would be weird if the Arabs adopted Judaism, or the Incans becoming Confucians.

Not entirely. The works of confucious are universal, there the advice of a man who happened to be Chinese about how one should go about behaving ethically. Confucianism was founded by one man, and could therefor conceivably be removed entirely from China, and preach his ideas in another Civ.

The Jewish Religion however, is based around the story of the Israelites. Every book of the Old Testament is a part of the history of Israel, and is therefore intimately tied to Israel. On top of this, there is no "founder" of the Jewish Religion. The Old Testament was written over the course of thousands of years, following the development of Israel.

 

[Kushluk]

Second that. Please no more Zulu, no more Iroquios, no more Polinesian or Canandian, Australian tribes .... They didn't even have clothes to wear til the 20th century. They are worse than the worst barbarians in the Eurasia Continent

ha! and I thought I'd get flamed for wanting actually Civilisations with Cities in the game, rather than just random tribes. If it makes any difference to anyone, at the end of Leonard Nimoy's speech at the start screen of Civ IV he says something like "the last ingredient necissary is a leader to UNITE THE TRIBES to build a legacy" so therefore a disunite band that had no empire or nation like the Iriqouis are disqualified here IMHO.

 

[ParkCungHee]

ha! and I thought I'd get flamed for wanting actually Civilisations with Cities in the game, rather than just random tribes. If it makes any difference to anyone, at the end of Leonard Nimoy's speech at the start screen of Civ IV he says something like "the last ingredient necissary is a leader to UNITE THE TRIBES to build a legacy" so therefore a disunite band that had no empire or nation like the Iriqouis are disqualified here IMHO.

You don't know much about the Iriquois, do you? The Iriquois had a united nation based on a constitutional system of government since 1142.

 

[Swedishguy]

The Sumerians must be in the game! They're the first civilization, damn it!

 

[LDeska]

In my opinion Israel as a civ really deserves to be in game. They influenced Europe so much, that it's hard to enumerate. They lived for exmaple in my country for almost 1000 years and contributed a lot to our country. Their distinctive culture and religion should grant them slot in 10 new civs.

About Sioux and other tribes - it really makes no sense to add them as civs, they were tribes, not civs... but probably Firaxis will add them because of scenarios... I'm looking forward to see Eskimo civ. Unique building: igloo, unique unit: snow sleigh. For Sioux' I propose: unique building: tipi, unique unit: canoe.

 

[Thedrin]

I can't see any reason for adding the Hebrews that isn't already covered by Judaism being one of the standard religions. There are very few of the potentially addable Middle Eastern civs in the game but the Hebrews would be well down that list since they weren't a particularly impressive regional power.

On the other hand, and ignoring the particulars of any leader they might have, spiritual/philosophical would be a good trait combination for them. Best combination for a cultural win.

 

[Calder]

My 10 guesses are:
1. Babylon
2. Burma
3. Byzantine
4. Hittites
5. Maya
6. Netherlands
7. Polynesia
8. Portugal
9. Sioux
10. Sumaria

 

[Watiggi]

I decree that a "Native American" civ would be ludicrous. It must be either the Sioux or the Iroqouis. Dave has spoke.

I really hope that if they are currently planning to have catch-all Native American civ, they change their minds and change it to the Sioux (it would have to be the Sioux if they want to use Sitting Bull) for the final version.

Come to think about it, if it were 'Sitting Bull of the Native Americans', then what the other tribes think of that?

There's a myth that the Vietnamese always played scorched earth tactics and went for guerilla warfares. But lets discuss it in another topic. Everyone has to find a reason to blame for the loss, but at the end of the day it is only the one who masters the art of war that wins, and it is only the win that counts

You're refering to Kublai Khan. He wasn't too brilliant when it came to war.

 

[Khamul]

Come on people? Israel civilization? I know I know, many western people think Israel is a great nation. But it's not, and never have been. The only merit for hebrews is that their bed-time stories have spreaded around the world. Without religion aspect, no-one would be interested hebrews. And not any civ should be in game because of religion.

And I like the idea of native american civilization. It's going to be like Celts. There has never been Celtic civilization. Celts have always been group of tribes and small nations, which have same kind of culture, religion and language. Celtic tribes certainly did not think themselves as a single nation.

 

[kdaag]

These would be my guess, having a choice a don't understand why the Sioux should be a civ, when there were other more prominent native american civs in north america. (can't remember the name of the people that built pyramids in the Mississippi valley and were devastated by the diseases that Hernando De Soto brought with him...)

-Portugese
-Dutch
-Sioux
-Mayans
-Babylonians
-Sumerians
-Byzantines
-Khmer (maybe Thai)
-Phoenicians (if not considered to similar to Carthage)
-Ethiopians

 

[Maverick667]

Come on people? Israel civilization? I know I know, many western people think Israel is a great nation. But it's not, and never have been. The only merit for hebrews is that their bed-time stories have spreaded around the world. Without religion aspect, no-one would be interested hebrews. And not any civ should be in game because of religion.

Khamul I'm guessing you're anti Israel which your right to have that opinion but you can't deny that Israel has played an important part in recent history...

Having read through a couple of pages everyone seems to mention almost the same civs...

like:

Ethiopia, Summerian, Hittites,Khmer, Siam, Byzantine, Israel, Poland, Brazil, Canada and Australia...

My first guess is there are a lot of Canadian and Australian players who really like there own civ to be involved. Same goes for Poland and Brazil. None of these countries have really accomplished much on their own, let's face it Australia and Canada were for most of their history just dominion's of the British Empire. That would be the same as adding Ireland.

Ok second part:

Ethiopia, Summerian, Hittites, the latter two have no real use in beyond the sword cause they are ancient civs. And Ethiopia... what has Ethiopia ever really accomplished as civ, accept being a colony.. I also don't see what sets it apart from other African civs like Kenya or Zaire...

Ok Byzantine, really enjoyed their history, but shouldn't cities like Constantinople, not just be added to the Roman civ, cause there's not much difference between them.

Well than Israel, I really like the idea of Israel. I heard saying it would be weird for them to be another religion than Judaism, but that's the same as a hinduistic England, which is also possible in the game. And well Israel has played a big part in modern conflicts so why not.

As for my favorites:

Well Israel for interesting middle east conflicts.
Austria an important renaissance power
Italy with Venice and Florance (Firenze) being important cities
Maya Not really beyond the sword but important for the colonization

And well I'm running a bit short here so perhaps some African civs for the colonization. Or just use Canada, Brazil, Australia and Argentina as they are powerhouses atm, tough they haven't accomplished anything...

And well perhaps they should add Adolf Hitler as a leader, I know the man did terrible things, but he was an important leader (not at all in a good way) but perhaps for a WW2 scenario...

Come to think of it, Stalin was probably just as terrible...

 

[Dagenham Dave]

The fact, if we suppose it is a fact (I'm not a fountain of knowledge when it comes to the Celts), that the inclusion of the Celts in the game, as it is now, is a bit arbitrary, is no reason to do the same with the "Native Americans". Furthermore, "Native Americans" refers to the inhabitants of a geographic region, whereas the Celts at least seem to have a culture characteristic to them. That a set of people inhabit the same area (in this case a pretty undefined one at that - America is pretty big) hardly seems like a sufficient reason to put them down as a civ. Whether a common culture is sufficient is debatable, but it seems at least to be more relevant.

Either way, I think they know better than to bundle them together as Native Americans.