What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[Thedrin]

The Vatican is better left to be implemented some other way.

Takes in money from around the world and has an eye in the cities in which its present. Rename the Church of Nativity to the Vatican.

 

[Jabarten]

Good entertaining reading...everyone has their opinion...

from my standpoint...obviously I would hope the Babylonians appear. They virtually invented the concept of civilisation ...

I would suspect alot of the past civs would reappear, such as the Dutch and Portuguese, along with perhaps the Sioux, Mayan or Iroquis....

But who knows. I just hope for a few things back from previous versions of Civ. I really miss "You have discovered an advanced tribe" and a free city...

I also loved the suspence of AIs immediately declaring war on me or on another AI.....like in CivII

I miss the barbarians boating in on another city (like in CivII) and ruining it (backed by history of course....bring them back!!)....

I miss volcanos....

And I miss a really good WWII scenario....


PS I noticed this later though, but why do the wild animals NEVER attack the barbarian warriors or archers...Do they have some kind of special language in communicating?

Just my views....Jason

 

[Antilogic]

Yeah most folks dont know much about SE asia- Vietnam war, Angkor war, The king and I.... Its too bad becouse there is a veried and interesting history. It is as interesting in many ways as European History at a corrasponding time. Also it was quite wealthy. Ayuthaya (former capital of Siam) was reported by many visitors as A city of more wealth and people than either Paris or london at the same time (16th centuary) and the city of Hue (Vietnam) was one of the most populous cities in the world and quite wealthy as well.

I think if more people knew the history there would have been a much larger outcry for their inclusion. Right now I would much rather see Vietnam or Siam in then Khmer simply becouse of the fact that the sequel focuses on a more modern time. Since Siam became a kingdom (13th cent) the Khmer state rather rapidly faded and was controled from Ayuthaya or Hanoi for most of the time

My historical focus is on North America and Europe. Sadly, I have little time to study the Far East (although I have picked up some knowledge of Japan, China, and Mongolia...).

I'm pretty sure Vietnam isn't even being considered, but Siam or Khmer might be in the pool. However, as I focus on the West, I'm more interested in seeing Civs like Austria in. I've already gotten three of my wishes (Portugal, Babylon, and Netherlands). Let's see if the Maya don't pop up in another two weeks.

@Jabarten: The AI does randomly declare war. Put Monty and Shaka in more of your games, then you'll get the idea.

@GoodSarmatian: I agree with you--I'd rather see Constantine, Justinian, or Basil II for the Byzantines if they are included. But for some reason, I have that strange feeling that Theodora will be making a second appearance. I can't explain it.

@sourboy: I believe that the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca all built up unique enough civilizations (massive monuments, things like aqueducts and large pyramids, good engineering skills) to be warranted representation in the game. Beyond that, I don't have a significant opinion, and I'm not pushing the Plains Indians tribes, but the Maya are more than deserving of a slot.

 

[Tee Kay]

HUns

Funny you should mention that. The Huns are just about the opposite of the definition "civilization"

myself dont want to see Sumer again..At least no enkidues (please have a different UU if Sumer is in the game).

A concept art for Gilgamesh and a Sumerian UU (Vulture) actually came with the vanilla Civ4. If Sumer is to be in the xp I would expect they'd use the Vulture instead of the Enkidu Warriors.

Anyway, Sumer is one of the forerunners of Civilization. Why shouldn't they be included?

Please not Theodora . There were much better rulers who actually ruled.

Actually, I don't like the idea of Byzantines in the game at all. To me they're continuation of Roman and Greek traditions, not a full fledge "civilisation". And there's other civilisations that would be better choice for the xp than the byzantines.

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

The Annamese Empire never covered Thailand and Burma. They're limited only to the areas of present Vietnam and some parts of Laos and Cambodia. Siam, Burma and Vietnam are quite different in cultural terms: Vietnam is for a large part influenced by China, whereas Siam and Burma though both are influenced by Indian traditions they developed in different ways.

 

[Kushluk]

I hope I dont see any stupid "civs" like American Indian tribes or African tribes. I'd much rather see real stuff than politically correct nonsense.

Plus I support the Byzantines. They had an important role in history. So either start adding them as a Civ or start adding their rulers. I want to play as Alexius Comnenus. How can we continue to ignore Constantine?

I actually think that your Civs should "evolve" through time, so if you play as Romans you can become Italians or Byzantines etc, and that changes how your civ works.

Others that should be added or considered: Tibet, Vietnam, Etheopia, Mayans, Cambodia(?), Thailand(?), Trojans (XXL please) Huns (people argue against them but they had an empire and an impact on history). Those are all better than barbs like iriqouis who hardly had any impact on history.

 

[Harald500]

IMO sweden played much more important role in Europe history than Finland.
Anyway all nordic nations are represented by Vikings

Yes, I agreed with you on the part that Sweden has played a more important part in European history than Finland, also post viking age, but Finland is not represented through the vikings in the same way as Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Norway are. I don't think the people of Finland feel assosiated with the vikings in the way the Scandinaviens do!?

Have you ever seen a sports fan from finland with a viking helmet on his head?

Some Sisu in the game would be nice, but maybe there are more "important" civs to include, wich is not represented at all.

 

[Harald500]

Haha, thats a funny one even if i'm Finn myself . It would be wierd, but thanks for the support. Imho Firaxis should add more relevant civs.



I agree, Finland was part (possession) of Sweden for a long time. Harald500 has valid point about winter war - if we would actually have been invaded by Russia at the time it might have had big impact on 2nd world war. Instead we just got devastatated and 10% our land and lots of industrial capacity was stolen.

Vikings kind of semirepresent us too, but not that much.

There are several countries that have been part of another countries empire for some time, but I think there would be wrong to say that they are represented by them.

I do not disagree that there may be other civs that are more relevant in world history.

People from Finland are closer to russians than scandinavians, regarding genetics. Actualy the scandinavians are closer to africans, than we are russian regarding genetics. Yes, I know there is a differance in skin colour.

No, I do not recall the scource of this statment, but I think it might have been from a DNA project documantary on National Geographic.
Please arrest me if I'm wrong!

 

[Watiggi]

So, wouldn't having a European civ allow modders to add leaders of other European nations without creating a whole new civ? That might pacify the Poland warriors. I'm very surprised that you can't see the diversity of America as well as the diversity of Europe. Making it easy on modders is not a very good reason.

The problem with having an European civ is that there couldn't be different UU's and UB's which, considering the enoumous distinctions between European civs, would make it near difficult in representing them. Having an individual tribe with a sole notable leader with each tribe, with each UU and UB - while it would be interesting - it might be a bit much: 5 civs that are specific to Native American civilizations. That's like having a different civ, complete with their UU and UB, for all the tribes in the Stepps (Mongol's being one of them). A little too much I would think - especially considering that the UU and UB's would be similar. Also, by creating the Sioux and having Sitting Bull as leader, modders (and Firaxis) cannot then make their favourite tribal leader without having to create a whole new civ. To me it makes more sense having one UU and UB with one 'Native American empire' that allows people to add their favourite tribal leader. Create a 'Native American empire' and then you can have Sitting Bull and the other tribal leaders rather than just being stuck with the one.

[Wow! Who knows, maybe they HAVE made two Native American leaders and that is why they have named it the Native American empire!]

I am strangely surprised that no one is interested in Assyria.

 

[Koelle]

My historical focus is on North America and Europe.
I'm pretty sure Vietnam isn't even being considered, but Siam or Khmer might be in the pool. However, as I focus on the West,

It's ignorant and laughable what you said since you dont know anything about the region. What kind of historian are you?

I'm more interested in seeing Civs like Austria in. I've already gotten three of my wishes (Portugal, Babylon, and Netherlands). Let's see if the Maya don't pop up in another two weeks.

Austria, LMAO. Surely they are great, but in Europe they are just a midget

 

[Koelle]

The Annamese Empire never covered Thailand and Burma. They're limited only to the areas of present Vietnam and some parts of Laos and Cambodia. Siam, Burma and Vietnam are quite different in cultural terms: Vietnam is for a large part influenced by China, whereas Siam and Burma though both are influenced by Indian traditions they developed in different ways.

You could be right. But see the map. It was not drawn by the Vietnamese, it was drawn by westerners. Probably after they destroyed Champa kingdom and made other neighbors tribute vassals by force. Vietnam was at time the biggest (and the strongest) empire in the region

 

[Koelle]

Yes I agree with Koelle on this. As Siam and Khmer are quite similar in respect to culture. I think a good representation of SE asia (after gun powder) would definately be Vientam and Siam- 2 very differant cultures almost next door to each other. If you can have what, 6+ european civs two for SE asia isnt a stretch.

Cool map Koelle. Is that yours? Is it an original? I have never seen a map like that, I mean with An annam empire like that. I would guess that was made for a very specific time- between 1833 and 1845 for that is only time Vietnam held Cambodia uncontested. Ater 1845 Cambodia was considered part of the Siamese empire (until the French took it) Most maps I see from the era look like this--

What era was that map from? (I cant really make out details on it too well)

No the map is not mine. It's supposed to be photographed in a museum in Malaysia. I dont know when it was made. Anyway, it proved that the story of the mighty Khmer empire is just a myth.

Also AFAIK Thai people are not related to Vietnamese in any way that I know of? (If I read your statement above correctly? If not sorry) Thai People are thought to have originally come out of a region near Tibet thousands of years ago. HOWEVER they may have mixed with Vietnamese decedants when many (thai) were in Nan Chao (Non zhao chinese). Where did you read that Thai/Burman/Khmer decendend from the 100 Viet? Like I said I have never seen this

Very interesting. Please take this post as it is intended, as an honest interest in the Vietnamese Country and people as I have studied it/them only briefly
thanks

Ok, that's my mistake. I mean the Vietnamese are descendants of the Hundred Viet (or Hundred Yue). The Thais are just Thais and The Khmers are Khmers while Burmese are a bunch of diffenrent people. they are not related but may have mixed with each other at some point in the history

 

[Koelle]

I hope I dont see any stupid "civs" like American Indian tribes or African tribes. I'd much rather see real stuff than politically correct nonsense.

Others that should be added or considered: Tibet, Vietnam, Etheopia, Mayans, Cambodia(?), Thailand(?), Trojans (XXL please) Huns (people argue against them but they had an empire and an impact on history). Those are all better than barbs like iriqouis who hardly had any impact on history.

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

 

[Martinus]

Well, so far only one civilization has been added (Mali) that was not in Civ3. So I think it is a fair guess that the next expansion will also focus mostly on the civs that were in Civ3. There are still 8 to go:

Byzantines
Dutch
Hittites
Mayans
Sumerians
Iroquis
Portuguese
Babylonians

Assuming they are all going to be in BtS (which is, by no means, certain), it leaves 2 more civilizations - my guess goes to Ethiopia and Khmer/Siam/Vietnam (something SE Asian).

 

[Martinus]

For the record, I'm against civilizations that occupy territory previously owned by another civilization and could (broadly speaking) be considered "successors".

That's why I'm against Italians, since we have Romans, or Swedish since we have Vikings, etc.

 

[dagriggstar]

Sri Vijaya (I hope thats the spelling) for all the talk of a South east asian civ haven't been meantioned. Khmer are more likely though.

My new ones
Sumeria (The first true civ)
Austria (Or Hungary just one from that area for a WWI scen.)
Khmer (Although Sri Vijaya would be more interesting I think)
Maori (All the talk of polyneasians and these guys I think were the most civ like polyneasans)
Ethiopia (The only native Africans to hold off European power...at least for a while)
Poland (European power of note but not really powerful)
Portugal + Dutch (Obvisously)
Native americans as a bundle
Babylonians (Too influential to be left out)

 

[Bast]

Austria must be in it.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Actually, I don't like the idea of Byzantines in the game at all. To me they're continuation of Roman and Greek traditions, not a full fledge "civilisation". And there's other civilisations that would be better choice for the xp than the byzantines.

But what is a full fledged "civilisation" ?
America surely isn't, it's just Europeans on another continent. And what's the big diference between the european "civs" anyway ?
Do we really need England and France and Germany and even Celts ?
Really, with all those european countries and the USA in the game there is not much you can say against Byzantium.

 

[Xen]

I better get my fudgingg Byzantium this time around.

 

[Pratputajao]

Sri Vijaya (I hope thats the spelling) for all the talk of a South east asian civ haven't been meantioned. Khmer are more likely though.

My new ones
Sumeria (The first true civ)
Austria (Or Hungary just one from that area for a WWI scen.)
Khmer (Although Sri Vijaya would be more interesting I think)
Maori (All the talk of polyneasians and these guys I think were the most civ like polyneasans)
Ethiopia (The only native Africans to hold off European power...at least for a while)
Poland (European power of note but not really powerful)
Portugal + Dutch (Obvisously)
Native americans as a bundle
Babylonians (Too influential to be left out)

Hmmm--Sri Vijaya. Interesting but I would guess that nearely no one here knows who that is? It was an old maylayan empire out of Sumatra. While I have nopthing against new Civs esp. SE asian ones I think this is a little too obscure for most. Plus it wont fit the timeline set by the new Expansion... Didnt that empire die out in the 13th (or 14th) centuary? I am hoping Civ 5 will really allow alot of empires in it, somthing a bit more Historical and inclusive. Maybe then you will see something like Sri Vijaya.

 

[Hotcooler]

-Portugal
-Netherlands
-Sioux
-Babylon

From top(must be included) to bottom(I don't know)

1. Austria or Byzantine - represent mid-eastern european civilizaion
we already got viking(nothern european civilizaion), why not east?

2. Maya - we need south american dude, too!!

3. Thai - was independent civilizaion while most of other asian countries were colonized by western power. In additon, Thai is cuturally very rich country - buddism,pagoda, nice food... - nicest pick between south east asian civs.

4. Ethiopia - African civilizaion will be nice choice

5.Timur/Mughul - Ottoman already included why not Timur?
Timur beat down "invincible Ottoman"(in europe), so Ottoman had to stop
expand to western europe. If Timur couldn't won, european history(and world history too) must be re-written.
One more thing! - we need centered Asian civilizaion, if not the largest region on earth don't have its good represent

6. red ocean - many good competitor
Poland - cool civ but too many european civs
Israel - great! but they didn't have their county in most of time
Khmer - Angkor Wat!!! but that's all?
Vietnam - another nice south east asian civ, but I'm not sure there is enough room for Vietnam, maybe Vietnam will be pefect choice within two decade.