What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[DutchJob]

Yes indeed Gettingfat (great name), NO MORE protective Asians. pfff. All of them that trait is too much.

Hope they introduce the Vietnamese one day. beautiful people who can be tough when they want. VC-infantry as UU. Out in the open you won't recieve a defensive bonus or anything like that against these guys. No ideas about traits now.

Curious about the traits for the Dutch. What Holland do they want to see? That of V. van Gogh or from De Ruyter (Dutch war hero)?

 

[deanjack]

Aswell as the ones that we know are going to be in it i would like to see (At least an option) for Britain. My case for it is that it was the largest empire ever seen and probably ever will be seen. Some people might say Britain is England but is not true Britian is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not just Scots like me that want at least an option for this, many people from all across the UK and abroad would like this even if it is just to see America beat britain

 

[Lacaixa]

whenever Canada,Australia etc get a mention as possible Civs to be included they usually get shot down by people saying they are simply an extention of the English civ. Fair enough. But on this basis isn't the USA just an extention of the English civ ? Pretty much all the Founding Fathers were of British descent or even born there.George Washingtons own brother was a loyalist for heavens sake . The whole framework of the USA is clearly British inspired from the Common Law onwards not to mention the language that we are all using on this forum. So I vote that if other British offshoots can't get in then by the same logic the USAs inclusion is suspect at best.

 

[Andy_Candy]

If they want to fill out the world map better they should go for these:

The ones known:

The Netherlands
Portugal
Dacota indians
Babylon

(Some changes done to Europe, and perhaps middle-east to fit em in)

The rest:

America:

Maya

Africa:

Ethiopia or Nubia

Asia:

Khmer
Polynesia
(You could go Australia, but I think its against the Civ trd, it's a too modern country, like Canada. You may argue it's the same for America, but they have had their independence longer, and has been a super power the last 60 years)

Europa:

Austria and Poland (or perhaps Hungary?)


With a few tweaks in Europe, this would give a very cool Earth map indeed!
The Byzantines and Hittites are to close to the Ottomans.

 

[mitsho]

Well, the Britain problem could be avoided by making the "English-civ" be called England when it's lead by Elizabeth, and "Britain" when Victoria or Churchill lead it (which would on the other hand call for Henry VII or another English king to even out.. ). But nevertheless it is a minor question...

Why are the Hittites too close to the Ottomans and Byzantines? If it's geographically, then I'd propose you try RFC (Rhyes and Fall of Civilization, it's a big mod) where a timeline is added (Ottomans appear in 1260 AD, Hittites would do much more early). In any case, geographical nearness should not be a viable criteria at all.

I personally hope for
Poland [There are enough reasons listed for them in this thread alone]
Austria(-Hungary) [I know they are two different civs, but both deserve implementation and if combined, you can nearly cover all of the Balkans in a city-list... ]
Assyria [better than Hittites or Sumeria, con: the citylist could overlap a bit with Babylons]
Maya [should be clear, fill up the three Great Civs from Ancien America]
Khmer [Either them or Indonesians, Malayans]
Vietnam [This thread convinced me that they deserve introduction]

mick

 

[Tee Kay]

@mitsho Austria-Hungary don't rule in the Balkans until the late 19th century when Ottoman Empire decayed. Even so they only cover Croatia and Slovenia and parts of Transylvania. Plus, Austria-Hungary only exists as a political entity after 1848 when the duel monarchy was established.

Also by the time Babylon rise as a major power (circa 1800BC) most Sumerian cities have been abandoned or destroyed. Assyria, on the other hand, rise to prominance around the same time that the Old Babylonian kingdom declined. Therefore, there's a greater chance the Assyrian city list could overlap with the Babylonian than the Sumerian!

Final point, Vietnam as a civilisation is too influenced by China. Their customs, religion, architecture, system of government, etc, all taken from Chinese models. Khmer, Siam or Burma are much better choices when it comes to representing south east asia imho. (plus the memories of the Vietnam war is still fresh.)

 

[mitsho]

Ah god, can't you guys read my posts, NEARLY = POSSIBILITY, neither REALITY nor HISTORICALITY, just the fact that you could bend it that way... Going on, what you said on Assyria, I said too. Go read it.

mick

 

[Koelle]

Final point, Vietnam as a civilisation is too influenced by China. Their customs, religion, architecture, system of government, etc, all taken from Chinese models. Khmer, Siam or Burma are much better choices when it comes to representing south east asia imho.

You can say the same about Korea, but they are in. Why shouldn't Vietnam? And for that matter, Khmer, Siam and Burma are too influenced by India. It is also believed that they are descendants of the once powerful Hundred Viet, who ruled most of Southern China and Nothern South East Asia.



Since there're probably 2 places for Asia, i think Viet - Siam/Khmer would be better than Siam - Khmer or Siam - Burma (they are almost the same). And if you dont know, the the Great Viet empire (aka Annamese Empire) covered most parts of the modern day Laos, Cambodia, and some big parts of Thailand and Burma

(plus the memories of the Vietnam war is still fresh.)

I dont think anyone would take it seriously, otherwise there would be no Persia/Iran either. Plus, Vietnam has no lack of supporters in their push for a place in Civ series. Like those guys

 

[Hitti-Litti]

It's great that Netherlands, Babylon and Portugal are included. Sioux wouldn't be my first choice, but it's better than for example Canada.

6 other civs could/should be:

Khmer/Siam/Burma/Viet: SE Asia needs some filling. Now.
Poland: Reasons given in the Poland petition thread.
Ethiopia: Has existed for centuries, was never a colonial part of an empire.
Austria: Fought back against the Ottoman Empire, which is already included. Also fits well for the gunpowder era.
Brazil: Biggest of the South American nations. Gunpowder era nation.
Sweden: A major player in Europe, was involved for example in the 30 Years War. Different from Vikings.

So IMO 3 more nations could be included to Europe. With them BtS should have a world map with larger Europe so all could fit.

 

[Scaramanga]

I believe the Sioux with Sitting Bull as leader is in because that was the setup from Civ II; they're playing up the nostalgia factor .

I can't think of any civs from previous civ games that had their names or leaders changed dramatically (Cleopatra to Hatshepsut is one I guess) so that's why I think it will be Sitting Bull of the "Sioux", not "Native Americans" or "Dakota."

 

[mythmonster2]

My picks-
Portugal
Netherlands
Sioux
Babylon
Austria
Ethiopia
(Wild Guess) Aborigines
Siam
Phonencia(Are they in warlords?)
Mayans

 

[potatokiosk]

Personally, for the other six I would advocate:
Maya
Austria
Poland
Ethiopia
Byzantines
Khmer (or some other southest Asia civ, I don't know much about the area)

None of these silly suggestions like Polynesia.

 

[Atticus]

Poland or Lithuania would be very good. Especially in world at that region there seems to be too much space (compared to western Europe). Asian civilizations would be very nice also, as well as Phoenicia, Ethiopia and Israel.

I don't thinkk any Scandinavian civilization can co-exist with Vikings. Or else vikings should be renamed to Danish or Norweigian. Brazilia, Canada and Finland are all too anonymous to be in the game, unless if there would be another expansion pack, which would include minor nations. Maybe they would have no unique unit nor leader traits. Maybe barbarian cities could evolve in to these minor civilizations. I'm kind of hoping that instead of making civ 5 they would make civ 4 more and more complex and overwhelming.

 

[Truronian]

I'm hoping for Israel, or the Hebrews. Especially given that Judaism in one of the religions.

 

[LightSpectra]

1. Israel (King David)
2. Holy Roman Empire (Charlemagne)
3. Ethiopia (Menelik II)
4. Byzantine Empire (Constantine)
5. The Huns (Atilla)
6. Italy (Garibaldi/Mazzini)

Though I doubt having three Roman empires would happen.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Truronian, because the religions aren't "flavoured", religion shouldn't be a reason to add a nation. So no Israel.

*runs away from the angry mob*

 

[Hadesspirit]

Portugal
Netherlands
Huns
Sioux
Hittites
Serbia
Bulgaria
Avar

 

[potatokiosk]

I can't agree with adding the Huns, roaming barbarians simply don't count as a civilization. I'm not too big on nomadic tribes like the Sioux either, but it might be too late to stop that train.

I mean, what's the one thing the game always centers around? Your cities. It's very awkward to include as civs nations that did not build cities.

 

[marioflag]

I can't agree with adding the Huns, roaming barbarians simply don't count as a civilization. I'm not too big on nomadic tribes like the Sioux either, but it might be too late to stop that train.

I mean, what's the one thing the game always centers around? Your cities. It's very awkward to include as civs nations that did not build cities.

They were "roaming barbarians" but they had a deep impact on european history.We also have some other civs which were like Huns, Vikings for example were known not only as good sailors but also because they were raiders.Being roaming barbarians doesn' mean they weren't a great civilization.

 

[potatokiosk]

They were "roaming barbarians" but they had a deep impact on european history.We also have some other civs which were like Huns, Vikings for example were known not only as good sailors but also because they were raiders.Being roaming barbarians doesn' mean they weren't a great civilization.

Now, I don't think that the Vikings can be compared to the Huns like that. The Vikings founded numerous influential cities.