What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[sourboy]

The official expansion page refers to a "Native Americans" civ... whether or not that will be officially named "Sioux" or not isn't a given. I could see them grouping Amerindians...

With the 'beyond the sword' approach, the unknown Civs are more likely to be along the lines of a 'Poland' than a 'Maya' -- so expect more European Civs, especially since they will be used in gunpowder-timeline war scenarios that dominate European lands.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

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.

Vikings were founders of Russia and scandinavian kingdoms (and had lots of effect on British Isles/Normandy). They were much more than raiders and sailors.

 

[LucyDuke]

The official expansion page refers to a "Native Americans" civ... whether or not that will be officially named "Sioux" or not isn't a given. I could see them grouping Amerindians...

I can see it happening, too, but that really bugs me. It's a lot like having a "European" civ, or an "Asian" civ. Especially with the Aztecs in place, it's just a bad, bad way to do it.

 

[Lord Sandwich]

Here's my list:

Portugal
Netherlands
Native American (I realize this one is "disputed"; I'd pick the Iroquois.)
Babylon

My first 3 suggestions are easy:
Sweden a dominant power in the post medieval period
Austria ... ditto
Poland ... ditto

My next 3 are harder, and I strove for geographical balance:
Mughals/Moghuls ... I'll let others argue over spelling
Ethiopia ... only African nation to successfully resist colonization
Sioux ... I think another Native American civ would be cool

 

[Lord Sandwich]

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.

But there is the slight issue of the US being a Superpower, putting a man on the moon and all that. Also, the US has a much larger population than either Canada or Australia. Plus, by your logic we could even rule out India and Egypt since they were British colonies once.
On the other hand Mel Gibson and Mounties would be awesome UUs for the Australians and Canadians respectively.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Ah yes, an Australian civ with a Mel Gibson UU whose state religion is Judaism. I like Mel, so I won't say one word, not one word...

 

[Suspiria]

I dont care what people say, I want to see Australia in this expansion.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Actually, it would be an interesting choice. That part of the world is always underdeveloped in Earth map games, and this would fix it. Very good for scenarios, too.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If they make an Australian civ, it should be Aboriginal.

 

[volkanbadem]

we may see Hector as the leader of Trojans.but Paris might be a better leader with interesting traits.

 

[Hadesspirit]

we may see Hector as the leader of Trojans.but Paris might be a better leader with interesting traits.

paris....oh nooo!!!
he is coward,ı think hector is the best leader for trojans..

 

[Hadesspirit]

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

do you think that you know a lot about Huns history.ı advise you to read Huns complete history..
ı agree with my friend.Huns have deep impact on Euopean History..all countries on Europe emigrate their place by huns impact..Dont forget..Huns were a great civ..

 

[Watiggi]

Since the game lets you rule a given civilization from ancient times until the modern era, you need to understand that no single civilization lasted that long and you need to allow for a broader picture, rather than focusing on a single state/dynasty.

China's lasted that long.

I'd love to see the Huns and Assyria. I don't expect it though.

Q regarding Charlemagne: If Charlemagne is a french leader and there appears to be the Charlemagne Mounted unit, then what happened to the Musketeer? Maybe the Charlemagne Mounted unit is for a scenario.

I can see it happening, too, but that really bugs me. It's a lot like having a "European" civ, or an "Asian" civ. Especially with the Aztecs in place, it's just a bad, bad way to do it.

No it's not. Then modders could add other leaders to the Native American tribes without having to create a whole new civ. I think comparing that to boxing all the europeans into one group is a little extreme.

 

[Corporal P]

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

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

I'm thinking the same about the two CIVs you've mentioned, Siam and Viet. They should be in to represent SE Asia together, maybe we can experience the major battles in the region again.

 

[Tavenier]

-Portugal
-Netherlands
-Sioux
-Babylon
-Byzantine
-Siam
-Maya
-Hittite
-Sumeryan
-Huns

These would be my choices

I don't think they'll add Babylon and Sumeria in one expansion. Too much alike, the two. It will sooner be the Phoenicians then. And Austria instead of Huns.

 

[Lacaixa]

Lord Sandwich:

The Egypt/India thing isn't a good comparison at all. These were distinct civilisations that were conquered and pretty much exploited . The cultural influence was negligable in Egypts case but quite strong with India though . The 'White Dominions' were completely different being foundered from scratch in the mother countries own image. At the end of the 19th century OZ,NZ and Canada would have been described as 'Greater Britain'.
I love the idea of a Mountie UU . Mel Gibson would have a pandemic effect though and reduce cultural influence with his crap films.

 

[marioflag]

I don't think they'll add Babylon and Sumeria in one expansion. Too much alike, the two. It will sooner be the Phoenicians then. And Austria instead of Huns.

Babylon and Sumeria flourished in two different periods.If they will pick new civs based on their influence through history, Sumeria is a must considering that it is among the first great civs.I agree that this could make Mesopotamia area a bit crowded, but in Ancient times Mesopotamia was like Europe in Mondern times.Phoenicia would be also a good choice but it could be partially represented by Carthage which is already in.It's not certainly historical but if Alexander can be leader of Greeks in civ4,Carthage can easily represent Phoenicians.Assyrians are least known but certainly wouldn't be also a bad choice.

 

[Lacaixa]

BTW My choices would be,

Portugal
Netherlands
Sioux
Babylon
Poland ( Fill the area between Germany and Russia on world maps)
Israel/Israelites ( Jews and Judaism have had a profound effect on world history )
Magyars ( Ditto Poland )
Ethiopia ( Need another African civ )
Moiri or Australia (Got to fill up that vacant area on world maps )
Brazil (Using the logic that it's a post gunpowder expansion)

 

[Watiggi]

Mel Gibson would have a pandemic effect though and reduce cultural influence with his crap films.

I don't think Mel would like being associated with Australia though. I believe he dislikes being considered Australian as he considers himself American.

 

[Tavenier]

Babylon and Sumeria flourished in two different periods.If they will pick new civs based on their influence through history, Sumeria is a must considering that it is among the first great civs.I agree that this could make Mesopotamia area a bit crowded, but in Ancient times Mesopotamia was like Europe in Mondern times.Phoenicia would be also a good choice but it could be partially represented by Carthage which is already in.It's not certainly historical but if Alexander can be leader of Greeks in civ4,Carthage can easily represent Phoenicians.Assyrians are least known but certainly wouldn't be also a bad choice.

Yes, that's true. But I am not saying that they must not ever put Sumeria in, but I just don't think they will add them together in one add-on.

And comparing Carthage and Phoenicia is like comparing Britain and the USA. They both have close historical ties, but also have been really important. Phoenicians practically invented the alphabet and were very important explorers, seafarers and colonizers. Carthage has been important for the rise to power of Rome, of course, but also they have made some inventions and developments that were important. And Hannibal was IMHO one of the best generals of ancient times and maybe of all times.